Nicita v. Kittredge

2004 WL 2284292 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

M and F agreed to joint legal custody of the minor children, primary residence with M. M would be responsible for all day-to-day decisions regarding the children's care. The agreement noted that major decisions, as defined in the agreement, 'shall be considered and discussed in depth by and agreed to by both parties to the greatest extent possible.' Those major decisions were defined in the judgment. In entering this agreement, the parties recognized that their powers would not be exercised 'for the purpose of frustrating, denying, or controlling in any manner the lifestyle of the other parent.' Finally, the parties agreed that they would 'exert their best efforts to work cooperatively in developing future plans consistent with the best interests of the children and in amicably resolving such disputes as may arise.' The court file is replete with no less than seventy-five motions having been filed by both parties, during the pendency of the dissolution action, within weeks of the date of dissolution, and over the past three years. Three Guardians Ad Litem have been appointed to represent the children. The first withdrew because of alleged threats of litigation made by M's family members. At one point an attorney was appointed to represent the GAL. There have been allegations made by F of threats made against him by M's attorneys. There was ample evidence offered throughout the course of the protracted hearings that compel this court to conclude that both parties have taken actions that have undermined the other parent and have been detrimental to the children. There was ample evidence offered throughout the course of the protracted hearings that compel this court to conclude that both parties have taken actions that have undermined the other parent and have been detrimental to the children. They are hypercritical of one another on an unrelenting basis. M has consistently taken unilateral action over the objection of or without seeking input from F. F is consistent in rigidly resisting any attempt or position offered by M when she does seek his input. The case then details disputes over religion, relocation, therapy, and other examples. The strain is showing on the older (third grade) child, Alec. Alec is told by the defendant that he is Jewish and by the plaintiff that he is Catholic and Jewish. He is very confused about his religious identity. Collectively, the co-parenting of these children is a disaster.