Y CLERK TRicr GecRr. nb SULA DIS, prernecet ot Fn ws : Sie wea 1IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS DIVISION TWELVE Inthe Mater of thé Marriage of. HALLECK RICHARDSON and ‘CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI case No. 96-0-217 JOURNAL ENTRY OF DIVORCE ‘This mater was wed tothe Court on September 18 and 19,1997 and taken under sdvisement, The Court deems that the case is now fly ebatted and afer considering the testimony and evidence presented at trial aswell asthe reports fom socal services providers speciGcaly Dr. Joel Nance, Dr Richard Maxie, guardian ad litem Soott McKenzie the leter cof Jenny Shaw, the home visitation repor of Shana O"Nel, court services ofc, transcripts of bearings before Judge Levenberger, the Court has reached the following findings and conchusions, 1, Thiscouple was mated on the 22nd of November, 1995 and separated on February 5, 1996. This divorce case was fled on Marc 4 1996. The parties are the parents of ‘one cil, Rikki Alexandra Dombrowaki, born on Decenber 12, 1954 2 The Cour finds thatthe panies are incompatible and tata divorce should be waned 3. PROPERTY DIVISION. Each pary should be awarded all personal property 1 EXHIBIT “A”current in ther possession and all personal property owned by them atthe ime ofthe marrage ‘Me. Richardson is involve in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and makes a monthly payment of $314 per ‘month on his debts, Me, Dombrowki is involved also ina bankruptey case and make a $75 per ‘month payment, The Cour would order hat each party should conchude their bankruptey obligations and pay ll debts they have incurred since the date of separation. Respondent is awarded ber KPERS account . “There are several items of personal property which arein dispute, Neither party has tablished by a preponderance ofthe evidence what would constitute the value of his property how or when it was acquired. Ithas been established, however, that Ms. Dombrowski left the marrage with only a suitcase anda few personal ees In November or December 1994, Mr. Richardson purchased a home, At tht time the parties were living together but were not maried. Mr. Richaraon rested he has executed 2 contrac of sal of his property for $78,950, There is a mortgage balance of berween $49,000 ‘and $50,000. In addton tothe mortgage, there isan IRS len against the property which Mr Richardson tested was approximately 4,800. After deducing these items andthe $10,000 dow payment which Mr. Richardson made with funds be acquired prio 1 cobabtation or marrage, the Court concludes that there is an equity inthis property of approximately $9,000. “The Court would order that Mr. Richardson pay to Ms. Dombrowski the sum of $4,500 upon the losing of the sale of tis property. Inthe event that the sale does not close, the Court will ‘impose a judicial Ken in frvor Claudine Dombrowski of $4,500 on the partes real extate to cary imerest a 7.5% per annum from November 1, 1997, Based upon the weight ofthe evidence in this case, it isthe Court's conclusion tha he $4,$00 cash payment from the sale ofthe residence 2 EXHIBIT “A”isan equitable apportionment of propery to Ms. Dombrowski forall aims she may have fr her incerest in matal propery. In the event of losing this sale before Janaary 1, 1998, Me Richardson isto pay to MS. Dombrovsk’ at elosng or aler Ms. Dombrowski has relocated £0 “Topeka, whichever occurs ls. 4. MAINTENANCE The Cour fins that maintenance should not be awarded inthis 5. GUISTODY. Each pry requests the Couto avard them eustody ofthe minor ld, Temporary custody an vation ofthe minor eid has ben Geel Sitgted inthis ase and has been the subject of sever hearing before Jadge Leuenberger ‘tthe trl of this case, considerbl tine was pet proving tha this couple as had a oles domes eluionshp ad tht on tat oe cession Ms, Dombrowa fired serious ‘njry atthe hands of Mr. Richardson ahough the pres cannot agree on exactly when, where how his injury was ined, There no evgence tha eer past spill bared Rik. From the evidence it appar tothe Cour tate violence inthis couple's relationship comes from both Sections, eter is tual Mameless. Me. Richardoa, bing mali stronger nd therefore abe tof greater ysl iaury on M, Dombrowski thn she on hm, however, the Cour fds that Ms. Dombrowai ba inated and proved some of the violent comact. Mi [Richardson has ben convicted of domesic baer ant least one loool related offense Farther, in he conten of cuody decision itis dear hat neither parent thi ine asthe capacity oco-parent oro support the othe paren’ loving relationship with ter daughter ‘Murua parental involvement wth hs child hasbeen made wore by Ms. Dombrowak's unateral decision 10 move to Lamed, Kanss in May of 1996, The distance between Topeka and 3 EXHIBIT “A”‘Larned makes it virtually impossible for an individual reaer to work withthe family for Me. “Richardson to