You are on page 1of 9

\y\QW\C't<lo-I/\~u.."" &~-\.

~ 0 ~

~.
'.S
t\os;, N...cJ.\:1 ~'':> 0 ..--~~C-& c;; e.4-\"""~~ ! fiLED BY CLERK
.,
. .,; ..

-~w\Ik)\<;;.o.1 \""" \...J. of\. ~~"\ ~ \.,~O ~ 1(5. 1115TRiCT C9URT


TIlIRD JU!lI~It.l Dr5T
_ "•• , r - r r .•..••
~ W
a~l~"'r'f'., Ocr 29 9 37 AH '91
\\ ; -
.•.•,..~ . __ ' . ",IV CENERH J~,,;S(;':T:OH
JII..l I.:'.. vi 1"-", .,- •..
TOPEKA. KANSAS

IN THE DISTRlCT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY. KANSAS


DrVISION TWEL VE

In the Matter of the Mamage of

HALLECK RlCHARDSON

and

CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKl Case No 96-0-2 I7

JO! JRNAL ENTRY OF PIVORCE

This matter was tried to the Court on September 18 and 19, 1997 and taken under

advisement. The Court deems that the case is now fully submitted and after considering the

testimony and evidence presented at trial as well as the reports from social services providers

specifically Dr. Joel Nance, Dr. Richard Maxfield, guardian ad litem Scott McKenzie, the letter

of Jenny Shaw, the horne visitation report of Shana O'Neil, court services officer, transcripts of

hearings before Judge Leuenberger, the Court has reached the following findings and conclusions.

This couple was mamed on the 22nd of November, 1995 and separated on

February 5, 1996 This divorce case was filed on March 4, 1996. The parties are the parents of

one child, Rikki Alexandra Dombrowski, born on December 12, 1994

2 The Coun fInds that the parttes are incompatible and that a divorce should be

granted

3 PROPERTY DIVISrON Each parry should be awarded all personal property


< <

..
currently in their possession and all personal property owned by them at the time of the mamage

Mr Richardson is involved In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and makes a monthly payment of $3 14 per


5
month on lus debts Ms Dombrowski is involved also in a bankruptcy case and make a $7 per

month payment The Coun would order that each party should conclude their bankruptcy

obligations and pay all debts they have incurred since the date of separation. Respondent IS

awarded her KPERS account


There are severa1ltemS of personal property whicll are in dispute Neither party has

established by a preponderance of the evidence what would constitute the value of this property

how or when it was acquired. It has been established. however, that Ms. Dombrowski left the

marriage with only a suitcase and a few personal effects.

In November or December 1994, Mr. Richardson purchased a home. At that time the

parties were living together but were not married. Mr. Richardson testified he has executed a

contract of sale of this property for $78,950. There is a mortgage balance of between $49,000

and $50,000 In addition to the mortgage, there is an IRS lien against the property which Mr

Richardson testified was approximately $4,800. After deducting these items and the $10,000

down payment which Mr Richardson made with funds he acquired prior to cohabitation or

marriage, the Coun concludes that there is an equiry in this property of approximately $9,000.

The Court would order that Mr Richardson pay to Ms. Dombrowski the sum of $4,500 upon the

closing of the sale of this propeny In the event that the sale does not close, the Coun will

Impose a judicial lien in favor Claudine Dombrowski of $4,500 on the parties' real estate to carty

interest at 7 5% per annum from November 1, 1997 Based upon the weight of the eVIdence in

this case, It is the Coun's conclUSIon that the $4,500 cash payment from the sale of the reSIdence

2
,. , .....;~
-- .';':

is.an equitable appomorunent of property to Ms. Dombrowski for all claims she may have for her

interest in marital property In the event of closing this sale before January I, 1998, Mr

Richardson IS to pay [0 Ms DombrowskJ at clostng or after Ms DombrowskJ has relocated to

Topeka. whichever occurs last

4 MAINTENANCE The Court finds that maintenance should not be awarded Ul thiS

case.

