HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-02411
~ I'
], r
~
~
f
~
\,
""--.....,
.,'
" ,
!
I
I
i
I
I
j
I
J i
I
J I
. '
J
_I
~~
~;
,
JOYCE KRETZING,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CHRISTINE KRETZING,
JAMES WALKDEN,
EDGAR ROCHE, III,
DEFENDANTS
96.2411 CIVIL TERM
I~ RI;: CI,ISTODY
OPINION AND OflOER OF COURT
BAYLEY, J., Jlnulry 24, 1997:-
Plaintiff Joyce Kretzlng Is the maternal grandmother of Ashton L. Walkden, age
8, and Jessica Kretzlng, age 10, Ashton and Jessica live with their mother, defendant
Christine Kretzlng who was divorced In 1992 from defendant James Walkden.
Walkden Is the father of Ashton, Defendant, Edgar Roche, III, Is the father of Jessica.
He was never married to Christine Kretzlng, Roche has had no Involvement with
Jessica and has not entered an appearance In this suit. Plaintiff flied a complaint
seeking partial custody or visitation with Ashton and Jessica, Christine Kretzlng and
James Walkden oppose that relief, Plaintiff relies In part on 23 Pa,C.S, Section 5312,
which provides:
In III proceedlnga for dlaaolutlon, subsequent to the
commencement of the proceeding and continuing thereafter or when
plrenta have been seplrlted for alx montha or more, the court may,
upon application of the parent or grandparent of a party, grant
reasonable partial custody or visitation rights, or both, to the unmarried
child If It finds thl! vlaltltlon rlghta or plrtlll cuatody, or both, would
be In the best Intereat of the child Ind would not Interrere with the
plrent-chlld relltlonshlp. The Court shall consider the amount of
~
~
l>!
"
96.2411 CIVIL TERM
personal contact between the parents or grandparents of the party and
the child prior to the application, (Emphasis added,)'
Defendants Christine Kretzlng and James Walkden challenge the
constitutionality of 23 Pa.C,S, Section 5312, maintaining that It violates the Equal
Protection Clauses of the United Stales and Pennsylvania constltutlons,2 In their brief,
defendants argue that Section 5312 "Is unconstitutional, because it Impairs the
fundamental right of a parent to raise their children as they see fit without a
compelling Justlflcatlon, and because there Is no rational basis for Its differential
treatment of children of married and divorced or separated Indlvlduals,"3 Although
asserting that they have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, and
that their equal protection challenge should therefore be subject to strict scrutiny or at
least a heightened standard of scrutiny, defendants otherwise maintain that the
decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania In Curtis v. Kline, 542 Pa. 249 (1995),
Is "legally on point." In Curtis, the Court stated:
1. Subject to the requirement that visitation or partial custody will be In the
best Interest of a child and will not Interfere with the parent-child relationship 1
grandparents may also seek contact with their grandchildren if a parent of an
unmarried child is deceased, 23 Pa,C,S, Section 5311, and when an unmarried child
has resided with his grandparents or great-grandparents for a period of 12 months or
more and Is subsequently removed from the home by his parents. 23 Pa,C,S,
Section 5313,
2, Pursuant to Pa, Rule of Civil Procedure 235, notice of the constitutional
challenge was served on the Attorney General of Pennsylvania who has not
participated,
3, A constitutional attack on Section 5312 was raised in Hili v. Dlvecchlo, 425
Pa, Super, 355 (1993); however, It was determined to have been waived,
.2.
96.2411 CIVIL TERM
The essence of the constitutional principle of equal protection
under the law Is that like persons In like circumstances will be treated
similarly, Leudenberger v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 496
Pe, 52,436 A.2d 147 (1981), However, It does not require that all
persons under all circumstances enjoy Identical protection under the
law, Jlme. v. SEPTA, 505 Pa. 137,477 A,2d 1302 (1984), The right to
equal protection under the law does not absolutely prohibit the
Commonwealth from classifying Individuals for the purpose of receiving
different treatment, Roblon v. Penn Hills School District, 63
Pa.Cmwlth, 250,437 A.2d 1273 (1981), and does not require equal
treatment of people having different needs. Houtz v. Commonwe.lth,
Department of Public Welf.re, 42 Pa,Cmwlth, 406, 401 A,2d 388
(1979), The prohibition against treating people differently under the law
does not precluda the Commonwealth from resorting to legislative
'classifications, Heisler v. Thom.s Colliery Co., 260 U.S. 245, 43 S,Ct.
83, 67 L.Ed, 237 (1922), provided that those classifications are
reasonable rather than arbitrary and bear a reasonable relationship to
the object of the legislation. Commonwealth v. Parker White Metal
Co., 512 Pa, 74,515 A.2d 1358 (1986), In other words, a classification
must rest upon some ground of difference which Justifies the
classification and has a fair and substantial relationship to the object of
the legislation, Id.
Judicial review must determine whether any classification Is
founded on a real and genuine distinction rather than an artificial one,
Equitable Credit and Discount Company v. Geier, 342 Pa, 445, 21
A,2d 53 (1941), A classification, though dlscrlmlnatory, is not arbitrary or
in violation of the equal protection clause If any state of facts reasonably
can be conceived to sustain that classification, Federal
Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc. _ U,S,
_, 113 S,Ct. 2096, 124 L,Ed,2d 211 (1993)i Dandridge v. WIlliams, 397
U,S, 471,90 S,Ct. 1153,25 L,Ed,2d 491 (1970), In undertaking Its
analysis, the reviewing court is free to hypothesize reasons the
legislature might have had for the classification. Federal
Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.;
Martin v. Unemployment Compo Bd, of Review, 502 Pa, 282, 466 A,2d
107 (1983), If the court determines that the classifications are genuine, it
cannot declare the classification void even If it might question the
soundness or wisdom of the distinction, Equitable Credit and
Discount Compsny v. Geier,'
We are also mindful of the different types of classifications and
the standards according to which they are weighed: The types of
classlficatlol1s are: (1) classificatior's which Implicate a 'suspect' class or
.3.
96.2411 CIVIL TERM
a fundamental right (2) classifications Implicating an 'Important' though
not fundamental right or a 'sensltlve' classification and (3) classifications
which involve none of these, Id. Should the statutory classification In
question fall Into the first category, the statute Is strictly construed In
light of 'compelling' governmental purposes; if the classification falls Into
the second category, a heightened standard of scrutiny Is applied to an
'Important' governmental purpose; and If the statutory scheme falls Into
the third category, the statute Is upheld If there Is any rational basis lor
the classification.
Smith v. City of Philadelphia, 512 Pa, 129 at 138, 516 A,2d 306 at 31 1
(1986) (citation omitted).
3, We are also guided by the principle that a strong presumption exists
that all legislation promulgated by the General Assembly Is
constitutional. 1 Pa,C.S, ~ 1922, See also Fed.ral Communications
Commlaalon v. B.ach Communlcatlona, Inc., aupraj Plowman v.
Commonwealth Opt. of Transportation, 535 Pa, 314, 635 A.2d 124
(1993),
In Curtla v. Kline, supra, a father challenged an order that required him
pursuant to 23 Pa,C.S. Section 4327 (Act 62), to contribute toward the costs of his
two children's undergraduate education, The Act provided Inter alia:
(a) aeneral rul.,.., . , a court may order either or both parents who are
a.parated, divorced, unmarried or oth.rwlse aubJect to an existing
aupport obligation to provide equitably for educational costs of their
child whether an application for this support is made before or after the
child has reached 18 years of age, (Emphasis added.)
Concluding that Act 62 implicated neither a fundamental nor important rlght,
the Supreme Court stated that the Act would be upheld If there existed any rational
basis for the prescribed classification of "[t]reatlng children of separated, divorced, or
unmarried parents differently than children of married parents with respect to the
.4-
96-2411 CIVIL TERM
costs of post-secondary education," The Supreme Court concluded that "[A]ct 62
classifies young adults according to the marital status of their parents, establishing for
one group an action to obtain a benefit enforceable by court order that Is not
available to the other group," In declaring Act 62 unconstitutional, the Court stated:
In the absence of an entitlement on the part of any Individual to post-
secondary education, or a generally appllcabla requirement that a parent
assist their adult children In obtaining such an education, we perceive
no rational basis for the state government to provide only certain adult
citizens with legal means to overcome the difficulties they encounter in
pursuing that end, (Citation omitted,)
. . .
The discriminatory classification adopted by our Legislature Is not
focused on the parents but rather the children. The question Is whether
similarly situated young adults, I.e" those In need of financial assistance,
may be treated differently,
Ultimately, we can conceive of no rational reason why those
similarly situated with respect to needing funds for college educEltlon,
should be treated unequally. (Footnote omitted,)
In deciding whether 23 Pa.C,S. Section 5312 violates equal protection under
the law, we are constrained to frame the question the same way the Supreme Court
did in Curtis v. Kline, supr.: whether the legislature actually has a legitimate interest
In treating unmarried children (1) of marriages In which there has been a proceeding
for dissolution or when the parents have been separated for six months or more, (2)
where a parent Is deceased, and (3) where the children have resided with
grandparents or great-grandparents for a period of 12 months or more and are
subsequently removed from the home by the parents, differently than children whose
parents are not so situated with respect to the standing of such grandparents to seek
.5.
96-2411 CIVIL TERM
partial custody or visitation, Sections 5311, 5312 and 5313 establish only the legal
standing of certain grandparents to seek visitation or partial custody. Such an award
must stili be In the best Interest of a child and must not Interfere with the parent-chlld
relationship, The classification adopted by the legislature Is not focused on the
parents, but rather the children. That focus is to provide for the protection of children
In non-Intact and non-functioning families consistent with not Interfering with the
parent-child relationship, Accordlngly, we are satisfied that 23 Pa,C,S, Section 5312
neither Implicates a suspect class nor infringes upon a fundamental right. Neither the
United States Constitution nor the Pennsylvania Constitution provide children with a
right of access to thalr grandparents, Likewise, the classification does not Implicate
an Important though not fundamental right. Consequently, Section 5312 must be
upheld If there exists any rational basis for the prescribed classification,
A dispute in Rowl.. v. Rowle., _ Pa, __, 668 A.2d 126 (1995), involved the
custody of two children between their mother and maternal grandparents, The trial
court awarded physical custody to tho grandparents, The Superior Court affirmed,
The Supreme Court granted allocatur to review the legal standard governing such a
dispute, In an opinion supported by three out of six Justices, the Court stated:
By clearly eliminating the presumption per .e, and mandating that
custody be determined by a preponderance of the evidence, weighing
plrenthood II I .trong factor for conalderatlon, custody proceedings
would be disentangled from the burden of applying a presumption that
merely beclouds the ultimate concern in these cases: the determination
of what affiliation will best serve the child's Interests, including physical I
emotional, Intellectual I moral, and spiritual well-being, , " [w)e now
abandon the presumption that a parent has a prima facie right to
-6-
96-2411 CIVIL TERM
custcdy as against third parties, , , , Thus, there Is no single overriding
factor; rather, courts should consider every fact relevant to the physical,
emotional, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being of a child,
Parenthood, though not paramount, will always be a factor of significant
weight. , " '[t]he parent-child relationship should be considered to be
of Importance In determining which custody arrangement Is In a child's
best Interest,' 'special weight' and 'deference' should be accorded the
parent-child relationship, and the relationship should not be disturbed
'without some showing of harm' or unless circumstances 'clearly Indicate
the appropriateness of awarding custody to a non-parent.' We adhere
to these principles, for, In general, parents have a deep, abiding
commitment to the weil-belng of their children, (Citations omitted.)4
The three judges who concurred with the result in Rowl.. which reversed the trial
court and directed a grant of physical custody to the mother with visitatlol' or other
appropriate relief to the grandparents, stated that they did not share the belief that the
presumption that a parent has a prima facie right to custody as against third parties
should be abolished,
In Bishop v. Pliler, 536 Pa, 41 (1994), the Issue before the Supreme Court was
whether a paternal grandparent of a child born out of wedlock may be awarded
visitation rights under Section 5312 where the child's father had no legal relationship
with the child or the child's mother. Two out of five Justices concluded that the
mother and father were "separated" as that word is used In Section 5312, Two
Justices concurred In the result which affirmed the trial court's grant of visitation to
4, In J.A.L, v. E,P,H., _ Pa, Super, __, 682 A,2d 1314 (1996), the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania held that during the period of time that a former lesbian life
partner lived 'Nith a mother, the partner had established a parent-like relationship with
the mother's child sufficient to grant the partner standing to petition for partial
custody,
-7-
96-2411 CIVIL TERM
the grandparent. Two Justices dissented; however, those Justices stili referred to the
standing afforded to grandparents as "[a] 'long overdue' statute with such laudable
ends and obJectlves."s The opinion In support of the judgment of the Court stated:
Nothing Is more central to the happiness of many people than to
look after the well being I and enjoy the society of, their grandchildren,
Indeed, the only Immortality most of us have In this life Is the promise
offered by children and grandchildren, After years of toll and worry In
raising one's own chlldren, grandparents look forward to the opportunity
of spending time with their grandchildren, of spoiling them, and of
passing on to them family history and the wisdom of ages. For too long
this natural right was denied statutory recognition and protection, Now
that It has been recognized, we find that the Act covers situations like
the one presented In this case,
It must be remembered that grandchildren, too, have the natural
right to know their grandparents and that they benefit greatly from that
relationship, Grandparents give love uncondltionally--without
entanglement with authority or dlsc::lpllne, and often without pressures of
other burdensome responsibilities, Children derive a greater sense of
worthwhileness from grandparentsl attention and better see their place
In the continuum of family history, Wisdom is Imparted that can be
attained nowhere else. The benefits derived by a grandchild from the
society of his or her grandparents have been touched upon by
psychologists and psychiatrists Including I most promlnently, Erik
Erickson, They are substantial benefits and should not be lightly
regarded by our judicial system. The contention of the Appellant Is
directly contrary to the purposes of this statute which Is Intended to
provide for best Interests of the child. (Footnote omitted,)
Given the statements of our appellate courts regarding the standing of third
parties In custody cases and the significance of the relationship between children and
5, "By 1993, all fifty states had enacted legislation generally designed to
'protect relationships that are important to the welfare of children' and provided either
specifically for grandparent visitation or generally for third-party visitations even over
the objections of the parents in certain situations." Theresa H, Sykora, Grandparent
Visitation Statutes: Are the best Interest of the grandparent being met before those of
the child?, Family Law Quarterly, Volume 30, Number 3, Fall 1996, 758, 753-763,
-8-
96.2411 CIVIL TERM
their grandparents, we conclude that unlike the facts In Curtis v. Kline, supr.,
wherein there was no rational reason why children similarly situated with respect to
needing funds for a college education should be treated unequally, a rational reason
does exist for treating children situated In less than Intact and functioning families
unequally with respect to their grandparents' access to them where It Is In their best
Interest and such access will not Interfere with the parent-child relationship, The state
has a legitimate Interest In furthering the best Interests of the children of non-Intact
and non-functioning families; therefore, equal protection Is not offended by the
attempt to protect those children who are In that disparate situation by allowing In
limited sltua~lons the fostering of the well-recognlzed, beneficial grandchild-
grandparent relationshlp,o Accordlngly, we will dismiss the challenge to the
constitutionality of 23 Pa,C,S. Section 5312,
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this '2",\ day of January, 1997, the motion of defendants
Christine Kretzing and James Walkden to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff seeking
6, Our conclusion would be the same even if we viewed the two classifications
established by Section 5312 as (1) Intact and functioning families, and (2) non. intact
and non.functloning families, and even if we applied a heightened standard of
scrutiny to Section 5312,
.9-
,
..
.
96-2411 CIVIL TERM
partial custody or visitation with her grandchildren pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. Section
5312, IS DENIED.
. ,1/
"'" Co"rt, 'i/ I
,- ,~
Edgar B, Bayley, J. /
Robert T. Klng, Esquire
For Plaintiff
John W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire
For Christine Kretzlng and James Walkden
:188
, ,
.' ,
, '
.1().
'.. 1"'\
j" V;
I' "
~I.\' " ,
I"
'1,( I
1'."
1,\,', ' , I
1. I ~, ;:\
, '.,
" .
~, I , (' 'I
"
, , J.
"
'.
~
s~ " ~
0
H
HU
"'''' ~~
1!5ffi
(:i~ -lj
~~ . ",!:tJ
<.1 z "~
~~ ,... Z " " ." 0 '" ~
j ,... H C C H C u :3
. ..... N .. .. .... .. '"
00 U" ~] .'" ....'" "''''
I~ Z C e1 @ C '"
f-<U Z", H '.... . " '" = 1
~ ....00 N .. ~~ "',... 0 U
HH " !S~ '" '"
0~:;6!;; ~'" ~'"
U N B z 0 z 0
I"'; H ;. '" 0 H ~
~el~o-l~ H ....
'" '" '" ~ H ~
H ~ H U H >~ 0
~ i ~ B ~ >~ >~ ;:E:
~ ..,
104......."., ~o'.un' "'.'~.t ~.' 4""1 ,.
011I.,.. OOA*"tllb.'U'fI.'nw
,
:'!
JOYCE KRETZING.
Plaintill'
: IN HIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYL VANIA
vs.
: NO, 96-2411
CHRISTINE KRETZING.
Delimdant
: CIViL ACTION.LA W
vs.
: CHILD CUSTODY
JAMES W ALKDEN
Defendant
vs,
EDGAR ROCHE. lll.
Defendant
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW. this
day of
. 1996. upon consideration of the
foregoing Motion for Reconsideration, and to schedule hearing. it is hereby ORDERED and
DECREED that all discovery requested by the PlaintilTis temporarily stayed pending disposition
of the constitutional delense interposed by the Delendants,
A hearing is scheduled for the _ day of
. 1996,_,_,M,in
Courtroom No, _' Cumberland County Courthouse. Carlisle, Pennsylvania for the purposes
of hearing and determining the constitutional detense raised by the Delendants,
The hearing scheduled for October 14. 1996 is hereby continued until further Order of
Court.
BY HIE COURT:
J,
9, The Plalntill' hIlS recently flied another discovery motion. a Motion lor Leave to
Engage In Discovery, which the Delendants have not responded to as of yet. that requests
discovery of an alleged Children & Youth Investigation, Delimdants oppose that Motion for the
same reBSon they opposed the lirst two,
10. In its Answer to the Complaintlilr Partial CustodylVisitation, the Delendants
interposed New Maller consisting 01: inter alia, a delense that the Plaintilfs claim for visitation
rights under 23 Po, C,S,A, Section 5312 were invalid os the statute is unconstitutional.
II, The Defendants base its constitutional argument on the recent decision of the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court. ('/lrlis v. Kline. Pa. .666, A.2d. 265. (1995) In which the
Court held that a statute requiring seplllated. divorce or unmarried parents. but not married
parents. to provide post-secondary education support lor their adult children violated the Equal
Protection Clause orthe Fourteenth Amendment, and was therefore unconstitutional.
12, The statute in question in this case, 23 Pa. C,S,A, Section 5312. makes a similar
distinction between divorced and separated parents versus married and intact families. and is
equally unconstitutional.
