WILLIAM B., RUSH, J.T.R. Judge.
The plaintiff instituted the present action seeking to recover monetary damages as a result of alleged sexual molestations and sexual assaults committed upon her, when the plaintiff was between the ages of four and twelve years of age, by her brother who was six years older than the plaintiff. The suit was instituted against the brother, Dwight Chernauskas, in September of 2004. Dwight Chernauskas, hereinafter referred to as the decedent, died during the pending of the litigation and his estate was substituted as party defendant.
The plaintiff claims that the sexual molestation began when she was approximately four years of age and continued until May 1975 when she was age 12 and her menstrual cycle began. The plaintiff missed considerable time from school which is consistent with sexual molestation. She claims to have had nightmares for a period of time but they eventually subsided. All of the claims involve claims of molestation which occurred in the family home in Oxford and were unknown to the parents even though their mother was a stay-at-home mother and some of the claimed acts involved the use of candles and incense. The plaintiff described, in detail, the molestation activities which she claimed occurred. However no useful purpose would be served by court delineating the nature of that testimony. During the plaintiff's high school years and indeed up until the latter part of the year 2002 the plaintiff and the decent enjoyed what appeared to be a normal brother-sister relationship.
The plaintiff is married and has four children. She married a man who was in the navy and lived in various places throughout the country and in Hawaii. On two or three occasions the decedent went to visit the plaintiff while she was living in Virginia.
In 1995, after the death of her parents, the plaintiff moved into the family home in Oxford which was owned jointly between the plaintiff and CT Page 7580 the decedent. The family home was in a state of disrepair and the plaintiff lived with the defendant for two or three weeks while the family home was repaired. The decedent paid for the repair of the family home including the purchase of a new furnace. The home did not have a mortgage and for a period of approximately six years the decedent paid the taxes, fuel, electrical and other bills relating to the property. There was never any apparent discussion between the plaintiff and the decedent with respect to the payment of these bills. During that six-year period the plaintiff would visit the defendant's home approximately on a weekly basis as well as on other occasions for family holidays and family gatherings. There was no claim or mention of sexual molestation during that entire period of time between the plaintiff and the decedent. The decedent also "loaned" the plaintiff money for a new truck and a new computer upon which no repayment was ever made or apparently ever discussed. At one point the plaintiff asked the defendant if he would co-sign a loan to remodel the house but no estimates were obtained and nothing further was done on that subject. At another point, the plaintiff wanted to borrow $1,000 for racing school tuition which she wanted to give her husband as a gift. The decedent declined that request.
In the latter part of 2002 the decedent wrote to the plaintiff indicating that he had been paying the bills for many years and wanted to sell his interest in the home to the plaintiff. Decedent noted in the letter that he had been happy to provide assistance to the plaintiff when she first came to the property but now that she and her husband were both working he thought that they should assume payment of the bills relating to the home. It was only after the receipt of that letter that the plaintiff began making claims for sexual molestation.
Prior to the receipt of the letter the decedent had been married with one child. His wife was killed in an automobile accident and a substantial monetary settlement was made as a result of that accident. Therefore, the plaintiff did not have money and the decedent did.
It is difficult to determine whether sexual molestation did in fact occur. The plaintiff testifies that it did. The decedent is dead and testified only through a deposition and through the presentation of various witnesses indicating that he had denied that the incidents occurred. The plaintiff, on one occasion did allude to her husband that she was sexually molested by the decedent but without giving any details. A similar statement was made to one of her daughters when the daughter wanted to move out of the house to live with the decedent. Also a friend of the plaintiff, prior to the receipt of the letter, had told the plaintiff that she had been molested by a family member when she was CT Page 7581 younger. The plaintiff told the friend that she also had been molested as a child.
While the issue is not entirely free from doubt, the Court finds that sexual molestation did occur in the form of digital penetration.
At the time of trial the plaintiff had undergone 136 visits with a clinical psychologist. The clinical psychologist testified that the plaintiff was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a dysthymic disorder which is a mood disorder characterized by chronic mild depression. The clinical psychologist also testified that both the PTSD and the dysthymic disorder were caused by the sexual molestation experienced by the plaintiff. A psychiatrist produced on behalf of the defendant testified that the plaintiff's symptoms were inconsistent with existence of a PTSD disorder and therefore expressed the opinion that she was not suffering from such a condition. He did however testify that the plaintiff did have a dysthymic disorder that was related to multiple factors and therefore were not caused by any sexual molestation.
The testimony indicates the existence of a number of factors that are inconsistent with the existence of post traumatic stress disorder. For example, the plaintiff on numerous occasions allowed the decedent to baby-sit for her children; the plaintiff finds "comfort" living in the same house and in the same rooms where the alleged sexual molestation occurred; the lack of any anxiety about being with the decedent on frequent occasions for many years between the time she moved to Connecticut and the receipt of the letter regarding money. Accordingly the Court finds that the plaintiff is not suffering from a post-traumatic stress disorder.
The Court does however find that the plaintiff is suffering from a dsythymic disorder. The Court, however, does not find that the existence of any sexual molestation is predominant in producing that condition. In the mid-1990s the plaintiff underwent psychological therapy for matters unrelated to the sexual molestation. Again it would serve no useful purpose to set forth significant details except to state that the plaintiff was experiencing significant problems with her children, with her husband, with her job and with co-workers. Plaintiff was also experiencing problems with money, and the claimed sexual molestation were asserted only after the decedent claimed that she should be paying the bills for the house. The request by the decedent for the plaintiff to purchase his one-half interest in the house as well as this litigation itself are the primary causes for the plaintiff's current situation. Accordingly, the Court awards damages as follows: $2,720.00 ($20.00 per visit the plaintiff paid out of her own pocket to the visits CT Page 7582 to the clinical psychologist) and $25,000.00 in compensatory damages. While there was testimony that the plaintiff might need another two years of psychotherapy the Court does not award any damages for future medical bills.
Accordingly judgment will enter in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $27,720.00.
CT Page 7583