5. CUSTODY Each party requests the Court to award them custody of the minor

child. Temporary custody and visitation of the minor child has been fiercely litigated in this case

* and has been the subject of several hearings before Judge Leuenberger.

At the oial of this case, considerable time was spent proving that this couple has had a

violent domestic relationship and that on at least one occasion Ms. Dombrowski suffered serious

injury at the hands of Mr. Richardson although the parties CaTUlOtagree on exactly when, where

or how this injury was inflicted. There is no evidence that either pan has physically harmed Rikki

--j;7 F~om the evidence it appears to the Court that the violence in this couple's relationship

comes from both directions, neither is totally blameless. Mr. Richardson, being male, is stronger
.
---
and therefore able to inflict greater physical injury on Ms. Dombrowski than she on him, however,

~the Court finds that ~s. Dombrows~as initiated and ~ovoked some of the violent cont~t~~

Richardson has been convicted of domestic battery and at least one alcohol related offense.

Further, 10 the context of a custody deCision, it is clear that neither parent at this time has the

IL capaciTy to co-parent or to support the other parent's lOVIng relationslup with thelT daughter

ee.~"'1o<6eA I Mutual parental tnvolvement with tlus child has been made worse by Ms. DombrowskJ's
:50"1.>'\t- (b ••••~ q y~ '
~nilateral decision to move to Larned, Kansas 10 May of 19\16 The distance between Topeka and
v->/ (\ 0 -...J\. \. 0.•.. C~
L~ed makes it virtUallyimpossIblefor an individual treater to work with the family; for Mr

Richardson to have regular and frequent contact with this child; to establish any reasonable

N •

rr
,
--
dialo~'\Jeberween the parents toward resolvmg theIr conflicts. The move from Topeka tQ J

due to the proxiffilryof the ames has lessened the physical violence. It has. however, done
amed

7. violence to the relatlonslup of RJklo and her father If long distance viSItation IScontinued, m the
\ c,,-,==_
Court'S view, will take its toll not only on Rikki but each of the parties The Court speclfically

finds that separation of the child from either parent for long periods of time is harmful for a child

of about three years of age.


The Court believes that it is faced with choosing between twO alternatives. The first is 10

place custody in one or the other the parents and continue a long distance visitation arrangement.

The second choice is to require Ms. Dombrowski to return to Shawnee County with Rikki and

establish and a structured custody and visitation program so that Rikki may enjoy frequent and

regular contact with both parents


Ms. Dombrowski requests the Court to give her residential custody in Pawnee Rock.,

Kansas and visitation be ordered to take place in Wichita under supervised conditions. This plan

would curtail Mr Richardson's access to Rikki even more than it currently is. Further, the Court

finds that there is no evidence which would support a court order for supervised visitatio~ While

it is obvious that supervision is needed when the parties exchange custody of the child because of

the potential for violence berween the parties, evidence is lacking that Mr. Richardson does not

--------~--------
adequately care for and protecl the child Mr. Richardson has been previously mamed To that

mamage were born three children From the evidence available to the Court, there is no basIS to

support that Mr Richardson has ffilstreated any of his children in any way

4
, .

~ cso, Shem Ke~r, has had more contact with this couple and observed their

interactions more than any of the mental health professionals that have offered opinions In the

Court'S view, her recommendation to place custody in Mr Richardson cames great weight Also

weighing heavily in this case is the fact that Ms Dombrowski has been the primary caretaker of

the child. The Court is always hesitant to change custody from a primary caretaker

It is my conclusion that the best mterest of the Rikki is for her to reside in a location

where both parents have access to her. Further, the Court is ordering joint custody in this case as

41 am concemed thaGustod~ther parent will result in manipulation and abuse of their

position as sole custodian to harm the relationship of Rikki and the other parent. The Court

enters the following specific orders relating to custody of the child:

