Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-01483 " ~ ~ \ f ~ '~ i ~ . ~ ~ 1 cu "t) ~ '--.. ~ --... I -.3 \:)- ::;l <~ ..... , '.,~ ~EVIN M. SANDERSON, plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA , 1. ., .' , v. NO. '7:. ._1 _ '/ i :I .:. ;.1.' L.K kl4'''- CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOPE M. GUERNSEY, IN CUSTODY , 'i Defendant. : COdLAIII'J! I. CUSTODY AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, KEVIN N. SANDERSON, by and through his attorneys, MANCKE, WAGNER, HERSHEY' TULLY, and files the following Complaint in custody: 1. The Plaintiff, KEVIN M. SANDERSON, is an adult individual currently residing at 6280 Carlisle Pike, Lot 28, Mechanicsburg, CUmberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The Defendant, HOPE N. GUERNSEY, is an adult individual currently residing at West North Street, Carlisle, CUmberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff seeks custody of Tobin Sanderson, born 11/4/82, London C. Sanderson, born 1/26/84, and Tristen Sanderson, born 8/12/86. There present address is West North street, Carlisle, CUmberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. The children were born during wedlock. 5. The children are presently in the custody of the Defendant, who resides at West North street, Carlisle, CUmberland county, Pennsylvania. 6. During the last five (5) yoars, the children have resided with the following persons at the following addresses: (a) from 1986 until November of 1995, with the Mother at 136 East Penn Street, Carlisle, CUmberland County, Pennsylvania; (b) from November of 1995 until the present, with the Mother at West North Steet, Carlisle, CUmberland County, Pennsylvania. 7. The mother of the children is the Defendant currently residing at West North street, CUmberland County, Pennsylvania. She is single. 8. The father of the children is the Plaintiff currently residing at 6280 Carlisle Pike, Lot 28, Mechanicsburg, cumberland County, Pennsylvania. He is married. 9. The relationship of the Plaintiff to the children is that ot father. Plaintiff currently resides with his current wife. 10. The relationship of the Defendant to the children i. that mother. Defendant does not resides with anyone except for the children. 11. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or a witness, or in any other capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody of the children in this or another court. minor children shall be in accordance with the following: i. From August 22, 1996, through August 25, 1996, at 2:1)0 p.m., with Father; ii. From August 25, 1996, at 2:00 p.m., until September 1, 1996, at 2;00 p.m., with Mother; iii. From September 1, 1996, Bt 2:00 p.m., until SlIptember 8, 1996, at 2:00 p.m., with Father. iv. Thereafter, the children will be primarily with the Mother except that they will have periods of partial custody and visitation with Father in accordance with the following schedule: A. On every Wednesday until Thursday morning, from Wednesday after school until Thursday at which time Father will deliver the children to school; B. On alternating weekends beginning on Friday after school until Sunday at 7:00 p.m. This alternating weekend schedule to begin on September 21, 1996, and alternating thereafter. C. The parties agree that they shall submit themselves and the children for two sessions with a mediator/counselor who is to determine whether or not the schedule contained in this order is 4. Issues yet to be resolved: The final custody of the children. 5. The Plaintiff's position on custody is as follows: Plaintiff indicated requested that the older boy live with him and the other children have a week-on, week.off situation. He indicated that the children had expressed that they wanted to have that type of living arrangment with him on a number of occasions. 6. The Defendant's position on custody is as follows: Defendant indicated that the children have expressed a desire ,to stay with her primarily during the school year. They tried a split schedule over the summer, but did not like all of the back and forth. Therefore, she proposed a schedule that would provide for every other weekend and one evening during the week overnight. 7. Need for separate counsel to represent children: Neither party requested. 8. Need for independent psychological evaluation or counseling: See attached Order. 9. A hearing in this matter is expected to take one-half day. 10. Other matters and comments: This is the second conciliation conference that we had with the parties. There was an attempt over the summer months to evenly split the time with the children so that the children would be with both parents over the course of the summer. The children include a fourteen year old, a twelve year old, and a nine year old boys. Apparently, the Father was somewhat surprised at the conciliation that the boys, particularly the oldest, 2 indicated that they did not want to be going back and forth so much during the school year and that they wanted to live primarily with Mother, subject to the schedule that is in the report. The Conciliator felt that it would be useful to have the indivi,t;luals go to at least two mediation or counselling sessions so that both parties could determine, for themselves, whether or not there was any pressure being exerted on the children, or wether or not their feelings were sincere. Both parties seemed to agree that they will comply with the children's desires in terms of the schedule, particularly the oldest child. As a result, the COf'lciliator felt that if each parent had the boys for one week and went to two sessions while the children were in their custody, that they could get a true feeling for the boys' desires. Thereafter, the Conciliator felt that it was important to get the boys on a schedule for the school year. The schedule as indicated in this order provides for regular, consistent contact with the Father during the school year. Hopefully, the mediation sessions will make it clear to the parties what the schedule should be and there will not be a need for a hearing. If the parties ultimately want to go to a hearing in this case, it should not take very long, and the Conciliator is quite certain that the children will have a strong opinior. as to what type of arrangement they want during the school year, particularly the oldest son. Date: 28 August 1996 Michael L. Bangs Custody Conciliator / 3 .' ~ i I I i ;; III ~ C ~ S ~ < ) . ~ g::jh ~ . ,.. J ~ " r;; r ! ~ ,J ~ III C&.I ~ ; s .. H ~~ o ~ g = ,.. .. ~ ~ ". I, 'II", "n . "". n ("":, j M . . t ( fLJ'.q\.;J "- t., \.J '..' ,) '.f _.' .~; _ "-~ o~ "'> ~~ ~~~ ~ Z ~ '" ~ I- '" OL1l:5 L1l '" > ::J~~ ~c., I- '" '" ~ M "Z > ....I w.; 'r. . f-o -..,. 0>0 Cl :> 2 :;: Z ~ ~Vl.:>Q' 0 ~ -r,".,..!:: ~ u~;::: l- V < c ^ ~a<,;, "-:>u Vl "J: ;; ~ - ,'J 00< :> :::E Q: 0 ~ ~5:~~ u M I-U~ '" '" f-tJJ"':' :!: Z C. 1#1.....l- ~~- ~ :> 9 o~:a'" o U ;:J ~ U ~o~ ~~ :>- cr: U ~:> .' U ') . , . I