PART III: UWY-FA10-4022992-S, SHAWN TITTLE V. SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE, JUDGE LYNDA MUNRO--DUMB AND DUMBER

I think everyone understands how important the custody issue is in a divorce.  And that any changes in custody should be made only after careful consideration of the circumstances. 

 

This is no less true in the Skipp-Tittle case. 

 

For the better part, it is well understood that Shawn Tittle had a very time consuming job, and that Susan Skipp, a teacher, was the primary caretaker of their children for the majority of the parties' marriage.  I don't think there was ever a dispute regarding this point, and Judge Munro touches upon it lightly on page 15 of her Memorandum of Decision dated October 16, 2012 where she states that "the father had been career driven."  As a result, the dissolution agreement of March 28, 2011 established Susan Skipp as the residential parent.

 

Yet, according to Judge Lynda Munro's summary of the case, on September 13, 2011, Judge Resha transferred sole legal custody, and apparently residential custody, of the minor children to the father.  This occurred approximately five and a half months after the dissolution of the marriage.  To me this would seem hardly sufficiently time for a substantial change in circumstances warranting such a change in custody. 

 

Initially, I assumed that some dramatic incident must have taken place in order to justify such a considerable change--perhaps some extraordinary incident where mother neglected the children, or where mother was involved in some drug or alcohol abuse or some kind of criminal behavior.  In fact, nothing of the kind took place. 

 

Here is how the change in custody went down. 

 

The dissolution agreement included several statements regarding how the parties in the case were not to make negative remarks about the other parent to anyone.   Of course, that, in my opinion, is a bit of a setup.  When the opposing side insists upon such extraordinary detail about all the people you cannot make negative remarks to, naturally you are going to make a mistake. 

 

Just as a point in contrast, in my own dissolution agreement, I only have one such statement when it came to that particular point, because no one was trying to set me up--at least when it came to that.   

 

In May of 2011, Shawn Tittle was involved in the DUI incident where he tried to escape the scene of an accident without properly reporting to the police.  Subsequent to that incident, Susan Skipp apparently called her father-in-law to discuss what happened.  Boom--they got her!  As Judge Munro reports in her summary, "Reflecting on the specificity in the custody provisions, the trial court noted that the mother violated them by contacting the father's father and the court found that she 'made negative, derogatory, mean-spirited and vindictive comments to him.'  This violated the court orders of the judgment." 

 

You see, without all that lovely specificity which Shawn Tittle insisted upon including in the dissolution agreement, Susan wouldn't have been in so much trouble!  And, of course, we all know that, when it came to what Susan said, the report of a former father-in-law is going to be completely reliable and trustworthy--NOT! 

 

This decision to give Shawn Tittle sole custody was made even though at the time the incident occurred, this was prior to any real work getting under way with the parent manager, Dr. Howard Kriger.  It was also prior to the completion of the Family Relations Report which was only submitted the following year on March 2012. 

 

I don't know, just common sense wise, at the time of dissolution, the parties' emotions are still riding very high and it takes sometimes over a year, or even more, for them to calm down, particularly if there has been considerable high conflict.  Would it have been possible to give Susan Skipp a bit of a break, a bit of time to allow some counseling to kick in before snatching the children from her grasp at the first sign of a minor infraction?  Or was the whole thing a setup in the first place?  

 

Judge Munro reports that Susan Skipp's conversation with her father-in-law "violated the court orders of the judgment", i.e. not to speak badly about the other party.  

 

Of course, I am pretty much certain that Susan was in a similar position to many protective mothers--fathers are allowed to violate the court orders of the judgment repeatedly, fathers are never held accountable for anything that they do, fathers are excused from any kind of abuse and wrongdoing, but mothers? 

 

Mothers are held in contempt for blinking an eyelid--seriously.  I would like a run down in the Tittle/Skipp case as to how many times Shawn Tittle violated the court orders of the judgment.  I'll bet it was plenty of times and he was never held to account the way Susan was.  

 

I can only begin to imagine what a terrible blow it was to Susan to lose residential custody of her children--and not only residential custody, decision making as well. I can just imagine how desperate she felt.  And I'll just bet she sent more single sentence emails than ever before after it happened!

