Plaintiff entirely controlled and administered the family finances.
He left her in hotel room with that message.
Besides, the plaintiff was displeased and the parties communication happened to be more attenuated. Of course, plaintiff stated he was slipping and reached out for defendant to stabilize himself and the defendant after that, said that he hit her. Yes, that’s right! What happened So there’s disputed between parties. Although, whenever leaving Molly with her maternal grandparents, as part of that trip, they planned a weekend in NYC. Let me tell you something. Result, however, by any account was jarring and bizarre. Besides, the defendant said that plaintiff did hit her not as an assault but as an expression of frustration.
Hours later plaintiff came back to hotel and ld defendant to look for her parents and stay there with baby while he went back to Stamford to define if he wanted to stay married, Rockefeller Center.
They intended to spend the Christmas 2010 holiday in Syosset, Long Island with plaintiff’s parents.
In October 2010, the plaintiff advises the defendant to quitclaim her one half interest in the marital home back to him. On December 28, 2010, the parties checked into their hotel and later headed out to Rockefeller Center. Obviously, she declined. I am sure that the resulting conduct however was this. That was December 28, On January 9, 2011, the plaintiff informed the defendant that the divorce papers were coming and she was served a day later in Syosset. This has been the case. Which story was probably Then the truth ain’t doable for court to discern. She has refused to allow any make access time.
And therefore the defendant is arbitrary and rough at times in dealing with him on access problems.
On occasion she has scheduled doctor’s appointments for the child at a ugh time for plaintiff.
As a matter of fact, the plaintiff has not been looked with success for in contempt, or like, for failure to make any family support payments. In different instances she has used obscene and derogatory positions for him, that has occurred in pretty front junior child. Fagan will make a quite long time to repair. Basically, the evidence, on its own, demonstrates that she struggles with her anger ward the plaintiff, that she has not been accommodating of his role as a parent on a sustained basis and that she has regarded that role as secondary to hers. Furthermore, even if the defendant is usually unable to repair herself, it’s required that child’s contact with her father be substantially and sufficient to ensure that this does not occur. Fagan ward Mr. You should get it into account. I know it’s the mother’s interaction with father that is always xic for child. For instance, this court ain’t competent to render an opinion about which psychological defendant profile has probably been the good one.
Whenever operating in their own silos are competent and caring parents, these behaviors are extraordinarily concerning as long as one and the other parents.
Further, the unbridled hostility that she has ward him will inevitably tax child’s view of her father over time as she matures and has always been more aware of more nuanced matters. Virtually, her distrust of him and anger at him for redirecting the mail regarding their investments led her to make an imprudent complaint to Richard Blumenthal which resulted in plaintiff being investigated for mail fraud. You should get it into account. Despite it clear inappropriateness, she parked on his lawn and utilized her former neighborhood girlfriends to ‘spy’ on him and report to her. Specific problems at the controversy heart between the parties is school this coming fall. Working at Coupons.com he earns a base income of $ 125000 per year.
His balance income was probably commission based.
He is paid his commissions on a quarterly basis.
That said, this would land his income marginally south of his 2011 income. Commission income varies which has resulted in a swing from year to year. You should get it into account. I am sure that the plaintiff remains at the Stamford home. Of course his gross income in 2010 was approximately $ 164000, 2011 was $ 282133 and in 2012 was $ 366,To trial date, he had completely received one of his quarterly commission checks, that was $ 32,If that sum were annualized, that is merely an example since most of us are aware that there is no evidence that first quarter has probably been predictive of pretty a bit of year, it would render approximately $ 130000 in gross commissions. Normally, stamford, Connecticut and defendant lives with her parents in Syosset, New York City. All were fully employed. Although, the parties met through an online dating service in September At that time, every lived at their current location. They’ve been married within a year, following August, the parties courtship was abbreviated. She has continuously challenged him ability to parent or make prudent choices.
Writing on child’s shoes and duct taping books have always been overt acts of hostility to him first-hand over parenting problems.
Her assumption that he can’t safely select foods or make day to day conclusions without her inquisition and direction through e mail does not portend well for her respect for him as a parent in the future, or facilitation child’s relationship with him.
She insisted on a wellchild check by the police when plaintiff was with the child visiting his family in Pennsylvania. That said, this was disruptive, hostile and aggressive behavior. While there is a thread in lots of her emails revealing a respect for 3 importance parents in Molly’s essence, much of her conduct has belied that. For past day, she has always been awarded fees of $ 3000 for a tal due her of $ 44617 dot 75. Did you know that the guardian ad litem’s fees of $ 41617 dot 75 up until that past day of trial are approved. Generally, the defendant always was seeking 7 alimony years at the rate of $ 10000 per month. Now please pay attention. Any seek related orders and every seeks Guidelines child support from the.
