DocketNumber: No. FA 97-32 98 00 S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 10768, 22 Conn. L. Rptr. 634
Judges: PETRONI, J.
Filed Date: 9/23/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The mother testified that her reasons for moving was that her rent will increase to $1300 a month on November 1st, and living costs here in Danbury are more than she can afford on her present income. She claims that the $200 she receives from the father in temporary alimony and child support, added to what she earns as a hairdresser, is not enough for her and the two children to live in Danbury. She believes the cost of living, including rent, is less in Maryland. These were her reasons why it is in her and the minor children's best interests to move there.
The defendant (father) opposed the motion and testified that this move would seriously impair, or make it almost impossible for him to visit his children. He presently visits with them two nights a week, and sometimes more, and every other weekend. He is developing a strong parental bond with them and wants to continue making it stronger. He has been paying his child support of $150, and $50 in alimony, to the mother monthly in advance. The alimony, child support, custody and visitation orders are all pendente lite, or temporary orders, prior to a final dissolution decree being entered.
The law is well settled in this State that custody and CT Page 10770 visitation orders require a court to decide and find facts that establish the best interest of the child. Connecticut General Statutes §
The court finds these facts from the mother's testimony. She became acquainted with a Scott Riker on the Internet this past April. From that time to the present, about five months, she visited with him at his home in Accokeek, Maryland, about ten (10) weekends, and has brought her children with her about eight (8) weekends. She slept downstairs with the children while her boyfriend slept upstairs. She now knows he is thirty-three (33) years old and employed as a fireman. He has been divorced twice and has one child from each of his marriages. She would like to continue developing her relationship with him. There was no testimony, however, that he is committed to marry her. In any event, she is unable to marry him until her divorce becomes final, estimated to be twelve (12) to eighteen (18) months from now. She has not yet found a job as a hairdresser nor rented a place to live in Maryland.
The attorney for the mother cites Ireland v. Ireland,
In this case, the issue of which parent will be awarded physical custody of the children has yet to be decided. The present policy is that all contested custody cases are to be tried and decided by the Regional Family Court in Middletown. There is a waiting period of twelve (12) to eighteen (18) months before a final judgment of a contested custody case will be entered. At this time, no attorney or guardian ad litem has been appointed to represent these children. Before the court decides which of these parents will be awarded physical custody of these minor children, the court in Middletown will have before it a Family Relations custody study, psychological evaluation of these parents and the children, and a report from the attorney for the children and/or the guardian ad litem. None of these reports have been completed at this time. These reports will all address the ultimate issue of which parent is best suited to meet the best interests of these minor children. If the court in Middletown awards physical custody to the father, this motion to relocate to Maryland will be moot. On the other hand, should the mother succeed, she can reclaim the motion then. The motion is premature.
The plaintiff's motion for modification, dated August 12, 1998, is denied without prejudice.
The court appoints Attorney Sharon Dornfeld of Danbury, Connecticut, as attorney for the minor children pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §
Petroni, J.