The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About96-02963 . " " , , , ., . ~ v ) \1 " , , \I I," .3 , , " : , " , , " ~ " ~ tJ - - I '- i ~ , " I \ I I , , I, .. ,,-- II' 0>' ; if , ! , , , L'1 i 'f I , ! " i i, I. t f " , " j, j.', 'r/ ( , ' j 'I,) ~ ',(I, , ~ 'I ! " ! , , - " " , ; " I '. " :) - c::J " ", , , , , tv) , I'I ,'f' It'" ....> " .iy 0- " " ci , " u " J I Gro~ J. :UIJ.ER, Plaintiff In The Court of CQmmon Pl.as of ) ) } ) ) ) ) Cumbarland County, ~ennsylvania ~o. 96 ~ 2963 Civil Term:9 IN 1?.nr~1liNr CIOUSfOPl1ER S. WEAVeR, SR., iIlld CIOUsrINA ~I. liEAVER, Defendant8 OATIl We do eolemnly swear (or affirm) the Conat1tut10n of the United States ~ealth and that we will diSCharge the that we ~ill support, obey and deiend and the C~nstitutioa oi chis Co~on- duties of ~ur o~fice 1 fidelity. ~" ~ " -~,~ ~ ~ ... ..... a r:nan 'k~~~--- 'WABD . ~ We, th. undersigned a~bit~ators, having been duly avp~int.d and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award: (Note: If demase. for delay are awarded, toey s~.ll b~ separately stated.) iie ilWard Plaintiff $7,410.00, p1u:3 possessi.un of the nropertv at ~~4 Susquehanna Avenue in Eno1a, Hll in acco~danc~ with u Sti~ulation of the pi:ct!.es dat.;,d 29 April 1997. t,ppl1cllb1e. ) Date of aea~ing:~O April 30 April A~bitrator, dissents. (Insert no.me i: Date of "wa~d: 1997 1997 '.--.' NOTICE OF ENTRY OF AWARD :low, the "+"day of rn~'1 eva~d wae eneered upon the dockee ~ereiel or their attorneys. . 19~.7-' at 1JJJli.., A.a., the above and notice thereof given by mail co the Ir(~'./c..n P (~ )~t~'~'l ) f Proehonot~ry ~: i2GM P '-n~'1",,'d ,J}-xr- ""7oe\luty 1,1-- Arbit~ato~s' compevaAcion co be ~eid upon appeal: S .;)9(),/ld , . I JOSBPH R. ROSS, III, I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLBAS OF Plaintiff I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I v. I CIVIL ACTION - LAW I BARBARA D. ROSS MARTIN, I Defendant I NO. 95-1384 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this '1 t~ day of June, 1997, upon consideration of in Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1915.13, requesting counsel fees, the petition is DISMISSBD as premature, without prejudice to file such a petition following disposition of the matters already scheduled for a hearing on July 2, 1997. BY THE COURT, Bradley L. Griffie, Esq. 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esq. Suite l1A, 845 Sir Thomas Court Harrisburg, PA 17109 Attorney for Defendant " ~c,.... /l,.o.,tu,t leI ~fl q 'I, , '-.. . '~- , ..,!, t'. Ira , 'Ij I'"~ : ',ll." "',','1.1 ' ,',,",1(\, '.I, ,_ '"",_,,> , . S~ :,' " ", Iii l.,.. I J'" 1\'.."'" I,i _. ',~J: ~.rl, S, In that the parties were unable to reach an agreement relative to these custody proceedings upon receipt of the independent custody evaluation, Petitioner petitioned the Court for the scheduling of a conciliation conference which was held in this mailer on April 3, 1997, 6, A copy of the Court's Order of April 9, 1997 scheduling a custody hearing in this malter lor July 2, 1997 at 9:00 a,m" and the conciliation conference summary report which caused the aforementioned Order to be entered, is allached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "C", 7, At the time of the custody conciliation on April 3, 1997. the Respondent herein appeared, pro se, indicating to the conciliator that her allurney was not present with her to altemptto resolve this mailer through negotiation, but rather Respondent wished to have the malter scheduled for a court hearing, 8, The conciliator's concerns relative to the failure of counsel for the Respondent to appear and failure of the Respondent to allemptto resolve the mailer by negotiations is set forth in the conciliation conference summary report as footnote number (, 9, Despite the fact Petitioner has been the primary custodian for the children in excen of two years, Dr, Shienvold recommended that Father remains as pl'imary custodian, and Respondent failed to even allempt to negotiate a resolution of this mailer with the conciliator, Respondent continues to demand that a hearing be held in this malter, . 10, Immediately following the conciliation in this malter where Respondent failed to even allemptto resolve the mailer by negotiations, Respondent flied a complaint with the Cumberland County Children & Youth Services Agency claiming that Petitioner herein sexually abused his four year old daughter, II. Following a thorough investigation by Cumberland County Children & Youth Services, Cumberland County Children & Youth Services entered an opinion through leller dated April 24, 1997 indicating that the allegations of abuse were unfounded, 12, When the Cumberland County Children & Youth Services Agency determined that the allegations made by Respondent that Petitioner had abused his minor daughter were unfounded, Respondent then made a claim with the Pennsylvania State Police that Petitioner had sexually abused the parties' minor daughter, 13, Petitioner immediately cooperated with the Pennsylvania State Police including providing a polygraph lest which caused the Pennsylvania State Police to immediately drop their investigation of the crimes alleged by Respondent 14, All of the actions of Respondent from the time she vacated the marital residence in the Spring of 1995 to date, including the most recent false allegations mad~ against Petitioner, have been done solely for vindictiveness and without any factual foundation or basis, 15, The instant action which is scheduled for a hearing on July 2, 1997 is apparently based upon Respondent's ongoing position that she should have primary physical custody of the children who have been in Petitioner's primary physical custody in excess of two years, 16, Respondent has failed and reliJSed to comply with the terms of the Court's Order of October 25, 1995 in unilaterally returning the childl'en early at the end of visits, returning them late at the end of visits, returning them to Fathds place of employment at the end of visits, not picking up the children in the time frame required by the Order, and otherwise failing to comply with the terms of the Court's Order, 17, The actions of Respondent in continuing to press her claim for primary physical custody under the factual circumstances of tillS case, makes evident that the sole purpose for her action is to create additional expense and loss of time from work for Petitioner, as well as to emotionally and mentally aggmvate the situation lor Petitioner and the parties' minor children, IS, The actions of Respondent relative to her pursuit of custody in this matter and her insistence that a custody hearing be held in this case are vindictive, vexatious, obdurate, obnoxious, and without factual basis, 19, Petitioner has been required to incur substantial attorney's fees associated with the two conciliations in this case, the pending hearing in this case, his investigation by II' I I I I', Cumberland County Children & Youth Services and the Pennsylvania State Police, and in attempts to negotiation a resolution of this case, all of which fees have been incurred unnecessarily due to Respondent's actions, :' 20, The independent custody evaluation perlormed by Dr, Arnold V, Shienvold is substantial evidence of the best interests and permanent welfare of the children, and Dr, Shienvold was retained as an independent evaluator with the recommendation and consent of Respondent and her legal counsel. 21. Respondent's ongoing attempts to secure physical custody of the children, including pursuit of the matter at a hearing on July 2, 1997, will require that the Petitioner secure the services of Dr, Arnold V, Shienvold to appear at the hearing and testilY in this matter, all of which will create substantial, unnecessary expense for Petitioner, 22. While Petitioner recognizes Respondent's legal right to pursue physical custody of the parties' children, Petitioner submits that there is no tactual basis whatsoever for the pursuit of this matter by Respondent, 23, Respondent is pursuing this matter out of vindictiveness as expressed above, and because she has been required to pay support by the Cumberland County Domestic Relations Office which support order she has appealed on various occasions, but which order has remained in elTect without modilication, 24, As indicat~d, a custody hearing is scheduled in this mailer for July 2, 1997 at 9:00 a,m, in Courtroom Number 5 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, 25, Contemporaneously with the custody hearing scheduled in this matter, a contempt hearing has been scheduled based upon a Petition For Contempt filed by the Respondent in this case, 26, Contemporaneously with the t1Iing of this Petition For Special Relief, a Petition For Contempt has been filed by Petitioner against Respondent requesting that Respondent's contempt be heard contemporaneously with the custody hearing in this matter on July 2, 1997, 27, It would be appropriate, in thr pfirties' financial interest, and in the interest of judicial economy to have the within Petition For Special Relief heard at the conclusion of the custody proceedings in this matter, '1 ('.. , - Ulwt '-..,' ". lL I~":\, {I- .01 JOSBPH R. ROSS, III, Plaintiff IIN THB COURT OF COMMON PLBAS OF ICUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I INO. 1384 - CIVIL - 1995 I I ICIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY v BARBARA D. ROSS, Defendant COURT ORDER AND NOW, th.i. ~itaay of ~ ' 1995, upon consideration of the attaohed Custody Cone 1 at on Report, it is ordered and directed a. follows I 1. The Father, Joseph R. Ross, III, and the Mother, Barbara D. Ro.s, shall enjoy shared legal custody of the minor children, Kyle B. Ross, born August 18, 1990, and Brandy M. Ross, born November 28, 1992. 2. On a temporary basis, physical custody shall be handled as follows I A. On an alternating week schedule when the Mother has her long four day period of no work, Mother shall have physioal custody from the afternoon on the day she gets off work until she returns the children to the Father or to the daycare the day that she returns back to work. Father .hall deliver children to Mother at the beginning of the exchange of custody, and Mother shall deliver the children back to Father or day care at the end of this custody period. B. On those other two weeks when the Mother is off work and available to take care of the children during the day, Mother shall have the opportunity of providing care for the children during the day and may have physical custody of the children until Father returns from work. Mother shall advise Father at least three days in advance of any days that she intend. to take care of the children during the day. Mother shall handle transportation for exchange of custody of the children on those dates. C. Bxcept for a. stated above wh~n Mother has physical cu.tody, Pat her shall enjoy phy.ical custody. EXIIIBIT "A" ", '. , , The parties may alternate this schedule as they mar agree between themselves. Ab.ent an agreement, th s schedule shall control until further Order of this Court. The parties shall submit themselv.. and the minor children to a custody evaluation performed by a professional as agread upon by legal counsel for the parties. Costs of this evaluation shall be shared equally between the parties. Upon conclusion of this evaluation and in the event that the parties at that time are unable to reach an agreement on custody, counsel for either party may contact the Custody Conciliator to have a telephone conference after which the case can be scheduled for a Searing with the Court. 3. The above custody schedule is entered a. an Order pursuant to an agreement of the parties reached at a Custody Conciliation Conference. Bither party reserves the r.ight to advance a contrary custody arrangement in the event the case come. before the Court for a Hearing. D. 13. BY THE COURT, /5/ Y . 1...\'.. ~, 1Ji." a.." . Judgg J. WesleY erei' / Jr. CCI Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire Marianne B. Rudebusch, Esquire 1"'!.'::: I~"':""" -::-.......1 :""';-:";"'''D ' . t. ..11" I, I . . 11 I :;'"'. '. t -/ h3~C ar:d iJJ~ s~a, ~,; s.;,'J ~,,, ,. ,.t ,";:.- ',010 pa' -.' .. ....'......., . ThIs ,~~,~ day 01424,:, 19.9.,f.. ~ .-.0' '.............,. .. . u-_ , ~, ,..~C;;~th~~;e;~......... . .....--.." -.~ .. .....