A. The Court awards joint custody of the parties' minor child with temporary

residential placement with the mother. Ms. Dombrowski is ordered to relocate with the child in

Shawnee County, Kansas, on or before January I, 1998. In the event Ms. Dombrowski and the

child are not residing in Shawnee County on January I, 1998,@custodY shall be ordered in Mr4:i;'

Rich~on."
B. Shawnee County Court Services is appointed case manager to assist the parties in

developing a plan for residential custody and visitation pursuant to K.SA 23-1001 et seq after

January I, 1998. The Court is reserving the question of shared custody or appointing a residential

parent for after January I, 1998, at this time In the event that the parties are unable to agree on

residential custody and visitation after relocation to Topeka, the Court will make a determination

shortly after January I, 1998 or upon motion of either party If impasse is reached prior to that

time The parties are prospectively adVIsedthat its custody decision will be influenced by

5
.,

evidence on the willingnessand ability of each parent to 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 a continumg relationship between the child and the

other parent

".\4~ \ C As soon after the first of the year as It can be arranged, the couple shall consult
t\, ~, qR~ .
~""-~:J.f
,:,c/,:7 J,Q.-'.
~th Dr. n:
",c har d Maxfi~Idfor the purpose 0f re-ev a1'uaung the parties
.,. circumstances an d to
.•.•.. e;,
o ~:
»:;,0
'4'?make recommendations regarding therapy for the panies and for a post-divorce co-parenting
r- 0'-'
. I2P
....7'>4-"".
'W
..?'
'"
"'cY'
~.
l'
"05'" •
process.
r' , r;'c-'
~{(- D. All exchanges ofRikki shall occur at the YMCA Safe Visit location under their

supemslon.
------ E. The Court orders that neither parry shall remove Rikki from Pawnee County or

Shawnee County except for direct transportation between Topeka and Pawnee Rock.

Specifically, this order means neither parry shall take this child overnight to any location other

roval of the case manager. Disr ard of this order will likely

result in a change of custody.

F. The Court orders the parties to work out petitioner's visitation in case

management through December, 1997 wherein the petitioner will have Rikki approximately one

week per month. All other orders and admonitions included in the May 28, 1997 order of Judge

Leuenberger not in conflict with this order shall remain in full force and effect

~r
~ G - Mr. Richardson shall not consume alcoholic beverages while Rikki is in his custody
.i.

,
or for four hours prior to picking her up for V1sitation~

H
-
Both partIes are directed to complete anger management classes.
~ .
../ ~rP'" .~.
:Y ~... 6 Jt:XHITIBIT1f "A"
-..2'"
'.

I During visitation WIth pelllloner. the petjtiQner will assist Rikki in initiating a

telephQne calltQ resPQndent every 48 hQurs at 8p m Besllondent IS enjQined frQm calling

petitioner's home except in case Qf a bQJla fide emerQency Further, resPQndent is directed to nQt

call law enfQrcement authQrities tQ invesugate the peullQner withQut first cQnsulting with the case

manager Failure tQ cQmply with tNS prQVlSIQnWIll result in alteration Qf the VlsitatiQn schedule

6. The CQurt has evaluated Ms DQmbrQwskJ's assertiQn that her mQve tQ Larned

was necessitated due to the closure of Topeka State HQspital No evidence was presented

-
regarding her effort to find employment locally. The Court has taken notice that the Topeka

Daily Capitol newspaper each weekend advertises from six to ten available positions for LPNs in
-~--=----_:.-:_---------------
Topeka or surrounding counties including the Topeka Correctional Facility. The Court concludes

-
"" M>.Dombro L""", i, '" "",,,", [0' he<mploym'" l~;~ ~""
w"""' ""_,,
-'f;Z 1. , Who< ~m ,h,p",i~ hod,m y•• .n,d "tim' ti."h""" w~ \

