THE BOYNE CASE: PAUL BOYNE V. HEATHER BOYNE 2007

To be honest, I have only recently taken the time to look at the Boyne case to determine what is the basis for blogger Paul Boyne's anger towards the CT Family Court system.  I did not assume his case was the initial motivation because there is so much wrong with the CT Family Court system, you can become enraged by its actions without ever being a party to a case.  Nonetheless, as I found out, Paul Boyne did have a very difficult family court case which could be the basis for his ongoing anger and disillusion.  

The Boyne divorce took around two years from November 2, 2005 to June 25, 2007 which is pretty standard for contentious divorces, although clearly a whole lot of action took place post-judgment both in Connecticut and New York.  FYI, I'm going to just write down my ongoing impressions of the decision in this Boyne case as they occur to me.  As I've said before, I can't do the fine tuning I'd prefer to do in my written work because of my current life circumstances.  So I hope you will cut me some slack for that.

The first point I noticed is that there is a "Memorandum of Decision" in this case. This means that the case went to trial on October 3-4, 2006 and again on November 1, 2006 and March 1, 2007.  At the trial, according to the Memorandum of Decision, "The parties presented testimony and introduced documentary evidence.  The Court, after hearing the testimony and reviewing the exhibits and proposed orders" drew conclusions and formulated orders applying to custody and financial arrangements post divorce.  Given that all of this testimony and documentary evidence came before the Court, what is striking about this Memorandum of Decision is how little of this evidence made its way into the decision.  If I didn't know better, I might think this Memorandum of Decision is actually a Memorandum of Understanding or some kind of agreement between the parties because it is written more like an agreement.  

In fact, a later custody decision in New York state includes some discussion of the Memorandum as an agreement with Paul Boyne insisting it is not an agreement. I mean, I get that.  Some so called agreements are forced upon the parties.  However, this document is not referred to as an agreement, but it still reads like one.  How, you might ask?  It does not have the backup evidence from testimony and documentation which would ordinarily be used as the basis for the judge's decision.  Also, it doesn't have the kind of explanations for how the law applies to the decisions made in the Memorandum of Decision that you would ordinarily expect. For me, this is a major red flag. 

In any legal document there is the surface intention, and then there are all the unspoken issues and political machinations which remain underneath the surface.  Whenever you get a legal document that is not in conformity to other similar documents, there is something wrong.  So right away I have concerns about what is going on in this case.  Of course, I can't go beyond the documents to speculate what that might be.  I've had people get angry at my work because I strictly limit myself to the evidence at hand. I don't listen to gossip or speculation and I'm not moved by a lot of razzle dazzle.  This is not the intention of my work.  I'm interested in finding the problems and pointing out where further investigation might be helpful.  

Here is one area in the Paul Boyne case.  The Memorandum of Decision states that Paul Boyne is an engineer and that he has had 11 jobs in 16 years.  I would like to know why.  What is going on here?  Is there some background factor which has led to frequent job changes such as challenges in his area of employment?  Does he have some kind of personality disorder which makes him a difficult employee?  All of this should have been investigated.  The Memorandum of Decision also states that Paul Boyne had "substantial mood swings."  Who said that?  His estranged wife?  It would be standard in a divorce case, for both parents to take psychological evaluations to determine their mental health status.  If Paul Boyne had bipolar, which this observation seems to hint at, then the Court should have ordered an examination.  If the Court ordered such an examination and Paul Boyne refused to take one, then that should be mentioned as well.  All these kinds of details are very helpful when it comes to a later Court, and there were many in this case, making any kinds of determinations.  

The Court continues on to say that when it came to the proceedings, "the defendant's hostility was palpable."  Why?  What was going on that Paul Boyne, right at this early stage of what came to be a multi-decade critique of the CT Family Court, felt such hostility to the point that some Family Court vendors resigned and didn't want to be part of the case?  Whatever it was is not said. I know that on some level, by not explaining, the Court doing that universal gesture of circling a pointer finger around the ear and implying we have a crazy person here.  But that kind of action is not helpful to the successful resolution of a Court case and now we can see the final results of doing so in the current cyberbullying case against Paul Boyne.  

