Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-01108 ,-..5 (,;'- " ! , , I 11 r I I I~ t J ~ J ~ .'J ~I ;',i ~ \"- ' JEFFREY L. GOSSARD, I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS I CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff I I NO. I v. I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW DIANA K. GOSSARD, I . . Defendant . IN CUSTODY . PETITION TO CONFIRM CUSTODY AND NOW, this 27th day of February, 1996, comes the Plaintiff, Jeffrey L. Gossard, by and through his attorney, Joseph J. Dixon, Esquire, who respectfully avers as fo1lowSl 1. The Petitioner is Jeffrey L. Gossard, an adult individual who resides at 5405 Laurie Lane, Enola, Cumber.land County, Pennsylvania, 17025. 2. The Respondent is Diana K. Gossard, an adult individual who resides at 512 Enola Road, West Fairview, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17025. 3. The Petitioner and Respondent are husband and wife. They were married on July 18, 1992, and separated on January 2, 1996. 4. One child was born of this marriage, Megan L. Gossard, born January 30, 1994. '. \, ,I. I I \ J "I " . I. I I \.'c .\ \'L.', J' \ \ " ,\..,. \ \., L , I,., "r I ) a regular basLI. 7, On or about February 17, 1996, the father fraudulently took the Chlld from the child's aunt's home where she was visitlng, and sipce that tlme, the father has refus~d t.he mother any and all contact wlth the ChLld, The father also refuses to tell the motber who the chlldcare provider is while the father is at work. 8. In splte of repeated efforts to contact the child by telephone, including calls to the paternal grandparents and the father, the mother has no knowledge of her child's whereabouts. 9. The mother fears physical abuse from the father if she goes to the father's residence to retrieve the child since there has been a history of physical abuse in the relationship. 10. The mother has concerns for the well being of her child for reasons including the following: a. To the best of the mother's knowledge, the father had heen living in a single family home where eight people resided. Besides the crowded conditions, the mother understood that several occupants of the home were involved in criminal behavior including illegal drugs. b. According to the father's recently filed Petition, he has taken the child to his parent's residence, but the mother has been unable to verlfy this since no one will communicate with her. c. Since the child's blrth, the mother has been the prima~y caretaket. It is not in the Chlld's best interest to be isolated from the mother. d, Knowing that she would have to be in contact with the father and fearing fur her safety because of the physical abuse which occurred in the presence of th~ child, the mothor sought legal representation from Legal Services, Inc. on or about March 7, 1996, and filed a protaction From Abuse Action against the father on March 12, 1996, No. 96- 1341, e, The mother has concerns for the safety of her daughter because of the father's temper which was displayed in ways including, but not limited to, the fOllowing: Shoving food into the child's mouth causing her to choke, chasing after the mother at high rates of speed with the child in his car, and physically abusing the mother in the presence of the child. 11. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child would be met if custody was returned to the mother for reasons including the following: a. The mother has been the child's primary caretaker and can continue to provide for the child's physical and emotional needs including a stable environment. b. The mother has in the past and will continue to facilitate contact between the child and the father. c. Since the child's birth, the mother's work schedule has been such that she cared for the child every day, and when the mother worked, the maternal grandparents cared for the child. d, The father has not acted in the child's best JEFFREY L. GOSSARD, I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS I CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff . . I NO. 96-1108 CIVIL TERM v. I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW DIANA It. GOSSARD, I I Defendant . IN CUSTODY . ANSWER TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, this 19th day of March, 1996, comes the Plaintiff, Jeffrey L. Gossard, by and through his attorney, Joseph J. Dixon, Esquire, who respectfully responds as followSI 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiff is unable to ascertain the truthful of this averment. By way of further answer, on March 7, 1996, the Defendant filed legal documents indicating her address to be 512 South Enola Road, West Fairview, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17025. By way of additional further answer, the Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the address of 190 Johns Street, Lykens, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, is the address of the Defendant's sister. It is the Plaintiff's understanding that the Defendant's sister lives at this residence with her husband and three children in a three bedroom apartment. 2. Admitted. By way of further answer, the Plaintiff has resided at his residence at 5404 Laurie Lane, nnola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, with his parents, Russell and Lois Miller, since the date that he filed his Petition to Confirm Custody, or February 27, 1996. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff filed a Petition to Confirm Custody to confirm his custody of the minor child. By way of further answer, the custody conciliation conference has been rescheduled to April 25, 1996. (See copy of Court Order attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A"). 5. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the parties became separated on January 2, 1996. It is specifically denied that any incident of physical abuse occurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. It is admitted that the minor child remained with the Defendant at that time. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied. To the contrary, the Defendant took a week's vacation from work during the week of February 18 through February 24, 1996. During that week, the minor child was shuttled to various babysitters. It is the Plaintiff's understanding that the 2 Defendant did not spend a substantial amount of time with the minor child during that week. During that week, the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant's sister, Brenda Leitzel, who was babysitting at the time. At that time, the Plaintiff made arrangements to pick up his daughter and keep her in his custody. By way of further answer, the Plaintiff communicated to the Defendant at that time that he was going to take his child back in his custody. The Defendant indicated to the Plaintiff, "Go ahead. I don't f___ing care. I'll see her every other weekend and I can always go have another baby." 8. Denied. To the contrary, the Defendant knows that the minor child is residing with the father at his home with his parents in Enola. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiff is unable to ascertain the truthfulness of this averment and proof of same is demanded at trial. 10. (a) Denied. To the contrary, the Plaintiff is residing in a proper home environment with his daughter and his parents at their residence in Enola. By way of further answer, the minor child has her own separate bedroom and is doing rather well in this home environment. (b) Denied. By way of further answer, at least five separate sources of people have communicated to the Defendant as to 3 the Plaintiff's residence. Also, the Defendant has been served with the Petition to Confirm Custody papers filed by the Plaintiff indicating the Plaintiff's correct address. (c) Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that during the child's first year of life, the Defendant was the primary caretaker. She was not working at that time, and the Plaintiff was an over-the-road truck driver. However, during this last year of the child's life, the Plaintiff has been the primary caretaker of the child. (d) Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a Petition For Protection From Abuse has been filed at Docket No. 96-1341. By way of further answer, it is the Plaintiff's understanding that this Petition was filed in an attempt to discredit the Plaintiff's character for purposes of a custody proceeding. It is the Plaintiff's belief that the Defendant is not eligible for free legal services because she is a full-time employee of HealthSouth working as a Certified Nurses' Aide. (e) Denied. To the contrary, the Plaintiff has a close personal relationship with his daughter and has been helpful in nurturing her and teaching her about age appropriate developments in her life. By way of further answer, the Plaintiff never caused 4