1 named Rikki Alexandra Dombrowski. Petitioner, Mr Richardson, requests that the Court order

that the child's name be changed to Richardson The Kansas Court of Appeals recently ruled In

Re: Marriage of Killman, 23 Kan. App. 2d 975 that a trial court in a domestic relations action has

jurisdiction and the statutory authoriry to change the name of a child of the marriage which is

being dissolved
,~ ~ ThoCoort'00' ,••' i, i, i, Rikki' ~, mm h. rum~' "'100' m' """ of
00 ~' ~ Richardson. The Court has made the dec~sion that Rikki shQuld have the benefit of twO involved

---'-
parents The struggle between Rikki's parents is SIgnificant and the animQsitY caused by her

sumame can be easily eliminated Since Rikki WIll be parented by bQth parents, there will be less

confusion if her father's's surname is included The Court notes that Ms Dombrowski did not

7
. ••••. 'e /

change her name at the time of mamage and therefore will permit her to elect whether or not
. '

Rikki's surname shall be changed to Richardson or Dombrowski-Richardson. Attached to this

order, the Court is furnislung forms for counsel to complete to effectuate the name change. The

parties are direc!ed to complete these forms and schedule and appolOtment with tlus Court to

execute same within 30 days ITomthe date of tlus order

8. The respondent's request for past maintenance is denied as the Court is without
.
jurisdiction to grant same. See In Re: Marriage of Brown, 247 !<.an.152, 164 and K.SA 60-

1610(b)(2). ~espondent's request for retroactive reimbursement of mileage reimbursement and

medical expenses is also denied. Judge Leuenberger's order establishing child support and

structured visitation cannot be retroactively modified to increase Mr. Richardson's liability. See

In Re: Marriage of Blagg, 13 Kan App 2d 530. Insofar as future travel expenses are concerned,

the Court finds that tlus cost should be borne by Ms. Dombrowski. It was she who removed
I.
herself to Lamed, Kansas This unilateral decision should not impose a greater expense on Mr.
<

Richardson. FinaUy, the Court denies respondent's motion for retroactive child support., The

statute cited by counsel K.SA 38-1121(e) is applicable to paternity cases. The Court does enter

judgment for aUunpaid temporary child support ordered in this case.

9 For the months of November and December, 1997, the Court orders child support

in the amount of $310 per month to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent in accordance with

the attached worksheet. The respondent shall provide health insurance and any uninsured health

care costs will be divided equally The Coun will recalculate child support in connection with its

custody order or upon motion of either party If there is a change in circumstances. Respondent

shall claim Rikki as her dependent for income tax purposes in odd numbered years and petitioner

8
' ..

snail claim her in even numbered years


10. In respondent's closing argument, the claim IS made for $602 representing medical

bills of petitioner's dllidren from Ius first mamage that were "charged" to Ms. Dombrowski The

Court is uncertain whether or not these expenses were paid by Ms. Dombrowski's Insurance or

her personally Assunung these expenses were paJd by Insurance, the request that she be

personally reimbursed for them is denied ill the event that Ms. Dombrowski is claiming that she

personally has paid medical bills for Mr Richardson's cluldren, the Court would direct that these

bills and her evidence of payment be itemized so that the Court may make a detennination on

whether or not a reimbursement should be made as a matter of equity.

11. The restraining order previously entered in this case is extended for a period of one

12. Each party shall pay their own attorneys fees. Court costS are assessed against the

petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED
ENTERED this~ of October, 1997, at Topeka, Kansas

Copies to:
Don Hoffman
Ainka Kweli
Harry Moore
Sherri Keller ," ~E Of' ~ANSAS. COUNTY Cf' SHAWNEE. ss.
, h<"~Dy Certify lhe ~DOYO end toteQ01rIQ to te
Scott McKenzie : ",~e-inc COlt9t.1 copy. I"It 00011\61 01 wNCt1
:0 •••• '" .100 li 01 rOCOldIn court

You might also like