Professional Documents
Culture Documents
~ 0 ~
~.
'.S
t\os;, N...cJ.\:1 ~'':> 0 ..--~~C-& c;; e.4-\"""~~ ! fiLED BY CLERK
.,
. .,; ..
HALLECK RlCHARDSON
and
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
2 The Coun fInds that the parttes are incompatible and that a divorce should be
granted
..
currently in their possession and all personal property owned by them at the time of the mamage
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
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
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
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
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
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
position as sole custodian to harm the relationship of Rikki and the other parent. The Court
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
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
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
. '
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
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-
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
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
' ..
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
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