- -- .. "' llIea1er . Shlenvold a Associates CUSTODY EV ALUATlON Elliot Riclllcr, Ph.D. Arnold T. Shicnvold, Ph.D. Melinda Euh, M.S. Wlyne L. Trolla, M.S. SImes Euh, L.S.W. Michael J. Asken, Ph.D. Bonnie L. Howard, Ph.D. Amy K. Kelslln.. A.C.S.W., L.S.W. Oayle SlcchllonO, M.S. Ro.allnd A. Hollmon, D.Ed. Joseph Ross v, Barbara Ross Referred by: The parties mutually agreed to a custody evaluation at I Cumberland County Conciliation Court meeting with Hubert OUray, Esquire. Referral Reason: To complete psychological evaluations on all parties and to make recommendations regarding the most appropriate custodial arrangement for the two minor children, Kyle E. Ross, date of birth, 8/18/90; and Brandy M, Ross, date of birth, 11/24/92, Individual Interviews: Joseph Ross. 3 hours Barbara Ro$S - 3 hours Michael Dowin - I hour Psychological Testing: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) · all adults Parent/Child Observation: Both Barbara Ross and Joseph Ross were observed in an interactive play session with each of their children. Home Studies: Home observations were obtained at Joseph Ross' home in rural Carlisle and at Michael Dowin's home in Ickesburg, Pennsylvania. Other: Miscellaneous Court documents, personal notes, and an answering machine tape were reviewed in preparation of this report. The recommendations included at the end of this evaluation are the result of the compilation of all these sources of data, BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Joseph and Bwbara Ross were married September 29,1986, Barbara was 18 years old at the time and Joseph was 20, They had decided to elope when Barbara was still a senior in high school. She did not work for the first year of the marriage, By mutual agreement, she first concluded her high school education, There was some initial disagreement about having children becaullC of their ages,. Barbara admits that Joseph was much more invested in having children. Nonetheless, they decided to have Kyle, who was delivered by C-section in 1990, Brandy was also delivered by C-section in 1992. There was even greater disagreement about this second child. For Barbara it was a two-fold problem. First of all, she was unsure if she even wanted a second child. Secondly, Barbara did not want to have a daughter because of the uncomfortable (717) 540-1313 I 2151 Linlllcstown Road, Suite 200 I Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 EXHIBIT "B" Page 2 RE: Ross v, Ross relationship she had had with her mother, JOteph, on the other hand, was delighted to have a second child and had no fears of having a daughter. Both Barbara and Joseph agreed that the first three years of their marriage were fairly positive, Problems began to evolve after that time period. Both of them were working the same shift at Frey Communicatioll5, Joseph alleges that Barbara had an extra-marital affair some time in the late 1990's, For a time period, there was even some disagreement whether Joseph was the biologicsl father of Kyle. According to Barbara, the problems arose from a lack of communication and a lack of common activities, She indicates that Joseph worked a great deal of the time, and that he rarely wanted to go out and do different activities, She states that there were silO time periods where he would drink. They would, subsequently, get into physicsl sltercations, Barbara does admit that she may have been equally responsible for thete. but she reports that he did hit her. Barbara states that u1timatel~ she became disenchanted with Joseph and preferred to be at work rather than with him. She began a relationship with Mr, Dowin tbllowing the birth of Brandy. Eventually, she preferred her time with Mr. Dowin to her time with Joseph, She moved out of the home in March of 1995, and moved immediately in with Mr, Dowin in Perry County. Barbara moved away without the children, She indicated that she would have liked to take the children with her, but that Joseph refused to allow her to do 50, She stated that Joseph would not allow her to have any overnights with the children before June of 1995, Dwing much of that time the children were being watched by Joseph's step-mother, Joseph admits that Barbara wanted to take the children, but he said" no," He felt that because she was moving out of his home into another person's home, it was inappropriate for the children. Furthennore, she was moving to Perry County and they lived in Cumberland County, He stated that although he new Mr, Dowin he did not know the circumstances under which his children would be living, Joseph also stated that Barbara made little preparation to have the children go with her, Furthermore. she did not exhibited alot of interest in visiting with them for the first three months that she was gone, Obviously, he and Barbara disagree on this latter point. With respect to time and care of the children, Barbara and Joseph both admit that they shared many of the responsibilities of child rearing during the time period that they were together, Both of them ft:d the children, bathed the children, and clothed the children, They would also share in the overall supervision of the children. They relied heavily on both of their families to help care for the children when they were working, Barbara and Joseph worked a prolonged second shift during the marriage. Therefore, they needed childcare in the evenings through the night. Since that time, Joseph has left his job at Frey Communication to take a job at West Shore Printing, He has worked there for 18 months, He no longer works the tecond shift. His work Page 3 RE: Ross v. Ross hours are now from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday. He must occasionally work over-time on Saturdays, which he tries to do when the children are with their mother, Barbara, on the other hand, continues to work at Frey Communication. She has very recently switched to a new work schedule giving her daytime hours. Since the separation the children have been primarily residing with their father in the original marital residence, Following an August 1995 conciliation conference, Ii fairly flexible schedule of access was arranged for Barbara so that she could have custody of the children on her days off. Unfortunately, this entails a considerable amount of travel for the children as Barbara lives close to an hour away from the marital residence, Nonetheless, she has been fairly consistent in maintaining her contact and handling most of the transportational needs. Joseph has not attempted to obstruct any of Barbara's visitation time since the temporary custody order has been put into effect. However, with the children beginning full-time school, this arrangement is becoming increasingly difficult. Joseph is suing for primary physical custody of the children. [t is his belief that he has always provided the most stable environment for the children. He does not believe that Barbara has maintained the children as her first priority, He points to the fact that during the marriage she was nevt'iJ' willing to stop working in order to be a "stay at home mom," He stated that on multiple occasions he would ask her to do that and that she would decline, Furthennore, he feels that Barbara has not been able to become settled in what she wants in her life. He points to the two pre-marital affairs as indications ohome of her instability, He also feels that her decision to move inunediately to Mr. Dowin's residence, leaving her children an hour away is further evidence of her lack of conunitment to the children, Joseph stated that since the separation he has taken on 100% responsibility for the children's medical, dental, and acadelnic needs, He states that on multiple occasions he has told Barbara of doctor appointments or school activities that she either forgot or attended late. Joseph is also concerned about the environment in which the children would live in Perry County, He reports that Barbara and Michael are relatively heavily consumers of beer, He states that both of them have had ours in the past and that, to his knowledge, Michael has lost his drivers license. Joseph indicates that all of the extended family for the children is located in the Carlisle area, He has had a close relationship with his family and believes that the children are closely bonded to them, He also believes that the children have been developing extremely well since the separation and are emotionally well adjusted, He does not want to do anything that would impair that growth, Interestingly, Joseph does not feel that Barbara is, or was, a bad parent. Independent of the concerns mentioned above, Joseph states that if Barbara lived closer, he would be more than happy to share physical custody pf the children with her, He recognizes that the children need and love their mother, Page 4 RE: Ross v, Ross Barbara would like custody of the children changed to her. She feels that her relationship with the children has been somewhat impaired by Joseph's anger at her, She believes that he originally kept the children from her in order to hurt her and there have been times when he has not been fleXIble in allowing her to see the children. She believes that the children would be better offwith her because, "I do not need to be employed," She states that she currently works in order to be able to pay her support and that most of her work is done on the weekends, She also indicated that the children would be b~tter if placed with her because: 1, "I cook and let the kids help," 2. She feels that the children spend too much time in daycare and pre- kindergllr1en. She indicates that a lot of her expenses go to the covering of daycare but she does not see the daycare as having really helped Kyle in his academic preparation. 3. She loves the children very much and that they enjoy being with her. 4, She feels that she is more concerned about their overall dietary needs and gives them healthier foods than Joseph. She also believes that she is more concerned about their overall educational experience and exposes them to activities other than television. 5, Finally, she feels that there have been times that the children have not been clean enough. She can make sure their hygiene is more adequately cared for, Like Joseph, Barbara sees Joseph as being a very good and strong parent. She admits that he has always been involved with the children, 'lI1d that he is extremely family oriented, She believes, however, that he goes "overboard" in that area by having the children with their "granny" too much. She was able to name multiple strengths of Joseph as a parent, but had no good options, or alternatives on how to work out the custody, BARBARA ROSS: Barbara is a 27 year old woman who currently resides with her fiance in Ickesburg, PeMsylvania, Barbara presented for all of her appointments in a timely manner, In fact. she was eager to be involved in the evaluation process. She attended all of her sessions in relatively casual attire, She was always clean and neatly groomed for her appointments, Barbara was pleasant and communicative during her sessions, Barbara's affect during her session vacillated considerably, There were many times during her session that she became tearful in talking about the situation, Her tearfulness may be a sign of acute sensitivity. However, there is also an immature aud childlike quality to some of these interactions. Barbara's thinking appeared to be somewhat concrete and simple, She often contradicted herself regarding various attitudes and motivations, For example, she indicated that she did not want to work and was only employed in order to pay her child support. Her preference was to stay at home ",ith the children. On the other hand, she indicated that she is not a home body, that she likes to work, and that Joseph was constantly trying to get her to stop working. It is not believed that Barbara has distorted thinking, but rather her thought processing is not well organized, Other than the stress of the current situation, Barbara denied any other Pase s RE: Ross v, Ross significant symptoms of anxiety or depression. She also denies any history of psychiltric or emotional problems. There wu no indication during these interviews that she sulTers from severe psychological symptoms such as hallucinations, delusions, or ideu of reference, With respect to personality characteristics, Barbara appl:lrs to be liiendly, social. and out. going. She has shown a tendency to be somewhat immature