ave regula and frequent contact wit hit chid; to establish any reasonable ialogue between the parents toward resolving their confts. The move from Topeka to Lamed, veto the proximity of the parties, has lessened the physica violence. It has, however, done Violence tothe relationship of Rikki and her father. Iflong distance visitation i continue, nthe ‘Court's view, will take its toll not only on Rikki but each ofthe parties. The Court specifically ‘nds that separation ofthe cid from eitber parent for long periods of time is harmfil fora child of shout three years of age. ‘The Court believes tha itis faced with choosing berween rwo alternatives. The frst isto place cutody in one or the ther the parents and contin along distance visitation srrangement ‘The second choice isto require Me. Dombrowski to ret to Shawnee County with Rikki and ‘esablsh and a sructured custody and visitation program vo that Rikki may enjoy frequent and regular contact with both parents (Ms. Dombrowaki requests the Court to give her residential exstody in Paws Rock, ‘Kansas and visition be ordered to take place in Wichita under supervised conditions. Ths plan ‘would curtail Mr, Richardson's acoees to Rik even more than i currently is. Further, sbe Court ‘nds tha there is no evidence which would suppor a court order for supervised visitation. While itis obvious that supervision is needed when the parties exchange custody ofthe child Because of the potential for violence berween the pares, evidence is lacking that Mr. Richardson does not adequately care for tnd protect the ohild, Mf. Richardson has been previously maried. To that mariage were bor tive children. From the evidence available othe Court, there is no basis 0 ‘support that Mr. Richardson hat mistreated any of his children in any way 4 EXHIBIT “A”“The CSO, Sheri Keller, has had more contact wit this couple and observed their {mentions more than any ofthe mental heath profesional that have offered opinions, In the ‘Counts view, her recommendation to place custody in Mr. Richardson caries great weight. Also weighing heavily inthis casei the fact that Ms, Dombrowski hasbeen the primary caretaker of the child. The Cour is always bestant to change custody from a primary caretaker. {tis my conclusion that the best interest of the Rikki is for her to reside in a location were both parents have acess to her. Further, the Court ordering joint custody inthis case as 1am concerned that sole custody in ther parent wil est in manipulation and abuse oftheir position assole custodian to harm the relationship of Riki andthe other parent, The Court centers the following specific order relating to custody ofthe cid ‘A. The Cour awards joint curtody ofthe partis’ minor child with temporary resideatil placement with the mother. Ms. Dombrowaliis ordered to relocate with the eid in ‘Shawnee County, Kansas, on or before January 1, 1998, Inthe event Ma, Dombrowski and the child are not residing in Shawnee County on January 1, 1998, sole estoy shal be ordred in Me. Richardson, B. Shawnee County Court Services is appointed case manager to assis the paris in developing a plan for rexderial custody and visitation pursuant to K'S.A. 25-1001 et seq. after January 1, 1998. The Cour i reserving the question of shared custody or appointing a residential parent for afler January J, 1998, a this ime, Inthe event hat the parties are unable to agree on residential custody and visitation eter relocation to Topeka, the Court will make a determination shordy after January 1, 1998 or upon motion of eter party impasse is reached prior to that time, The panies are prospectively advised that its custody decision wil be intuenced by 5 EXHIBIT “A”evidence onthe wilingness and ability ofeach parent 1 respect and appreciate the bond between the child and the other parent. Each parent should endeavor during the next 60 days to demonstrate a capacity to allow and foster continuing relationship between the child and the other parent. CAs soon after the first ofthe year as it can be aranged, the couple shall consult with Dr, Richard Meld forthe purpose Of re-evaluating the partis" cfcumstances and to make recommendations regarding therapy fr the parties and for a post-dvorceco-parenting process. 