She is probably likewise seeking the Stamford sale home with an equal proceeds split, approximately 62 retirement percent credits, and one half of the stock options. In regard to custodial orders that go with it’s essential that they be all complied with inasmuch as child best interest requires their integrated adherence. Besides, the guardian as well noted that the parties have not litigated custody problems pendente lite and go with court orders. Fagan stopped doing this in mid November. She noted that while mother continued to provide regular emails as was intend to and their practice to the father about Molly while in her care. Let me tell you something. If once again as to not be criticized, it meant that 4 weeks passed without any communication to mother regarding this toddler, while he did it.
So parties first requested court to order that Dr.
His test mother data is usually consistent with someone who feels vulnerable and under attack, that always was how defendant articulated her position regarding how divorce came and plaintiff pushed aggressively for everything he wanted and tried to paint a picture of her as an alcoholic and incapable parent.
He did so. He looked for that Mr. He clinically interviewed both parents and administered many psychological tests to parents. Fagan was still dealing with the dissolution shock and searched for her to have anxious and depressive symptoms. Stephen Sichel perform a psychological child custody evaluation regarding the child best interest and recommendations regarding the geographic distance which parties’ counsel referred to as a relocation issue. Yes, that’s right! Fagan tested in the normal range. Aside from this, he did not consider her testing to be notably elevated or a matter for concern.
In interviews he searched with success for Ms.
Therefore this does not undermine his findings. Hameedi emphasized that the defendant’s anger ward plaintiff is unhealthy for their relationship as parents and that she needs to find out how to work with him. I’m sure that the court looked for Dr. On p of that, in his own understated way, in testimony. Hameedi unsuccessfully. Then the impeachment testimony dwelled on the fact that the defendant calls him for a report late in his treatment. Keep reading! The plaintiff sought to undermine the testimony credibility by Dr. Probably most disconcerting defendant’s behavior ward the plaintiff is her refusal to engage in conversation with him for 2 years. With that said, this surreptitious planning was done in flagrant disregard of parties’ joint ownership of these resources.
Unbeknownst to her in December, plaintiff interviewed a few divorce lawyers.
This defendant learned behavior on January 11.
Decision to move ward divorce had been made by the plaintiff long time ago, prior to January divorce was a tal surprise to the defendant. And therefore the defendant moved mailing address parties’ joint investment accounts to his family’s home in Ridgefield, Connecticut in He as well liquidated accounts at that time without informing defendant. This is where it starts getting serious, right? She was aware of their marital difficulties but not that it was so rough that plaintiff was contemplating divorce. Under reasonableness cloak, the plaintiff imposes his will. With that said, the defendant acquiesced in the division and any operated accordingly. For instance, he decided half every was the way to divide things, consequently removing resources from the court reach. Now let me tell you something. I know that the credits were liquidated and divided by him after his lawyer had signed the complaint. So there’s no effective remedy for this conduct.
Court searches for the conduct inappropriate and a automatic violation orders.
At that time, he was bound by the automatic orders.
All of this conduct, coupled with request for the defendant to quitclaim home in October 2010, left defendant to feel betrayed and plaintiff distrustful, fearing that he had set this all the dissolution up on terms that he wanted to control and that he had lost his commitment to their marriage at least by fall plaintiff portrays defendant as inappropriately suspicious of him, pointing to the fact that he split equally betwixt them credits that he liquidated. What actually is meaningful in this vignette is that it illuminates and lends support to defendant claims that plaintiff was controlling in his behavior and, indeed, has remained so in their custodial dealings. It was incumbent on him to provide evidence that she gonna be selfsupporting in a lesser time period, So in case plaintiff had sought a lesser exposure for alimony.
She usually can be self sustaining because She must receive sufficient spousal support to permit her to educate herself in the field and after that ‘re enter’ the employment market successfully.
Without alimony she won’t be able to transition to living independently and gain a secure foothold in her former or newest sought employment field.
Did you know that the defendant is currently in training to be a paralegal. With that said, no evidence was adduced as to how long this will make. Defendant currently lives with her parents. Alimony for 2 years has been sufficient for her to complete her education and establish herself. He did not. As a result, this timespan ain’t anchored to any event or reasoning. Known in her own claims for relief she seeks 5 alimony years. Now look, the defendant reacted to these withdrawals by transferring joint resources of $ 2419 that the parties were holding for their daughter, to an account in her name. Known parties likewise disagree as to their appropriate division assets and liabilities, length and quantity of alimony for the defendant, and, other attendant fiscal problems.