in her interactions and certainly had I difficult tinle remaining conunitted to her marriase, This may be a fun~'tion of the early ase at which she married Joseph, but her means oflellving the relationship showed a great degree of irresponsibility and impulsivity, On the other hand, she has shown commitment and responaibility to her job and she has been in her current relationship for approximately two years, In general, however, Barbara shows a lack of insight and self.awareness. Barbara's MMPI results are valid, Individuals who answer in this pattern tend to deny common human frailties and are trying to present themselves in an overly positive light. Such socially approved answers can be given by a psychologically naive individual or by a person who is being very evasive, or consciously deceptive. These individuals are generally free from disabling fear and anxiety, They seem to hive a relaxed attitude toward responsibilities, yet they tend to be proficient and capl\ble, Often, these woman reject traditional feminine values and do not want to be perceived as feminine, They can be tough and uninhibited, Recognition and status are valued by these woman and they typically project an air of self-confidence, a feeling of security, and a relative absence of worries, In the interactive play session, Kyle had a difficult time separating from his mother Therefore, Kyle spent very little time with the evaluator, When his mother joined him, he became more relaxed, talkative, and spontaneous, He admitted that he gelS afraid, at times, and he Iikel doing things with his mother, Barbara also needed to get comfonable within the seuian, but once she did, she began to talk with the children and direct their play, She made good eye contlct with them and gave suggestions on how to build various shapes and structures, Kyle spontaneously stated that his mother lives with Michael and that he must decide ~ho he WillIts to live with. He was not asked that question, He was able to state that he now lives with his father, but that he has mends at both his mother's and liuher's house, He stated that he does not have enough time to go up and visit with his mother, He appear'ed prepared to make some of these statements, Overall, Barbara was attentive and involved with her children during the play session, Brandy was not overly talkative, She appeared to be shy and whiney within this selllon, She used a considerable amount of baby talk and was quite demanding, Funhermore. her lanauq. development seems to be somewhat below ase level Page 6 RE: Ross v. Ross The home visit showed that Barbara and her fiance, Michae~ live in a trailer on a large lot. The access road is unpaved. but there are other houses in the neighborhood. There was a basketball net and a swing set with a separate slide in the yard, A large shed outside the home bad a refrigerator in it which has a tap for a keg that is kept within, The trailer has three bedrooms and is well kept. The children enjoyed playing outside during this visit. There was a dog and a pet parrot at this home, Several children were noted playing in the neighborhood, In general, everyone appeared relaxed in this setting, and both Michael and Barbara interacted with the children appropriately. JOSEPH ROSS: Joseph is a 30 year old man who resides in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. As mentioned above, Joseph is employed at West Shore Printers, where he has worked for 18 months, He stated that he enjoys his job, but switched to this job in order to get daylight hours. This 1l110wed him greater time availability for the children, The changed job also necessitated a slightly lower income. Joseph was delayed in starting his evaluation process, His slow start was the result of financial concerns and he wanted to be sure that Barbara had started the process, Nonetheless, once he began his sessions, he was cooperative and open to the evaluation process. He presented for all of his scheduled appointments in a timely fashion. He was typically dressed in casual, but clean clothing, He appeared to be open and spontaneous in his responses to questions that were asked of him, Joseph's affect was somewhat subdued during the evaluation, He seems to be resigned to the fact that his marriage is over, but does not seem to have totally accepted that. In fact, during the evaluation Joseph stated that he still loved Barbara, but recognized that he would not have a relationship with her, Therefore, there is a mildly depressed edge to his affect. There was also still present signs of frustration over the entire situation, Joseph denied, however, any significant clinical symptoms of depression, Although he sometimes becomes stressed by the children, he denies any overt anxiety or agitation. Joseph's thinking appears to be clear, concise, and goal directed, He seems to be ofaverage intellectual ability, although he tends to conceptualize things in very simple, unidimensional terms, There was no evidence of cognitive distortions. Joseph denied any history of psychiatric or psychological treatment in the past. Joseph appears to be a relatively conservative, responsible man. He has a traditional view offamily and has attempted to maintain a more or less stable family routine for the children, Page 7 RE: Ross v, Ross Interpersona1Jy, Joseph appears to be somewhat uncomfortable in his social situations, FunUy seems to be of greater importance for his social contacts than arc other acquaintances in his environment. Yet, Joseph appears to be committed to meet the needs of his children, Joseph also completed the MMPI-2. Joseph's validity profile is very similar to that of Barbara's, Individuals with this profile tend to deny common human frailties and sttemptto present themselves in a positive light. Joseph's profile differs in that individuals with this profile admit to beinll in some distress, typically as a result of situational dissatisfaction. There are indications that this individual worries a good deal and suffers from some depression secondary to the adjustment issues, Individual. with this profile have been described as being naive, optimistic, and self.centered, They 1110 have a fairly high need for affection and attention. They can be rigid, at times, and are leen as belna sensitive and, perhaps, over-sensitive. On the other hand, they are seen as fair minded, frank, and submissive, These men will attempt to avoid unpleasant issues and they lack insltdlt in deallnl1 with their problems. They also tend to be clear thinking and have very moralistic belieli, They tend to be lacking in self-confidence. There is no psychiatric diagnosis assoctated with thi. profile. Joseph's interaction with Kyle and Brandy was very positive, He immediately got onto the Boor with the children in the play room and began playing with them, Brandy was "fused" to Joseph through much of the session. Kyle was very talkative, expressive and open about emotions. Joseph seemed quite comfortable working with Brandy, He did a moderate amount of verbalizations with them and openly showed affection to them by kissinlltheir heads as they played. The children decided to build "our house," which meant Joseph's, Brandy's, and Kyle's, Joseph was quite patient with the children and used age appropriate lansualle, He worked hard to keep them involved on the tasks. Brandy, again, exhibited her speech problems and Kyle may have been the best interpreter of what Brandy had to say, Joseph indicated that Brandy has been reported to have had a seizure at the sitter's house, so he has taken her to Hershey Medical Center for a neurclogical examination. The results of that evaluation were nonnal, Brandy is to bellin speech therapy at the Capitol Area Intennediate Unit. In general, this was a very positive and affectionate play interaction, The children's conversations centered around their activities both at home and within this office, Joseph reinforced positive behavior and was able to distract the children from any problems they had during their play, It is obvious that the children and Joseph spend a lot of time with each other and know each other fairly well, Joseph's home visit revealed that he lives in a ranlZh home on a large cOnler lot in suburban Carlisle, The yard is well kept and has a large open play space. There is a swinll set and slidins , ' Page 8 RE: Ross v. Ross board present in the yard. There was also a toy box on the back patio along with a gas grill. The family keeps rabbits in a hutch in the back of the yard. The home was clean although sparsely furnished, The fill11iture, however, is adequate for the family's needs, The children have their own bedrooms, Kyle's being somewhat larger than Brandy's. The house is safe and comfortable to live in. There is a play room for the children and Joseph encouraged the children to play where he could see them. During the visit, Joseph was attentive and interacted with his children, He appeared to be an active parent who constantly watches out for his children's safety, There are many children within the neighborhood in which Joseph lives, MICHAEL DOWIN: Michael is a 26 year old man who currently works at Frey Communication. He has been . laborer for them for the past two and an half years, Prior to that, he had spent four years in the Marines from which he had been honorably discharged as a Corporal, Michael is originally from Blain, PeMsylvania. He graduated from West Perry High School in 1989. He is the product of split parents. He never met his biological father. so he was raised by his step-father and biological mother. He has one older brother who lives in Virginia with whom he has very little contact, He states that he was an average student in school and did no get into trouble, He was not particularly involved with activities, but worked on a farm after school. Michael stated that he met Barbara in 1994, but that they moved in together in 1995, He stated that he gave little thought to the fact that she was married; "We worked with it." He stated that he had no idea when she was moving out, so they had no strategy with respect to the children at that time, He had not met the children prior to her moving in with him. Michael had never been around children as young as Barbara's, It is Michael's feeling that the children are better with them because they would have a "mother and father figure with them," He admits that on days they work, given their new schedule, the children would have to be with a sitter from 4:30 am until 7:00 pm, He indicated that they have talked to a sitter who watches children in their area, Michael also believes that country living is better than city living and the children could benefit from that. He denied that he and Barbara have any marital plans at this time, Michael presented as a relatively pleasant, casually dressed young man with long brown hair, His conversation was very simple and straight forward, He communicated with very few words. He appears to be of average inteUectual ability, Michael denied any problems with anxiety or depression, He also denied any other significant psychiatric history. The only counseling he had was through his ARD program because ofbis DUl charge, He denies the use . " Pase 9 RE: ROil v. Ross of drugs, has never been arrested other than for the charge of the DUI, and never was either busted or put into the brig while in the Morines, With respect to drinking, Michael admits that he drinks beer on his days off. He stated that he will drink up to one cue of beer a week, He also admits that they keep I keg at the house, He does admit that Barbara drinks a little less than he does, and that they do drink while the children are there. His OUl was in 1994, but that is the only time he was arrested for driving under the influence. He indicates that he received a discip1inary ~lip at work for drinking on the job, However. he denies that he was drinking on the job, He also denies that he hu ever called off work for a hangover or any other alcohol related event. Michael also completed the MMPI-2, His validity profile was remarkably similar to both Barbara's and Joseph's, so it will not be redescribed at this time, Affectually. individuals with this profile may be showing a response to situational stresses. There is a possibility of notable drive and high energy, A history of minor problems with societal rules is also conceivable. These individuals generally show mild independence, non-confonnity, adaptability, and occasional impulsiveness. They are active and energetic individuals who are pleasant enthusiastic, and optimistic. They see themselves as very masculine and put a premium on physical strength, aggressiveness. and a preference for action over thought. Similar men tend to have a narrQw range of interests and a lack of originality, Other possibilities include a preference for the practical, and minimal insight. There is no psychiatric diagnosis associated with this profile. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Both Barbara Ross and Joseph Ross would like primary physical custody of their children. Joseph has had primary physical custody of the children since he and Barbara separated in March of 1995, Barbara hu had an elltremely liberal access schedule with the children which was geared around her days offfrom work, However, given the fact that she lives almost 50 miles away from Joseph, it is impossible to maintain this schedule during the school year, This is especially true since Barbara has switched her schedule to a daylight shift. As a function of that change, she would be unable to bring the children to school in Cumberland County on days that she was working, Joseph believes that he offers a more stable and consistent environment for the children. He recognizes their need for their mother and states that if she were to move intQ the Carlisle School District he would accept a shared custodial arrangement. He does not believe that it is in their best interest to have such an arrangement given the current distance between him and Barbara, . , Page 10 RE: Ross v. Ross It is the recommendation of this evaluator that Joseph Ross maintain primary physical custody of his children. Joseph baa been able to cOll5istently provide a stable environment for the children, He baa worked hard to maintain their routines, and to maintain the environment in which they were comfortable during the marriage. Furthermore, after working through the initial stages of the separation, he baa worked flexibly with Barbara to allow her access to the children. There have been no attempts to alienate the children from her either through brainwashing or forced absences, Joseph baa a good understanding of his children's needs and desires. He has consistently met their health related needs and requirements, He has done so at times without the help of Barbara, but he has attempted to inform her of those needs as they occurred. Barbara, on the other hand, has often had a difficult time making herself available to meet those needs, Fwthermore. Barbara has presented some serious contradictions in her own motivations around the best interests of the children. ~ mentioned above, Barbara has contradicted herself as to whether or not she would prefer to stay at home and be with the children, or whether she would prefer to work and be away from the home. The vacillation with respect to this issue is consistent with some of the immaturity of Barbara's thinking, and some lack of direction in her decision making, Fwthermore, serious concerns exists around the environment at Barbara's house with respect to drinking. Alcohol seems to be an important part of the lifestyle of she and Michael, and there seems to be little indication that that lifestyle would be curtailed if the children were there, Barbara also gave very little forethought into the impact on her relationship with the children, or conversely their relationship with their father, by her moving to Perry County. This lack of forethought indicates a lack of consideration for the children's needs when these decision were made, Finally, some of Barbara's focus on financial r.oncerns that arise as a result of support and childcare lead one to believe that some of these concerns are of greater importance to Barbara than the basic needs of the children, It should be noted that both of these parents indicated that the other has shown themselves to be a good parent in the past, Regardless of the concerns that they express about each other, or the concerns that have been expressed within this report, that factor should be kept in mind when devising any custodial schedule, The greatest amount of flexibility. .d access possible should be allowed to whichever parent ultimately gains primary custody, If custody does rest with Joseph, then access should be granted to Barbara on the wl1atever basis is available given her work schedule and the children's school schedule. It is no~ in the children's best interest. however, to be exposed to 200 miles of travel per day. Besides the fact that that travel in and ofitselfis burdensome on the children, it is also obvious that inclement weather conditions will make travel to and from school very difficult. The schedule will have to be divided in such a way that most of Barbara's access will occur on time olf from school, such as weekends, That does not chango the alcohol related concerns however, Barbara and Michael should be directed to examine their prQblems with alcohol, by evidenced by the fact that both have been arrested for DUl's. Furthermore, the consumption ofa case of beer a week, or the presence ofa keg and perpetual use of alcohol, is not a good model for yC'ung children to follow, r' , APR 0 9 1997tf' .' . ~OSEPH R. ROSS, III, Plaintiff IIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ICUHBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I :CIVIL ACTION - LAW I :NO: 1384 CIVIL 1995 :IN CUSTODY V BARBARA D. ROSS, Defendant COUR'l' ORDER AND NOW, this tlh... day of ~ ' 1997, upon consideration of t'iie'4ttached Custody Conclliation Report, it is ordered and directed aa follows: 1 . A he~ring is scheduled in the above case on the 2^^ t of __ , 1997, at 9J.mJ...fi.M. in Cour-t Room No. at whie t e testimony will be taken. The parties or t eir legal counsel shall file with the Cour-t in advance of this hearing a memorandum setting for-th the history of custody in this case, the issues currently befor-e the Cour-t, the witnesses that will be called by each party and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. This memorandum shall be filed at least ten days pr-ior to the hearing date. At this hearing, the Plaintiff, Joseph R. Ross, III, shall be the moving party and shall pr-oceed initially with the testimony. Pending further order of this Court, this Court's prior Order of October 25, 1995 shall remain in effect. 2. BY THE COURT, /r9we~~f~. 9t-. CCI Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire Barbara D. Martin P. O. Box 255 Ickesburg, PA 17037 TRUECOPV FROM RECORD In TestImony whereot, I herll unto set niy haM and the seal 01 said Cuu at Carll"'" PI I . ~da <0': . ry EXHIBIT "e" ~. . . JOSEPH R. ROSS, III, Plaintiff V :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . :CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . BARBARA D. ROSS, Defendant :NO: 1384 CIVIL 1995 :IN CUSTODY Prior Judger J. Wesley Oler, Jr. CONCILIArION CONHERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Kyle E. Ross, born August 18, 1990 and Brandi M. Ross, born November 28, 1992. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on April 3, 1997, with the following individuals in attendance: The Father, Joseph R. Ross, III, with his counsel Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire and the Mother, Barbara D. Martin, who did not appear with counsel. Mrs. Martin related to the Conciliator that she still hds legal counsel in tile nature of Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire, but that Attorney Rudebusch would not be appearing at the Conciliation Conference but would represent her at a hearing in this matter.' 3. The parties appeared before the undersigned Conciliator in October of 1995 at ~hich time a temporary Order was agreed to and the parties also agreed to submit themselves to a custody evaluation. The temporary Order provided that Father have primary custody with the Mother having periods of temporary custody for the two children. 4. A custody evaluation was performed by Dr. Arnold '1'. Shienvold. Upon conclusion of that evaluation, the parties were still not able to reach an agreement. The Mother now suggests that she wants to have primary phyaical custody of the minor children 1 The Conciliator expresoed concern at the Conference on the attitude of parties and their attorneys to basically disregard the purpose of conciliation and disregard an attempt by the Court to resolve these matter in advance of the hearing. Attorneys advising their clients to attend conciliations without them and merely requesting that the case be scheduled for a hearing certainly ignores the stated intentions of the conciliation process. ., . with the Father enjoying periods of temporary custody. ~he Father is, naturally, unwilling to agree to that change in the custody arrangement.l 5. ~he parties were unable to reach an agreement. A hearing is required in this case. A hearing should take no more than one day. j (1l Ct1 DAF 0) tf-rJ Hu ert x. G~lro , Fsquire Custody Concil ator , , - 2The evaluation furnilhed by Dr. Shienvold reBulted in a recommendation that the father continue to maintain primary phyeical cuetody of the children. JOSEPH R. ROSS, In, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. : No, 1384. CIVlL. 1995 BARBARA D. ROSS MARTIN, Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW this day of . 1997, upon presentation and consideration of the within Petition For Special Relief, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the request in the Order for Special Relief will be heard at the conclusion of the custody hearinB and contempt hearing scheduled in this mailer on July 2, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom Number 5 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PeMsylvania. BY THE COURT, J. Wes1~y Oler, Jr. J. " , " , S. In that the partief were unable to reach an agreement relative to these custody proceedings upon receipt of the independent custody evaluation, Petitioner petitioned the Court for the Il(;heduUng of a conciliation conference which was held in this mailer on April 3, 1997. 6. A copy of the Court's Order of April 9, 1997 scheduling a custody hearing in this matter for July 2, 1997 at 9:00 a,m" and the conciliation conference sununary report which caused the aforementioned Order to be entered, is allached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "C", 7. At the time of the custody conciliation on April 3, 1997, the Respondent herein appeared, pro se, indicating to the conciliator that her allorney was not present with her to attempt to resolve this matter through negotiation, but rather Respondent wished to have the matter scheduled for a court hearing, 8. The conciliator's concerns relative to the failure of counsel for the Respondent to appear and failure of the Respondent to attempt to resolve the mailer by negotiations is set torth in the conciliation conference summary report as footnote number 1, 9, Despite the fact Petitioner has been the primary custodian for the children in excess of two years, Dr, Shienvold recommended that Father remains as primary custodian, and Respondent failed to even attempt to negotiate a resolution of this matter with the conciliator, Respondent continues to demand that a hearing be held in this matter, h--.",.'''' i 10, Immediately following the conciliation in this matter where Respondent failed to even attempt to resolve the matter by negotiations, Respondent tiled a complaint with the Cumberland County Children & Youth Services Agency claiming that Petitioner herein IOxually abused his four year old daughter, II. Following a thorough investigation by Cumberland County Children & Youth Services, Cumberland County Children & Youth Services entered an opinion through letter dated April 24, 1997 indicating that the allegations of abuse were unfounded, 12. When the Cumberland County Children & Youth Services Agency detennined that the allogatione made by Respondent that Petitioner had abused his minor daughter were unfounded, Respondent then made a claim with the Pennsylvania State Police that Petitioner had sexually abused the parties' minor daughter, 13, Petitioner immediately cooperated with the Pennsylvania State Police including providing a polygraph test which caused the Pennsylvania State Police to immediately drop their investigation of the crimes alleged by Respondent 14, All of the actions of Respondent from the time she vacated the marital residence in the Spring of 1995 to date, including the most recent false allegations made against Petitioner, have been done solely for vindictiveness and without any factual foundation or basis, 15, The instant action which is scheduled for a hearing on July 2, 1997 is apparently based upon Respondent's ongoing position that she should have primary physical custody of the children who have been in Petitioner's primary physical custody in ,xcess of two years, , 21. Respondtnt's ongoing attempts to secure physical custody of the children, including pursuit of the matter at a hearing on July 2, 1997, will require that the Petitioner secure the services of Dr. Arnold V. Shienvold to appear at the hearing and testify in this matter, all of which will create substantial, unnecessary expense for Petitioner. 