1997 october 29 divorce -appealed -stay granted ks appealate court case no. 97-80304-a

8/7/2019 1997 October 29 Divorce -Appealed -Stay Granted KS Appealate Court Case No. 97-80304-A

1/9

~ .

" \

(n"V>"O~""'fI' O~.\.~ orthaA, I \\oJ;, ~ '" 10M, ~ 0. :~,,-r c:>-~ ~\.\,,~ !

-~w\"'\'Goo.1 t\ \ . . . d -01'\. :~,\"3 \.,~O ~

a~I ! t:"' r'. !. ,. . -,. ,- \'\ ! . .

riL E D B Y C L E R kKS, O1STRiCT CftlRT

TRtRO JU01:I~l OIST~ ' Q : / .

O t r 2 99 37 A l l '9 1

'~"1.1' ,'w:' ..v I " , , ; \ . : . , -

_" ,Iv

TNTHE DISTRlCTC O U RT O FSHAWNEECO UNTY.KANSASDIVISION TWELVE

In the Mattcr of the Mamage of

H ALLECK RlCHARDSON

and

CLAUDfNE DOMBRO WSKI Case No 96.0-217

JOURNAL EN TR YOF DiVORCE

Ths matter was tried to the Coun on Septembel; 18 and 19, 1997 and taken under

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

testimony and evidence presented at trial as weU as the repom from social services providers

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

of Jenny Shaw, the home visitation repon of Shana O'Neil, COUltservices officer, transcripts o

hearings before Judge 6euenberger, the Coult has reached the foUowing findings and conclusio

This couple was married on tbe 22nd of November. 1995 and separated on

February 5, 1996 This divorce case was filed on March4, 1996 The parties are the parents of

one child.RikkJAlexandra Dombrowski, born on December 12, 1994

2 The Coun finds that the parties are incompatible and Ihal a divorce should be

granted

1 PROPERTY DIVISION Each party should be awarded all personal property


2/9

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

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

month on his debts Ms Dombrowslu 's involved also in a bankruptcy case and make a $75

MI Richardson is involved," a Chapter 7 banletUptcy and makes a monthly payment of S3t4

per

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

There are sevenlltems of personal property whicb are in dispute Neither pany h2.S

how or when it was acquired1 1has been established. however. that Ms. Dombrowski lef\ the

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

awarded her KPERS account

In November or December\994. Mr. Richardson purchased a home. At that time the

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

IOteresr at 7S o;.per annum from November1. 1991 Based upon the weight or the e",dence I

Impose a judicial tien ,n favor ClaudIne Dombrowski of 54.500 on the panies' real estate

c1oslOBof Ihe sale of tlus propenY In the event that the sale does not close, the Coun w

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

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

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

Richardson testified was approximately $4.800. After deducting these items and the SI0.0

and S 50 ,O O OIn addinon to the mortgage, there is an IRS lien against the propeny which M

contract of sale of this property for$18.950. There is a mongage balance of between$49.000

pallies were living together but were not m arried. Mr. Richardson testified he has executed

marriage with only a suitcase and a few personal effects.

2


3/9

is-.al1equitable apponlOnmem ofpropeny10 Ms Dombrowski for all clalms she may llave for

mlerest in mantal propeny In Ihe event of closing this sale before January I, 1998, Mr

RJchardson ,s10 pay [0 Ms Dombrowski al c10sangor aftcr Ms Dombrowslu has relocated10

Topeka. wluchever occurs last

4 MAINTENANCE The (oun finds Ihat maintenance should nOI be awarde(hIS

casc.

5. CUSTODY Each parry requests the Coun to award them custody ofthe

child. Temporary custody and visitation of the minor child has been fiercely Iingated in

and has been the subject of several hearingS before Judge Leuenberger

* At the Dial of this case, considerable time was spent proving that this couple has violent domestic relationship and that on at least one occasion Ms. Dombrowslci sufferedinjury at the bands of Mr. Richardson although the panics cannot agrec on exactly when

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

-j5?F~om the evidence it appean to the Coun that the violence in this couple's relatiocomes from both directiOns, neither is totally blameless. Mr. RJchardson, being male, is .and therefore able to inflict greater physical injury on Ms. Dombrowski than she on him

-f the Coun finds that ~. DOmbrowski:as initiated andg!OVQ 5 Qsome of the violent conta:t~~RJchardson has been convicted of domestic banery and at least one alcohol related offen