13. This is especially true where both parents in this particular situation are in agreement
that the Plaintiff not have any visitation rights with the children,
14, As a result of the serious and important constitutional considerations that need to be
"
, ,c,
;: 'I
I \
" 'j-I d,
"">lJ~ Y
'\ I';, ~!
1 !
,\
I,' "
, " "
I,:' ,(
,
" ,
,
"
,
I"
I
I
,..
JOYCE KRETZINO,
Plalntitl'
: IN HIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, I'ENNSYLV ANIA
vs.
: NO, 96-2411
CHRISTINE KRETZING.
Delendalll
: CIVil. ACTION-LAW
vs,
: CHILD CUSTODY
JAMES W ALKDEN
Delendant
vs,
EDGAR ROCHE. III.
Defendant
ORnER OF COURT
AND NOW. this
day of
, 1996. upon consideration of the
foregoing Motion for Reconsideration, and to schedule hearing, it is hereby ORDERED and
DECREED that all discovery requested by the Plaintiff is temporarily stayed pending disposition
of the constitutional defense interposed by the Defendants.
A hearieg is scheduled for the _ day of
.,1996, __' _.M. in
Courtroom No. _, Cumberland County Courthouse. Carlisle. Pennsylvania for the purposes
The hearing sched(jled for October 14. 1996 is hereby continued until further Order of
I
f
I
I
of hearing and determining the constitutional defense raised by the Defendants.
Court,
BY THE COURT:
J.
JOYCE KRETZING,
Plaintill'
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs,
: NO, 1)6.241 1
CHRISTINE KRETZING,
Defendant
: CIVIL ACTlON.LA W
vs,
: CHlI.[) CUSTODY
JAMES W ALKDEN
Defendant
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND TO SCHEDULE HEARING
r'" , " ( "
, c. , "
"1" '.')
,
I , 'J
,
\', , '..J
',/)
r , "'I
,:1
~ (' )
- ~ ~ ,) \,11"11
,I
. " ~ll
"" -~
vs,
EDGAR ROCHE, III.
Defendant
TO THE HONORABLE EDGAR B. BA YLEY. JUDGE
The Defendants, Christine Kretzing and James Walkden. by their attorneys, Purcell, Krug
& Haller, hereby move the Court to reconsider its Order of September 9, 1996, and in support
,
thereof allege the following:
I, The Plaintiff is the grandmother of the two children who are the subject matter of the
grandparent's visitation claim,
2, The Defendants Christine Kretzing and James Walkden are the parents of Ashton
Walkden, while the Defendant Christine Krelzing and the Delcmdant Edgar Roche, 1/1, are the
- ,
9, The Plaintill' hIlS recently tiled another discovery motion. 11 Motion for Lellve to
Engllge in Discovery, which the Defendants have not responded to as of yet, that requests
discovery of an alleged Children & Youth investigation, Delendllnts oppose that Motion for the
smne reason they opposed the tirsttwo.
10, In its Answer to the Complaint for Partilll CustodyNisitation, the Defendl1l1ts
interposed New Maller consisting of. inter alia. a defense that the Plllintiffs claim for visitation
rights under 23 Pa. C,S,A. Section 5312 were invlllid as the statute is unconstitutional.
II. The Defendl1l1ts base its constitutionalnrgument on the recent decision of the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Curtis v, Kline, PII, ,666. A,2d. 265. (1995) in whieh the
Court held that a statute requiring sepnrated. divorce or unmarried parents, but not married
parents, to provide post-secondary education support for their adult children violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,l1I1d was therefore unconstitutional.
12, The statute in question in this case, 23 Pa, C.S,A, Section 5312, makes a similnr
distinction between divorced I1I1d sepnrated parents versus married and intact families, and is
equally unconstitutional.
13. This is especially true where both parents in this particular situation are in agreement
that the Plaintiff not have any visitation rights with the children,
14, As a result of the serious and important constitutional considerations that need to be
addressed inlhis case, and given the likelihood of success of the delcnse, it is premature for the
Court to allow the I'lainlill'lo conduct discovery of pcrsonallllallers involving the two parents of
the children, and the children themselves. untillhe constitutional argument is determined by the
Court.
15. The Defendants therefore would request the Court to reconsider ils Order of
September 9, 1996, and stay the same, as well as lhe remaining discovery motions pending
determination of the constitutional defense referenced above. and in addition. to set a date and
time for briefing and argument to determine the claim. and to continue the hearing scheduled for
October 14. 1996,
WHEREFORE, the Defendants requests this Honorable Court to reconsider its Order of
September 9. 1996; to stay all discovery requested by the Plaintiff until such time as the Court
hears and determines the constitutional defense interposed by the Defendants; to schedule a time
and date for argument on the constitutional defense; and to continue the hearing scheduled for
October 14, 1996 until such time as the Court makes a decision,
Respectfully submitted,
BY
J 11 W. Purcell. Jr,
,D, 29955
1719 North Front Street
Harrisburg, I' ^ 17102
717234-4178
/"
-
J.-"',",
'"
,
"
"
"
,
':
ii
",
",
..
0"\1"
,I
\
" ~
~}J
)',1
if
"
{
'j,
'\
'.'
,I
,
}"
,..
I ,; )
;~(f~~'''''':'l"IJ ~li:;f'
,:':,!;~.,:.):.:~!.t.:::.J.:.'''II.I':' ~ !t~'
".
.. '!
, ,
" I
, ,
\
, , l
'; 'J
ii I' t
..1 <~
I f
I' (
"1
,..,
l). The Plulnlilf hus rllcently liIed unolher disl:overy mOlion, u MOlionliJr Leave to
Engage in Discovery, which the I>efeulants have not responded to us of yel, lhat requests
discovery of un lllleged Children & Youth investiglllion, I>elcndunls oppose that Motion for the
same reason lhey opposed the lirsltwo,
10, In ils Answer to the Complaint for Partial CustodylVisilution, the Dclcndllllts
interposed New Maller consisting of, inter alia. a defense that the Plaintitrs claim for visitation
rights under 23 Pa. C.S,A, Section 5312 were invalid as the statute is unconstitutional.
II. The Defendants base its constitutional argument on the reel:nt decision of the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Curtis v. Kline, Pa, , 666, A,2d, 265, (1995) in which the
Court held that a statute requiring separated, divorce or UIUl1arried parents, but not married
parents, to provide post-secondary education support for their adult children violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was therefore unconstitutional.
12, The statute in question in this case, 23 Pa, C,S.A. Section 5312, makes a similar
distinction between divorced and separated parents versus married and intact families, and is
equally unconstitutional.
13, This is especially true where both p,1rents in this particular situation are in agreement
that the Plaintiff not have any visitation rights with the children,
14, As a result of lh.:: seriolls alld 1I11portallt con.stitutil/llal ClllIsider,ninns lhal need to h.::
~'
.,.'
,.;
III ' ,
r' '
;~".'J.: I'
I ) .~ '" 'I
,', ,.l
,
'I
"
,i
... ~
t:1S~
I;~
~~:s
~~~
,
, l
,."
'It,
,
f !
I
"
, J ~
" .
.'rl
, \
I,
,,\; i
I,
i
.
,;.
4: ,
~
t
i
I
I
!
'"
II
~ ~ ~
i~~~ ~
..~ ~ \j
5 ~ ~ ~
1 ~
~
"
J
,
~, t',
~: ,l..
,.
,
,
, )' j
, ,
,
I .
I
, "
".1
, ,
ill
t"" '
,1~" ',/..1 t
\ ". "
,
"
(,
I,,)'
:\"
'"
\
'.1
L,
/
'':'(/,
.... "':'H ./
~,_..r
,
I
,
!
. ~ i
f ~ !
/~~ ~
')11
~
-
~
~ ~~
~ ~'"
~~I~
~oJ:l;:]
"'8g~
~:aNOi
"
,
"I I
ii,
,.l
~" ,
I j
"
,".,
t' .
'.. 1,
, . :.~~.
It fl'.J t
..,,{j
"
"
"
." '(' I f <
, f,~ "I' ~
'i';r(
'. ,
~
,.
./ ~
~; ~.
, "t~
;~.
_..Il. I
, .
I
.,lli
, '~
'<\",
i
I
,
, ,
, '
,~ \ I
, t
,
. "
.
~
(' '0
I ' ,
I I.
I
,
.' ,
,
,
..
,
I
I
\
,
I;
.
"
I,
I I,
;t' \ ,
' :i < , ,
r " ( ~,.
I
3
I
I
I (?
I
I
,
I
;
\'
>- >-
0: III
~~
!do:
z Q.
o.z
% w
~ ~
~~
C):I
~w
l/)C)
~~
~~
I
11:
1&.1
.J
.J N
0( I- 01
J: LiJ l')
c.c5 ~ ~
C> ~ ~
:l I- -
11: ~ ~
~ 0: .
. ll. C)
.J :I a:
.J I- :J
1&.1 0: III
o 0 !!l
11: Z a:
:J Q) ~
0. ~ :t
'-'_or"
,
.1
,.
(","
, I
~,.
t 11
"~I'
, "
.
,
, I,
..! il
,
, ,
,
, I
. ,
i
,
" '\
" ,
, I
" I
~(>'
..., 1',1
,.I \',. ,I!
:', ,~,,., I~ I i
. .. ~r.II,~
'.1\ ,I
.v; ,
, .
, I.
.
,
.'
,
,
.
.
I '"
, ,
"
:'
I, :
I Iii
'I
L.
I,','
.
""
'"
, ';
II.
"
\;1
,
1 "~
I.
I,'J
,
I,~,,',
;It':l
"1.,:-
'"J
~~ ~~
::!:.'i ~
i><
~~ Z '"~
0 ~
..... ~
z~~~ ~
~ H .., :: "
..
~i>< ~ ..... . e <
..... :.: " ~~ ;
. :s l
.... "'.. .. Z · l
U~,.l~ .... i:H " ~ 0 ~ ! "
. ..... -- '... '" ..... .
~ . t> i>' . .. N'O '" 0 H S 7 ~
o HiOl '" " ... " . " V -< jE "
8UO z '... ~~ ffi~ H ~
~ ... ..... '" 0 H
-<11 N.... f2 .. "'<11
8~~8 ...i>< iOl H
~ ~ :;jiOl ~S ~
o.l ",:;j :-
... <11""
is :ij o.l <Jl <11 Ul <11 Ul ~~
~ > ..... > ~ >
<11
"'MltIl~" 'CI"II~"'."I,""'''I''
0flI1IINO~ 0041....". fWOI1Ji'll1"l1'
10, Jessica Kretzing resided with the Plaintiff in name only, actually living with
her mother, Christine Kretzing, who was residing with the Plaintiff, The period of time
was for approximately the first 13 months of the child's existence, The child is now ten
years old,
11. The Plaintiffs claim to visitation or partial custody rights under 23 Pa. C,S,A.
66312 Is Illvalld as said statute is unconstitutional,
12, That statute violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of tho
United States Constitution I and similar provisions in the Pennsylvania Constitution,
13, Said statute allows grandparents visitation and partial custody rights only
when the parents of the child are divorced or separated, not under circumstances where
the parents consist of an intact family,
14, There is no legitimate basis or reasoning behind the classification of parents
into divorced and separated groups as opposed to married and intact families,
16, The natural parents of Ashton, and the defacto parents of Jessica in this
matter, are the Defendants Christine Kretzing and James T. Walkden, who are in
agreement that the Plaintiff not have any contact or Visitation rights with tho children,
as it is their belief that it is in the best interest of the children to have no contact with
their grandmother,
A. The Plaintiff shall have Ashton on alternate weekends commencing 6:00
p,m. Friday through 9:00 p.m. Sunday, The Plaintiff shall have Jessica every
fourth weekend, coinciding with visitation with Ashton. from 6:00 p.m, Friday
through 9:00 p.m. Sunday, It Is the intention of both parties that Plaintiff will
have Jessica every other visit that Ashton Is with his father,
B, Both Ashton and Jessica shall be with the Plaintiff one night every week
from 5:30 p,m, through 8:30 p,m. It Is currently established as alternating
Tuesdays and Thursdays however, the actual days may be modified by
agreement of the parties,
C, The Plaintiff shall have both Ashton and Jessica together for one va\}atlon
period of a minimum of seven days and a maximum of 10 days, such vacation
to occur at times when the children are not required to attend school, and
subject to the Plaintiff providing 30 days advance notice to the Defendant.
D. Christmas shall be considered a special holiday, and shall take
precedence over any dally. weekend of vacation, Commencing Christmas.
1993, the Defendant shall have both children on Christmas Eve from 9:00 p,m.
through Christmas Day 2:00 p,m" with the Plaintiff having both children from
2:00 p,m. Christmas Day through 9:30 p.m. Christmas Day, Such schedule
shall be alternated from year to year, The Delendant shall have both children
every Christmas Eve from 5:00 p,m. through 9:00 p.m,
....
E, Responsibility of picking up and returning the children shall be at the
respective residences of the parties. unless prior arrangements are agreed
upon.
F. Any modification to the above schedule may be agreed upon by both
parties, and will be placed in writing to the extent that is it practicable,
G. Both parties agree that an appropriate Order of Court confirming the
above Stipulation may be entered by the Court,
BOTH PARTIES HEREBY VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THE FOREGOING
STIPULATION FOR CUSTODY ARE TRUE AND CORRECT, BOTH PARTIES UNDERSTAND
THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 PA,
C.S. 54904 RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES,
Date: ' - I( H I) rrv-
.)
AMES T, WAL DEN
Date: 5 I ~ . ~ ~ 0l,lli)~ll10..d-i \..
CHRISTINE . AL DEN '"
Respectfully submitted,
PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER
I r'-"""""
7 I I
BY c.. \, .~--/
f n W, Purcell, J,. .-
, ,29955
1719 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 234-4178
Ii
'I;
'1,,1" " Jirj
1':;"1 '1'
I'!\'
'I !,.
'I 'I
. .
':'
I,
i
\
"
ii'
I
I'i
; ~ i ;
Iii:
/\;
1'1
, :!f
I:'
\i
',11'
"j
I; jl
I,
Ii
"I
"I',
,,,
1': /< L i' I"! ,ti' '
\,
.'
'<,'
11,1"
"\11 I!
"
I !,',
If j; 'il.
" r "11 r ; !-. ! ~ \
.. 1\ I ,
j Illi j
,I
; I' ',~),
! 1'\;\ l' t I '(. Ii! ,l.rJ
ii'
""
t','
q4/r~ ~
~v....Q. ,~ ,AJ~'
j.
,I 'I'
I,.,
),
I,
'11:
I,
;'i'
,)
\,
I'!,
'..1 I 'I II '" '\,"'1 ,! I Jlil
u! 'I \ , II I .
. ii' . , 1 "
lj, \ I, 1', I " 'I II,
,:,'i
. ,
4. The relationship of plaintiff to the children is that
of grandmother. The plaintiff currently resides with the
following persons:
Name Relationship
Elizabeth Kretzing Daughter
Michelle (Kretzing) Arnold Daughter
Robert Arnold Son-in-law
5(a) .
The relationship of defendant, Christine Kretzing,
to the children is that of mother. The defendant,
Christine Kretzing, currently resides with the
following persons:
William Keelin
Relationshi~
Li v ing together
~
5(b) .
The relationship of defendant, Edgar Roche, to the
child Jessica Kretzing is that of father. He
lives alone.
5(c) .
The relationship of defendant, James Walken, to
the Ghild Ashton Kretzing is that of father, He
lives alone.
6. Plaintiff has not participated as party or witness, or
in another capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody
of the children in this or another court.
plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding
concerning the children pending in a court of this Commonwealth.
plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the
proceedings who has physical custody of the children or claims to
have custody or visitation rights with respect to the children.
7. The best interest and permanent welfare of the children
will be served by granting the relief requested because:
a) It is in the best interests of, both, Jessica and
Ashton Kretzing, to have a relationship with their
maternal grandmother, the plaintiff, Joyce
Kretzing.
3
,,'
4. The relationship of plaintiff to the children is that
of yrandmother. The plaintiff currently resides with the
fol owing persons I
Name Relationship
Elizabeth Kretz.ing Daughter
Michelle (Kretzing) Arnold Daughter
Robert Arnold Son-in-law
5(0.) .
The relationship of defendant, Christine Kretzing,
to the children is that of mother. The defendant,
Christine Kretzing, currently resides with the
following persons:
~
Relationship
Living together
William Keelin
5(b) .
The relationship of defendant, Edgar Roche, to the
child Jessica Kretzing is that of father. He
lives alone.
5(c).
The relationship of defendant, James Walken, to
the child Ashton Kretzing is thattof father. He
lives alone.
in
of
6. Plaintiff has not participated as party or wj,tness, or
another capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody
the children in this or another court,
Plaint.iff has no information of a custody proceeding
concerning the children pending in a court of this Commonwealth.
Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the
proceedings who has physical custody of the children or claims to
have custody or visitation rights with respect to the children.
7. The best interest and permanent welfare of the children
will be served by granting the relief requested because:
r
a)
It is in the best interests of, both, Jessica and
Ashton Kretzing, to have a relationship with their
maternal grandmother, the Plaintiff, Joyce
Kretzing.
"
.
"
I
:'
3
r
WOOD Ii KING
Robert T. lUng, I.quire
Attorney 1.D. No. 74905
230 Lan.downe Avenue
Wayne, Pa. 19087
16101687-4668
.JOYC. IUlftUMG,
Plaintiff
COUllT or CC11.1~ PLU'
0' CUJIIlIIlLlUlD COUll'1'Y, .1IIII.YJ..vAIIIA
v,
CIII.TI.. IAaIIIMG,
Defendant
Civil Term No, 96-2411
and
.JlUIIl IfALItDD,
Defend.nt
and
IDOlA .OCaR,III,
Defendant
CHILD CUSTODY
A"IDAVIT 0' .IRVIC.
Robert '1', King, maquire, being duly .worn according to law, depoae. and
.ay. thllt he ie the attorney for the Plaintiff, Joyce Kretzing in the
abova captioned matter, that following the inability of the cumberland
County Sheriff'. department to make service on the defendant. .JAKlS
WALKDEN and CHRISTINE KRETZING he did on June 25, 1996 penonally make
.ervice of the Complaint and a Notice to Defend on the Defendant.
attorney, John purcell, Esquire who accepted service at the Law Offic.. of
Sun~ay Ii Sunday, 39 We.t Main St~e.t, Mechaniceb , PA 17055-6 0
Sworn to and .ub~ ibed
before me thia IFday
of rt, 1996.
~~f"
NOT PUBLIC t7
NOTARiAl. SEA.
KATHLEEN M MEYER, Notary Public
City 01 PtllltldelphllJ, PhtlB CO\Jnly
.~~~~~_~",.r::.i~~~~P!__t.L-l,(~l)~_
"
.
~.}
....
i ,-,
/.,
,
I,ll :::..: -
(, !
p; ,',
'I,. i:;,'
(j' ...:, , ,
r.', " ,il "
I, I ,
j
G~' r,' 'rlJ ,
I ~, ,:(.l.. ,
". l d
("J , ,
"
. .
'RlLIMIWARY OBJICTION RAISING INsurrICIIIT
I'ICIPICIT! or DlnlDUT ',LJUIIlfIJL' II" MATTIR
JUlD STRICT PRoor DIMAlfDID AT TRIAl,
2. Paragraph 7(b) of Defendant's Answer (a complete copy of
Defendant.s Answer & New Matter is attached as Exhibit "A") alleges
that "The Plaintiff has physically abused the mother of the two
children in the presence of the children."