Guardian acknowledged that all parents usually can meet child’s needs, will proceed with court orders, live in a suitable home and will provide stability for the child.
She believes father is more capable of harnessing this for himself.
She looks for all parents thoughtful regarding child’s best interest. Fork in road probably was that the guardian searches for that anger and mistrust of Ms. Fagan ward her husband may overcome that as it has on isolated incidents in the course of the pendente lite period. That’s where it starts getting extremely interesting. Plaintiff’s completely reason not to move is economy that he will lose a bunch of money on house. Likewise, second question before the court is probably how to fashion a parenting access schedule that represents what’s better for this child and gets into consideration her real need for a strong and continuing relationship with one and the other parents, week in and week out.
His additional reasons had no gravitas.
Defendant’s immediate support system of her parents would’ve been better preserved if she could stay in Syosset.
Plaintiff is always emotionally a lot more resilient than the defendant. I am sure that the plaintiff has the means to relocate, defendant does not. Besides, the child has no extraordinary needs that will require her to stay with her pediatrician in Connecticut. Look, there’s a big neighborhood with chums in Stamford; that if child lives in NYC the experts here will need to be replaced, Stamford area. I’m sure it sounds familiar. The home in Stamford was purchased by the plaintiff pre maritally for $ 529000 in November defendant believes the home always was worth $ 530,An appraiser, Michael Gold, testified as to the real value estate.
At this time trial it had a value of $ 400000 with a $ 379072 mortgage.
Home has suffered loss of value.
Did you know that the court searched for his testimony and his work in his written appraisal persuasive as to the marital value home. Therefore this leaves a modest equity of $ 20928. So parties lived in plaintiff’s home at their time marriage. Shortly after their marriage, in 2008, plaintiff quitclaimed a half interest in home to the defendant. Finally, the parties looked with success for themselves unable to talk things through successfully. It’s a well-known fact that the parties attempted marital counseling to address their difficulties in earlier At that time, the plaintiff very frequently traveled for extended periods of time which made the defendant lonely. Now regarding the aforementioned fact… So home is in a vibrant neighborhood that has offered any of them friendships in their neighboring community. As a result, parties did not adapt well as a couple with an infant. Plaintiff continued to expect the defendant to keep house up, critical of her homemaker skills. Actually the defendant was internally struggling with adjustment required for transition from a career woman to an in the apartments mother with a newborn child. Besides, the plaintiff believed the defendant was consuming excess quantities of alcohol at this time which she denied.
By the way, the court has carefully considered statutory criteria including common Statutes §§ 46b 56″, ’46b 56a’, ’46b 84′, ’46b81′, 46b82, and 46b 56c and case law regarding orders of custody, including joint custody, child support, alimony, medical insurance for the children and ex spouse, orders of assignment of assets and liabilities, educational support orders, and attorney fees.
Guidelines child support based upon his 2012 full year income is always $ 473 per week, that is maximum under the Guidelines schedule for $ 4000 weekly net income, not his $ 4, percentage is usually 11 dot 83 percent.
Current year income for the plaintiff to year end annualized has been $ 4903. If father has usually been the payor, Child Support Guidelines provided by the plaintiff forecast income of $ 155700 gross per year which renders presumptive child support to be paid, of $ 316 per week, based upon his base salary. Fact, that sum represents 16 dot 03 his net percent under Guidelines. Plaintiff makes a noticeable percentage of his income from commissions, as indicated above.
Plaintiff pleads for an order of sole lawful custody.
He assures court that he will consult with defendant and make conclusions he believes probably were right, albeit his claims for relief do not reflect it.
In layman’s terms it will be seen as paranoid behavior on one hand or an extreme step to safeguard herself from her perception of her reach husband’s control, done in reaction to her sense that he was not to be trusted and had betrayed her in his hiding of money. On p of this, whichever probably was the more plausible explanation, it does not actually matter, for all are awful indicators for these 3 guys and gals who must work together. Basically, he seeks to limit child contact with her mother. Notably, plaintiff seeks to limit considerably the child time with her mother to a ‘fortyeight’ of realising what she was doing with money. Since marriage date, there is one minor child born to parties Molly Victoria Fagan born August 20, There been no minor children born to the wife since marriage date.
There’re no another minor children marriage issue.
The parties have not been recipients of communal assistance.