Funher, '" the context of a custody decision, it is clell that neither parcnt at this timc h

lL capacity 10 co-parem or 10 suppon the other parent's lOVIngrelallonsllJp WIth [helTdaugh. O : : i " '4 .oc~., Murual parental Involvemcnt with llus cluld has been made worse by Ms Dombro

~.\~ '

~llIlatcraJ deci


4/9

/

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

"Z violence to the relallonship of RJkJti and her father. If long dislance visitation is continued. on

\ . .= = = - - -Court'S view. wiU take its toll not only on RiIW but each of the parties The Court specificall

Lsrned

makes it virtually impossiblet~an individuallreater10 wor\( with the family; for Mr.

Richardson 10 have regular and frequenl contact wilh this child;10 establish any reasonable

1,I.'",.b.~~,b.,.~, " ,,,~1.,;.,d."~",l1o,~m~' 'om T,p'"''I,m.'

due to lhe proximiry of th anles as lessened the physical ,,;olence. It has. however, done

The Court believes that it is faced with choosing betWeen twO alternatives. The first i

establish and a strUctured custody and visitation program so that Rikki may enjoy frettuent

and

The second choice is to require Ms. Dombrowski to return to Shawnee Count)' with RiIcki a

place custody in one or the other lhe parents and continue a long distanCC visitation arrangem

of about three y~ of age.

4

Ms. Dombrowski requests the Court10 give her residential CIISlodyin Pawnee Rock.

suppon that Mr Richardson has mistreated any ofllis children in any way.

marriage were born lhree children From the evidence available10 the Court. there i51\0 basis to

.adequalely care for and protect the child Mr Richardson has been previously married. T

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

the polential for violence between the parties. evidence is lacking Ihat Mr Richardson do

---------------- .

finds that there is no evidence which would support a court order for supervised visitation.-would curtail Mr. Richardson's access to Rildci even more than it currently is. further, the

Kansas and visitation be ordered to take place in Wichita under supervised conditions Thi

regular contact with bolh parents


5/9X H lillH l

B. Shawnee County Court Services is appointed case manager to assist the par

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

(t is my condusion that the best Interest of the lWdci is for her to reside in a locauon

time The patties are prospectivelY ad\llsed that ils custody decIsion WIllbe uUluenced

shortly after January \, 1998 or upon motion of eIther party If I1l1p~sseis reached pnor

residenual custody and visitation after relocation to Topeka, the C oun will make a deter

parent for after January I, \ 998, at this time l.n the event that the parties are unable to a

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

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

et seq a.f\er

child are not residing in Shawnee County on January I, 1998.@custOdY shall be ordered inw . r . .

Rich~n.~

Shawnee County, Kan!as, on or before January 1, 1998. l.n the event M s. Oambro\llslci an

residential placement with the mother Ms Dombrowski is ordered to relocate with the ch

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

the child The Court is always heSItant to change custody from a pnmatY caretaker

weighing heavily in cruscaseIS the fact that Ms DombroW51u has been the pnmar)' caretaker of

Court'S view, her recommen


6/9

eVIdence on the willmsness and ability of each paren! to respect and appreciate the bon

the child and Ihe other parent Each parent should endeavor during the next 60 days t

ocmonmate a capac,l)'10 allow and foster a contlnumg relalionship between the child and

All exchanges of Rikki shall occur at the YMCA Safe Visit location und

AI,soon after Ihc lUst of the year as,I can be arranged, rhe couple shall conwc

other parent

\>. \ .~1 \ ~ c...\~~1~~~5 ~th Dr RIchard M axficld for the purpose of re-evaluating the pames' circumstances 10...., ~:"O~:~:&.make reconunendations regarding therapy for the parties and for a post-divorce co-pall -: " '.'".' ~ov~_'ol'" "'. "'cY' process.

r ; c > . (~ D

supervision-----E The CoW1orders thar neither party shall remove Rlkki from Pawnee CoShawnee Counl)' except for direct :ransportation between Topeka and Pawnee Rock.