3. Paragraph 7 ( c) of
Plaintiff has attempted
occaliion. "
Defendant's Answer alleges that "The
to kidnap the children on at least one
4. Paragraph 7(d) of Defendant's
Plaintiff has consistently attempted
authority of both parents."
5. Pa.R.C.P 1019(f) requires that "averments of time, place and
items of special damage shall be specifically stated."
Answer alleges that "The
to undermine the parental
6. Pa.R.C,P. 1019(a) requires that the material facts on which
a defenee is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form.
7. The aforementioned paragraphs of Defendant's Answer & New
Matter fail to set forth with sufficient specificity the location,
time or nature of the Plaintiff/Grandmother's alleged actions.
8. The aforementioned paragraphs of Defendant's Answer & New
Matter lack sufficient specificity to apprise the Plaintiff/
Grandmother, Mrs. Joyce Kretzing, of the issues to be litigated to
allow her to adequately prepare and assert defenses to Defendant's
allegations, and/or to identify and join any potential witnesses to
these alleged events.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mrs. Joyce Kretzing, respectfully
requests that this Court order Defendants, Christine Kretzing and
James Walkden, to more specifically plead the averments of
paragraphs 7(b),(c) and (d) of their Answer & New Matter.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mrs.
requests that this Court compel
proof of their claims at trial,
Joyce Kretzing, respectfully
the Defendants to provide strict
,) /J J cT1
/-~ ~-,,/
Rotiert T. King, Esqpire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Pa.Atty ID. 74905
230 Lansdowne Avenue
Wayne, PA 19087
(610) 687-4668
2
"'-'-',);
A. The Plaintiff shall have Ashton on alternate weekends commencing 6:00
p.m. Friday through 9:00 p.m. Sunday, The Plaintiff shall have Jessica every
fourth weekend, coinciding with visitation with Ashton, from 6:00 p.m. Friday
through 9:00 p.m. Sunday. It Is the intention of both parties that Plaintiff will
have Jessica every other visit that Ashton is with his father.
B. Both Ashton and Jessica shall be with the Plaintiff one nlgtlt every week
from 5:30 p.m. through 8:30 p.m. It is currently established as alternating
Tuesdays and Thursdays however, the actual days may be modified by
agreement of the parties.
C. The Plaintiff shall have both Ashton and Jessica together for one vacation
period of a minimum of seven days and a maximum of 10 days, SUC~I vacation
to occur at times when the children are not required to attend school, and
subject to the Plaintiff providing 30 days advance notice to the Defenciant.
D. Christmas shall be considered a special holiday, and shall t6i<e
precedence over any daily, weekend of vacation. Commencing Christmas,
1993, the Defendant shall have both children on Christmas Eve from 9: 00 p.m.
through Christmas Day 2:00 p.m., with the Plaintiff having both children from
2:00 p.m. Christmas Day through 9:30 p.m. Christmas Day. Such schedule
shall be alternated from year to year, The Defendant shall have both children
every Christmas Eve from 5:00 p.m. through 9:00 p,m.
'"
1l'"
':',,"
~ 4 ~
~" C :;.":
~ .. 3\
..:J
.'
1:5 -"
r 0: .., _.
C' N .' ~
(" ,,\
c. - )~
IJ ~!.: I}
~" ";'J :.2J
..."
.' '-? ~
(:) u'
. .., .
'- ....'
b:
;.:.. <"':
,.
I. " .~, l.... , <'
,
l . ') ~, I .. I
Ii.' -' . ~.
l .. .i
]'1 " ,-
1.'1 ,,}
" ,
c. , , C' .'
.. , I:)
.. I..
I :.
t...I .'
.. , . )
< ~~
H
~~ ~
z ~l2
~~ 0
.... ....
z ffi ffi H ~H
< ~~
H ~ ~
.... 0..
~ 0..... '" . 1;1....C'i . 2
. .... l;l ~ ~;
Ut;....1 ~ .... . ....~~ . ,
.......... .... '"' ... ... H ... H 0 ; 0
"'~~~>< .... N c:: c:: H c:: H ....1 ' .
. .
o ..... 0 "... I-< ., . ., .... ., H"'..... ~ ~
o U 10 z" ~"8 ei"8 "" ~OO l ~
~u Z~ ....... . c::
~~:::S8 N ., ~ OJ ~~ '" OJ :;:
H'" .... O~ 00
8 ;::';t; ~o.. e~ H....
00 H
1<3 ~ ~ ~~
~ ~~ '" :> '" . '" .~ ~.... ~
~ HH U '"' :> ~ ~B
>< ~ :>~
zpo~~ 0
H U Z u p.. .., ..,
. .
6. Denied as a conclusion of law. To the contrary, both parents are in agreelnent
with each other that It not be In the best Interest of the children for the Grandmother, the
Petitioner, to have any contact with the children.
6. Denied as stated. Respondents have claimed In the pleadings that "the
Plalntlit presents a detrimental Influence on both children as she is mentally unstable,
and irresponsible". This Is not sufficient reason to require an Order Involving all of the
parties and the children to a custody evaluation, If Plaintiff's mental stability is at Issue,
she is free to obtain any evaluation of herself she deems necessary. without prior Court
approval,
7. Denied. If It Is the Petitioner's purpose as stated In Paragraph 6 to disprove the
claim that she Is "mentally 111", that cost would best be borne by her alone,
NEW MATTER
8. Petitioner has med Preliminary Objections to the Respondent's Answer In New
Matter, which have not be"n resolved by the Court,
9. The Defendants have med a constitutional challenge to the underlying power
of the Court to award visitation rights to the Plaintiff in this matter. which has not been
resolved.
10, While styled as a request for partial custody/visitation, the essence of the
Plaintiff's claim Is for visitation rights with her grandchildren, since custody of the
children was resolved years ago between the Defendants,
11. It Is premature to order tho extensive evaluation requested by the Plaintiff In
light of the pending Preliminary Objections and Constltutionai claim, with the Intendant
costs that would ensue If the underlying statute is ruled unconstitutional.
12. An extensive custody evaluation is unnecessary In what Is essentially a
visitation case,
13. The Plaintiffs request for mental examination of the parties and the children
is a thinly disguised attempt by the Plaintiff to shift the costs of disproving an alleged
claim of "mental illness" on her part,
WHEREFORE, the Respondents respectfully requests this Honorable Court to
enter an Order denying the Petition for Mental Examination of the Parties and Children.
Respectfully submitted,
PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER
c ('---Z_.)
....... (
"" ~.'
BY ...." '_.J <..
/ Jo W. Purcell, Jr,
( , #29955
/ 1719 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
717-234.4178
I, \HOMI\CAM\OOC8\IfAt.IIDIH.ANS
..... f'"' "
tI; ,.-,
-c t...~ ' <~
I'
I' '/ . .
\t.1'~' ,'.
'.1..
l\'-'y ..
.. l :J
" ."
'T" " iO
If I,' I ".~
....-\ n. ,r~
W., u~ "
, ....
I, ,n .J
<oJ 'J' I~)
;:3
~ CJ
~~ ~:>o ~
Z ~~
0
..... <58
i~e !;;: ~
",,<Il ,
... ..... H . ~ ~
..... ..... .... ... ... "''''
<Il ... J'~ <= c:: ~ ~~
..... .... ., ., ~ :
U~....1 ~E: <= Z'<l "" .""
.... .... .... <= " .... c:: Z ~ oj
l&. ==- ~ . ., ~~ OJ .... OJ 0 H .
o .... <.'l..... ..... ........ ..... ~ ~
...8uJ:~ ZI>< ei~ .~ ... l ~
..... ~
~ .....0'" N ~ lo.l
8~~6B ... is o~
~ '"
~ ~ ......
1<3 H ~
r>.l '" 'I-< . ~~
i!l "'....1 r>.l :><Il :>tIl :>
.....,.. u .... ~
. ~ ~ i><
Z o~ 0 :il~
.
"'''''''~.'U).''L.' '.t~..'I' ". h..,~
OMMtO~ 'Jr)Al,hW", 'lI'JI' b.o', "v
I
!
i
I
I
I
I;
I
I
~
f
WOOD & KING
Robert T. King, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 74905
230 Lftnsdowne Avenue
Wayne, Pa. 19087
(610\687-4668
..________~_.u.._.. .,......_.._, .__ ._."..... __.__ __.__
COURT or COMMON PLIAS or
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PI.NSYLVANIA
I
JOrCE KUTUNa,
Plaintiff
v.
CHRISTIN. KUTIINa,
Defendant
Civil Term No. 96-2411
and
JAMJ:S WALKO IN,
Defendant
and
IDOAR ROCHI,III,
Defendant
CHILD CUSTODY
i
I
I
I
I
Assigned to Judge Bayley
______.1!.fi!aring Date: lQ/14/96. 1: 30
Motion for Le.ve ~JnClage ilLlLillitecl Medical Dileo"erv
Mrs. Joyce Kretzing, by and through her attorney, Robert T.
King, Esquire, brings this, her Motion for Leave to Engage in
Limited Discovery, pursuant to Rule 19l5.5(c) of the Pa.R.C.P.
and avers as follows:
1.
Movant is Mrs. Joyce Kretzing, an individual residing
at 267 N. Middlesex Road, Carlisle, PA 17013.
2. (a).
Respondent, is Christ.ine Kretzing, an individual
residing at 1815 willow Road IF, Carlisle, PA 17013.
2(b) .
Respondent, is James Walkden, an individual residing at
634 Gates Lane, Enola, PA 17025.
3(a) .
Petitioner, Joyce Kretzing, is the grandmother of
Jessica Kretzing and Ashton Walkden, agee ten (10) and
seven (7), respectively.
Responent, Christine Kretzing, is the mother of Jessica
Kretzing and Ashton Walkden.
Respondent, James Walkden, is the father of Ashton
Walkden.
3(b) .
3(c) .
4.
5.
The custody of Jessica Kretzing and Ashton Wa~kden is
the subject matter of this litigation,
Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the best
welfare and the interest of the childron would be
served by awarding their Grandmother, the Petitioner,
Joyce Kretzing, partial custody.
Movant believes and, therefor!:!, avers that the parties
ehould be permitted to engage in limited discovery
pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 19l5.5(c), because:
The caselaw of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
provides that this Court must consider the welfare
of the children's medical well-being.
B. Prior to the terminat ion of the
Movant/Grandmother' B relationship with her
grandchildren by the Respondent, Christine
Kretzing, the Movant was solely responsible for
providing for the medical needs of her
granddaughter, Jessica Kretzing.
Ii .
A.
C. On March 27, 1995, Jessica Kretzing's aunt, Elizabeth
Kretzing, at the direction of the Movant, Mrs. Joyce
Kretzing, transported her niece to the Dental Offices
of Dr. Keith Fisher, 1001 S. Market Street,
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. It was the custom of the
Respondent, Christine Kretzing, to have the Movant or
Elizabeth Kretzing provide for her daughter's medical
needs. Despite prior knowledge of the appointment, the
Respondent had her sister charged with a Class III
felony (Interference with the Custody of Children, 18
Pa.C.S. S2904). Said charges were dismissed at the
preliminary hearing stage.
D. In November, 1995 there was a brief reconciliation
between the parties. At that time, the Respondent
permittea the Movant to have her granddaughter, Jessica
Kretzing, examined by a dental specialist, Dr. Fred
Alba, 116 Cumberland Parkway, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055.
Dr. Alba found that, Jessica's upper jaw was
significantly underdeveloped. He advised that an
additional examination was neceseary in order to
ascertain curative measures. Furthermore, he advised
both the Movant and Respondent that failure to take
curative measures, while Jessica was still a child,
would mandate a surgical expansion of her jaw. The
child's next examination was scheduled for January,
however, the Respondent ignored Jessica's best medical
interest and failed to show up for the appointment.
The Movant believes, and therefore avers, that despite
2
. .. .
-,
JOYCE KRETZING,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CHRISTINE KRETZING,
JAMES WALKDEN and
EDGAR ROCHE, III,
DEFENDANTS
96-2411 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF eouRl
AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 1996, the petition for a mental
examination of the parties and children IS DENIED at this time. If, during the course
of the litigation, the court believes that such examinations are necessary to enter an
order that Is In the best Interest of the children, relief will be granted at that time.
By the Courl,
,I
/
./
Robert T. KIng, Esquire
230 Lansdowne Avenue
Wayne, Pa 19087
For Plaintiff
Edgar B. arley, J.
"
!
John W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire
For Defendants Christine Kretzlng and James Walkden'
Edgar Roche, III
25 South Enola Drive
Enola, PA 17025
:888
~~ ,~,~,(l ']/1.'&J~'(,.
WOOD & KING
lloblin T Kln8. r.~uJrc
Anornc) I.D No 719U~
230 Lan"JIlwno A\'cnuc
Wayne, ~A I~OK7
(6JOI6K7.46hK
Allolllll rlJrJ>JIIlUli/L._
- ......_..~-~,.._-----
COlJlU or (()M~ION I'U:AS 0.'
C'UMIlF.RJ.t\NlI ('OUNTY, PI:NNSYJ.Vi\/lJA
JOVCF KRr.TZING.
Plainlill
\.
CURlSTI!'i1: KRF.1'ZING,
llofcndlUlI
CI\ll Terlll :-l<), 96.2411
and
Ji\~Ii:S WALKIU:N,
L)e'cndam
and
CHILl) CUSTODY
mGAR ROCUr., 11\,
_....m._..__ll.cWuwu_--...._ ...
A..i&ne" III ,ludgc Dayley
.. ._.Ji~UJlW1;M 19!141'iQ~IJQ.P',~L_._
o RD.: R
AlIiD NOW. thi, __ day of __ _._" 19%, bll>cd upon the within
Petition for \lentlll Examination of the J'llrties and Children, it is her"by ORIH:RED that
Chistinc KreIling. lume> Wl1lkdcn. lcssi~a KleWI1l\ and Ashton Walkden shall rnllkc
lhernsclves available to appeal bdore Dr, ;-..Iicul.e llilt7. I"l examinatiol1 and cvaluatioll
concerning the custody ()f lCSli"'i KI et/il1io! and Ashton Walkdcn Th. ~ost of said
examination shall be eqlHllly appol1ioncd between the t()lIowin.~ parties. Joyce Kret/ing.
Christine Kretling and Jl1me, Walkdl,n Dr. Hiltz shall provide a copy of her rcport to
counsel not less than tell ( 10) dllyS prior to the date of a hearing on the meriu of the case
BY Tilt COURT,
1.
. . ~ JH mos mw
HJ
,1'-
3(c) ,
Re.pondetn t,
wlllkden.
Jametl Wl\lkdcn,
1() t.he father of Allht.oll
6.
The cUltody of JOIHlictl Kretzill<,J and IIshtoll walkden 11 thl:l
iubject matter of thill litigation.
Potitioller btllleveu .lnd tht~tofjLl)re aven that. the beBt
welfare ....nd tho int,erl'lRt of t.he chi ldr-en woulc.1 be served
by IIwerding thl'l.ll' Grandmor.htn', the I'otitioner, Joyce
Kret%ing, partiai <.:uRtady/villitat.lan.
The Re/lpol1dcntu haVA claimed that. thfl putietoner, Mrll.
Joyce Kretz 1 ng IIhou 1<.1 n()t. he gnlllt'J<J part [.11 cUiltody of
the chilutlm be,",,,,,,,, till.. Iii lnentllt Iy Ill. There io no
baoi8 for thiGJ r.111Im. tlowovet., ll1 ol:der to amplify thl:l
racord and provide th", Court. with imparti.ll exp",rt
testimony conc<!rnl.tHI tho bellt welfare and int....rest of
the children, t.he appointment. of 03 psychiatrillt. or
pjychologist ill <.!",uirllble and appropriote.
4.
s.
'I.
l:'etitloneI' believes find t.hct'ufule 6Vt!!I"1'l that. t.he cootlS of
the examination And n'pot't. r.hOllld bo borne equally (1/3
each) by the partius.
WHEREFORE, Petit. ion,)!' t'('''pfictfully l'oqu..,,)Lr. this HonoI'able
Court to:
a) Order the parties and t.he children t.o appear before a
psychiatr ist and/or psycholCJgiQt. 0 f the Court' I.l chaos ing.
Should the Court have no preference regflrding the choice of
tho pflYGhologi!lt/peychiat.dst., the petit.ioner request.s that
Dr, Nicoles Hiltz of New ~Hr.~a9~s PSYChiatric, Pgychological
and Therapeutic Servi.ces, p.C., 3300 N. 'l'hird Street,
Harr isburg, I'll 17110, be IIppointed as t.he eXlImining
peycholoqiBt. (A copy of c.1ocumentAt.lon faxod to Plaintiff's
counsel regarding New PflBsagcs and Dr. Hiltz's qualificationa
is attached os Exhibit "A").
b) Order the partieI'! to equally 11!3 each) bear the coots of said
examination and report.
By:
I/:.~) /} L~"
. (A--1x.{,J ,
'ifohm--T-. 'oK rig, Eeq ire
AtLorney for pet.itioner
l'enna. I. /). * 7490!)
(610) 687-4668
c)
Such other relicf a~ is necessary.
4
:: )13 53:<,)8 mw;: ,.. ,,:
. IillJ.'J",i!lCo
1411~
PAS~";E', . '~I;;ISC,OJ?~37
NQ,W)
Cllil4
Pag. 3
~xrr.RIE:NCE:
PlychQloq15t, New Passages, Harrl~;burg, PA
Provider ot various p~ycholoqi'^l services lncludln;
evaluatlons regardIng L:ogI1:tlve, edu<:etional, SOCial,
emoUonal, and behav:.ora~ func':.lcninq of lndiv~d,,~lG,
and comprehensive fo:~n~',c fami~y llvaluatior,5 regarding
v.l~~tatlon and custody i~uues. therapy for ~n.lldron,
adolescents, par\lnts, and tilJl\i 1 \et! .5 FrvVlded re\jdrd!ng
a variety of 188u65.
PsycholoQut, [nner Worxs, Ha=n;,;burg, I'll
Provider ot varIous psy~holcglcal 5erv.~e~ Including
evalulit.lons reqardln<;] cO<JniU"Jt, edllcratJ.or;nl, socIal,
emotIonal, and behaviora~ fun~tion!nq af lr:dlvlduall,
and cOlllprehenslv,' forens.lC famIly evaLufition:; reqard1nq
v1sitation and custody I~sues, Therapy for ch1Ldren,
adoh5c::entl5, p,ll:ents, aflli ta.mllies ~5 Ill:ovlr:f!d regarding
8 varlety ot issues.
Psycholo<]l~t, IUegler, Sr.ienvold , 1\!l:!lCC;~oiIr.'HI, ""r.nsburq, PA
PrOVider of various psycnolcglcal serVlces lncludlnQ
"villiu&tlons ugardlng cOC1rll~ive, cducat!.ona1. ~OC.li\l,
emotionaL, and beh~Vloral functloninq ot ind~vldua~s,
and superv1sed compr~hlH\Illve torl!lr.S1C farnil, QVill\lsbons
regarding visitltlon and custody l!lSU~5. Tharnpy tor.
ch.ldz:en, adolescent $. parents, and !anlll1 es was
provided regardlnq a varlety cf issues,
Schoal Psychologist, CORA SerVlces, "revoU, PA
Responsible tor compl:ahensive p3ychoe~acatlcnal evaluations
and facilitation or. special education sarvlctt tor students
in private and parochlal Bchoo~s withJ.n the Phlladelphia
are".