22. While Petitioner recognizes Respondent's legal right to pursue physical custody of the parties' children, Petitioner submits that there is no factual basis whatilOever for the pursuit of this matter by Respondent. 23. Respondent is pursuing this matter out of vindictiveness as expressed above, and because she has been required to pay support by the Cumberland County Domestic Relations Office which support order she has appealed on various occasions, but which order has remained in effect without modification. 24. As indicated, a custody hearing is scheduled in this matter for July 2, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom Number 5 of the Cumberland County Courthouse. 25. Contemporaneously with the custody hearing scheduled in this matter, a contempt hearing has been scheduled based upon a Petition For Contempt filed by the Respondent in this case. 26. Contemporaneously with the tiling of this Petition For Special Relief, a Petition For Contempt has been tiled by Petitioner against Respondent requesting that Respondent's contempt be heard contemporaneously with the custody hearing in this matter on July 2, 1997. 27. It would be appropriate, in the parties' tinancial interest, and in the interest of judicial economy to have the within Petition For Special Relief heard at the conclusion of the custody proceedings in this matter. 1 WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests your Honorable Court to schedule a hearins on the within Petition For Special Relief for July 2, 1997 at 9:00 a.m., or at a time thereafter, following completion of the custody hearing in this matter and, at such hearing, that the Court order the Respondent to pay attorney's fees that Petitioner has incurred in his legal representation in this matter. Respectfully submitted, GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES , , " ac" , - : ."" I.L I '- ~ ,~~-: fF " " JOSBPB R. ROSS, III, Plaintitf v :IN THB COURT or COMMON PLEAS or ICUMBERLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA I INO. 1384 - CIVIL - 1995 , , ,CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY BARBARA D. ROSS, Oefendant COURT ORDER AND NOW, this ~~ay of ~"':t.,J......, , 1995, upon consideration of the attached Custody Con~fi~ty;;n Report, it is ordered and directed a. follow., 1. The Father, Joseph R. Ross, III, and the Mother, Barbara D. Ro.s, .hall enjoy shared legal custody of the minor children, kyle B. Ros., born August 18, 1990, and Brandy M. Ross, born November 28, 1992. 2. On a temporary basis, physical custody shall be handled as tollows I A. On an alternating week schedule when the Mother has her long four day period of no work, Mother shall have physical custody from the aftsrnoon on the day she get. off work until she return. the children to the Father or to the daycare the day that she returns back to work. Father shall deliver children to Mother at the heginning of the exchange of custody, and Mother shall deliver the children back to Father or daycare at the end of this custody period. B. On those other two weeks when the Mother is off work and available to take care of the children during the day, Mother shall have the opportunity of providing care for the children during the day and may h&ve physical custody of the children until Father returns from work. Mother .hall advise Father at least threlll days in advance of any days that she intends to take care of the children during the day. Mother shall handle transportation for exchange of custody of the children on those dates. , C. Bxcept for a. stated above when Mother has physical cu.tociy, Father shall enjoy phy.ical cu.tody. EXHIBIT "A" . " " I JOSBPB R. ROSS, III, Plaintitf IIN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS or ICUMBBRLANO COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA I INO. 1384 - CIVIL - 1995 I I ICIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY v BARBARA D. ROSS, Oefendant PRIOR JUDGB I JUDGB J. WESLBY OLBR, JR. COHCILIATIOH CONPEREIfCB SUMNlUlY REPORT IN ACCORDANCB WITH CUMBBRLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULB OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following reportl 1. The information pertaining to the children who are the subject of this litigation is as followsl kyle B. Ross, born August 18, 1990, and Brandy M. Ross, born November 20, 1992. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on October 13, 1995, with the following individuals in attendance I The Father, Joseph R. Ross, III, with his counsel, Bradley L. Griffie, Bsquire, and the Mother, Barbara D. Ross, with her counsel, Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire. 3. The parties entered into an agreement in accordance with the proposed Order which is attached. / O(,.u! q S"" OATE re .,1 .. '. Rleller e Sblenvold &; Associates Elliot RieaJer. Ph.D, Arnold T, Shienvold. Pb,D. Mellllda Eub. M.S. Wayne L. Trona. M.S, Jama Eub. L.S.W, Mlcbatl J. ....klD. Pb.D. Bowe L. Howard. Pb.D. Amy K. Kcblln., A.C.S.W., L.S.W. Oayle SlcdIIIlIIO. M.S. Rollllnd A. HorrOllD. D.Ed. CUSTODY EVALUATION 10seph Rosa v, Barbll'll Ross Retell ed by. The parties mutually agreed to a CUltody evaluatiOD at a Cumberlmd County Conciliation Court meeting with Hubert Gilray, Esquire, Referral Reason: To complete psychological evaluations on all parties md to make recommendations regarding the most appropriate CUltodia1 arrangement for the two minor children, Kyle E. Ross, date ofbirtb, 8/18/90; and Brandy M. Ross, date of birth, 11/24/92. Individual Interviews: Joseph Ross. 3 bours Bubara Ross - 3 hours Michael Dowin - 1 hour Psychological Testing: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-:?, (MMPI-2) · all adults Parent/Child Observation: Both Barbara Ross and Joseph Ross were observed in m interactive play session with each of their children. Home Studies: Home observations were obtained at 10seph Ross' home in rura1 Carlisle and at Michael Dowin's home in Ickesburg, PennsylvaniL Other: MisceUaneous Court documents, personal notes, and an answering machine tape were reviewed in preparation of this report, The recommendations included at the end of this evaluation are the result of the compilation of all these sources of data. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Joseph and Barbara Ross were married September 29, 1986, Bubara was 18 years old at the time and Joseph was 20, They had decided to elope when Bubara was stilI a senior in high school. She did not work for the first year of the marriage, By mutual agreement, she first concluded her high school education. There was some initial disagreement about having children b<<.',se of their ages.. Barbara admits that Joseph was much more invested in having children. Nonetheless, they decided to have Kyle, who was delivered by C-section in 1990, Brandy was also deHvered by C.section in 1992, There was even greater disagreement about this second child. For Bubara it was a two-fold problem, First of all, she wu unsure if she even wanted a second child. Secondly, Barbara did not want to have a daushter because of the uncomfortable (717) ~40-1313 · 2151 Linglestown Road, Suite 200 . Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 .. ' Page 2 RE: Ross v, Ross relationship she had had with her mother, Joseph, on the other hand, was dellshted to have a second child and had no fears of having a daughter, Both Bubara and Joseph agreed that the first three years of their marriage were fairly positive, Problems began to evolve after that time period. Both of them were working the same shift at Frey Communications, Joseph alleges that Barb3l1l had an extra.marital affair some time in the late 1990's, For a time period, there W8S even some disagreement whether Joseph was the biological father of Kyle. According to Barbara, the problems arose from a lack of communication and a lack of common activities, She indicates that Josepb worked a great deal of the time, and that he rarely wanted to go out and do different activities, She states that there were also time periods wbere be would drink. They would, subsequently. get into physical altercations. Bubara does admit that sbe may have been equally responsible for these. but she reports that he did hit ber, Barbara states that ultimately she became disenchanted with Josepb and preferred to be It work rather than with him. Sbe begl1l1 a relationship with Mr, Dowin following t.be birth of Brandy. Eventually, she preferred her time with Mr. Dowin to her time with Joseph. Sbe moved out of the home in Marcb of 1995, and moved immediately in with Mr, Dowin in Perry CoUDty, Barbara moved away without the children, She indicated that she would have liked to take the children with her, but that Joseph refused to allow her to do so, She stated that Joseph would not allow her to have any overnighu with the children before June of 1995, During lDUl;b of that time the children were being watched by Joseph's step-mother, Joseph admits that Barbara wanted to take the children, but he said" no," He felt that because she was moving out of his horne into another person's home, it was inappropriate for the children, Furthermore, she was moving to Perry County and they lived in Cumberland CoUDty. He stated that although he new Mr, Dowin he did not know the circumstances under whicb his children would be living, Joseph also stated that Barbara made littlt preparation to have the children go with her, Furthermore, she did not exhibited alot of interest in visiting with them for the first three months that she was gone, Obviously, he and Barbara disagree on this latter point, With respect to time and care of the children, Barbara and Joseph both admit that they shared many of the responsibilities of child rearing during the time period that they were together, Both of them fed the children, bathed the children, and dothed the children, They would also share in the overall supervision of the children. They relied heavily on both of their families to help care for the children when they were working. Barbara and Joseph worked a prolonged second shift during the marriage. Therefore, they n<<.ded childcare in tbe evenings through the night. Since that time, Joseph has left his job at Frey Communication to take a job at West Shore Printing, He has worked there for 18 months, He no longer works the second shift, His work Pase 3 RE: ROil v. ROil hours are now from 1:30 am to 4:30 pm. Monday through Friday, He must occasionally work over.time on Saturdays, wblch he tries to do when the children are with their mother. Bamara, on the other band, continues to work at Frey Communication. She bas very recently switched to . new work schedule giving her daytime hours. Since the separation the children have been primarily residing with their father in the original marital residence. FoUowing lI.l1 August 1995 conciliation conference, a fairly flexible schedule of access was arranged for Baroua so that she could have custody of the children on her days off. Unfortunately, this entails a considerable amount of travel for the children IS Barbara Iiv~ close to an hour away from the marital residence. Nonetheless. she bas been IiIirIy colllistent in maintaining her contact and handIing most of the transportational needs. Joseph bas not attempted to obstruct any of Barbara's visitation time since the temporary custody order bas been put into effect. However, with the children beginning fuU.time school. this arrangement is becoming increasingly difficult. Joseph