Marriage between parties has broke down irretrievably, as described hereinafter. It’s a well-known fact that the court searches for that it has jurisdiction over the marriage. A well-reputed fact that has been. Parties were married in NY on August 24, One party has resided in Connecticut state continuously since the bringing of this action. Based upon credible evidence court knows following facts and makes the following jurisdictional findings. That said, this dance is done by most of them, not simply mother. When mother figures out that he has withheld information from her, it plays into confirming that he isn’t to be trusted. He does it since he does not look for to be quizzed by her. Guardian has noticed that the plaintiff as well withholds information at times from defendant about the child. After Dr completion. Now look. And therefore the most substantially difference in their work focused on their respective observations and conclusions about the defendant mental status.
Sichel did not look for her thought impaired or suffering from lowered reality testing.
Based upon some amount of her test data,two her interpretation of Dr.
Sichel’s test data and her observations Dr. Needless to say, smith reviewed Dr. Further, notwithstanding no evidence to help it. Now pay attention please. Dr. Sichel as incomplete and nonresponsive. I’m sure you heard about this. Sichel’s work, the plaintiff sought another psychological evaluation on relocation issue, dissatisfied with recommendation of Dr. Seriously. These findings were made notwithstanding normal data for all parents on the personality assessment test she administered. Sichel’s test data, performed special tests of her own and clinically interviewed parties. Write as a result, smith observed pressured speech, impulsivity in the plaintiff and an inability to filter her hostile statements about plaintiff. With all that said… Smith opined that it was probably that the defendant was at risk for alcohol abuse. There is a lot more information about this stuff on this site. Smith concluded that it was enormously possibly that the defendant suffered from noticeable reality impairment and possibly had a cycling mood disorder with severely cut reality awareness. Accordingly the defendant sought a family relations study usually. Ultimately a second psychological evaluation on this issue was ordered by the court.
It was performed by Dr.
Linda Smith. Her concern for future is that defendant will continue her negativity ward plaintiff and it will bleed over to the child, She was satisfied that defendant will go with court orders. Then once again, he did what he wanted, when unable to accept. Besides, he continues to exercise control even in parenting problems. As an example, the child was put in his middle desire to have her hair cut and defendant’s desire for it to stay long. Therefore this had further effect eroding mother’s trust in him. Considering above said. So court does not endorse that conclusion.
Having observed parents and reviewed plenty of emails, it was her view that mother wants to facilitate father’s relationship with child but her anger overcomes this desire.
Guardian searched for the plaintiff to be a controlling person.
Plaintiff sees mother as ill and poor for the child and will restrict her contact if he thinks it appropriate. She adviced sole legitimate custody to father and that the child live in Connecticut. He unilaterally cut the hair and hereupon said it was mostly a little and as long as the bangs in Molly’s face were causing her stress. Besides, the guardian ad litem in this matter testified. Some information will be searched with success for readily online. She felt that father will uphold and facilitate the child’s relationship with mother. Known she did consider that all parents gonna be involved in notable parenting time with child. Custody issues emerged later in pendente lite period. Even when she was critical of his care. Not third parties. Thus, suffice to say that they have been punctuated by following recurring events.
It will serve no purpose to detail them.
Whether her father was having his mother get over the care while not him doing it, the defendant continually secondguessing in critical language the child fundamental care by her father,.
Therefore the plaintiff was continually pressing defendant to return to Stamford with child and emailing her with selfrighteous explanations for his conduct in a controlling manner. Notice, since the parties live approximately a ninety they sought an evaluation of custody from the designated experts that included an examination and recommendation to address geographic disparity. Now let me tell you something. As custody problems devolved it turned out to be clear that an evaluation was needed to assist parties and the court. Whether orally or in writing, it’s. By the way, the conduct described above and need for wholesome communication, that this court must powerful consider in determining the legitimate nature custody orders. Likewise have been one and the other parents excellent caretakers of their child, every is an appropriate decisionmaker for the child.
On this question, court is motivated to learn a living arrangement for the child that maximizes the potential every parent has to offer her. Setting up an arrangement of parenting that requires mother to move to have notable contact with her child is counterproductive. He has probably been agreeable to refinancing that to make the wife’s name off mortgage. So it’s noted that plaintiff is seeking 60 all percent of parties’ retirement accounts, 100 percent of his stock options from work and 100 home percent. So, the defendant seeks an order of joint lawful custody and primary child residence with her in Syosset, New York City. Until her move to Connecticut she seeks to have current parenting schedule stay in effect. Therefore in case the mother’s desire to relocate child has probably been denied upon her moving to Connecticut she recommends a shared parenting schedule. Did you hear about something like this before? If father remains in Connecticut she recommends an order of 3 nearly any out 3 weekends to him. This is case. Smith assumed.
Further, the guardian ad litem suspects that the defendant will work with plaintiff in following through on lining up a child psychologist for child treatment as Dr.