Cllnical Internship, Eastern $tiltft School and Psyc~.atric HDspital
R~spon51ble tor treatment o! .doi~5oent girLs lncLudinq
indiv1dual, qrOU[:l, and !Sl1<lly, PHcholo9~Co?l .vali.l.tlOn~,
and coneultat1ons wlth school p.r~onnel.
:: :m s me mw ;: ..
r,t;'
...
. . 41:
08'.&'S6
1'A$St<<!i ~ 'il I:? I ~E,tm2J7
Ml, f.t.8
1~11S
Pa;e 4
!'l.esearcr. Assl:stant. Ch~:drGn' s H')~;:at.lI:' 0: I:'hHadelph.iQ/T~mpl"
Univ.rslty D.p.rc~.nt uf Sporl41 ~ducat\on
Prcvldor of p~~cholu~lc~_ eveluatlons end oup~lftmcntQl
educational serv:ces fill: Long.term ~U:V1Vor:s of Chl :ohocd
cancer. Editor/Co-liut:;~'r or a ,::C'l1Itlvll-behllVIl'ltI11
treltrnen~ manual and re'A~lld ~eminnrs.
?fl.ESENTAT:C~S
FQltl~ly Dynam.l.cs - Guest ~p~..L ,.ItlCC on LIVE
Recognizing SlQns & Symptcll\$ of Chlld Aj'-.lse - Hdy SpIrit HOllp.:.tl~
ChLd Al:Juse Evaluatlon - Harusourg A.r114 ?sycr."logical .l\.uociatlo:\
Po,~:i\le Parlmtin:1 - Jewlsh ':-:lll\munlty C~r,tl!;, Hilrri5burq. I?A
ChLdhood Depression - Hel:berC Heover Parent 'reacher Orllolnuatl.on
Project r..r.ARN Cognitive Scraceq1119 - wory.~r,(,)p$ tor Tucher, F&rnJ.au,
~nd Children attect~d ty Ch~:dhood Canc~r - The Ch\:dren's
Hospital of f'hlladelphla and ,ernp~e '!I~l\T(.r~\cY r,epartmen'; o~
Specl~l E~ucatlon
Chi:dhood Caneer - Temple Un:V'ersi~i' Symponl''un cn Ch~ldhood CancH
Assessment - Temple UniYers~ty Ur.der;rmJ~.t$ SpeciaL Education Cla~u
"Hot HOU!1nq" The Effects of Hl<Jh .Pt.!ss'ue ?rellchoollng - Tell'.\He
University School P5ycholoqy Ccnt.~ence
PROFESS tONkt, AH::, IATlr.;t\:i
American f'syeholoqical AS5ociatic:\ - Member
National Aasor.iation of School PsychQ~oqists - Xember
Ponnsylvania Psycholcqlcal ^3aoci~tion . Member
Harr:sburg Axea Psychological A'scc1at~on . Member
Pr.:RSCNAL OlSTINCT.C~
:.lho'. Who amonq Stuc:l.nt$ Hi AAIi~,can CollQqos and Unlllersi.tlell
MI'ttMl:N1 1'0 PAll.T:CIPAiE: IN A COM<':\tIl!:N~lvt
CUST~O,{ !"'}I.l.UATIO~1
~ cOmptlilhlolnsive custody eva:L:at10n l.nl/olves ti!valuatic.Hl 01' each
pa~ental !lq~re, Careglv~t, 0< 31qnl'icMn~ pVL.vn living In the home
all will all <:I",ildren lnvolved. fn ocde: ~c do . ~"tr. obj.c~.l.ve and
comp:t1~e evaluation, (:oop@ra:1.on/l'u.tiC.lPil7,J.OCl trom eacn ot these
ind1vidlldllJ is es..r.Ual. n,El~e~ore, "one-sid,d" evaluat Ions will
not be conducted,
:: m 53X')8 mw ::
...
,..'
1"-
r;l0!
, . k'lA_ ;"'~"6
141,e
PASSAU~S . Ql..lo;.,rl.\'...37
I'(l. .:.ca
Q06
Paq. 5
G@nerally, ~ValuatlOn" may involve th~ follcwlng procedures:
-Written and/or verbnl contact wlch legal repre~~ntatives ~, each
I'arent
-Intake/Interview with e~~h parent
-Psychological, evolUllticn ef each parent 11C: MMI'I, Pa:er.t Strell5
Inventory)
-Parent/Chl1d(ren) Ob$ervation with €dch parent
-Heme Observat1on with each parent
-Interv1ew/f.valuation/Observatlon of each Child (BrlCklin Perceptual
Scalesl
-Interview WIth key !iqure3 such a! a teacher or pediat:1clan If
n..dld
-Interpretation/written report
-Court Testimony lf needed
Dependinl/ upon appOintment ava::abilitl' CHi<: clill:1t availabi11ty, an
evaluation could typically take frcm 6.C W<3\1KS to be completcCl. Llue
to the dHHculty of alwaYIl ,'chl!du~.n<J appolnelllent~ on "vi:lltaeion
days,N parental ~ooperatlon and :Iexibllity 13 V1t&1 In allOWIng for
appointments to b. scr.edull!d a~ the d15cr8ticn and ,WliJ..l.lSb.l::y c~
the psychologJ.st when the:,' &r.., to include the chlldren and/ot th,
OPP\l~jllg poll rent . Pluse note that c';';a~J.QI:i:Iolly II Ch1l<:l may need to
be absent tram school or a p<1rol:t absent trom work in order to
!aeiUt...te II timely 9valuatJ.cn, It <ll'propriatl!. per:'lon~ of the
evaluation !llay b. pe:;!oMnfld by anether qualified person who wlll be
supervised by the plI'{choloQ1St. rhis 11I111 bt! dor,(' H the dlscrlltion
of the psycholoqist.
feu .nd payment are based on the (011010,.119:
Sloe per hour tor evaluatlon, telephone cons~lta:~on" and
Interpretation/report wr1t.n~
$150 per hour tor home cbservll'_lC:l$ \travel time 1S lncluded up to
1/2 hour round trJ.p - additlonal travel tJm~ wJ.ll be prorated at
a tee of S25.0C per :5 mlnute increment)
Optional: $200 tor first ho~, 0: ccurt test1mcny.
bUled at S150 (m1ninlllm $500 witil add1t1onal time
.~t1vsl to departure from court~ouge . eravel t1~.
1/2 hOUr round tri.p - add.tion1l1 trol'J<!: t~[l\e .,,111
fee of $25,00 per 15 minute ~nc~emen~1
A $500 ree61ner per parent lS due at tr.w beql.lL'l.-inq of t!:!!}.L..tlr1t
session Wh1Ch 101\11 be applled tc thu total bUl <13 n~"ded, If thh
amoune lS insuH1cient, add.ticnaJ Iintlclpilted costs will b.
~~ll~~r.~~ trQm eAch parent prIor to pcrformln9 additional serv~cIs.
Additlonal hours
b<1ud on time ot
is lncluded up to
be prorated at a
.. m3E','8 mw ,; .' "
WOOD & KING
Robert T. King, Esquire
Attorney 1.0. No. 74905
230 Lansdowne Avenue
Wayne, Pa. 19087
(610)687-4668
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS or
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JOYCI KUTUla,
Plaintiff
v.
CHRISTINE KRlTIIla,
Defendant
Civil Term No. 96-2411
and
JJUCJ:8 HALKDII,
Defendant
and
I
BDGAR ROCHI,III,
Defendant
CHILD CUSTODY
Assigned to Judge Bayley
Hearinq Date: 10/14/96. 1:30 P.M.
Petition for Mental Examination of Part i.. and Children
Mrs. Joyce Kretzing, by and through her attorney, Robert King,
Esquire, brings this, her peti tion for a Mental Examination of
Parties and Children pursuant to Rule 1915.8 of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure and avers as follows:
1.
petitioner is Joyce Kretzing, an individual residing at
267 N. Middlesex Road, Carlisle, pa 17013.
2. (a).
Respondent, is Christine Kretzing, an individual residing
at 1815 willow Road IF, Carlisle, PA 17013.
2(b) .
Respondent, is James Walkden, an individual residing at
634 Gates Lane, Enola, PA 17025.
3(a) .
Petitioner, Joyce Kretzing, is the grandmother of Jessica
Kretzing and Ashton Walkden, ages ten (10) and seven (7),
respectively.
Respondent, Christine Kretzing, is the mother of Jessica
Kretzing and Ashton Walkden.
3(b) .
3
3(c) .
Respondent, James Walkden, is the father of Ashton
Walktlen.
4.
The custody of Jessica Kretzing and Ashton Walkden is the
subject matter of this litigation.
Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the best
welfare and the interest of the children would be served
by awarding their Grandmother, the Petitioner, Joyce
Kretzing, partial custody/visitation.
The Respondents have claimed that the Petitioner, Mrs.
Joyce Kretzing should not be granted partial custody of
the children because she is mentally ill. There is no
basis for this claim. However, in order to amplify the
record and provide the Court with impartial expert
testimony concerning the best welfare and interest of
the children, the appointment of a psychiatrist or
psychologist is desirable and appropriate.
5.
6.
7.
petitioner believes and therefore avers that the coots of
the examination and report should be borne equally (1/3
each) by the parties.
WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable
Court to:
a) Order the parties and the children to appear before a
psychiatr ist and/or psychologist of the Court's choosing.
Should the Court have no preference regarding the choice of
the psychologist/psychiatrist, the petitioner requests that
Dr. Nicolee Hiltz of New PassageD Psychiatric, Psychological
and Therapeutic Services, P.C., 3300 N. Third Street,
Harrisburg, PA 17110, be appointed as the examining
psychologist. (A copy of documentation faxed to Plaintiff's
counsel regarding New pasoages and Dr. Hiltz's qualifications
is attached as Exhibit "A"I.
b) Order the parties to equall y (1/3 each) bear the costs of said
examination and report.
c)
Such other relief as is necessary.
2~ff;L
Attorney for Petitioner
Penna. 1.0.. 74905
(610) 687-4668
By:
4
09/;26/<;6
14' IE
FASSI'-GES ~ 91;21~"S,!',':?37
r-.C..,68
CX!:.:
,,\(,1 S
Jtftffl'i' \
PSYCHIATRIC. PSYCHOLOGICAL
pd
THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, PC
Heidi l. 1001. Me
SWlAn L, Thomaley, MO
Marcy H BreMer, MS
Debra DOllbl'lva, MS
MArY Jane Fo., MSW
/",.11:. Hut. MA
NicolH M. twtz. PhD
l.ynn Loomis, MEd,
,.......""..............
Lielnlld 'ly"hQlo9~at
VeM.ylvlllia
C.'t~ti.d Scheel PsychOloqilt
'1llllsylvln11
'lycnole91c.1 EVllu.t~on
Ch11d Custody [v..Ult.un
Educ.cienal Ev.l~.tion . C~unl.llnq
Ch~ld 'aychethl,apy
Adoleacent Psychotherapy
r4ll\11y Therlpy
'.,.nt Ceun..l(r.9 , [dUe.clon
Dear Sir /Hadalll:
The USI <:t psycholo;ists u e;(pert witnesses 1n chil1 custody
casu appears to be incnasl.nq rapidly with time. The ptoductinty
of such us. is signi!ica~t"y jetermlned b1 the ccrr~~n~c~tlon between
the attorney and the psychologist as ~ell as the completeness of the
work product furn.l.shed by the psyc:hcloqist and it~ =811ist.nce to
questions of its reliab.l.lity and valldlty.
tn i\ddition to the ..cove. tr.e useruln""s.5 of the psychologist al!
an expert witness is often hi.ghly dependent on ~he p:3i'c:hcloqist~
ability to te:lltify efCer;ti'1I1y ir. Court, at depo!] tlcnsJ and be~ore
Masters. Neaknesses in t;'lS area can S$riously atte:'l'Jate the
effectiveness of eve~ an exc~~le~t psycholog.l.C31 evaluation.
valid and reliable pSlcho:oqi.cal Qvaluatio~s that withstanc
c::ross'-ex~inati.on can be ptcvided hj' Nlcolee M. Hlll;%, Ph.C.
~SYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATICN
S1.:ch evalui\tions conSl:! of the appro,,~iate use ot evaluative
and psycholcgical ter;r~i~~es and the gatheri.ng ot data from medical.
soeial aqencie" mental hea~ tho and c tr.E:r scucr.e:'l. Al L data 1s
coll\l:lined into il ,erills cf reports. the nu..nber tllilor>itd to each
speclf1c case. ~lu: recomrnendatlons as re~~lred.
3300 North Third Strut · Harri5bUlg, PA 17110
Tel. 717.2*"3839 Fall n7.234-62~7
Fed Id 25-171>1362
00/26/96
1411 "
PA;;S~II;E'; .. ~1~I'3Gf>3'7~37
NO. 668
004
Pag. 3
EXP~RIEtlCE
psycnologlst, New passa;es, HU:rlsburq, PA
Providet ot varlOUS psycnoloqieal 3crvice5 includln;
evaluations regarolnq (;oqn:.Uve, edu<:lltlor.al, social,
emotional, and beh.viora~ func~loninq of indivld~als,
and comprehensive for~nsic tamlly evaluations regarding
visltacion and ~ustody issues. Therapy fcr chlldren,
adolescentl, panmts, and fwnilies ;..s J:Nvlded re9ardin9
a variety ot issuos.
Psychologist, Inner Worles, Ha=dsburq, PIa.
Provider of varlOUS psychological services lncluding
evaluat~ons reqardlng cognitive, educational, sO~lal,
emotlonal, and beh~~ioral funotloninq of lndlvlduals,
and comprehensive fore~slC f~~lly evaluations regardlng
visitation and custody lssues. Therapy for children,
adolescents, par.ents, and familles is prov1ded r~qardinq
a var~ety of lS8~e5.
Psycholoqist, RieQler, Shienvold , Asscc~~tes, Harrlsburg. PA
Provider ot various psychologlcal SetV1C~S ~ncLudin9
evaluations regarding cognitive, educational, SOC1Al,
emotional, and behavi?ral functloninq of indiv\dua"s,
and supervised comprehensive rOrtnS1C tamil! evaluations
regarding visitation and custody lssues. Therapy fer
chlldren, adolescents, parents, and famllies was
provided reqardir,q a vanety e f issues.
School Psychologist, CORA Serv~ces, Trevcse, PA
Responsible tor comptehensive psychced~catlor.al eval~ation5
and facilitation or sp4cial education serv~ces tor students
in private and parochlal schoo~s within the ?hiladelphla
area.
Clinical Internship, EasteI~ State School and Psych~atric Hospital
~esponslble for treatment of adolescent glr1s includinq
individual, group, and f~.ily, psycholo91cal eval~4:ion5,
and consultations with school personnel.
,0el/cG~'06
141:;:0
P~SSAGES ~ 9l,156837237
NO.G.,S
1;106
5'aq8 5
Generally, evaluations may lr.vo~ve the follcwinq procedures:
-Written and/or verbal contact wlth legal representatlves u( each
parent
-Intake/Interview with each parent
-P.ycholoqi~al evaluation of each parent (~e: MMPI, Parent Stress
Inventory)
-Parent/Child (ren) ObServation with each parent
-Home Observation with each parent
-Interv.l.ew/Evaluation/Observation of each dald (Bricklin i'e;rcltptual
Scales)
-Interview with key figures such a! a teacher or pediatr.l.Clan it
needed
-Interpretation/Written re~ort
-Court Testimony 1f needed
Depend.l.ng upon appointment d',a:lability and client availabllity, an
evaluation could typlcatly take frem 6-8 weeks to be comple~ed. Due
to the diUiculty ot always schedUl~nq appoinementli on "visitation
days,N parental cooperation and fleXlbility is vital in allowlng for
appointments to be scheduled at tre d.l.scntion and OI\faJ.lab~l i:y of
the psychologist when they ue to include the ehlldren and/or the
opposing parent. Please note that oceaS.l.onally a child may need to
be absent trom school or a parent absent from work in order to
facilitate a tlmely evaluation. It appropriate, pcrtJ.ons of the
evaluation may be performed by another qualif.l.ed person who will be
supervised by the psychologist. This wH 1 be done at the discretion
of the psychologist.
Fees and payment are based or. the followi.ng:
SlOO per hour tor evaluat~on, telephone consultations, and
interpretaticn/report wrlting
$150 per hour tor home observations ,travel time is included up to
1/2 hour round tri.p - additional travel tlme wJ.ll be prorated at
a tee of $25.00 per 15 mlnute increment)
Optional: S200 for firs t houl: 0 f cO:.Jrt test.l.mony.
billed at $150 (m1nll'llWll $500 wlth ildditJ.onal time
arrival to departure from court~ouse - travel time
1/2 hour round tri.p - addl.tional travel time will
fee of $25.00 per IS minute ~~cl:ementl
A $SOO retuner per parent is due ar. tr,e beginning of theu flrst
session which will be applled to the total bill as n~eded. If this
AJIlount 18 inSUffiCient, addltional. anticipa~ec.:l costs will be
e~ll~ct~d trQm .ach ~4~ent prior to pcr~orm1nq addir.Lonal services.
AddiUonal hOl.lrs
Cased on time 0 f
is included up to
be prorated at a
, '
~ .",. :'1'"
(":
~.. ,,.., ;\ ~
l~~' , , ,
. C',_
, .' 1 ;::,
r -'..
E" r.. ".....
I"
'1' '. . ..r "J} ,
C:. I , .1 ';,
(.II ~I.. ""u
.. , LI~' :.''.l.
f ...: ,
t.' \'') d
U Cr"1
,
"
./ '
I'
I
,. .
JOYCE KRETZING,
Plllintill'
: IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs,
: NO, l)6.24 I I
CHRISTINE KRETZING,
DelendWlt
: CIVIL ACTlON.LAW
vs.
: CHILD CUSTODY
JAMES W ALKDEN
DelcndWlt
vs.
EDGAR ROCHE, Ill,
DefendWlt
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this
day of
, 1996, upon consideration of the
foregoing Motion for Reconsideration, and to schedule hearing, it is hereby ORDERED and
DECREED that all discovery requested by the Plaintiff is temporarily stayed pending disposition
of the constitutional defense inttrposed by the DefendWlts,
A hearing is scheduled for the __ day of
, 1996, _' _.M. in
Courtroom No. _' Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania for the purposes
of hearing and detennining the constitutionalllefense raised by the Detendants,
The hearing scheduled for October 14, 1996 is hereby continued until further Order of
Court.
BY THE COURT:
J.
/.
CERTIFICATE OF lilERVICE
I, John W. Purcell, Jr., Attorney for the Defendants Christine Kretzlng and
Jemes Walkden, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
served on the Plaintiff by sending said copy to her attorney of record and Defendant
Edgar Roche, III, by first class U,S. Mail on September 18, 1996.