 

Then, a few months later, on December 19, 2011, the Court suspended all of Susan Skipp's child support and alimony until further order of the court.  My understanding is that the reason this happened was Susan was accused of putting nasty comments about Shawn Tittle's professional capabilities on the internet. The GAL, Mary Brigham presented testimony to the effect that, as a result of these comments, Shawn Tittle had lost his job and was now unemployed and could not afford the payments.  The trial court made its decision based on that testimony. 

Susan Skipp has acknowledged that she put a remark on the internet in August 2010 prior to dissolution which she took down, but that was well before the December 2011 court date.  In any case, people say things during marital disputes, particularly during a divorce; I am not sure why that would influence Danbury Hospital a year later.  But if it did, I would have wanted to hear from them directly, and not through the GAL.  In addition, I am not sure it was the GAL's business to investigate this matter or get on the stand to testify about it.  Isn't she supposed to be focusing on the children? 

 

The  bottom line is, however, that the GAL's testimony was based upon hearsay, which is very shaky evidence.  How can the GAL, Mary Brigham, possibly know what was on the minds of the Administrators at Danbury Hospital when they fired Shawn Tittle, if they fired him.  Did she have a letter from those administrators?  No.  Did she have a sworn affidavit from these administrators?  No.  Anything at all?  Well, no.  From my understanding, all she had was Shawn Tittles' sayso, which does not seem very objective to me. 

 

If you are going to suspend a persons' income, it seems to me that in a court of law you should have something more than just hearsay. 

 

Of course, this court ruling led to a considerable loss of income for Susan Tittle and placed her in a financial crisis, and the first result of that would obviously be that she was unable to pay her legal counsel.  I'll just bet she fired off a few more single sentence emails expressing her anger after that trial court hearing! 

 

And don't forget that from December 2011 up until the present, Susan Skipp's child support and alimony are still suspended, long after the judgment of October 16, 2012.  I mean, do they ever intend to handle this issue? 

 

I guess if you are a well paid judge with a steady income, you might become insensitive to people who actually depend upon their child support and alimony to pay their bills. 

 

On top of that, at the September 2011 hearing before Judge Resha, Susan Skipp was ordered to pay GAL fees to the tune of $1,000 per month. By the time the December hearing came up, Susan had failed to do so (And actually, thank God she didn't since the court eventually took away her child support and alimony).  As a result, she was held in contempt and ordered to pay around $3,000 in attorneys' fees. 

 

And, again, this shows a lack of equality in terms of how Susan Skipp was treated in contrast to her ex husband.  First of all, the GAL filed this motion for contempt against Susan Skipp regarding her attorney's fees when, as a GAL, she is not supposed to be filing motions as far as I know. 

 

Second, Shawn Tittle was just as much in contempt in regard to paying the GAL, but no motions of contempt were filed against him. 

 

In fact, at the time of the August 2012 trial, both Shawn Tittle and Susan Skipp owed the exact same amount to the GAL.  If you look at page 20 of the October 16, 2012 Memorandum of Decision written by Judge Lynda Munro it states, "The guardian ad litem is owed substantial amounts of money by both parties."  And she further states that there is "a balance due from Ms. Skipp of $38,230.30 and from Dr. Tittle a balance of $38,580.81".  In fact, it looks as though Shawn Tittle actually owed more.  

 

So why was Susan Skipp targeted for punishment and fined, but Shawn Tittle was not? 

 

In her Memorandum of Decision, Judge Lynda Munro expresses herself as puzzled in regard to Susan Skipp's behavior.  What motivated Susan Skipp to act the way she did?  Why did Susan say the things she said?  

 

Since Judge Lynda Munro appears to struggle so greatly and is so incapable of thinking the answer through.  Let me suggest a few.  Perhaps the fact that Susan Skipp was treated in such a grossly unjust manner, could be one possibility?  The system was rigged?  How about the completely lawless behavior of a trial court sworn to up hold the law.  Or, how about another, perhaps because Family Court reached out and stole Susan Skipp's children as well as considerable assets from her under false pretenses? 

 

Choose any one of these, and you are probably right.  More on this later...

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/uwy-fa10-4022991-s-shawn-tittle-v-susan.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-ii-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-iv-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-v-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html