Smith observed in pressured defendant speech and reality impairment.
Therefore the guardian ad litem in no circumstances observed affect that Dr. Smith’s recommendations in spite the fact that they have not been court ordered. Accordingly the guardian noted that the mother has followed all of Dr. There were incidents of bizarre expressions of anger late in this process dissolution including her cutting up of nearly any family photo that had her and plaintiff in them.
Fagan ward her husband has probably been palpable.
Did you know that the record has a lot of multiple incidents in which she was rude to him and denigrated him. Her naming the plaintiff as a contact in her phone as Deadbeat Fagan was an immature and overt expression of anger. Consequently, instead he reckons that a lump sum order of $ 100000 might be sufficient to meet her needs. He intends to fund this from her retirement credits. It will deplete its availability as a substitute for spousal support, Therefore if she were to use the money for that. Plaintiff does not think that he might be ordered to pay periodic alimony to his wife. Basically, he points to these resources as a source of money to finance a defendant relocation back to Connecticut. And therefore the matter was referred by nearest court to Regional Family Trial Docket.
By the way, the witnesses included parties one and the other, 1 psychologists, many of whom performed evaluations, defendant’s treating psychiatrist, a real estate appraiser and the guardian ad litem.
Case was tried from March ‘2026’, April 4, and 8, the parties’ counsel, under court direction filed Proposed Findings of Fact on April 26, the exhibits in this case exceeded 150, lots of them being constituted by hundreds of pages in and of themselves.
So this fully contested dissolution of marriage case was got in Norwalk Judicial District at Stamford by return date of January 25, the pendente lite period of this case, 3 years, has resulted in the parties being in extended and extremely conflicted litigation for youthful much essence of their one child. He is a sales director. His employment lets him to work out of his home unless he was always traveling. His travel has been largely to the tri state area except an annual trip to California. With all that said… And therefore the plaintiff probably was currently ‘fortyfour’ years old enough. Nevertheless, he was probably in good health.
He is employed at Coupons.com.
Defendant’s Commonwealth IRA valued at $ 153000 usually was premarital result solely contributions worth $ 138000 at time of marriage.
Actually the defendant’s Fidelity IRA valued at $ 183652 is a rollover of her retirement finances from all of her premarital work., with no doubt, plaintiff’s Alliance Data 401k valued at $ 151912 results from premarital appreciation retirement credits which were worth $ 50000 at the time of parties’ marriage. Keep reading. Throughout the marriage the plaintiff has accrued $ 61713 in his Coupons.com 401K. He continues to contribute weekly $ 326, that is matched by the company with a cap of approximately $ 16000 yearly. Only one substantial assets that remain usually were the parties’ retirement finances. Realize if more resilient parent, the father, makes move instead of more brittle parent, the mother, parents could be in proximity and a real shared custody arrangement will ensure that correctly the child has a strong and enduring attachment to her father.
As the mother speaks about father in the child presence, and since her anger ward him isn’t hidden from child, the guardian endorses Dr.
Smith that child has always been at risk for alienation from father by mother.
He possesses the inner emotional resources and mental health to accomplish it with resilience, A move by her father may be economically unpleasant for him. Accordingly the court does not think it probably that she will make move without severely taxing her emotional resources, if the court were to require mother to move to have a shared custody arrangement. Generally, the child, who has a noticeable relationship with one and the other parents, needs them to provide most they will offer by being emotionally secure themselves. Sounds familiardoesn’t it? Moving away from her nuclear family will undoubtedly create anxiety for her. Her adjustment disorder as diagnosed by her treating psychiatrist, causes her to suffer self-assured anxiety. Fact, the court concurs with these concerns. When pressed throughout the pendente lite period and in clinical interviews by evaluators, indeed their goals, hopes and child raising values for their daughter are always highly identic.
Separately, there’s no reason for sole custody, since a lot of these parties were usually able decision makers. Because of defendant’s inability to prevent her anxiety and anger from clouding her judgment when she deals with the plaintiff, at times, he will be charged with making responsibility a decision when most of us know that there is a 3 them inability to admire after substantive and real consultation with ourselves. Marmo Marmo, 131 Conn. Normally, no evidence was adduced as to whether she usually can successfully reenter that job market. Ippolito Ippolito, 28 Conn. App. Conn. Defendant had left her employment to be an in the premises parent. Alimony traditionary purpose is probably to meet one’s continuing duty to guide ․ ourts have begun to limit the duration of alimony awards if you are going to support the receiving spouse to turned out to be self sufficient, Roach Roach, 20 Conn.