Robert T. King, Esquire
Wood &: King
230 Lansdowne Avenue
Wayne, PA 19087
Edgar Roche, III, Defendant
26 Enolll Drive
Enola, PA 17026
JOYCE KRETZlNG,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CHRISTINE KRETZING,
JAMES WALKDEN and
EDGAR ROCHE, III,
. DEFENDANTS
96-2411 CIVIL TERM
OflDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 1996, a Rule Is entered against all
defendants to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Rule
retumable seven (7) days after service, The Prothonotary shall forward any answers
filed by any defendants to this chambers.
Robert T. King, Esquire
For Plaintiff
John W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire
For Defendants Christine Kretzlng and James Walkden
Edgar Roche, III
25 South Enola Drive
Enola, PA 17025
:saa
l'.,,,.,..., ~{,.t q/JI./lj/o.
......,-- .....,. If.
~.. 0:-/ '-j.
i1~ ot.:
j.~': c"" ")-:r'
UJ~~ _'1;1
C).: ) <,
r"" ...,.-,~
.j~ . ..'". " '~_J
"I
S) f ',-
~ :.0
c~r . , , .,-.
Ut'" " 7
~:.J [ ;, , i(,')
LJ.. . l. " (.L..
I "". .
I' , ., "j
C: 1_:'-'1 ()
"
'"
.
" 11J96tf/
WOOD & KING
Robert T. King, Esquire
Attorney 1.0. No. 74905
230 Lansdowne Avenue
Wayne, Pa. 19087
(610\687-4668
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JOYCE KRETZINO, I
Plaintiff
v.
CHRISTINE KRETZINO,
Defendant
Civil Term No, 96-2411
and
JAMES WALKDEN,
Defendant
and
EDGAR ROCHE, III,
Defendant
CHILD CUSTODY
Assigned to Judge Bayley
Hearina Date: JO/14/96, 1:30
Q R D E-H
AND NOW, this day of _..__, 1996/ based upon the
within Motion for Leave to Engage in Discovery, it is hereby
ordered that the Cumberland County Department of Children's and
Youth Services provide copies of all filcs/documents in their
possession pertaining to the following persons:
a) Jessica Kretzing
b) Ashton Walkden
C) James Walkden
d) Christine Kretzing
The Cumberland County Department of Children's and Youth Services
shall provide these documents to Plaintiff's Counsel no later
than September 25, 1996.
BY THE COURT:
J.
.
.,
WOOD , KING
Robert T. King, Esquire
Attorney 1.0. No. 74905
230 Lansdowne Avenue
Wayne, Pa. 19087
1610\687-4668
COURT or COMMOR PLIAS or
CUMBERLAND COURTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JOYCI KRlTZIRG, I
Plaint.iff
v.
CHRISTINE KRITZ lNG,
Defendant
Civil Term No. 96-2411
and
JAMBS WALKDIl.,
Defendant
and
BDGAR ROCHE, II I,
Defendant
CHILD CUSTODY
Assigned to Judge Bayley
,__.___...__._.__. ........ !!,~:llJ!Jq..'pate :_._10/14/96. 1: 30
Motion to Ena.ae in Di'9ove~of"Children'. Service. rile
Mrs. Joyce Kretzing, by and tht"ough her attorney, Robert 'r.
King, Esquire, brings this, her Motion for Leave to Engage in
Limited Discovery, pursuant to Rule 1915.5(c) of the Pa.R.C.P.
and avers as follows:
1.
Movant is Mrs. Joyce KreLzing, an individual residing
at 267 N. Middlesex Road, Carlisle, PA 17013.
2. (a).
Respondent, is Christine Kretzing, an individual
residing at 1815 willow Road *F, Carlisle, PA 17013.
Respondent, is James Walkden, an individual residing at
634 Gates Lane, Enol., PA 17025.
2(b) .
3(a) .
Petitioner, Joyce Kretzing, is the grandmother of
Jessica Kretzing and Ashton Walkden, age~ ten (10) and
seven (7), respectively.
3(b) .
Respondent, Christine Kretzing, is the mother of
Jessica Kretzing and Ashton Walkden.
Respondent, James Walkden, is the father of Ashton
Walkden.
3(c) .
.~
40.
The custody of Jes$ica Kretzing and Ashton Walkden is
the subject matter of this litigation.
Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the best
welfare and the interest of the children would be
served by awarding their Grandmother, the Petitioner,
Joyce Kretzing, partial custody.
Movant believefl and, t.henlfore, avers that lhe part.ies
should be permitted to engage in limited discovery
pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 191~.5(c), because:
The caselaw of the Connnunweallh of PennBylvania
provides that this Court must consider the welfare
of the children's well-being.
The Movant/Grandmother recently learned that the
Cumberland County Department of Children's
Services may have investigated the welfar.e of the
Movant's grandchildren, Jessica Kretzing and
Ashton Walkden.
5.
6.
A.
B.
C.
Access to, or acknowledgment of their existence has
been denied by the Department of Children's Services on
the basis of confidentiality.
WHEREFORE, Movant believes and therefore avers, that these files
may contain information which is vital to the Court's
determination of the children's best interest. Accordingly,
plaintiff, Joyce Kretzing requests the Court to order the
Cumberland County Department of Children's Services to ~rovide
copies of any and all reports pertaining to Jessica Kretzing,
Ashton Walkden, Christine Kretz!ng and James Walkden.
) ~/" ), /"-,
///1)1 1(')
BY: 'I.-.-d,.!, l . .-=::J:
iobert T. King, Esqu~re
Plaintiff's Attorney
Penna. 10* 74905
(610) 687-4668
3
~
" ~ .
CIRTIrICATI or IIRV~
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within
Petition has been mailed to:
John W. Purcell, Jr.,Esquire
Purcell, Krug & Haller
1719 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA. 17102-2392
Attorney for Defendants,
Christinc Krotz ing <lnd James Walkden
Edgar Rochc, III
25 South Ellola Drive
Bnola, PA 17025
Defendant, Pro Se
. A~"
, IZ-~
T. King, Esqul
R
Dated:
1- 5' rl.,
'I,
4
,>. -'"
lr C'J
"
p\ (". l..t,
.. I..;.
~t -. ':l i
, , ,:j
L~, .. ~,
;..
(1',. 'I,)
~.\' '''~
.1' "ii")
rit, C.. ~,~
...'
f V, .i
" ..n
(,.1 Cl '...>
....' .
'i,
"
, I
"',
.
~ ~
~>J
0..'"
zffi .... ... ... ...
~o.. .... c:: c:: " ~ 5
'... ., ., .,
... ."" "" '" . ~
8 . c:: '-' " c:: c:: ~ ~; .
'... Z Q.l OJ OJ .... ~ 7
~~ ., ..... .... .... H .... '" o ~
.... [::l~ OJ .... OJ Z . ,.
<.00.. '0 .... 0 0 :'i -;
~8 >< z ~ f.l 0.. <
@ ..... . '" l ~
- N ~ .... ~
8~ - ... H 0
'" '" ~ ~
N B 0
I .... "' ~ ~
!:l~ "" .... .
"" :3 o..l "'r.I:l '" '" ~~
~:~ u :>H ;. ~
. .... ~ ~ "
0 ~ 0 a
~I z ...., ..,
... . . ;
CERTIFICATE OF SERVIQE
I, John W. Purcell, Jr., Attorney for the Defendants Christine Kretzlng and
James Walkden, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
served on the Plaintiff by sending said copy to her attorney of record and Defendant
Edgar Roche, III, by first class U,S. Mail on September 27, 1996,
Robert T. KIng, Esquire
Wood & King
230 Lansdowne Avenue
Wayne, PA 19087
Edgar Roche, III, Defendant
25 Enola Drive
Enola, PA 17025
. PURCELL, JR.
965
'...t
WOOD & KING
At'lVUN/:'YS At I.AW
130 I."I/.\"O\I'/I~ AWIIII~
W"YI1~, 1'~I1I/.\Y"'''III'' /YON7
(6/11) M7.466N
.Irft'rt) .J. \\,l)t.MI~
Il.......'r. Kin.
. Mrnlbtor !\UrhJllIn ....,
september 30, 1996
vi. rlr.~ Cla.. Mall , rac.l.ile
Judge Edgar Bayley
Court of Common Pleas of ) n t.l'
Cumberland County I ....t..
One Courthouse sq~___~.1+-2!Q=6462 . ~~J
Car!.iele, PA~~- ---.. t
r" Re: ICret.ing v. ICret.ing, et .1. . "j
"--~ Cumberland No. 96-241L____-.--..-
-----.- ..--- .-----
,iI'
.l/.i~/
"
Dear Judge Bayley:
I am writing to request a continuance in the above captioned
case, currently echeduled for Oct';,ber 14th. I received your
Order denying a psychological examination of the partie. on
Thursday. Until now, I have refnined from having my client,
Mrs. Joyce Kretzing, examined becauee of the pos8ibility that
another psychologist might have been appointed in thi8 matter.
upon receipt of your Order, I immediately contacted Dr. Hiltz, a
p8ychologiet whoee practice ie baeed in Harrieburg. She will
need approximately forty-five daye in which to examine Mre.
Kretzing and to prepare her report. Mre. Kretzing'8 fir.t
appointment is scheduled for lftter this week. Since the central
theme of the defense is that Mrs. Kretzing is unfit to have a
relationship with her grandchildren because of mental i11ne.. it
would be extremely prejudicial to our case to proceed without a
pSYChOlogist's testimony.
I am also requesting a continuance because Dr. Fred Alba will be
unavailable to testify on October 14th. It is anticipated that
Dr. Alba would testify to Jeseica K~etzing'e dontal condition,
the need for curative mea8uree, the fact that the defendant,
Chrietine Kretzing, was informed about her daughter'e diagnoeie,
and that the defendant ha. failed to follow up with her
daughter's treatment.
Finally, I have a queetion regarding your Order denying the
defense requeet for a hearing on the constitutional issues in
this case. Your Order indicates that you would like both eides
"- t-. ',-.
j,-
~..,: 1'.::; I
I ..
~" .:r , -,
.1 ,
f,. , . , .
()I , , ::J
I' f""
f-' II
J_...' .,-
..-1, I ,
LJ.~ , r I)
, J..
,. , "
C!
'. , , ,
r'r~
;S
~~ Z
~ ~t 9
0..'" ~
z!:a~ ~
i~~ ~
g' ....
t:~~l::
",\e~ ><
0::0... 0
gUlo
H ZH
~~:::S~
g ;;t;U
~ ~~3
~ ....1-<
. ~ ~
_..''''.."U..".''.'.I.....II. ..-n".
OHI'IfO' 00",.10,111 lflll'JI"f'l.fi"W
....
....
. ,-'
"..,
Z c::
.... 'rl
~~
'"
U
><
o
~
<Il
:>
- -
.
u
Z'"
..... c::
N .,
~]
OJ
~r.:>
.....
...
'"
~
, ~Ir---
...
c::
.,
.""
z "
"-l OJ
~~
;:<
.
<Il
:>
~
..,
~~
fJ
~ ~~
zo
........
:i!<
!i:~
0'"
u....
ol::el
w><f::
~~~
~B~
" z
H3~
~~r;
~o..
~
o
'"
~
.
~~~ ~
() ~
. .
.oS 'r
.
l '
~
,
'i
I
JOYCE KRETlING.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
PllIintill'
Ys.
: NO. 96.2411 CIVIL TERMS
CHRISTINE KRETlING.
Detendllnt
: CIVIl. ACTION-LAW
Ys.
JAMES WALKDEN.
Detendlll1t
: PARTIAL CUSTODYIVISITATlON
EDGAR ROCHE. Ill.
Defendlll1t
NOTICr. TO PLEAD
TO: JOYCE KRETllNG. PLAINTIFF
You lIle hereby notified to plelld to the enclosed New MlIller within Twenty (20) days fro~ service
hereof, or a default judgment may be entered IIgllinst you.
PURCELL. KRUG & HALLER
BY
-b )~,
n W. Purcell. Jr.
719 North Front Street
HlIrrisburg. PA 17102
(717) 234-4178
1.0. 1129955
Date: November 11, 1996
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, John W. Purcell, Jr,. Attorney for the Defendants Christine Kretzing and James Walkden,
hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the tilregoing was served on the Plaintiff by sending
said copylo her attorney ofrecord and Defendant Edgar Roche, 111. by first class U.S, Mail on
November II, 1996:
Robert T. King, Esquire
Wood & King
230 Lansdowne Avenue
Wayne, PA 19087
Edgar Roche. 111. Defendant
25 Enola Drive
Enola, PA 17025
I
i
J UN W. PURCELL, JR.
.0, NO. 29955 .
"
1
!
I'
'>- I.f' ' -
t"l; l;; ft.;
.-
~ .~; .=-'~'r;
tll'
Ji' .".);~
1':' I~..
I.
X~ J :.,'
....... .,
r,-) ,i':}
I.JJI ''- I,', , , ,
"'."
Cr" ':. I'"D
..
I ~- . ; "J"
I. ~ "} ,
t., (n f,).
.,
"
"
-- ,
,..
,
JOYCE KRETZING,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CHRISTINE KRETZING,
JAMES WALKDEN and
EDGAR ROCHE, III,
DEFENDANTS
96-2411 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURY
AND NOW, this 1st day of April, 1997, a hearing on the above-captlonecl
custody case Is scheduled for Thursday, June 12, 1997, at 8:45 a.m., In Courtroom
No.2, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
By the Cou;Y . J
wilt!
Edgar B. Ba,y, J.
Robert T. King, Esquire
230 Lansdowne Avenue
Wayne, PA 19087
For Plaintiff
John W, Purcell, Jr" Esquire
For Defendants Christine Kretzlng and James Walkden
Edgar Roche, III
25 South Enola Drive
Enola, PA 17025
:saa
~~u 'iI, Ill"
.b''\''
:1
,p
"
I
I'
,I
,1
I:
I'
:1
'.
pre-n:llal dle~~ ups. :nlll alllllg \Iith the olher members ufher tinnily pruvided the emotional and
linan~lal support her dauglner needed to get through this dillkult periud And \Ihen the
delendant. ChrIStine Krel/mg. \wnt into labor it \Ias ,\Irs Kret/ing whu drove her tulhe hospilUl
and renlluned with her I:mlllllhmll her ~hildbirth In lilcl, it was I\lrs Kretzing who initially
camed her newhmn granddaughter Irom the delivery area to her daughter's hospital room
Fur the ne.xt ten (Ill/months. Jessi~a Kretzing at her grandmother's home During this
period. Mrs Kretling a~led as a "co-parent", and was intimately involved in caring lor her
ne\lborn granddaughter She shared in all aspects ofJessi~a's care, including late night leedings,
pla~ing \Iith her. bathing the child and changing her diapers Two months alh:r Jessica's birth, the
Defendant began working tiill-lime as a cashier :It candy/novelty store Frequently \Irs.
Kretzing, a selllor employee with the Department of Defense, would juggle her work schedule so
that she could care till' Jessl~a during the delendant's absen~es When she could not adjust her
schedule. \Irs Kretzing's youngest daughtcr. Eliz:lbcth, would usually care for the child
In the Winter/Spring of 1987, the ddendant bcgan residing with defendant. Jamcs
\\'alkdl~n .-\t tirst. this sCrlousl\ limited thc amount uf timc that the PlaintilY could spend with her
granddaughter H\l\wlcr. as timc passed she began spending marc and more time with Jessica
Eventually. she \Iould sce Jessica three I )) to tour (.I) times per week and frequently would haw
sole custody ofhcr on weckends
Approximately. one year later. 11Il \Iarch 2.1. 1988 the defendant. Christine Kretzing
married the defendant. Jamcs Walkdcn At this point. she was two months pregnant with the \11'
Walkden's son. During thc ~our!ie of this pregnan<:y. Christine, sulTered from complications and
required l:xtensive bed nest In order to ensnre her daughter's health, the Plaintitl'~ared
extensively for tllo-year old Jessica Following Ashton's birth, on September 26, 1988, the
,
Plaintitl'became even more involved in her grandchildren's lives She frequently took the children
tothc park and the library And when the dclendont, Jalllcs Walkdcn, refuscd to become involved
in Jessica's education it was Joyce Krctzing who lilled the void (.'lee, Memorandum of
Defendant, Christine Willkden (Kretzing), 1991 Term No. 2524, at pp 4 - Bllached BS Exhibit A.)
On an almost daily basis, she would spend time with her grandchildren and the highlight of each
visit was the time she spent reading them stories. Finally, when Jessica entercd kindergarten it
was the PlaintilTwho became her "room parent" FUJ1hel'fnore, whenever there was some event
at Jessica's school (i.e. parent-leacher conferences, field trips, etc.) or that involved her socially
(ie she became a "Brownie") the PlaintilTwould almost always allend. And it: lor some reason
she could not allend, then she would make sure that some other member of the Kretzing family
attended in her place. During summers, the amount of time the children would spend with their
Grandmother incretlset!. And, it was not uncommon for them to go on vacation with their
Grandmother.
In 1991, the defendants separated and in 1992 they became divorced. After leaving her
husband. defendant Christine Kretzing briefly was forced to reside in a shelter. However. the
Plaintift' quickly purchased her a mobile home in which the defendant, Christine Kretzing and her
children resided for the next several years. Following the divorce and for the next several years,
Jessica Ilnd Ashton continued to enjoy regular and substantial contact their Grandmother and the
rest of the Kretzing family.