1D. Allexchanges of Rik shall occur atthe YMCA Safe Visit location under their supervision. E. The Court orders that neither party sallemove Rikki tom Pawnee County or ‘Shawnee County except for direct ransportation between Topeka and Pasmee Rock ‘Specifically, this order means neither party sal tke this child overnight to any location other than their home without prior approval ofthe case manager. Disregard ofthis order wal likely ‘result in a change of custody F, The Court orders the parties t work out pettioner’s visitation in case ‘management through December, 1997 whersia the petitioner will hve Rikki approximately one ‘week per month. All other orders and admonitions incuded inthe May 28, 1997 order of Judge LLevenberger notin confit with this order stall remain in fil force and effect, ‘G._-Mr Richardson shall not consume alooholic everages while Rikki isin his custody ‘or for four hours prior to picking her up for visation. HL Both panties are directed to complete anger management clases. ‘ EXHIBIT “A”{Luring visitation wit petitioner, the paitionsr wil assist Rikki ininitting a telephone call 1 respondent every 48 hours at Spm. Respondeat i enjoined from cling stitione's home excat in case of ana Side emergency. Further, respondent is rected to not call nw enforcerent authorities to investigate the petitioner without iat consuling with the case manager. Failure to comply with this provision will est in alteration ofthe visitation schedule 6. The Courts evaluated Mi, Dombrowski’ aserton tat her move to Larned was necessitated due tothe closure of Topeka State Hospital. No evidence was preseted regarding her efor 10 find employment loctly. The Cour has taken notice that the Topeka Daily Cepitl newspaper each weekend advertises from sx o ten avallable postions for LPNs in “Topeka of surrounding counties inating the Topeka Correctional Facey, The Court concludee tha Ms, Dombrowels residence in Lamed is aot necessary for her employment 7. When Riki was bom the panies had wot yet married, A that time he eid was ‘named Rikki Alexandra Dombrowaki. Pftone, Mr. Richardson, requests thatthe Court order thatthe cild’s name be changed to Richardson. The Kansas Court of Appeals recently ruled Jn Re: Mariage of Kilian, 3 an. App. 24975 that leo ia domestic resins ston as jriniction an the sanstory abort o change the mame of child ofthe mariage which it being dsoved “The Court stat itis in Riki's best interest thet her rare ied te name of Richardson. The Court has made he deion tha RA shoud have the bent of wo involved pares. The supe beeen Riki's paret significant andthe anos caved by her zmame canbe easly eliminated, Since Rk wil be parted by both parents, tere wil be lest confusion ithe fthe’s's sumume i included. The Cour notes that Ms. Dombrowski did not t EXHIBIT “A”change her name atte time of masage and therefore wil pert her to elect wheter or not Riki's surname sal be changed to Richardson or DombrowakiRichardson. itched to this order, the Cours fishing forms for coun to completo eects the ame change. The panies re directed 1 complete these forms and shed and appoint wih this Court 12 execute sare within 30 days fom the dt ofthis oder. {8 Therespondent’s equest for ps mmennceis denied asthe Cour is without juinicon to gras ame. See In Re: Mariage of Brown, 247 Kan 152, 164 and KS.A. 60+ 1610002). Responds request for revoactveeinbursement of mileage reinburvereat and metic expensesis lo dened. Judge Levesberger’s oder establishing child support and szuctred visitation canst be retroactively sod to increase Mr, Richardson's ability. See [In Re: Marriage of Bagg, 13 Ka App 24830. Soom fure rave expenses ae concer, the Court ins tha this om should be bore by Mt Dombrowi. I was she who removed ‘peel to Larned, Kase. This unilateral! decision sould not impose a greater expense on Mr. Richardson. Final, the Cour desesrespondeats motion for retrontive child suppor. The seats cited by counsel KS.A.38-1121(¢) i applableo pee cases. The Court does eater {dgent forall unpaid temporary ld mppot ordered in this case 9. Forthe months of November and December, 1997, the Coun odes cid apport inthe amour of $310 per month o be pa bythe petioner tothe respondent in accordance with the attached workshet, The respondent sal rvide bah insurance and ay uninsured heath «are coms willbe cvdedeqully. The Court wil realest cid support in connection wiht custody order of upon motion of ther pay ifthre is change in Gxeumstanees. Respondent shall claim Riki as her dependent for income tax purposes in odd mursbered years and petioner ‘ EXHIBIT “A”shal aim bern even oumbered yeas 10, inrespondent’s closing argument, th lim is made for $602 representing medial tals of pone cilen fom his ist mariage thar were “charge to Ms. Dombrowaki, The ‘Court is uncenain whether or no these expenses were paid by Ms, Dombrowski’ insurance or her personally. Assuming these expenses were pad by insurance, the request hat she be personally reimbursed fr them denied. athe eet that Ms, Dombrows is cining that she personaly hes pid medical ils for Mr Ricbardsoes children, the Court would direct that these tits an he evidence of payment be iteniza so that he Cou my make a deterinion om wheter or nota reimbursement shouldbe made asa mater of eat. 11. The restraining order previously entered in this case is extended fora period of one 12, Each party shall pay their own stoneys fees. Court coms are assessed against the petitioner. TT IS SO ORDERED. o ENTERED thi DG day of October, 1997, t Topeka, Kansas