is suing for primary physical custody of the children, It is his belief that he has always provided the most stable environment for the children. He does not believe that Bamara bas maintained the children as her first priority. He points to the fact that during the marriage she was never willing to stop working in order to be a · stay at home mom.. He stilted that on multiple occasions he would ask her to do that and that she would decline, Furthermore, he feels that Barbara has not been able to become settled in what she wants in her life, He points to the two pre-marital affairs as indications of some of her instability, He also feels that her decision to move immediately to Mr. Dowin's residence, leaving her children an hour away is further evidence of her lack of commitment to the children, Joseph stated that since the separation he bas taken on 100% respon.,ibility for the children's medical, dental, and academic needs, He nates that on multiple occasions he has told Barbara of doctor appointments or school activities that she either forgot or attended late. Joseph is also concerned about the environment in which the children would live in Perry County, He reports that Barbara and Michael are relatively heavily consumers of beer, He states that both of them have had DUI's in the past and that, to his knowledge, Michael has lost his drivers license, Joseph indicates that all of the extended family for the children is located in the Carlisle area, He has had a close relationship with his family and believes that the children are closely bonded to them, He also believes that the children have been developing extremely weU since the separation and are emotionally weU adjusted, He does not want to do anything that would impair that growth, Interestinsly. Joseph does not feel that Barbara is, or was, a bad parent. Independent of the concerns mentioned above, Joseph states that if Barbara lived closer, be would be more thm happy to share physical custody of the children with her, He recognizes that the children need and love their mother, Page 4 RE: Ross v. Ross Barbara would like custody of the children changed to her. She feels that her relatioaabip with the children has been somewhat impaired by Joseph's anger at her. She believes that he originally kept the children Itom her in order to hurt her and there bave been times when he bas not been flexible in allowing her to see the children. She believes that the children would be better otfwitb her because, "I do not need to be employed." She states that she currently works in order to be able to pay her support and that most of her work is done on the weekends. She also indicated that the children would be better if placed with her because: 1. "I cook and let the kids help." 2. She feels that the children spend too much time in daycare and pre- kindergarten. She indicates that a lot of her expenses go to 'the covering of day care but she does not see the daycere as having really helped Kyle in his academic preparation. 3. She loves the children very much and that they enjoy being with her. 4. She feels that she is more concerned about their overall dietary needs and gives them healthier foods than Joseph. She also believes that she is more concemed about their overall educational experience and exposes them to activities other than television. S. Final1y, she feels that there have been times thltt the children have not been clean enough. She can make sure their hygiene is more adequately cared for. Like Joseph, Barbara sees Joseph as being a very good and strong parent. She admits that he has always been involved with the children, and that he is extremely family oriented. She believes, however, that he goes "overboard" in that area by having the children with their "granny" too much. She wu able to name multiple strengths of Joseph as a parent, but had no good options, or alternatives on how to work out the custody. BARBARA ROSS: Barbara is a 27 year old woman who currently resides with her fiance in Ickesburg, Pennsylvania. Barbara presented for all of her appointments in a timely manner. In fact, she was eager to be involved in the evaluation process. She attended all of her sessions in relatively casual attire. She was always clean and neatly groomed for her appointments. Barbara was pleasant and communicative during her sessions. Barbara's affect during her session vacillated ~onsiderably. There were many times during her session that she became tearful in talking about the situation. Her tearfulness may be a sign ofacute sensitivity. However, there is also an immature and childlike quality to some of these interactions. Barbara's thinking appeared to be somewhat concrete and simple. She often contradicted herself regarding various attitudes and motivations. For example, she indicated that she did not want to work and was only employed in order to pay her child support. Her preference was to stay at home with the children. On the other hand, she indicated that she is not a home body, that she likes to work, and that Joseph wu constantly trying to get her to stop working. It is not believed that Barbara has distorted thinlci"g, but rather her thought processing is not weU organized. Other than the stress of the current situation, Barbara denied any other I .. , Page S RE: Ross v. Ross significant symptoms of anxiety or depression. She also denies any history of psychiatric or emotional problems. There was no indication during these interviews that she suffers from severe psychological symptoms such as haUucinations, delusions. or ideas of reference. With respect to personality characteristics, Barbara appears to be friendly, social, and out- going. She has shown a tendency to be somewhat immature in her interactions and certainly had a difficult time remaining committed to her marriage. This may be a function of the early age It which she married Joseph, but her means of leaving the relationship showed a great degree of irresponsibility and impulsivity. On the other hand, she has shown commitment and responsibility to her job and she has been in her current relationship for appro:Omately two years. In genera1, however, Barbara shows a jack of insight and self-awareness. Barbara's MMPI results are valid. Individuals who answer in this pattern tend to deny common human &ailties and are trying to present themselves in an overly positive light. Such socially approved answers can be given by a psychologicaUy naive individual or by a person who is being very evasive, or collllCiously deceptive. These individuals are generally free from disabling fear and anxiety. They seem to have a relaxed attitude toward respoDllbilities, yet they tend to be proficient and capable. Often, these woman reject traditional feminine values and do not want to be perceived as feminine. They can be tough and uninhJbited. Recognition and status are valued by these woman and they typica11y project an air of self-confidence, a feeling of security, and a relative absence of worries. In the interactive play session, Kyle had a difficult time separating from his mother. Therefore, Kyle spent very little time with the evaluator. When bis mother joined him, he became more relaxed, talkative, and spontaneous. He admitted that he sets afraid, at times, and he likes doing things with bis mother. Barbara also needed to get comfortable within the session, but once she did, she began to talk with the children and direct their play. She made good eye contact with them and gave suggestions on how to build various shapes and structures. Kyle spontaneously stated that his mother lives with Michael and that he must decide who he wants to live with. He was not asked that question. He was able to state that he now lives with his father, but that he has friends at both his mother's and father's house. He stated that he does not have enough time to go up and visit with his mother. He appeared prepared to make some of these statements. Overall, Barbara was attentive and involved with her children during the play session. Brandy was not overly talkative. She appeered to be shy and whiney within this session. She used a considerable amount of baby talk and was quite demanding. Furthermore, her IansuaIe development seems to be ~mewhat below age level. Page 6 RF.: Ross v. Ross The home visit showed that Barbara and her fiance, Michael. live in a trailer on a large lot. The access road is unpaved, but there are other houses in the neighborhood. There wu a bwetball net and a swing set with a separate slide in the yard. A large shed outside the home had a refiigeruor in it wbich has a tap for a keg that is kept within. The trailer has three bedrooms and is weU kept. The children enjoyed playing outside during this visit. There was a dOll and a pet parrot at this home. Several children were DOted playing in the neighborhood. In general, everyone appeared relaxed in this setting, and both Michael and Barbara interacted with the children appropriately. JOSEPH ROSS: Joseph is a 30 year old man who resides in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. As mentioned above, Joseph is employed at West Shore Printers, where he has worked for 18 months. He stated that he enjoys bis job, but switched to this job in order to get daylight houn. This allowed him greater time avaiJability for the children. The changed job also necessitated .& slightly lower wcome. Joseph was delayed in starting his evaluation process. His slow start was the result of financial concerns and he wanted to be sure that Barbara had started the process. Nonetheless, once he began bis sessions, he was cooperative and open to the evaluation process. He presented for all of bis scheduled appointments in a timely fashion. He was typically dressed in casual, but clean clothing. He appeared to be open and spontaneous in bis responses to questions that were asked ofbim. Joseph's affect was somewhat subdued during the evaluation. He seems to be resigned to the fact that his marriage is over, but does not seem to have totally accepted that. In fact, during the evaluation Joseph stated that he stil1loved Barbara, but recognized that hI! would not have a relationsbip with her. Therefore, there is a mildly depressed edge to bis affect. There was also stil1 present signs of frustration over the entire situation. Joseph denied, however, any significant clinical symptoms of depression. Although he sometimes becomes stressed by the children, he denies any overt anxiety or agitation. Joseph's thinlo'i"g appears to be clear, concise, and goal directed. He seems to be of average inteUectual ability, although he tends to conceptualize things in very simple, unidimensional terms. There was no evidence of cognitive distortions. Joseph denied any history of psychiatric or psychological treatment in the past. Joseph appears to be a relatively conservative, responsible man. He has a traditional view offamily and has attempted to maintain a more or less stable family routine for the children. Page? RE: Ross v. Ross Interpersona1ly, Joseph appears to be somewhat uncomfortable in his social situations. Family seems to be of welter importance for his social contacts than are other acquaintances in his environment. Yet, Joseph appears to be committed to meet the needs ofhi~ children. Joseph also completed the MMPI-2. Joseph's validity profile is very simUar to that of Barbara's. Individuals with tbis profile tend to deny cOl\Ullon human frailties and attempt to present themselves in a positive light. Joseph's profile differs in that individuals with tbis profile admit to being in some dimess, typically as a result of situational dissatisfaction. There are indications that this individual worries a good deal and suffers from some depression secondary to the adjustment issues. Individuals with this profile have been descnbed as being naive, optimistic, and self-centered. They also have a fairly high need for affection and attention. They can be rigid, at times, and are seen as being sensitive and, perhaps, over.sensitive. On the otller hand, they are seen l!.S fair minded, frank, and submissive. These men will attempt to avoid unpleasant issues and they lack insight in dealing with their problem.,. They also tend to be clear thinking and have very moralistic beliefs. They tend to be lacking in self-confidence. There is no psychiatric diagnosis associated with tbis profile. Joseph's