Following her divorce, Christine Kretzing became involved with Mr. William Keehn and
soon thereafter he began to reside with her. As this relationship progressed, the PlaintilTbecame
convinced that he was using harsh physical punishment on the children. In January 1995, the
PlaintilT confronted Mr Keehn regarding this issue. A three-way argument between Joyce
3
Kretling was lInce again allll\\ed tll pm\idc l'lr hcr granddaughtcr's mcdi~nlnceds Iluwc\'er,
this reconciliulion was shurt livcd In Nllvcmher, I<)<)~. .Jessicu was diagnoscd \~Ith a nlllU'lI'Incd
JUw A tollow up cxamination was scheduled I,ll' January, 'llJ'J(, at which time an approprillte
coursc oftreatmcnt \~ould hc investigated Despitc her daughter's nc.:ds, the Dcti:ndant lililed to
appc,lr at dcntist's ollke and, lll1Ce again. se\Crcd the lelalionship hetwecn hcr ,hildrcn and her
l:lmily
On May 2. 1996 the Plaintill: tiled a complaint seeking partial custody/visitation privilegcs
in regards to Jesska KrClling and Ashton Walk den Standing was assertcd pursuant to the
Grandparents Visit:\lion A~t. 23 Pa C S * 5311, ct seq On Junc 30, 19l)b a con,iliation
contercnce was held, but the parties were unable to resolve their dilrcren~es Following this, the
defcndants challengcd till: ,onstitutionality of the Grandparent's Visitation Act The Court
,ontirmed the Plaintitrs standing to pursuc a relationship with her grand~hildren on January 24,
1997 On \lay 30. 1997 Octendant's counsel. John Purcell. Jr. Esquire. inlormed Plaintitrs
counsel. R,lbert T King. Esquire. that his services had been tcrminated and that the dcfendants
intcnded to pro~eed pm I.... :\ hearing In this maneI' is sdleduled tor June 12, 1997
II. DISCL;SSION
Thc central issuc 111 this mattcr is \\ hether it is in thc bcst intcrcst of thc children to have a
relationship \Iith thcir Grandmother and the other member!> of the Kretzing family As discussed
previously. I\lrs Kretzing and thc other members of her tiunily wcrc intimately involved in every
aspect of Jessica and Ashton's lives until early. 1995 Becausc of the naturc of thIS relationship
the PlaintilT believes th.\l it is in the bcst intcrests of the children that they have a relationship with
5
their (jr:lndmoth~r all<l Ihelr 1I1t1Ih~, 's lilllllly
Th~re ar~ 'lIl1l1~rllUS "IS~S \\h~r~ in wlll~h gralldparents hnve he~n awarded both visitation
and ~uslOdial rights ll\ ~r th~ uhje.:tillns Ill' a natnral parent S':I', m.I//lJI' I'. l'iII.:r, 5JIJ Pa 4 I, .17,
(1.17 A 2d 97IJ, lJ7l!_7l) (1')\14), COlI/lI/tl/lwl'lI/ll,,:,\'. r../, ,HiII..r I'. ,\/ill.:r, ]29 Pa Super Nil. .178
,\ 2d ,'51 (1911.I), 1I/11'd I', 1I/1l'd, .\ 5 I Pa Sup~r .157. 5tlCl A 2d ,11 III I ')IlCl) The key standard,
as in almost all custod\' ~ases, IS whether It is in thc hcst Intcrest of lhc ~hildren to have a
relationship with thcir grandparcnts ltI, In Pennsyl\ania, a par,~nt's prima tacie right to ~ustody
of their childrcn has bc~n abolished Ro",/...\' I', Rowl..,\', 5.12 Pa .j4.l. boll A 2d 12Cl (1995)
Instead, thc (\lurt held that a tnal ~ourt should wcigh c\ery li\,t rde\'ant to the physi,al.
e:motional, intdlectual. mllral. and spiritual \\ell-being of thc dlildrcn ROIYI.:,\'. .\/IJlrII. 536 Pa at
, 668 " 2d at 1211 Howe\ cr. in applying this standard to partial custody/visitation cases the
burden is tar 100\er than in liill custody proceedings COII/II//J11I""/lII" e"- rl!!, MiII.:r v, ,\lill..r,
.\/IJlrII:ll A2d 45.1
Thc next question th<en. is just what tactual circumstances will allow a Grandparent to
obtain visitation. partial ~ustod\ rights It IS in the ,hild's best intercst to prese:rvc and nurture
those rdationshlps \"lId1 MC meaninglid. \\hilc ;l\oidi~g situations \\hidl might prove harmlill
<.'01/11/11I1111'':/111'' c!.\'. rc!/. Z/lfjimlllo \', (;':/11l/1m. 50n Pa 250. .j.55:\ 2d IlllO (1983) The
stabilit\ that can bc "lli:red b\' the parties is onc determining t:1ctllr .l1JI/':,\' I'. Slml':. 343
Pa Supcr 4111, .195..\ 2.1 21)5 1198') Thc Courts ha\c re~ognized that there may be: an adverse
etl'e.:t upon the de\ elllpmcnt of childrcn caused by the disruption of an established stable
relationship (;/lIIt..r I', (;/I/II.:r. 2.JtlPa Super 2112, 361 A 2d 307 (1976)
Here thc childr~n 111 question. thc Plaintilrs grandchildren have were almost "co-raised"
by thc Plaintitl. and thc llther mcmbcrs of hcr tilmily The ~hildren saw their Grandmother on an
I)
Dated June 2, 19')7
n:lrJ'II'ICt\n: 01" S.:IWIO:
I, Robert T King, ullorney tor I'luirttill' Joyce Krclzing, hcreby certity lhat u true und correct copy
of thc toregoing was served on Christine Krclzing, Jamcs Walkden und Edgur Roche, II',
d.:ti:ndunts 1,m .~&! by Ilrst cluss muil on June 2, 1997
CIIIUSTIN[ KRETZING
1815 Willow Road flF
Carlisle, I' A 170 I J
,JA:m:s W,\LKI>[:-l
6J-I Oates Lllle
Enola. I'A 17025
EDGAR ROCIIE. III,
25 South Enola Drive
Enola, P.-\ 17025
Robert T. King. Esquire
POI. Atty ID No. 7-1905
9
, ..
The Defendant, Christine R. Walkden, respectfully submits the
following memorandum in acco~dance with You~ Honorsble Court's Order
dated January 14, 1992.
1. Summary of testimony Christine intends to~sent at the
heari..!!.2.-llcheduled for March" 6, 1992. .
Mrs. Wal kden wi 11 tes t i fy on her own behalf. In addi tion, her
grandmothe~, Dorothy Gear; her mother, Joyce K~etzing; and her
sister, Michelle Arnold, will also testify. The witnesses have all
had a close relationship with the child, Jessica, since her birth
and will corroborate Mrs.
Walkden's
testimony regarding Mr.
Walkden's attitude toward and relationship with Jessica.
It is
expected that that tes~~mony will be, in summary, as follows:
Mr. and Mrs. Walkden we~e ma~~ied in March, 1988. At the time
of their ma~riage, M~s. Walkden had a child, Jessica, born April 30,
1986.
Jessica's father is Edgar Roche.
M~. Roche has suppo~ted
Jessica since her bi~th pursuant to a Court O~der entered in Cumber-
land County, Pennsy 1 vani a. The cu~rent amount of support Mr. Roche
pays is $69.00 per week. Mr. Roche does not visit with Jessica.
Mr. Walkden has never suppo~ted Jessica financially. Mrs.
Walkden wo~ked during the first two years of the marriage. Mr.
Walkden required that the suport f.o~ Jessica from M~. Roche be used
to pay he~ proportionate share of household expenses. In 1989 M~s.
Walkden received a $1,000.00 support arrearages fo~ Jessica in II
lump sum.
Mr. Walkden demanded that the entire amount be turned
euc.....WilIE to him.
_"our""",,,
~".II.U"., Ilu"n",..,..
- 2 -
Page 4
Research Assistant, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia/Temple
University Department of Special Education
Provider of psychological evaluations and supplemental
educational services for long-term survivors of childhood
cancer. Editor/Co-author or a cognitive-behavioral
treatment manual and related seminars.
PRESENTATIONS
Family Dynamics - Guest Appearance on LIVE
Recognizing Signs & Symptoms of Child Abuse - Holy Spirit Hospital
Child Abuse Evaluation - Harrisburg Area Psychological Association
Positive Parenting - Jewish Community Center, Harrisburg, PA
Childhood Depression - Herbert Heover Parent Teacher Organization
Project LEARN Cognitive Strategies - Workshops for Teacher, Families,
and Children affected by Ch~ldhood Cancer - The Children's
Hospital of Philadelphia and Temple University Department of
Special Education
Childhood Cancer - Temple University Symposi'.ll1\ on Childhood Cancer
Assessment - Temple University Undergraduate Special Education Class
"Hot Housing" The Effects ef High-Pressure Preschooling - Temple
University School Psychology Conference
PROFESSION~~ AFFILIATIONS
American Psychological Association - Member
National Association of School Psychologists - Member
Pennsylvania Psychological Associa~ion - Member
Harrisburg Area Psychological Association - Member
PERSONAL DISTINCTION
Who's Who among Students in Amer~can Colleges and Universities
AGREEMENT TO PARTICIP.ll.TE IN A COMPREHENSIVE
CUSTODY EVALUATION
A comprehensive custody evaluation involves evaluation of each
parental figure, caregiver, or s:gnificant per.son living in the home
as well as children involved. In order to do a fair, objective and
complete evaluation, cooperation/participation from each of these
individuals is essential. Therefore, "one-sided" evaluations will
not be conducted.
Page 5
Generally, evaluations may in'/olve the following procedures:
-Written and/or verbal contact with legal representatives of each
parent
-Intake/Interview with each parent
-Psychological evaluation of each parent (ie: MMPI, Parent Stress
Inventory)
-Parent/Child(ren) Observation with each parent
-Home Observation with each parent
-Interview/Eval'lation/Observation of each child (Bricklin Perceptual
Scales)
-Interview with key figures such as a teacher or pediatrician if
needed
-Interpretation/Written report
-Court Testimony if needed
Depending upon appointment availability and client availability, an
evaluation could typically take from 6-8 weeks to be completed. Due
to the difficulty of always scheduling appointments on "visitation
days," parental cooperation and flexibility is vital in allowing for
appointments to be scheduled at the discretion and availability of
the psychologist when they are to include the children and/or the
opposing parent. Please note that uccasionally a child may need to
be absent from school or a parent absent from work in order to
facilitate a timely evaluation. If appropriate, portions of the
evaluation may be performed by another qualified person who will be
supervised by the psychologist. This will be done at the discretion
of the psychologist.
Fees and payment are based on the following:
$100 per hour for evaluation, telephone consultations, and
interpretation/report writing
$150 per hour for home observations (travel time is included up to
1/2 hour round trip - additional travel time will be prorated at
a fee of $25.00 per 15 minute increment)
Optional: $200 for first hour of court testimony.
billed at $150 (minimum $500 with additional time
arrival to departure from courthouse - travel time
1/2 hour round trip - addi tional travel time will
fee of $25.00 per 15 minute increment)
A $500 retainer per parent;. is due at the beginning of their first
session which will be applied to the total bill as needed. If this
amount is insufficient, additional anticipated costs will be
collected from each parent prior to performing additional services.
Additional hours
based on time of
is included up to
be prorated at a
Exhibit "e"
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Susan L. Thomsley, MD
Marcy H. BreMer, MS
Debra A. Doubrsva, MS
Mary Jane Fox, MSW
Jessica M, Hart, MA
Nicolee M, Hiltz, PhD
Lynn G, Loomis, MEd.
lill A, ManhaJI, MS
Alan C. Wenrich, DMin,
Frank Nardella, MED
" L'S
,.,..,..,:\C :
J/ttMi'
PSYCHIATRIC, PSYCHOLOGICAL
and
THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, PC
.. . AT..... "Y...."'Y.A.
Namr: Jo~<e E. Kretlln~
Birth dale: 12-16-39
A&e: 56 ye...
Addrm: 267 North Middlese, Road, Carlisle PA 17013
Telephone: (II) (717) 243-3213, (W) (717) 790-6823
Evaluator: Nkolee M. lliltz, Ph,D.
Dole. of Evaluation: tll-3,10-4, 10-10& 10-18-96
Rea.on for RderraJ: Mrs. Kretzing was refmed for a personalily evaluation by her atlorney, Mr, Robert
Kin~, E,q. Thi, p,~cholo~ical infonnalion was reque'led in order 10 facilitate court action (NO, 96-241 J In
Ihe Court of Common Pleas of Camber land County, PAl le~lIfdlng vi,itallon between Mrs, Kretllng ond
her grandchildren. Je,si<a Kreiling (a~e 10) and Ashton Walkden (a~e 8).
Ol.clalmer: Due to the nature of this dispute, it was recommended by this psy<hologlst to the plaintiffs
<ounselthat a comprehensive evalualion of all involved parties would be 01051 appropriate. Without
detennining wh"ttype of emotional relationship exist! between the plainliff and the children, it is
impossible to make any recommendalion regarding visitation in this report, In order to obtain on objective
opinion regarding the children's best interest rather than parental or grandparental subjective opinion., it I.
important to assess the children's psychological issues independently, Additionally, without a
psychological evaluation of all parents, particularly oflhe biolo~ical mother, it is impossible to make
comparative stalements of emotional well-being, comparative statements about chlldcare abilitie., or
decipher what elements from the differing historical accounts arc most accurate between the parenlS and
grandparenl. However. it is underslood Ihatthe request 10 perfonn a comprehensive evaluation was nol
granted. Therefore, what is presenled in this evaluation i, e,c1usively a personality prome of Mrs. Joyce
Kretlin~ with a focus on her awareness of developmental issues. It should be Interpreted without ony
assumption of being more or less favorable than that of any of the defendant',
Back&roand Information: (Ba.led on infonnation provided by Joyce Kretzing) Joyce Kretzing isthe
maternal grandmoth, :0 Jessica Kretzing and Ashton Walkden. They are the biological children of her
daughter, Chri,tine Kretzing (age 30 ~ears). Joyce has three olher grown children, Michelle Arnold (31
years), Jake Kretling (30 years), and Elizabeth k.retlin~ (21 years). Mrs. Kreiling was widowed in 1983
and is nol remarried. Joyce is employed by NA VICP-M (Navy Inventory Control Point- Mechanicsbllrg,
PAl as an Allowance ~pccialisl. As part of her pOSition she has been given Secret and Confidential
Clearance for the U.S. Department of Navy. Random and procedural dru~ screens administered by the
Navy have all been reponedly negative.
Based on informalion from Mrs. Kretzing's interviews, it was reported that she and Christine have
a history of a cyclical relationship. Aceording 10 Joyce, Ihe dilticulties that they experience have often
been atlhe intluence of Christine'ssigniticant others. Christine tirst became pregnant in 1985 to Mr.
Edgar Roche' Ill. Due to circumstances, Christine continued 10 live at home with Joyce and her younger
.Ister, Elizabeth. As a result, Christine and Joy<e prepared for the baby and Joyce was present during labor
and delivery. Subsequenlto Jessica's birth they continued 10 Iivetogelher as a family and .hared
childrearing responsibilities for over a year. Aner Jessica was about a year old, Christine moved
un""nounced with Mr. James Walden, with whom she had reLently become romantically involved. For
three months Joyce did not know where Ihey had moved with Jessica. Christine then called Joyce with
news of their whereabouts and her pregnancy. Sbe then allowed Joyce to see Jessica on a limited basis.
Once Chrinine and Jim were married and Ashton was born, Jo>ce asserts that she conlinued to see the
children and that they remained emotionally close.
three months Joyce did not know where they had moved with Jessica, Christine then called Joyce with
news of their whereaboutsllnd her pregnancy. She then allowed Joyce to see Jessica on a limited basis.
Once Christine and Jim were married and Ashton was born, Joyce asserts that she continued 10 see the
children and thatlhey remained emotionally close.
Joyce believes that during this time Jim did not like her an,1 was the cause of much of the tension
between she and Christine. She also bellewtlthat Jim was physically rough wllh the children and used
inappropriate corporal punishment and overly strict disciplinary mellsures, for example, she reported that
Jim had used a homemade "hamess" and a wooden cage of sorts to keep Ashton contlned, lie also
reportedly "whipped" Jessica. Christine and Jim were married for about two years when Christine len Ihe
relatiunship and brictly moved to a shelter. Joyce Ihen bought her a trailer with furnishings.
Alier Christine and Jim divorced, Joyce claims to have spoken to or spent time wilh Ihe children
on a dally basis. She was Jessica's room parent in kindergarten, took the children on vacations, helped
with homework, and participated in the "parenting" of her grandchildrell. She also conlinued to help
Christine financially.
Christine later became involved with William Keehn. Joyce described "Willy" as a reliMious
extremist who was against Joyce seeing the children, Huwever, she said Ihat she was allowed to continue
her relatioMhip wilh them. Joyce reported that while Jessica WllS living with Willy, Jessica told her that
he hil her with a bell, carried her by the feet, and insisted that she participale in their nontradilional
religious practices, About two years ago Joyce confronted Willy wilh some of these allegAtions, Two
biller, violent arguments immediately result<d between Joyce, Christine and Jim. During the laller, the
police were called. Joyce said she Ihen made a report to Children and Youlh regarding the alleged abuse.
Joyce was also accused of kidnapping Jessica and Ashton for bringing them to her home atier school
without pennission. Subsequenlly, Joyce recalled having seen Ihe children on a few limited occasions,
However, she said Ihat she has continued to offer tlnancial support for medical/dental care which she
believes has been neglected.
It is noted that much of the aforementioned infomlUlion reported by Mrs. KreIling was disputed in
the Custody Conciliation Summary Repon and the Answer 10 Complaim for Partial CustodyiVisltatlon
with New Maller ( NO. 96-2411). In those documents it was noted that the defendams believe that the
children do not have an emotional attachment to Mrs. Kretling. It was further asserted that sbe has
interfered with family functioning, parenting, and parent/child relationships through conrrolling and
inappropriate behaviors. It was staled that her involvement would be detrimental to the children due to her
alleged emotional instability and irresponsibility.
Evaluation Procedur..:
Wechlser Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised (W AIS.R)
Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST)
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. 2 (M.MPf-2)
The Rorschach
Parenting Questionnaire
Life Infonnation Script (limited selection.l
Clinical Interviews
Behavior Ob,ervallons: Throughout much of the evaluation, Joyce was emotional. She had difficulty
maintaining composure during the interviews withoUI crying. Her body language made her appear
anxiou, and Ilncol1llortable, particularly during test administration, Although participation in tbis
evaluation was voluntary. she was clearly annoyed when she was given the te't'. She seemed 10 be more
open to the evaluation during discuS5ion-like tasks. While she was generally cooperative and pleasant
with the examining psychologist, she did confront the omce staff angrily regarding several clerical issues.
She also refu,ed to complete th. Digit Span ,ublest of lhe W AIS-R. The W AIS-R was administered by a
doctoral level intern who nOliced that Joyce was agitated and disgusted over taking the test. Although
Digit Span is a relatllely benign subtest, sh. became threatened and fru>lrated wilh the task and stopped
prematurely. This i, unusual in light of the voluntary nature of the evaluation. Thi, type of "',ut of
proportion" reaction wa, also evident regarding an unfore,een cancellation. For example, Joyce had
come 4~ minutes latc to an appointment without penally I ,he was not charged lor J missed appointment as
is in Ihe Inltiol a~reem(nl, was ~iven a brld'appolnLJnenl as a courtcsy, ond was pUllnlo the schedule
wllhin 24 hours). flow ever, on a IOler oppoinlmenl she reacled wllh leal's and an~er toward the omce sloff
when she lllTived for all appolnlmellllhol the psycholo~isl was unable 10 keep (personal emer~ency),
Rnulls MIld Inlcrprrlullon.: The W AIS-R i. a valid, reliable, and widely used measure of Intelleclual
nbllille.. Vnlunble quantilallve ond qualllative infonnalion for reasonln~ skills IS oblained. Oehaviorol and
emollonal infomlnllon cnn also be oblained based on observalion of lesllokin~ strute~ies, verbal and
nonvcrbnl behaviors, si~ns of fruSll'alion lolerance, elc. The W A!S.R provides inlelli~ence dnla for
overallobilillcs (Full Scale IQ), verbal rensonln~ (VerbaltQ), and nonverbal rea50nin~ (Perfonnance IQ).
There nre nlso sublests which are desi~ned 10 meosure specific cognilive skills (I.e.: nuditory recall,
sequencin~ skills, elc.). !"lr Ihe purpose of Ihis evaluallllll it was valuable 10 assess Joyce's overall
cognitive .kllls. Each of her IQ scores arc within Ihe "Avern~e" range of inlelligence. Therefore, she has
nonnal r.nsonmg abilllies.
The MAST Is 0 sdf.report measure ofsymploms of alcohol uselabuse. Due 10 Ihe possibility of
caregivin~ responsibllilies, Ihis was considered to be important illfom,alion. Bas.d on her report, Joyce
does not drink morelhan approximately olle alcoholic drink per year. Sbe denies any hislory ofsignificanl
alcohol use by she or her laIC husband.
