Honorable ELIZABETH A. BOZZUTO, Judge.
THE COURT: Before the court is the matter of Marcia Hunter versus Andre Hunter, FA 074013585. A civil action for dissolution of marriage. The action was brought by way of writ summons in complaint dated May 29, 2007. To their credit the parties successfully negotiated a parenting plan which was accepted and approved by the court on September 5, 2008. There was no evidence offered at trial that the subject parenting plan dated September 5, 2008 is no longer in the children's best interest. The Court finds the September 5, 2008 parenting plan to be in the children's best interest and incorporates the same into the decree dissolving the marriage as if fully set forth herein.
Unable to resolve financial issues, the matter was tried before the Court. Having considered all the evidence and testimony of the parties, the court makes the following findings of fact.
The plaintiff and defendant were married on April 15, 1995 in Danbury, Connecticut. The plaintiff has been a resident of the state of Connecticut for at least twelve months prior to bringing this action. The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably and there is no hope of reconciliation.
There have been three children born issue of the marriage. Namely, Zavier Marchellus, born November 14, 1994; Darius Onia, born March 24, 1997; Tolland Dreus, born June 22, 2000. Neither the plaintiff, defendant nor minor children have been the recipients of state or local assistance.
The plaintiff is thirty-four years old and in poor health. This is her first marriage. She graduated high school and has earned two years of college credit.
In 2001 the plaintiff was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and has essentially been unable to work since that time. She's under the care of CT Page 17448 doctors at Yale New Haven Hospital. She has flair ups and relapses, some of which result in a week-long hospital admission. There was no evidence offered that the plaintiff could or would ever be gainfully employed again at some point in the future.
The plaintiff currently receives $1,032 per month in social security benefits for herself and $567 per month in social security benefits for the benefit of the three minor children. Additionally the defendant pays to the plaintiff the sum of $189 per week in child support. The plaintiff's net monthly income is $2,418.
The defendant is thirty-four years old and in good health. This is his first marriage. The defendant has graduated high school and has earned two years of college credit. The defendant would appear to be hard working, many times during the marriage working two jobs just to get by. Even when the parties supported only one household, getting by financially was a struggle. Now with two households and a disabled spouse, there is clearly not enough money to go around.
The defendant is currently employed full-time by the state of Connecticut. The court finds his net weekly income to be $582. From this, the defendant pays $189 per week in child support leaving a net disposable income of $393 per week, or $1,703 per month.
Aside from near valueless automobiles and working bank accounts, the only asset to speak of is the defendant's State of Connecticut retirement with a current value of $3,970.
The plaintiff has $4,700 in debt, $3,000 of which are medical bills. The defendant has $1,700 in debt, $500 of which are in medical bills.
The court having considered all the evidence and statutory criteria enters the following orders:
1. The marriage between the parties is dissolved and each party is declared to be separate, single and unmarried.
2. The parties' stipulated parenting plan dated September 5, 2008 is hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
3. As for child support the orders entered by the Magistrate in docket number UWY FA 074013742 are incorporated herein by reference.
4. The defendant shall provide medical insurance coverage for the three minor children as the same as available to him at reasonable cost CT Page 17449 through his place of employment. And unreimbursed medical expenses of the children shall be shared by the parties equally.
5. The court finds that had the family remained intact, more likely than not the parties would have paid for the minor children's higher education. As such the court retains jurisdiction over this issue pursuant to Connecticut General Statute section 46b-56c.
6. The plaintiff shall keep all the assets listed on her financial affidavit submitted at the time of trial and dated October 17, 2008.
7. The defendant shall keep all of his assets as listed on his financial affidavit submitted at the time of trial and dated July 21, 2008.
8. Each party shall assume and hold the other harmless on all of the debts as listed on their respective financial affidavit submitted at the time of trial, with the exception of the medical bills of $3,000 listed on the plaintiff's financial affidavit, and the Danbury city taxes of $775.38 as listed on the plaintiff's financial affidavit, which shall be the sole responsibility of the defendant and he is required to assume the same and hold the plaintiff harmless.
9. The defendant shall pay the cost, up to $400 per month, as and for the plaintiff's continuing health care insurance coverage, otherwise known as COBRA. In the event the cost of the COBRA coverage available to the plaintiff by virtue of the defendant's employment exceeds the sum of $400 per month the plaintiff shall be responsible to pay the additional cost. The plaintiff shall be responsible for any unreimbursed medical expenses. The payment of the $400 per month by the defendant shall be considered alimony. At the expiration of the thirty-six month COBRA coverage period, the defendant's obligation to continue to pay $400 per month toward the plaintiff's premium shall cease. The defendant shall thereafter pay to the plaintiff as periodic alimony the sum of $25 per week of a period of twenty-four months.
10. The defendant shall be responsible for his own health insurance needs.
11. Any life insurance the defendant currently has in effect, or its equivalent, as identified on his financial affidavit shall be maintained and he shall name the plaintiff as irrevocable beneficiary for the next five years. Thereafter the defendant shall continue to maintain such policy or its equivalent, naming the minor children as irrevocable beneficiaries until the youngest child reaches the age of majority. CT Page 17450
12. The plaintiff shall retain the 1997 Buick Riveria. The defendant shall retain the 2001 Dodge Durango. Each party shall be fully responsible for all costs and expenses associated with their respective motor vehicles.
13. The plaintiff shall be entitled to claim one child for purposes of tax exemptions on both state and federal tax filings and the defendant shall be entitled to claim two children.
When only two children are available for claiming purposes, each party shall claim one child.
When only one child is available for claiming purposes, the parties shall alternate the dependancy exemption with the plaintiff claiming the child in even tax years and the defendant claiming the child in odd tax years.
14. Each party shall be responsible for their own attorneys fees.
So ordered.
CT Page 17451