interaction with Kyle and Brandy was very positive. He immediately got onto the Boor with the children in the play room and began playing with them. Brandy was "fused" to Joseph through much of the session. Kyle was very talkative, expressive and open about emotions. Joseph seemed quite comfortable working with Brandy. He did a moderate amount of verbalizations with them and openly showed affection to them by kissing their heads as they played. The children decided to build "our house," which meant Joseph's, Brandy's, and Kyle's. Joseph was quite patient with the children and used age appropriate language. He worked hard to keep them involved on the tasks. Brandy, again, exlubited her speech problems and Kyle may have been the best interpreter of what Brandy had to say. Joseph indicated that Brandy has been reported to have had a seizure at the siner's house, so he has taken her to Hershey Medical Center for a neurological examination. The results of that evaluation were normal. Brandy is to begin speech therapy at the Capitol Area Intermediate Unit. In general, this was a very positive and affectionate play interaction. The children's conversations centered around their activities both at home and within this office. Joseph reinforced p~sitive behavior and was able to distract the children from any problems they had during their play. It is obvious that the children and Joseph spend a lot of time with each other and know each other fairly weU. Joseph's home visit revealed that he lives in a ranch home on a large corner lot in suburban Carlisle. The yard is weU kept and has a large open play space. There is a swing set and sliding Page 8 RE: Ross v. Ross board present in the yard. There was also a toy box on the back patio along with I gas grill. The fllmily keeps rabbits in a hutch in the back of the yard. The home was clean although sparsely furnished. The furniture, however, is adequate for the family's needs. The cbildren have their own bedrooms, Kyle's being somewhat larger than Brandy's. The house is safe and comfortable to live in. There is a play room for the children and Joseph encouraged the children to play where he could see them. During the visit, Joseph was attentivll and interacted with his children. He appeared to be an active parent who constantly watches out for his children's satety. There are many children within the neighborhood in which Joseph lives. MICHAEL DOWIN: Michael is a 26 year old man who currently works at Frey Communication. He has been a laborer for them for the past two and an half years. Prior to that, he had spent four years in the Marines Itom which he had been honorably discharged as a Corporal. Michael is originally Itom Blain, Pennsylvania. He graduated from West Perry High School in 1989. He is the product. of split parents. He never met bis biological father, so he was raised by his step-father and biological mother. He has one older brother who lives in Virginia with whom he Iw very little contact. He states that he was an average student in school anJ did no get into trouble. He was not particularly involved with activities, but worked on a farm after school. Michael stated that he met Barbara in 1994, but that they moved in together in 1995. He stated that he gave little thought to the fact that she was married; .We worked with it." He stated that he had no idea when she was moving out, so they had no strategy with respect to the children at that time. He had not met the children prior to her moving in with him. Michael had never been around children as young as Barbara's. It is Michael's feeling that the children are better with them because they would have a "mother and father figure with them." He admits that on days they work, given their new schedule, the children would have to be with a sitter from 4:30 am until 7:00 pm. He indicated that they have talked to a sitter who watches children in their area. Michael also believes that country living is better than city living and the children could beneDt from that. He denied that he and Barbara have any marital plans at this time. Michael presented as a relatively pleasant, casual1y dressed young man with long brown hair. His conversation was very simple and straight forward. He communicated with very few words. He appears to be of average intellectua1 ability. Michael denied any probletDS with anxiety or depression. He also denied any other significant psychiatric history. The only counseling he had was through his ARD program because ofhis DUl charge. He denies the use Page 9 RE: Ross v. Ross of druSS, hu never been arrested other than for the charge of the DUI, and never was either busted or put into the brig while in the Marines. With respect to drinlrlng. Michael admits that he drinks beer on his days off. He stated that he will drink up to one case ofbeer a week. He also admits that they keep a keg at the house. He does admit that Barbara drinks a little less than he does, and that they do drink while the children are there. His DUI was in 1994, but that is the only time he was arrested for drivina under the influence. He indicates that he r~eived a disciplinary slip at work for drinking on the job. However, be denil!s that he wu drinking on the job. He also denies that he has ever caUed off work for a hangover or any other alcohol related event. Michael also completed the MMPI.2. His validity profile was remarkably similar to both Barbara's and Joseph's, so it will not be redescnbed at this time. Atfectua11y, individuals with this profile may be showing a response to situational stresses. There is a poSSIbility of notable drive and high energy. A history of minor problems with societal rules is also conceivable. These individuals generally show mild independence, non-conformity, adaptability, and occasional impulsiveness. They are active and energetic individuals who are pleasant enthusiastic, and optimistic. They see themselves as very masculine and put a premium on physical strength, aggressiveness, and a preference for action over thought. Similar men tend to have a narrow range of interests and a lack of originality. Other pOSSIbilities include a preference for the practical, and minimal insight. There is no psychiatric diagnosis associltted with this profile. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDA nONS: Both Barbara Ross and Joseph Ross would like primary physical custody of their children. Joseph has had primary physical custody of the children since he and Barbara separated in March of 1995. Barbara has had an ~.tremely liberal access schedule with the children which was geared around her days off from work. However, given the fact that slIe lives almost 50 miles away from Joseph, it is impOSSIble to maintain this schedule during the school year. This is especiaUy tNe since Barbara has switched her schedule to a daylight shift. As a function of that change, she would be unable to bring the children to school in Cumberland County on days that she was workins. Joseph believes that he offers a more stable and consistent environment for the children. HI! recognizes their need for their mother and states that if she were to move into the Carlisle School District he would accept a shared custodial arrangement. He does not believe that it is in their best interest to have such an arrangement given the current distance betWeen him and BarbarL -' . . Page 10 RE: Ross v. Ross It is the recommendation of this evaluator that Joseph Ross maintain primary physical custody ofhis children. Joseph has been able to consistently provide a stable envirorunent for the children. He has worked hard to maintain their routines, and to maintain the environment in which they were comfortable during the marriage. Furthermore, after working through the iDitia1 stages of the separation, he has worked fleXibly with Barbara to allow her access to the children. There have been no attempts '0 alienate the children from her either through brainwashing or forced absences. Joseph has a good understanding of his children's needs and desires. He has consistently met their health related needs and requirements. He has done so at times without the help ofBatbara, but he has attempted to inform her of those needs as they occurred. Barbara, on the other hand, has often had a difficult time making herself available to meet those needs. Furthermore, Barbara has presented some serious contradictioaa in her own motivatioaa around the best interests of the children. As. mentioned above, Barbara has contradicted herself IS to whether or not she would prefer to stay at home and be with the children, or whether she would prefer to work and be away from the home. The vacillation with respect to this issue is consistent with some of the immaturity of Barbara's thinking, and some lack of direction in her decision making. Furthermore, serious concerns exists around the environment at Barbara's house with respect to drinking. Alcohol seems to be an important part of the lifestyle of she IIIId Michae~ and there seetDS to be linle indication that that lifestyle would be curtailed if the children were there. Barbara also gave very little forethought into the impact on her relationship with the children, or conversely their relationship with their father, by her moving to Perry County. This IlICk of forethought indicates a lack of consideration for the children's needs when these decision were made. Finally, some of Barbara's ~cus on financial concerns that arise as a result of support and childcare lead one to believe that some of these concerns are of greater importance to Barbara than the basic needs of the children. It should be noted that both of these parents indicated that the other has shown themselves to be a good parent in the past. Regardless of the concerns that they express about each other, or the concerns that have been expressed within this report, that factor should be kept in. mind when devising any custodial schedule. The greatest amount of flexibility and access possible should be aUnwed to wbichever parent ultimately gains primary custody. If custody does rest with Joseph, then access should be granted to Barbara on the whatever basis is available given her work schedule and the children's school schedule. It is not in the children's best interest, however, to be exposed to 20Q miles of travel per day. Besides the fact that that travel in and of itself is burdensome on the children, it is also obvious that inclement weather conditions will make travel to and from school very difficult. The schedule will have to be divided in such a way that most of Barbara's access will occur on time otr&om schoo~ such as weekl:Dds. That does not change the alcohol related concerns however. Barbara and Michael should be directed to examine their problems with alcoho~ by evidenced by the fact that both have been arrested for ours. Furthermore, the cODSUnlption of a case of beer a week, or the presence of a keg and perpetual use of a1coho~ is not a good model for young children to foUow. . . APR 0 9 1997tf' JOSBPH R. ROSS, III, Plllintilt V tIN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUHBBRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYZ,VANIA : :CIVIL ACTION - LAW : :NO: 1384 CIVIL 1995 : IN CUSTODY BAIlBA.RA D. ROSS, D.f.ndllnt COl'JRT ORDER AND NOW, this tJ/+... dllY of ~~ , 1997, upon consid.ration of ~tllch.d Custody Concililltion R.port, it is ord.r.d and direct.d as follow.: 1 . A h~ i. sch.duled in the above cu. on the 2.AA. t of , 19'7, lit q:noA~. in Court Room No. lit ",hic t . t.stimony ",ill J;;""'tllken. Th. parti.. or t .ir l.gal couns.l shall file ",ith the Court in advanc. of this h.aring II m.morandum s.tting forth the history of cu.tody in this ca.., the i.su.. curr.ntly b.for. the Court, the witn....s that will be called by .ach party and a .uMmary of the anticipat.d t..timony of .ach witn.... Thi. m.morandum .hall b. fil.d at l.ast ten days prior to the h.aring dat.. At this h.aring, the Plaintiff, Joseph R. Ross, III, .hall b. the moving party and .hall proceod initially with the tes::imony. 