The clinical interviews, Life Infonnallon Scripl, an_I Parenling Questionnaire were used as
methods 10 ~nther infomalion aboul Joyce's personal experiences as a child, as a parenl, and as a
~randparenl. fler awareness of importnnl developmenlal issues and ability to implemenl appropriale
cnre~iver sl,"le~ies was a focus of Ibis segmenl of the evnlualion,
Joyce recalled lillld memories of her childhood. She described n simple, counlry life with parenls
who were pleas ani and kind, fler parents encoura~ed lo~elhemess and family aClivilies. Their discipline
stralegies included losing a privilege, lalkin~, and sittin~ in a chair. She said thai her parents did notlighl,
were nOI physical, and did not yell.
When discussin~ her disciplinary style, Joyce described a similar approach to that of her parents.
She primarily believes in nonphysical discipline. Slrategies such as losin~ privileges,I.lkin~ things
throu~h, lookin~ lo~elher for solutions, nnd time-outs were highlighled. Sbe appeared to have a reasonable
understondin~ of development and approprlnle discipline. In proclice, Joyce likely employs this type of
disciplinnry style. flowever, she did describe difticulties disciplinin~ Christine as a youlh. For example,
she reponed Ihal Chrisline stole money from her on several occasions. Although she confronled Christine,
she did not follow-through with negative consequences for Chrisline's actions.
Tbe MMPI.2 is a lengthy questionnaire that is scored and statistically compared to various mental
heallh populalions. The more one's responses correlale wilh each of those groups increases the likelihood
of a mental health dia~nosis. The report generaled from the lest is used 10 help dia~nose psychotherapy
patients. As with any measure, it should not be inlerpreted in isolation from other data. Rather, il is part of
the whole. The Rorschach is also part or the puzzle desi~ned to evaluate personality characteristics.
Perfonnance on Ihe Rorschach requires one to idenlify whal is ,een out of abstract mono and
polychromalic "inkblots." These impressions help detem,ine various personality characteristics. The
Rorschach entices more un.:onscious elemenlS and allows for a rich inlerprelation. Specific isolated scores
on these measure, will nOI be interpreted, Rather, an inle~ration of data from Ihe entire evaluation will
result in the personalily protile.
Joyce was uncomfortable taking bOlh Ihe MMPI and Ihe Rorschach. She did not like Ihe nature of
the qoestions being asked or the ambi~uous nature of Ihese lests. On the MMPI. she left numerous
questions unanswered which makes interpretalion more diflicult. She also demonStrated a tendency to
deny faull.' which can submerge scores, For example, she denied feelin~s of anxiety, hostility, and distruM.
Given the nalOre of this evalualion, her deoial of faults and bias 10 appear psychologically healthy are
considered to be signs of defensivene". Denial appears to be a psycholo~ical mechanism which Joyce
employs when threatened. It can inhibil insighl and ability 10 ,ulve personal problems. Ri~id adherence to
defense mechill1isms such as denial or represSion are psycholo~ical avoidancelactics. f1owever, when she
feel.1more comfortable and is able to explain herself, ,he i, more likely 10 let Ihese ~unrds down and deal
more approprialely with personal i"ues.Results suggestlhnt Joyce feels the need 10 be in control and 10 do Ihings perfectly well. She h..,
Slrong opinions and beliefs. Because Joyce has slrong standards, it is likely that she would attempl to
control,ltuations which do not suit htr tlUte. This was rellected in lhe confrontations and family turmoil
about corporal punishment. Joyce will likely address what she believes ore Ihe wrong doings of others,
pllJ'licularly If she or som,'one she loves is thought to be sutTering, She believes Ihat her own behavior is
acceplable and appropriate If It Is for the right couse, This Is clearly the clUe with the current visitation
dispute, She Is sutTering and believes thatlhe grandchildren ore sutTering by not being allowed to share 0
relationship with her,
Joyce Is on independent woman who Is self-05sured and poised, She is assertive, resourceful, and
task oriented, She has been employed for the V,S, Department of Navy with security clearances for 0 long
period of time, She Is likely a valuable employee because of these troilS.
Joyce also has positive nurturing, caregiver qualities, She values helping others and docs not
appear to resent responsibilities, For example, she maner-of -factly described caring for her aging mother
which, at times, could be a difficult duty. She also has historically helped her adult children by sharing her
home, her lime (I.e,: baby-sining), and her finances,
Currently, Joyce is experiencing situation specitlc anxieties regarding the separation Crom her
grandchildren and the conflicts with her daughter, She has experienced physical problems recently which
have required outpatient surgery bllt ore unrelated to her emotional health, Ovemll, she appears to be
physically and emotionally healthy. She is nol considered to be experiencing a signitlcant psychiarric
disorder,
In summary, Joyce Kretzlng is currently participating in a dispute regarding visitation with her
grandchildren. She is experiencing significant anxiety and feelings of loss over their lengthy separation.
She believes that they also suffer similar feelings, Joyce currently has "Average" intellectual abilities and
has the capacity for nonnal reasoning. She has an awareness of child development issues and appropriate
discipline, She does not exhibit signs of substance abuse or of signitlcant psychiatric illness. Her
personality style is one of a nunuring, self-assured, responsible person. As is reflected in aforementioned
situations, Joyce has a tendency to be unaware of certain personal faults, but has strong standards and will
stand up for her beliefs to the point of becoming controlling in certain situations. This appears to be most
problematic in her relationship Wilh her daughter, Christine,
~~
Nicolee M. Hiltz, Ph,D. PA Licensed Psychologist
PA Certitled School Psychologist
'- ...
I'laintil1'became even more involved in her gmndchildren's lives. She trequently took the children
to the park and the library. And when the detendant, James Walk den, relused to become involved
in Jessica's education it was Joyce Kretzing who tilled thc void (....I!I!, Memorandum of
Defcndant, Christine Walkden (Kretzing), 1991 Tcrm No. 2524, at pp. 4 - all ached as Exhibit A.)
On an almost daily basis, she would spend time with her grandchildren and the highlight of each
visit was the time she spent rcading them stories. Finally, when Jessica cntered kindergarten it
was the I'laintitfwho became hcr "room parent" Furthermore, whenevcr there was some event
at Jessica's school (ie. parent-teacher conterences, tield trips, etc.) or that involved her socially
(i.e she becamc a "Brownie") the I'laintitl'would almost always attend And if, for some reason
she could not allend, then she would make sure that somc other member of the Kretzing family
all ended in her place During summers, the amount of time the children would spend with their
Grandmother increll,\'ed. And, it was not uncommon for them to go on vacation with their
Grandmother.
In 1991, the defendants separated and in 1992 they became divorced. After leaving her
husband, defendant Christine Kretzing brietly was torced to reside in a shelter. However, the
I'laintitl' quickly purchased her a mobile home in which thc detendant, Christine Kretzing and her
children resided tor the next several years. Following the divorce and tor the next several years,
Jessica and Ashton continued to enjoy regular and substantial contact their Grandmother and the
rest of I.he Kretzing tamily
Following her divorce. Christine Kretzing became involved with Mr. William Keehn and
soon thereafter he began to reside with her As this relationship progressed, the PlaintilTbecame
convinced that he was using harsh physical punishment on the children. In January 1995, the
Plaintil1' contronted Mr Keehn regarding this issue A three-way argument between Joyce
3
K~et1.ing was once again allowed to provide tor her granddaughter's medical needs. However,
this reconciliation was short lived In November, 1995, Jessica was diagnosed with a maltonned
jaw. A follow up examination was scheduled tor January, 1996 at which time an appropriate
course of treatment would be investigated. Despite her daughter's needs, the Defendant failed to
appear at dentist's ollice and, once again, severed the rehllionship between her childreu aud her
tamily
On May 2, 1996 the Plaintitl: filed a complaint seeking partial custody/visitation privileges
in regards to Jessica Kretzing and Ashton Walkden. Standing was asserted pursuant to the
Grandparents Visitation Act, 23 Pa.C.S. * 5311. et seq. On June 30, 1996 a conciliation
conference was held, but the parties were unable to resolve their differences. Following this, the
defendants challenged the constitutionality of the Grandparent's Visitation Act. The Court
confirmed the Plaintitr s standing to pursue a relationship with her grandchildren on January 24,
1997. On May 30,1997 Defendant's couusel, John Purcell, Jr, Esquire, intormed Plaintiff's
counsel. Robert T King, Esquire, that his services had been terminated and that the defendants
intended to proceed pro ,~e. A hearing in this malleI' is scheduled tor June 12, 1997.
II. DISCUSSION
The central issue in this mailer is whether it is in the best interest of the children to have a
relationship with their Grandmother and the other members of the Kretzing family. As discussed
previously, Mrs Kretzing and the other members of her family were intimately involved in every
aspect of Jessica and Ashton's lives until early, 1995 Because of the nature of this relationship
the Plaintiff believes that it is in the best interests of the children that they have a relationship with
5
th.eir Gl'Rndmother and their mother's liulIily
There are numerous cases wher, in which grandparents have been awarded both visitation
and custodial rights over the objections of a natul'IIl parent. See, /1i.~//tIp I', Piller, 536 Pa 41, 47,
637 A.2d 976, 978-79 (1994); COl/lllwnwealth /l.\'. rei, Miller I'. Miller, 329 Pa Super 248. 478
A.2d 451 (l984),/luCl'iI'. /Iu,'d, 351 Pa.Super457, 506 A.2d 438 (1986). The key standard,
as in almost all custody cases, is whether it is in the best interest of t~'e children to have a
relationship with their grandparents. ItL In Pennsylvania, a parent's prima facie right to cllstody
of their childrcn has been abolished. Rowle,~ I'. Rowle.~. 542 Pa. 443, 668 A2d 126 (1995).
Instead, the Court held that a trial court should weigh every tact relevant to the physical,
emotional, intellectual. moral, and spiritual well-being of the children. Rowles, ,mprt., 536 Pa. at
,668 A.2d at 128. However, in applying this standard to partial custody/visitation cases the
burden is far lower than in lull custody proceedings CtJl/lllwnwealtl. e.\'. rei, Miller v, Miller,
supra at A2d 454.
The next question then, is just what factual circumstances will allow a Grandparent to
obtain visitation/partial custody rights. It is in the :hild's best interest to preserve and nurture
those relationships which are meaninglul, while avoiding situations which might prove harmful.
Commonwealth ex. rei, Zaffarano I'. (iennaro, 500 Pa. 256,455 A2d 1180 (1983). The
stability that can be otlered by the parties is one determining factor. Jone,~ v, Stone, 343
Pa.Super 416, 495 A2d 205 (1985). The Courts have recognized that there may be an adverse
effect upon the development of children caused by the disruption of an established stable
relationship (,unter 1/, (iunter, 240 Pa.Super 282.361 A.2d 307 (1976).
Here the children in question, the Plaintitl's grandchildren have were almost "co-raised"
by the PlaintilTand the other members of her family. The children saw their Grandmother on an
6
Ellh Lb it "8"
.
'" S
. I ",,:\C r
JlttJJti-
PSYCHIATRIC, PSYCHOLOGICAL
and
THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, PC
Susan L. Thornsley, MD
Lawrence L. von Raga, MD
Marcy H, Brenner, MS
Debra A, Doubrava, MS
Mary Jane Fox, MSW
Jessica M, Hart, MA
Nlcolee M. HlItz, rhO
Lynn G, Loomls, MEd,
JUI A, Mmhall, MS
Alan C. Wenrich. DMln,
..................................
Licensed Psychologist
Pennsylvsnia
Psychological Evaluation
Child Custody Evaluation
Educational Evaluation , Counselinq
Child Psychotherapy
Adolescent Psychotherapy
Family Therapy
Parent Counselinq , Education
Certified School Psychologist
Pennsylvania
Dear Sir/Madam:
The use of psychologists' as expert witnesses in child custody
cases appears to be increasing rapidly with time. The productivity
of such use is significantly determined by the communication between
the attorney and the psychologist as well as the completeness of the
work product furnished by the psychologist and its resistance to
questions of its reliability and validity.
In addition to the above, the usefulness of the psychologist as
an expert witness is often highly dependent on the psychologists
ability to testify effectively in Court, at depositions, and before
Masters. Weaknesses in this area can seriously attenuate the
effectiveness of even an excellent psychological evaluation.
Valid and reliable psychological evaluations that withstand
cross-examination can be provided by Nicolee M. Hiltz, Ph.D.
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Such. evaluations consist of the appropriate use of evaluative
and psychological techniques and the gathering of data from medical,
social agencies, mental health, and other sources. All data is
combined into a series of reports, the number tailored to each
specific ~ase, plus recommendations as required.
3300 North Third Street. Harrisburg, PA 17110
Tel. 717.234-38.19 Fax 717.234.6247
Fed (d. 25-1767562
. ..1 _-.
E'age 3
E:<E'ERIENCE
E'sychologist, New E'assages, Harrisburg, E'A
E'rovider of various psychological services including
evaluations regarding cognitive, educational, social,
emotional, and behavioral functioning of individuals,
and comprehensive forensic family evaluations regarding
visitation and custody issues. Therapy for children,
adolescents, parents, and families is provided regarding
a variety of issues.
E'sychologist, Inner Works, Harrisburg, E'A
Provider of various psychological services including
evaluations regarding cognitive, educational, social,
emotional, an.d behavioral functioning of individuals,
and comprehensive forensic family evaluations regarding
visitation and custody issues. Therapy for children,
adolescents, parents, and families is provided regarding
a variety of issues.
E'sychologist, Riegler, Shienvold & Associates, Harrisburg, PA
Provider of various psychological services including
evaluations regarding cognitive, educational, social,
emotional, and behavioral functioning of individuals,
and supervised comprehensive forensic family evaluations
regarding visitation and custody issues. Therapy for
children, adolescents, parents, and f~~ilies was
provided regarding a variety of issues.
School Psychologist, CORA Services, Trevose, PA
Responsible for comprehensive psychoeducational evaluations
and facilitation of special education services for students
in private and parochial schools within the Philadelphia
area.
Clinical Internship, Eastern State School and Psychiatric Hospital
Responsible for treatment of adolescent girls including
individual, group, and family, psychological evaluations,
and consultations with school personnel.
Page 4
Research Assistant, Children's Hospital of philadelphia/Temple
University Department of Special Education
Provider of psychological evaluations and supplemental
educational services for long-term survivors of childhood
cancer. Editor/Co-author or a cognitive-behavioral
treatment manual and related seminars.
PRESENTATrONS
Family Dynamics - Guest Appearance on LIVE
Recognizing Signs & Symptoms of Child Abuse - Holy Spirit Hospital
Child Abuse Evaluation - Harrisburg Area Psychological Association
Positive Parenting - Jewish Community Center, Harrisburg, PA
Childhood Depression - Herbert Heover Parent Teacher Organization
Proj eet LEARN Cogni ti ve Strat€qies - Workshops for Teacher, Families,
and Children affected by Ch:ldhood Cancer - The Children's
Hospital of Philadelphia and Temple University Department of
Special Education
Childhood Cancer - Temple University symposium on Childhood Cancer
Assessment - Temple University Undergraduate Special Education Class
"Hot Housing" The Ef.fects 0: High-Pressure Preschooling - Temple
University School Psychology Conference
PROFESSION~~ AFFILIATIONS
American PsychOlogical Associatien - Member
National Association of Schoel Psychologists - Member
Pennsylvania Psychological Association - Member
Harrisburg Area Psychological Association - Member
PEF.80NAL DISTINCTION
Who's Who among Students in American Colleges and U~iversities
AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A COMPREHENSIVE
CUSTODY EVALUATION
A comprehensive custody evaluation involves evaluation of each
parental figure, caregiver, or significant person living in the home
as well as children involved. I~ order to do a fair, objective and
complete evaluation, cooperatien/p~rticipation from each of these
individuals is essential. Therefore, "one-sided" evaluations will
not be conducted.
Page 5
Generally, evaluations may involve the following procedures:
-Written and/or verbal contact with legal representatives of each
parent
-Intake/Interview with each parent
-Psychological evaluation of each parent (ie: MMPI, Parent Stress
Inventory)
-Parent/Child(ren) Observation with each parent
-Horne Observation with each parent
-Interview/Evaluation/Observation of each child (Bricklin Perceptual
Scales)
-Interview with key figures such as a teacher or pediatrician if
needed
-Interpretation/Written report
-Court Testimony if needed
Depending upon appointment dvailability and client availability, an
evaluation could typically take from 6-8 ',;eeks to be completed. Due
to the difficulty of always scheduling appointments on "visitation
days," parental cooperation and flexibility is vital in allowing for
appointments to be scheduled at the discretion and anilability of
the psychologist when they are to include the children and/or the
opposing parent. Please note that occas ionally a child may need to
be absent from school or a parent absent from work in order to
facilitate a timely evaluation. If appropriate, portions of the
evaluation may be performed by another qualified person who will be
supervised by the psychologist. This will be done at the discretion
of the psychologist.
Fees and payment are based on the following:
$100 per hour for evaluation, telephone consultations, and
interpretation/report wr.iting
$150 per hour for home observations (travel time is included up to
1/2 hour round trip - additional travel time will be prorated at
a fee of $25.00 per 15 minute incrementl
Optional: $200 for first hour of court testimony.
billed at $150 (minimum $500 with additional time
arrival to departure from courthouse - travel time
1/2 hour round trip - additional travel time will
fee of $25.00 per 15 minute increment I
A $500 retainer per p'l.rent is due at the ~eqinning of their first
session which will be applied to the total bill as nf:<eded. If this
amount is insufficient, additional anticipated costs will be
collected from each parent prior to performing additional services.
Additional hours
based on time of
is included up to
be prorated at a
Exhibit "e"
&..",;A"'Y....~......,....
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
:'lusan L. Thomsley, MD
MIlJ'CY H, BreMer, M5
Debra A, Doubrava, MS
Mary Jane Fox, MSW
Jessica M, Hart, MA
Nicolee M. Hiltz, PhD
Lynn G, Loomis, MEd.
Jill A. Marshall, MS
Alan C. Wenrich, DMin,
Frank NardeUa, MED
: ';.,,,:\(;E5
Jltmti.
PSYCHIATRIC, PSYCHOLOGICAL
and
THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, PC
Namo: Joyce E. Kretzing
Blrrh dale: 12.16-3~
Aae: 56 years
Addrm: 267 Nortb Middlesex Road, Carlisle PA 17013
Tel.phone: (II) (717) 24)..1213, (W) (717) 790.6823
E.alualor: Nicol.. M. lIihz, Ph.D.
Dales of E.alu8110n: 10.), 10-4, 10-10 & 10.18.96
Reason for Rer.rral: Mrs. Kretzing was referred for a personality e.uluation by her attorney, Mr, Robert
King, Esq, This psychological informal ion was requesled In order 10 faellita.. court action (NO, 96-2411 in
the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, PAl regarding visitation between Mrs, Krelzlng and
her 8randchildren, Jessica KreIling (age 10) and Ashton Walkden (age 8).