Specifically, this order means neither party shall take this child overnight to any locat

roval of t~ case manager. Disr ard oftJ1isorder wiDIibly

result in a change of custody

FThe CO W1orders Ihe parties to work out petitioner's visitation in case

management through December.1997 wherein tbe petitioner will have Rikki approximatel

week per month All other orders and admonitions included in the May 28.1991 order of Judg

Leuenberger nOI in conflict wilh this order shall remain in full force and effect~ G - Mr Richardson shall not consume alcoholic beverages whileRJIW15 in his cl'sto~r J -

or for four hours prior10 piclung her up for VlS1tatJon~-H Both parnes a re directed10 complete anger management classes

ff ./ . . . . .~ ~.Y ~ 6 X~HlBn "A

- < "


7/9

During visitation WIth'peulIOner, lhe pelitigner will assIst Rikki in initiating a

jurisdiction and the statUtory authonty to change the name of a child of Ihe mamage

which is

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

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

6. The Court has evaluated Ms Dombrowski's assertIon Ihat her move10 Larned(\0 " , , "was necessitated due to the closure of Topeka Slate Hospital No evtdence was presented I : . c.\v;o\~

regarding her effort to find employmenllocally The .f0urt has taken notice lhat the Topeka

Daily Capitol newspaper each weekend advertises from six 10 ten available positions for LPN

---'---=----_-:..-:..._----------_._-_.- --"-------

manager Failure to comply with tNS prOVISIonWIllresult in alteration of the Vlsltalion schedu

call law enforcemenl authOrllles

10 IOvesuga,e lhe peuuoner wilhout first consulting with the case

pelitioner's homee xceol

10 case of a bQJlA5de emerQencv Further, respondent is directed to not

telephone call10 respondent eVtrf 48 hours at Sp m BemQndMt1$ enjoined frgm ca!!ing

Topeka or surrounding counties including the Topeka Correctional facility The Court conc

-" '" 0 - . .. . . . . . - " , , ' _''"f fo' "" ~-~, L~~ """"-'f(i' 7 Who> ~ ,h'p""~hod "" ",' .m.d A


8/9

change her name al the lime of mamage and IhereforewiU pemut her to elecl whether or not. .Rikki's surname shall be changed10 Richardson or Dombrowslu-Richardson. Attached to tlus

order, the C ounIS furruslung forms for counsel10 complete to effectuale the name change. The

parties arc direcled to complete these forms and schedule and appointment wilh this Coun10

execute sameWllhin ;0 days trom Ihe date of tlus order

8 The respondent's request for past maintenanceIS denied as the Coun is without. jurisdiction to grant same. SeeIn R e: M arriage of Brown,247 !Un. 152, 164 and K.5.A. 60-

161 O (bX2).~espondent's request for retroactive reimbursement of milease reimburtement

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

structured visitation cannot be retroactively modified10 increase Mr. Richardson's liability. See

In R e: M arriage of Blagg,13 Kan App 2d5JO Insofar as furure travel expenses are concerned,

the Coon finds that this cost should be bornebyMs. Dombrowski. It was she who removed

herself to Larned. KanSas,. Tlus uruJaterai decision should not impose a greater expense onRichardson. Finally, the Coun denies respondent's motion for reuoactive child suppo~. T

statute cited by counsel K.S.A. 38-1 121{e) is applicable10 paternity cases. The Court does enter

judgment for all unpaid lemporary child support ordered in tbis case.

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

in tbe amount of SJ I 0 per month to be paid by the petilioner to the respondent in accordan

Ihe anached worksheet. The respondent shall provide health insurance and any uninsured h

care costs will be divtded equally The Coun will recalculate child suppon in cOMection W

custody order or upon mOllon of either party If there is a change in circumstances Respon

shall chum RikJo as her dependent for ,nco me tax PUflloses rn odd numbered yearsaM petItioner

8


9/9

sllall claim her in even numbered y.ears

10. In respondent'S closing argument, the claim IS made for S602 representing medical

bills of petitioner's cluldrcn from Ius first mamage that were "charged" to Ms DombroW3

ki The

Courl is uncenain whether or notlhese expenscs were paid by Ms Dombrows\u'S Insurance or

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

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

personally reimbursed for them is dcrued In the evcnt that Ms Dombrowski is claiming that she

her personally Assummg these expenses were paid by Insurance, the request th'll she be

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

11. The resmUning order previously entered in tlus case is extended for a periodof one

12, Each parry shall pay thetr own attorneys fees. Coun com are assessed against the

petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED

ty'ENTEREDthisaf(:: day of October. 1997. at Topeka, Kansas

Copies to:Don Hoffm anAinka KweliHarry MooreSheni KellerScon McKenzie

9

.." }.

1997 october 29 divorce -appealed -stay granted ks appealate court case no. 97-80304-a

Documents