If there is a problem, the Court has to say what it is, put a name to it, otherwise we are all left guessing and my radar is saying this is the kind of ADA case which violates federal law.  If Paul Boyne had a disability it needed to be addressed.  But we don't know, do we, because of how the memorandum is worded.  

Moving on, the custody arrangement in the Boyne case is extraordinary in that it gives Heather Boyne sole custody of the parties' four minor children and states that "The defendant shall have no visitation with the minor children, except at the discretion of the Plaintiff and initiated only by the Plaintiff."  These are extraordinary orders and would never be put into place in the present day.  Not only are such orders illegal now in Connecticut, but they are also illegal in New York where Paul Boyne appealed the case.  

Upon reviewing these orders, the New York state Court observed, "There is no order of protection of which this Court is aware--a circumstance confirmed by counsel this date--which prevented the father from contacting the mother to request or arrange for visitation.   Nor has the father alleged that the mother rebuffed or otherwise denied any such efforts."  Still, these are profoundly humiliating orders for any divorced parent placing total control in the hands of one party.  The wisdom of doing any such thing at any time is questionable as subsequent Court decisions have stated.  

The remainder of the Memorandum of Decision in the Paul Boyne case pretty much hands over most of the marital assets to the mother, i.e. 1. All educational accounts for the children are placed under mothers control; 2. Paul is required to quitclaim the marital home to his ex-wife; 3. Paul is asked to give his ex-wife $80,000 from his IRA; 4. Joint mutual funds go to the ex-wife; and 5. Paul is ordered to pay his exes attorney $15,000.  These are tremendous financial burdens which must have come along with the fees Paul owed to his own attorney which must have been considerable.  

Then Paul, on top of all that, was ordered to pay around $750 or so per week for the next 7 years.  That pretty much wipes him out financially is my best guess.  On top of that, the judge added an extra provision stating that "it is hereby further ordered that all of the obligations of this judgment are in the nature of support and shall not be dischargeable by either party in the event of a bankruptcy filing." All of them?  That is an extraordinary ruling! 

Further, the Court ordered Paul to guarantee these payments with a $500,000 insurance policy with the ex-wife and children as beneficiaries, and also to obtain a bond to cover these costs for the first year post divorce.  Meanwhile, what we have is a guy who has changed jobs 11 times in 16 years.  The Court acknowledged that in making its decision it was going on the basis of "earning capacity" rather than actual earned income.  Paul had only earned $41,000 in the three years leading up to the decision.  Still, this seems to me to be balancing an extremely heavy financial burden on a very fragile foundation. I say this recalling Paul's job instability and references to his mood swings.  All of this needed to be addressed in order to conclude the case in a realistic manner which would provide a pathway for both sides to regain their financial and emotional stability after the divorce.  This is the goal, not to burden either party so greatly that he or she is never able to recover.

The orders in this case, both custody and financial, strike me as extreme and impossible for Paul Boyne to follow through on successfully.  The better part of wisdom would have been to establish Court orders post judgment which were achievable for the parties involved.  I would expect some mention in the custody order of what steps Paul Boyne could have taken in the future in order to make it more equitable. I would have thought some mention of options for reducing child support and alimony if Paul were unable to get a job after reasonable attempts to do so.  Of course, more deeply, I would have expected some report by a professional evaluator as to what Paul Boyne's true earning capacity was. To me, this issue was not open and shut, given Paul's employment history.

There are many mysteries in this case. So much is left unsaid and unreported.  I will note that one GAL in the case stated that "she felt she was in fear of her safety by [Paul]" but best guess if she is dead today, this is not by Paul Boyne's hand and that was almost 20 years ago.  I've known this accusation of "fear of safety" by family Court vendors to be directed towards anyone who disagrees with them or who is smart enough to expose their flaws. I don't know what to make of it.  But so far, no one has died because of Paul Boyne.  I do think that the CT Judicial system has got to stop beating around the bush, jailing and legally persecuting people regarding issues the public is not fully informed about because Judges use the process of writing up decisions to conceal rather than reveal.