Disclaimer: Due 10 the nature of this dispute, il was recommended by this psycbologisl 10 Ihe plaintiffs
counsellhut a comprehensive ..uluation 01'011 Involved parties would be most appropriate. Without
delenninlng what !)Ipe of emotional relationship exists between the plaintiff and Ihe children, it is
impossible 10 make any recommendation regardin~ visitation In Ihis report, In order 10 obtain un objective
opinion regordlng the children's besl inlerest rather than parental or grandparental subjective opinions, ills
important to assess the children's psychological issues Indcpendently. Additionally, without a
psychological evaluation of all parents, particularly of the biological molhel', It is impossible to make
comparative statements of emotional well-being, comparative statements about chlldcare abilities, or
decipher what elements from the differing historic.1 accounlS are moSlaccurate between the parents and
grandparent. However, It is understood Ihallhe "quest to perfom\ a comprehensive evalualion was not
granled. Therefore, what is presented In Ihis evaluation is exelusively a personalily pro!ile of Mrs. Joyce
Kretling wilh a focus on her awareness of developmental issues. It should be interpreted wilhout any
assumplion of being more or less favorable than Ihal of any of the defendants.
Baekaround Informallon: (Based on information provided by Joyce Kretling) Joyce Kretling is the
malemal grundmolh\ :0 Jessica Kretzing und Ashton Walkden. They are the biological children of her
daughler, ChriSline Kreiling (age 30 years), Joyce has lhree olher grown children, Michelle Arnold (31
years), Jake Kretling (30 years), and Elizabelh Kretling (21 years). Mrs. Krelzing was widowed in 1983
and is not remarried. Joyce i~ employed by NA VICP.M (Na',y Inventory Conlrol Point - Mechanicsbn'g,
PAl as an Allowancc ~p<cialisl. As port of her position she has been given Secret and Contidential
Cleorance for the U.S. Departmenl of Navy. Random and procedural drug ~creens administered by the
Navy have all been reportedly negative.
Based on information from Mrs. Kretling's interviews, it was reported that she and Christine have
a history of a cyclical relalionship, According to Joyce, Ihe difticulties Ihat they experience have otten
been at the innuence of Christine's signlticant olhers. Chrisline first became pregnant in 1985 to Mr.
Edgar Roche' III. Due 10 circumstances, Christine continued 10 live at home with Joyce and her younger
sister, Elizabeth. As a resull. Christine and Joyce prepared for Ihe baby and Joyce was presenl during labor
and delivery. Subsequent 10 Jessica's birth they continued 10 live togelher a.s a family and shared
childrearing responsibilities for over a year. Aller Jessica was about a year old. Christine moved
unannounced with Mr James Walden. wilh whom she had recently become romantically involved. For
Ihree months Joyce did not know where Ihey had moved with Jessica. Christine then called Joyce wilh
news of their whereabouls and her pregnancy. She then allowed Joyce 10 see Jessica on a limited basis
Once Christine and Jim were married alld Ashton was born, Jo)ce asserts that she conlinued to see the
children and that they remained emotionally close.
Ihree months Joyce did nOI know where they had moved wilh Jessica. Christine then called Joyce with
news of their whereabouts and her pregnancy. Sbe then allowed Joyce to see Jessica on u Iimiled basis.
Once Christine and Jim were married und Ashton was born, Joyce asserts thaI she conllnued to see the
children and that they remained emotionally close.
Joyce believes Ihal during this time Jim did not like her and was the cause of much of the tension
between she and Christine. She also believes thaI Jim was physically rough with the children and used
inappropriale corporal punishment and overly sIT1c1 disciplinary measures. For example, she reported that
Jim had used a homemade "hame,," and a wooden cage of sorts to keep Ashton conlined. lie also
reportedly "whipped" Jessica, Christine and Jim were married for about two years when Christine left the
relationship and brietly moved to a sheiler, Joyce then bought her a trailer with furnishings.
Atler Christine and Jim divorced, Joyce claims 10 have spoken to or spent lime with the children
on a dally basis. She was Jessica's room parent in kindergarten, took the children on vacations, helped
wilh homework, and participated in the "parenting" of her grandchildren. She also conlinued to help
Christine linancially.
Christine later became involved with Wiliianl Keehn. Joyce described "Willy" as a religious
extremist who was agalnsl Joyce seeing the children. 1I0wever, she said thaI she was allowed to continue
her relationship with Ihem. Joyce reported thaI while Jessica was living wllh Wiliy, Jessica told her that
he hit her with a belt, carried her b)' the feet, and inslsled Ihat she participate in their 1I0nITaditional
religious practices. About two years ago Joyce confronted Wiliy wl'l1some of these allegations, Two
bitler, violenl arguments immediately resuiled between Joyce, Christine and Jim. During the latter, the
police were called. Joyce said she then made a report to Children and Youth regarding the alleged abuse.
Joyce was also accused of kidnapping Jessica and Ashton for bringing them to her home after school
without pennlsslon, Subsequently, Joyce recalled having seen the children on a few IImiled occasions.
However, she sold that she has continued to offer linancial support for medical/denIal care which she
believes has been neglected.
It Is noted that much oflhe aforementioned Infonnation reported by Mrs. Kretzing was disputed in
Ihe Custody Conciliation Summary Report and the Answer to Complaint for Partial CoslodyNlsitallon
with New Matter ( NO, 96-2411). In those documents it was noted that the defendants believe that Ihe
children do not have an emotional attachment to Mrs. Kretzlng. It was further asserted that she has
Interfered with family functioning, parenting, and parent/child relationships Ihl'Ough conlTolling and
inappropriate behaviors. It was stated that her involvement would be delrlmental to the children due to her
alleged emotional Instabilll)' and irresponsibility.
Evaluallon Procedures;
Wechlser Adult Intelligence S,;ale - Revised (W AIS-R)
Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST)
Minnesola Muiliphasic Personality Inventory. 2 (MMPI.2)
The Rorschach
Parenting Questionnaire
Life Infonnalion Script (limited selection.1
Clinica/lnterviews
nehavior Observallon" Throughout much of the evaluation, Joyce was emotional. She had difficulty
maintaining composure during the interviews without crying. Her body language made her appear
anxious and uncomfortable, particularly during test administration, Although participation in Ihis
evaluation was voluntary. she was clearly annoyed when she was given the tests. She seemed to be more
open to the evaluatio" dunng discussion.like tasks. While she was generally cooperative and pleasant
with the examining psychologist, she did confront the onice staff angrily regarding several clerical issues,
She also refused to complete the Digit Span subtest of the W AIS.R. The WAIS-R was ad",inistered by a
doctoral tevel intern who noticed that Joyce was agitated and disgusted over taking the test. Although
Digit Span is a relolively benign sub test, she became threatened and frustrated with the task and stopped
prematurely. This is unusual in light of the voluntary nature of the elOluation. This l)'pe of "out of
proportion" reaction was also evident regarding an unforeseen cancellation. For example, Joyce had
come 45 minutes lale to an appointment without penalty ( sh.: was not charged for a missed appointment as
Is In the Initial agreement, was glve~ a brief appointment as a courtesy, and was put Into the schedule
within 24 hours). floweyer, on a later appointment she reacted wllh tears and anger toward the omce slaff
when she arrlyed for an appointment that the psychologist was unable to kcep (personal cmergency).
Results and Interpretations: The W AIS-R Is a yo lid, reliable, and widely used measure of Intellectaal
abilities, Valuable quantltatlye and qualitatlye Information for reasoning skills Is obtained, Behaylornl and
emotional infonnatlon can also be ohlBlned based on obseryatlon of test taking strategies, yerbal and
nonyerbal behaylors, signs of frustration tolerance, el.c. The W AIS-R proYldes Intelligence data for
oyerall abilities (Full Scale IQ), yerbal reasoning (VerbaIIQ), and nonyerbal reasoning (Perfonnance IQ),
There ore also sub tests whlcb are designed to measure specilic cognitive skills (I.e.: auditory recall,
sequencing skills, etc.), For the purpose of this evaluation it was vnluabk to assess Joyce's oYerall
cognltiye skills, Each of her IQ scores are within the" Ayerage" range of intelligence. Therefore, she has
nonnal rel150nlng abilities.
The MAST is a selt~repol1 measure of symptoms of alcohol use/ahuse, Due to the possibility of
careglying responsibilities, this was considered to be important Information. Based on her report, Joyce
does not drink more than approximately one alcoholic drink per year, She denies any history of signilicalll
alcohol use by she or her late husband.
The clinical illlervlews, Life lnfonnation Script, and Parenting Questionnaire were used as
methods to gather information about Joyce's personal experiences as a child, as a parent, and as a
grandparent. Her awareness of important deyelopmental issues and ability to implement appropriate
caregiyer strategies was a focus of this segment of the evaluation.
Joyce recalled fond memories of her childhood, She described n simple, country life with parellls
who were pleasant and kind, fler parents encauraged togetherness and family actiyities. Their discipline
strategies included losing a privilege, talking, and silting in a chair, She said tbat her parents did not fight,
were not physical, and did not yell.
When discussing her ,jjsclplinary sly Ie, Joyce described a similar approach to that of her parents,
She primarily bel Ie YeS in nonphysical discipline. Strategies such as losing priyileges, talking things
through, looking together for solutions, and time-outs were highlighted. She appeared to have a reasonable
understanding of development and appropriate discipline. In practice, Joyce likely employs this type of
disciplinary style. flow ever, she did describe difliculties disciplining Christine as a youth. For example,
she reported thar. Christine stole money from her on several occasions. Although she confronted Christine,
she did not follow-through with negatiye consequences for Christine's actions.
The MMPI-2 is a iengthy questionnaire that is scored and statistically compared to various mental
health populations. The more one's responses correlate with each of those groups Increusesthe likelihood
of 0 menial health diagnosis. The report generated from the test is used to help diagnose psychotherapy
patients. As with any measure, it should not be interpreted in isolation from other data. Rother, it Is part of
the whole, Tho Rorschach is also port of the puzzle designed to evaluate personality characteristics.
Perfonnance on the Rorschach requires one to identify what is seen out of abstract mono and
polychromatic "inkblots." These impressions help determine various personality characteristics. The
Rorschach entices more unconscious elements and allows for 0 rich interpretation. Specilic isolated scores
on these measures will not be interpreted. Rather, an illlegration of data from the entire eyaluation will
result in the personality prome.
Joyce was uncomfortable taking both the MMPI and the Rorschnch. She did not like the nature of
the questions being asked or the ambiguous nature of these tests. On the MMPI, she lett numerous
questions unanswered which makes interpretation more difticult. She also demonstrated a tendency to
deny faults which cnn submerge scores. For example, she denied feelings of anxiety, hostility, and distrust.
Giyen the nature of this evaluation, her denial of faults and bias to appear psychologically healthy are
considered to be signs of defensiveness. Denial appears to be a psychological mechanism which Joyce
employs when threatened. It con inhibit insight and ability to solve personal problems. Rigid adherence to
defense mechanisms such as denial or repression are psychological avoidance tactics. f1owever, when she
feels more comfortable and Is able to explain herself, she is more likely to let these guards down and deal
more appropriately with pmonal issues.
Results suggest that Joyce feels the need to be in control and to do things perfectly well. She has
strong opinions and beliefs. Because Joyce has strong standards, it is likely that she would a!lemptto
JOYCE KRETZING, I IN THE COURT OF C<X>lMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
I
VS. I NO. 96-2411 CIVIL TERM
I
CHRISTINE KRETZING, .
.
Defendant .
.
I
and I
JAMES WALKDEN, I
Defendant I
I
and I
EDGAR ROCHE, III, .
.
Defendant . IN CUSTODY
.
<XX.R1' ClU)filR
/1
AND Na'I, this 'I t.i day of (~~ , 1996, upon consideration of
the attached Custody conciliation/Repo~, it is ordered and dirllcted as
follows:
A Hearing is scheduled in cO:irt Room number ::<, of the CUl!tlerland
CO';ll}ty Court House on the 59" day of al~'f.J,~~ ,1996, at
/, 3 cJ .o'clock,;:> .m. at wh{ch time testimony I()l be taken in this
case. At this Hearrng, the Maternal Grandmother, Joyce Kretzing, shall be
deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony.
Counsel for the Parties shall file with the Court and opposing Counsel a
Memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody and also setting
forth Ii list of witnesses who will be called to testify at the Hearing
along with a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. This
Memorandum shall be filed at least ten days prior to the Hearing data.
/ /
BY THE COURT, ,
'0~/
V f J.
cc:
Robert T. King, Esq.
John W. Purcell, Jr.,
Edgar Roche, III
ell
Esq.
C'''p'' ~ mallr;~L
"1/1J./9{'
':XI')
JOYCE KRE'l'ZING, I IN THE COURT OF ca-IMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff I CUMBERLAND OOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
I
ve. I NO. 96-2411 CIVIL TERM
I
CHRISTINE KRE'l'ZING, I
Defendant I
I
and I
JAMES WALKDEN, I
Defendant I
I
and .
.
EDGAR ROCHE, III, .
.
Defendant . IN CUSTODY
.
aJS'l'ODr <XK:ILIATI~ SIMWlX RBPan'
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEllURE 1915.3-8,
the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits th~ following report:
1. The pertinent information pertaining to the Children who are the
subjects of this litigation is as follows:
NAME
BIRTHDATE f~LY IN CUSTODY OF
April 30, 1986 Defendant/Mother
September 26, 1988 Defendant/Mother
Jessica Kretzing
Ashton Kretzing
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on June 25, 1996, with the
following individuals in attendance: the Maternal Grandmother, Joyce
Kretzing, with her counsel, Robert T. King, Esquire: the Mother of the
Children, Christine Kretzing, and the Father of Ashton Kretzing, James
Walkden, with their counsel, John W. Purcell, Jr., Esquire. The Father of
Jessica Kretzing, Edgar Roche III, was not present at the Conference and
contacted the Conciliator's office prior to the Conference to advise that
he hall never acknowledged paternity of Jessica Kretzing, and therefore did
not intend to participate in these proceedings.
3. The Maternal Grandmother filed this action under the Grandparents'
Visitation Act, 23Pa.C.S.A. ~5313 for visitation or partial custody of the
Children. The Mother and the Father join in strenuously opposing the
Granaoother's petition and therefore a Hearing will be necessary in this
matter. It should be noted that this Court previously entered an Order on
May 19, 1993 in custody proceedings between the Mother and James Walkden
(Ashton's Father) under which James Wa1kden was also granted partial
custody rights with respect to Jessica Kretzing.
4. The Maternal Grandmother's position on custody is as follows: the
Maternal Grandmother believes it is in both Children's best interest that
she ~ve substantial contact with them. The Maternal Grandmother indicates
that Jessica had resided with her (and the Mother) beginning April 30, 1986
for a period exceeding one year. The Maternal Grandmother's position as
explained through counsel is that the Grandmother had a close relationship
with the Children prior to termination of contact in March 1995 with her
daughter, the Mother in this action, and the Grandmother had been providing
medical/dental care for the Children prior to that time. The Maternal
Grandmother believes that the Mother has not been providing adequate dental
and medical catOe for the Children. Specifically, she believes that Jessica
requires oral surgery at this time, which the Mother refuses to have
performed. According to the Grandmother's counsel, the Mother has joined a
Fundamental Christian church which has put a ~erious strain on the parties'
relationship and has led to the Mother's reliance on faith healing in place
of adequate medical care. The Maternal Grandmother proposed a partial
custody schedule under which she would see the Children on certain
weekends, holidays, and for a nwruoer of weeks during the summer months.
5. The Mother and the Father (of Ashton) assert the following
position on custody: the Parents believe that their joint decision barring
contact of the Children with the Maternal Grandmother overrides the
Grandmother's reqlJest lor periods of vif'itation or partial custooy. The
Parents beli6ve that any contact whatsoever with the Maternal Grandmother
would be detrimental ~o the Children in that the Grandmother has serious
mental health problems which prevent her from being a desirable contact for
the Children. Specifically, the Parents claim that the Grandmother
interferes wi th the Parents I methods of parenting and has continuously
tried to drive a wedge between the Parents to obtain control over the
Children. The Parents also indicated that the Maternal Grandmother has
lied to the Children, kidnapped them on one occasion, and attempted to turn
the Children against the Parents. The Parents indicated that the Maternal
Grandmother was physically abusive to the Mother in the Child I S presence
when the Mother and Jessica were living in the Grandmother's residence.
Finally, the Parents deny that the Children are not being provided with
adequate medical/dental care. The Parents were not willing to consider any
type of contact, even supervised visitation between the Maternal
Grandmother and the Children.
6. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached.
~.~
Date
.,.) 7 /9 ?~
,
a.~~r~
Dawn S. Sunday, Esqu re
Custody Conciliator
4. The relationship of plaintiff to the children is that
of grandmother. The plaintiff currently resides with the
following persons:
Name Relationship
Elizabeth Kretzing Daughter
Michelle (Kretzing) Arnold Daughter
Robert Arnold Son-in-law
5(4).
The relationship of defendant, ChrJ.stine Kretzing,
to the children is that of mother. The defendant,
Christine Kretzing, currently resides with the
following persons:
William Keelin
Relationshio
Li ving together
~
5(b) .
The relationship of defendant, Edgar Roche, to the
child Jessica Kretzing is that of father. He
lives alone.
5(c).
The relationship of defendant, James Walken, to
the child Ashton Kretzing is that of father. He
lives alone.
6. Plaintiff has not participated as party or witness, or
in another capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody
of the children in this or another court.
Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding
concerning the children pending in a court of this Commonwealth.
Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the
proceedings who has physical custody of the children or claims to
have custody or visitation rights with respect to the children.
7. The best interest and permanent welfare of the children
will be served by granting the relief requested because:
a) It is in the best interests of, both, Jessica and
Ashton Kretzing, to have a relationship with their
maternal grandmother, the plaintiff, Joyce
Kretzing.
3
'.
! i
""R 1 1t
. ('I) Q 8
l,'- (~' 0
,
Ill' "11' 0 It)
~ ( '" (6
f" 1.1,. @ !rj ::t r<) cr
( "' O.
1" ...
C' ~'. I ., ~ l"- Oa
I ~ ~
/L ]
.~ "fJ ,
, <It:: ,
1.,\
, ,
,/
'J- , ,
'.'1
fr. C"t r.s
19 c:
.:;. 'j "
(:I 3;;(
~- .'- ~, 2;
r':' <\.. , I~
C.
1';' <"I ..rfj
Il_ 'J' }
r;.:!.1J c.' -~
'I -
f" ;; l~
-.
~ """ L:~
.." ;j
(I', u
ifili
'"
It _.....>1
, '
"
...,
'..1. _ ... -~ "..'
KElT" P. FISHP.R1 D,O,S.
11111 SOUTlt MARKET .TREET
MfCHAi'lIC.IURO. PA 17015
7lHIe.7025
'~
~;42
..
'-';1 :-
r
1
Elizabeth Krelzing
267 N. Middlu89X Road
CarllR1e, PA 17013
Jessica
.J
..L~
_ek
d
I
I~
It ~
-
19 __Lt. --_. -~
g 1'6 G
'.
-
---
j
:. ~
~J
,.
if,1
---~--_.- ---
"
,
.,.,.....4 Bu.,.... ....1.... Int: Its..
-
"..... 'JoV lAI' AMOU,."IlIUI,ANCI COLU"'''...J
) I
j't
~ .
/