Harris v. Gay, No. Fa91 0284578 S (Feb. 10, 1993)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1665
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedFebruary 10, 1993
DocketNo. FA91 0284578 S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1665 (Harris v. Gay, No. Fa91 0284578 S (Feb. 10, 1993)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harris v. Gay, No. Fa91 0284578 S (Feb. 10, 1993), 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1665 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO CORRECT AND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT There are two motions before the court for decision in this matter: plaintiff's motion for clarification of Judge Levine's orders entered on September 25, 1992 and the minor children's attorney's motion for contempt dated December 15, 1992.

I. MOTION TO CORRECT

The motion for clarification deals with clarification of Judge Levine's orders entered on September 25, 1992. At that time Judge Levine found that it was in the best interest of the children to have visitation with their father. The children, Shana Grace Harris born on September 11, 1984 (not 1985 as alleged in the complaint) and Calvin Harris, Jr. born on January 28, 1989, are eight and four years of age. Shana has not wished to visit with her father. Judge Levine did not order Shana to visit with her father but ordered that the defendant, Ms Gay, was to encourage Shana to visit with her father.

With regard to the issue of visitation, our Supreme Court has stated in the case of Raymond v. Raymond, 185 Conn. 735 at p. 741 (1974), as follows:

Visitation rights are not wholly unrelated to the welfare of the children of divorced parents. Minor children are entitled to the love and companionship of both parents. For the good of the child, unless a parent is completely unfit, a decree should allow a parent deprived of custody to visit or communicate with the children under such restrictions as the circumstances warrant. 27B C.J.S. 478, Divorce, 312. If circumstances have placed a financial burden on the parent in relation to visitation, the court may consider whether a reduction in support is in the best interests of the children, to allow the expenditure of funds saved from the reduced payments to be spent on securing visitation. A parent's privilege of visitation of children whose custody has been awarded to the other parent in a divorce action, however, is not an absolute right but one which is dependent on CT Page 1667 what is for the best interests of the children even though such visitation rights may be restricted or effectively terminated. Lewis v. Lewis, 338 Mich. 197, 201, 61 N.W.2d 66; Butler v. Butler, 83 N.H. 413, 416, 143 A. 471. Where custody and visitation rights have been affected, a court has the power and the duty to safeguard those rights while recognizing that such interests are subordinate to the welfare of the children. Neither parent's interests with regard to his or her children are a property right nor are they rights which cannot be terminated without his or her consent. Doe v. Doe, 163 Conn. 340, 343, 307 A.2d 166; Goshkarian's Appeal, 110 Conn. 463, 468, 148 A. 379. A contest relative to custody, such as visitation rights, is not one primarily to determine the rights of the respective parties but rather a determination of the best interests of the child or children. Antedomenico v. Antedomenico, 142 Conn. 558, 562, 115 A.2d 659, see Krasnow v. Krasnow, 140 Conn. 254, 260, 99 A.2d 104.

The issues of custody and visitation are controlled by 46b-56 of the General Statutes. Subsection (a) of 46b-56 provides that the court may at any time make or modify any prior order regarding the education and support of the children and of care, custody and visitation. (Emphasis supplied.)

Subsection (b) provides that the court, in making or modifying any order with respect to custody or visitation shall be guided by the best interests of the child. It is the best interests of the children, therefore, rather than the interests of the parents which is the primary concern of the court.

A lengthy evidentiary hearing was held before Judge Levine and this court, also, has devoted parts of three days to this matter. On the motion for correction, the court has treated that as a motion to correct Judge Levine's orders but, in addition, has treated this as a motion for modification pursuant to 46b-56 in the children's best interests. The court enters the following orders upon this motion: CT Page 1668

1. The father shall have rights of visitation with his minor children, Calvin Harris, Jr. and Shana Grace Harris, every Wednesday from 4:00 p. m. until 7:30 p. m.

2. The father shall have rights of visitation with both children on the second and fourth weekend of each month from 6:30 p. m. Friday to 7:30 p. m. Sunday, except that during the summer, from June 30th through August 31st, the father shall have visitation with the children on the second and fourth weekends from 6:30 p. m. Friday to 8:30 a.m. Sundays.

3. In any month wherein there is a fifth Sunday in the month, the father shall have rights of visitation with the children on the fifth Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 7:30 p. m. except that, during the summer from June 30th through August 31st, he shall be entitled to visitation with them on any fifth Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 8:30 p. m.

4. The father shall be entitled to two weeks visitation, which may, at the father's election, be consecutive weeks with the children during each summer, and one week during each school winter vacation period in February. The father shall be entitled to pick up Calvin, Jr. for visitation during his winter vacation this year at 6:00 p. m. on Thursday, February 11, 1993, and return him to the mother by 7:30 p. m. on Sunday, February 21, 1993. Notice of the summer weeks shall be given by the father to the mother in writing on or before June 1st of each year.

5. The father shall have rights of visitation with his son and daughter in alternating years on their respective birthday from 3:00 p. m. to 7:30 p. m. visitation by the father shall begin with Shana on her birthday in September of 1993 and with Calvin, Jr. on his birthday in January of 1994 and continue in alternating years thereafter. The mother shall be entitled to have Shana on Shana's birthday in September of 1994 and Calvin, Jr. on his birthday in January of 1995 and in alternating years thereafter.

6. The father shall have visitation with his children on Thanksgiving Day in alternating years, beginning 1994, from 9:00 a.m. Thanksgiving Day to 12:00 noon the next day. The mother shall have them Thanksgiving Day, 1993 and CT Page 1669 alternating years thereafter.

7. The father shall have visitation with his children on each Christmas Eve, December 24th, from 5:30 p. m. to 8:30 p. m. and on Christmas Day from 3:00 p. m. to 7:30 p. m.

8. The father shall have visitation with his children on Lincoln's birthday, whatever date is the national and state holiday, in 1995 and on alternate years thereafter.

9.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Doe v. Doe
307 A.2d 166 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1972)
Lewis v. Lewis
61 N.W.2d 66 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1953)
Antedomenico v. Antedomenico
115 A.2d 659 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1955)
Krasnow v. Krasnow
99 A.2d 104 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1953)
Goshkarian's Appeal v. Fairfield County Temporary Home
148 A. 379 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1930)
Butler v. Butler
143 A. 471 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-gay-no-fa91-0284578-s-feb-10-1993-connsuperct-1993.