2. P.nding further order of this Court, this Court's prior Ord.r of October 25, 1995 .hall remain in effect. BY THE COURT, /f9we?I:~1.f~. ~ J. cc: Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire Mariann. E. Rudebusch, E.quire Barbara D. Martin P. O. BoJC 255 Ick..burg, PA 17037 TRUE 'COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony WII,reof, I here unto setniy haM an~ III' ~ ot saId CIlU at Carlisi': PI. EXHIBIT "e" . .' JOSEPH R. ROSS, III, Plaintiff V l IN THE COURT OF CONNON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA l :CIVZ'L ACTION - LAW l :NOl 1384 CIVIL 1995 lIN CUSTODY BARBARA D. ROSS, Defendant Prior Judgel J. Wesley Oler, Jr. CONCILIATION CONTE:RENCE St1MMA.RY .REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.J-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information peC'taining to the children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Kyle E. Ross, born August 18, 1990 and Brandi M, Ross, born November 28, 1992. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on April 3, 1997, with the following individuals in attendance: The Father, Joseph R. Ross, III, with his counsel Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire and the Mother, Barbara D. Martin, who did not appear wi th counsel. Mrs. Martin rela ted to the Conciliator that she still has legal counsel in the nature of Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire, but that Attorney Rudebusch would not be appearing at th" Conciliation Conference but would represent her at a hearing in this matter.' 3. The parties appeared before the undersigned Conciliator in October of 1995 at which time a temporary Order was agreed to and the parties also agreed to submit themselves to a custody evaluation. The temporary Order provided that Father have primary custody with the Mother having periods of temporary custody for the two children. 4. A custody evaluation was performed by Dr. Arnold T. Shienvold. Upon conclusion of that evaluation, the parties were still not able to reach an agreement. The Mother now suggests that she wants to have primary physical custody of the minor children I The Conciliator expressed concern at the Conference on the attitude of parties and their attorneys to basically disregard the purpose of conciliation and disregard an attempt by the Court to resolve these matter in advance of the hearing. Attorneys advising their clients to attend conciliations without them and merely reque.tin~ that the case be scheduled for a hearing certainly ignore. the stated intentions of the conciliation proces.. wlth the 'ather enjoying period. ot temporary cu.tQdy. ~he 'ather 1., naturally, unwilling to agree to that change in tbe cu.tody arrartgement.' 5. ~he partie. were unable to reach an agreement. A hearing i. r.quired in thi. c.... A h.aring .hould take no more than on. day. -JJ1l ((,1 r. 0) fi-KJ , .' , , ,. I, " 2IJ:'he evaluation furnbhed by Dr. Shienvold re.ultecl in a recommendation that the father continue to maintain primary phy.ical cu.tody of the children. IN THI COURT OF COMMON PLIAS OF MONTGOMlRY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION TIUFEL NURSIRY, INC. PlaintiH vs. Civil Action No. 96-876 GREGG CARIGNAN, individually and as a partner trading and doing business as GREGG'S NURSERY, a possible partnership, Defendant PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MAXI RULI AaIOLUTI AND NOW comes Plaintiff, by counsel, Bernstein and Bernstein, P.C., and moves this Honorable Court to enter an Order, making absolute the Rule to Show Cause issued on April 16, 1997, and granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories, based on the following, , ' I 1. On November 12, 19~6, Plaintiff served upon Defendant Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories directed to Greg Carignan. 2. Said discovery was served upon Defendant on or about November 14, 1996. , . 3. Answers to said discovery were due not later than December 14, 1996. 4. The ~laintiff did not receive the Defendant's answers to Plaintiff's Second ,I Set of Interrogatories, and on April 16, 1~97, pursuant to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 7n~0524. H ~ '. '. IN tHE COURT or COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION TBUFBL NURSBRY, INC. Plaintiff vs. Civil Action No. 96-876 GRBGG CARIGNAN, individually and as a partner trading and doing business as GREGO'S NURSERY, a possible partnership, Defendant 2ImIB or COIlJl'l' AND NOW, to-wit, this 1~day of <1-101"'-'" , 1997, upon consideration of the record and Plaintiff's foregoing Motion to Make Rule Absolute, it appearing from the record that Defendant has been duly ssrved with the Rule to Show Cause issued on April 16, 1997, and has failed to respond to Plair.tiff's Motion to Compel or to Answer Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Rule to Show Cause issued by this Court on April 16, 1997, is made absolute, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories is granted, and %0 of Interrogatories within ~ Defendant shall serve rCoN''':'' . f days ofAt~. d~t_ ef this Order. answers to Plaintiff's Second Set BY THE COURT: 72790SH .N .~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW . 'U;"I'IIIIIl.)lN~nIN 't 1l01n:HI!.IIHtN!.IlJN tl.:Il^'t1Hil'IWolfllNI!. Nlnltll AS I> "HAWIl . MAUII:NI' IIIHtN!.IHN III II I II, ^ IIHI.MHHN ,lll/lNlllmU' (-,~Im NAlll-1l !Wrt'k 1l,\\'11l1 !.WAN u HJI'fAltlHi IINANOI/lt!.IHN BERNSTEIN AND BERNSTEIN, P.c. . ~1I.1.\I~II'IIII"",IIoIlIA I AI"1 \1""1I11111"'~1'1 \1~LI"lA I AI'"'''''IIHI'II."I'.,~.'l''' I '1'.' ~INII ,till" ".\~\l.'hll I \11., """1 t~I' II. ,,, ^ 1'1l0......IOI..A' (lIIlI'OIlAIJIlN IUJltENN ^vrNlI~', I'll"IhIlUKl;ll, l'ENNh'n.VANIA ''''222 11'I-I1PHl:)NIi ("12H~.Hll)11 IH.rUII'IHl: '''12) "~.Kn'l INTfMNET hllp;/lwwwbt'Mlllh..I"IIIW~111II 1!.MAlt: tIl"Utlblmlllhllnl,w.mnl Court Adnlinistrator May 24, 1997 Cumberland County, PA Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 ReI Teufel Nursery, Inc. Vo, Gregg's Nursery Civil Action No. 96-876 Civil BIRNITIIN rILl NO. H0007279 Dear Court Administrator, Please accept for filing and forwarding to a Judge for disposition, the .enclosed Motion to Make Rule Absolute, which is being filed with you purouant to Local Rule 4001.1. The Rule to Show Cause issued in this matter on April 16, 1997, was issued by Judge Hess. Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. Very truly yours, P.C. .- /' .--/ NDK/sal ilnclosure cc, Gregg's Nuroery 450 Gettysburg Pike Mechanicshurg, PA 17055 ATTN, Gregg Carignan 727905H .H~ \, , I "I 'I,J ;, II ','I; .,',' 'u, I, ""'1 i 11:" I, I;, '; ',,'J !I,~ ' '''1, h'; I"'; ",I ',1.' I' { ~ I 'I ;, ;:."'\ l' ,I ,ti'_ ' ,"1 !~j'L I "t': '/'j' ; j!;\.,' , i.! ,/1 X '\-~\; i "',i.,' !'i'l:' . l!.\ F "i;lllll ' (~' J , , ~;;;,:,~, ; " ,'" 'I . \ I \ " , \ 'I I I \ " , , 11,; "i r I" l'l., " 't:',:'II' \i J' I 11,_", "11 ~i 'f, It,1 ! 10; ~,'.'\ 1",1 I', I " !' I, , , . c Ii \ "'\ , \ \ I I I \ " - , , , -' I ," , " 'j ~ . , , i,l iii ,il I' " , "J, . r, j "J , , . I " " ,1 I' ", 'i' .. I ,) z ~ I z W' a:W!t~~ .::.\ w ~ CD ~ < ~ ... Cl. o :'l Z . Z z:t II( w ~ Zt:Cl.a: -~~:J W .. ffi I- ..~ en _ Z Cl. a: W CD . f:' ,'\0'" '__"lr!.;-. ~ 01 \ ,II 'f ; 0/' -' '" , . \ , '~" . . ., 'J J; '0'; ,', .' ' ',t . ,_ :1" . H , " I , ." '" " i.., I, ",Wi" :"1 ,. " : II, ,j., , '\f:" I ~ ".. ~ ~ , I J" '. ~ .. , ~ ' , \ (.... I 'if. ::.. ' "/" .. ';~,. ", I ~ I ... " ,~ I > ,'; , , '\", --"'1"- ._',V --.... " . . " , I. , , , I " ,I, '~\ i , , ~ , .' . '.i! \ ~ 'I ,I '4;" l:i ! ~I , r , , l~ \ . ! I , , " , . ", I , ! I .' I :,' ;, . ~ ,I) I, r I" '/ :; I , . ,. , , , ;i.,; ,., , ,J' J/' " ," ~ ,r' , i I: II ~ ~ i ~ . i y. \' "-f 'I., ~, ,;.~. '. i. ','I'J " ,'~I :~ i:, :fl, ", \ I.' '.. ! ., 'i j I " " , , ....i I , , .~:I:,o f' ').., /. ',,: , , , . , , , r! I .' i, .' , " I :~ r \ " II' j! ,. . JOSEPH R. ROSS, m, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : No. 1384. CIVIL. 1995 BARBARA D. ROSS MARTIN, Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW this day of , 1997, upon presentation and consideration of the within Petition For Special Relief. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the request in the Order for Special Relief will be heard at the conclusion of the custody hearing and contempt hearing scheduled in this matter on July 2, 1997 at " 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom Number 5 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT, .. , " "Iti J. Wesley Oler, Jr. , J. " '~: \ ' I ,~ "'IJ r.l ' ,,' ~ j l d~ . '~j 1,'( I,ll - " ' JOSEPH R. ROSS, UI, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, : No. 1384 - CIVIL. 1995 BARBARA D. ROSS MARTIN, Defendant IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF PURSUA/:IT TO E!A.R.C.P.1915.13 AND NOW comes Petitioner, JOSEPH R. ROSS, III, by and through his counsel of record, Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire, and petitions the Court as follows: 1. Your Petitioner is the above-named Plaintiff, JOSEPH R. ROSS, III, an adult individual currently residing at 431 Hillcrest Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PeMsylvania. 2. Your Respondent is the above-named Defendant, BARBARA D. ROSS MARTIN, an adult individual currently residing at P.O. Box 255, Ickesburg, Perry County, PeMsylvania. 3. The parties are subject to an Order of Court dated October 25, 1995 which is attached hereto and incorpon\ted herein by reference as Exhibit" A". 4. Pursuant to the terms of the aforementioned Order and by agreement of counsel and the parties an independent custody evaluation was prepared by Dr. Arnold V. Shienvold of Riegler, Shienvold & Associates. 2151 Linglestown Road, Suite 200, Harrisburg, P A 17110, a copy of said custody evaluation being attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "B". . 5. In that the parties were unable to reach an agreement relative to these custody proceedings upon receipt of the independent custody evaluation, Petitioner petitioned the Court for the scheduling of a concili~tion conference which was held in thls matter on April 3, 1997. 6. A copy of the Court's Order of April 9, 1997 scheduling a custody hearing in this matter for July 2, 1997 at 9:00 a.m., and the conciliation conferenr.e summary report whlch caused the aforementioned Order to be entered, is all ached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "C". 7. At the time of the custody conciliation on April 3, 1997, the Respondent herein appeared, pro se, indicating to the conciliator that her allorney was not present with her to attempt to resolve thls matter through negotiation, but rather Respondent wished to have the matter scheduled for a court hearing. 8. The conciliator's concerns relative to the failure of counsel for the Respondent to appear and failure of the Respondent to attempt to resolve the mailer by negotiations is set forth in the C1Jnciliation conference summary report as footnote number I. 9. Despite the fact Petitioner has been the primary custodian for the children in excess of two years, Dr. Shienvold recommended that Father remains as primary custodian. and Respondent failed to even attempt to negotiate a resolution of this matter with the conciliator, Respondent continues to demand that a hearing be held in this matter. 10. Immediately following the conciliation in this matter where Respondent failed to oven attempt to resolve the matter by negotiations, Respondent flied a complaint with the Cumberland County Children & Youth Services Agency claiming that Petitioner herein ICxually abused his four year old daughter. II. Following a thorough investigation by Cumberland County Children & Youth Services, Cumberland County Children & Youth Services entered an opinion through letter dated April 24, 1997 indicating that the allegations of abuse were unfounded. 12. When the Cumberland County Children & Youth Services Agency determined that the allegations made by Respondent that Petitioner had abused his minor daughter were unfounded, Respondent then made a claim with the Pennsylvania State Police that . Petitioner had sexually abused the parties' minor daughter. 13. Petitioner immediately cooperated with the Pennsylvania State Police including providing a polygraph test which caused the Pennsylvania State Police to immediately drop their investigation of the crimes alleged by Respondent. 14. All of the actions of Respondent from the time she vacated the marital residence in the Spring of 1995 to date, including the most recent false allegations made against Petitioner, have been done solely for vindictiveness and without any factual foundation or basis. 15. The instant action which is scheduled for a hearing on July 2, 1997 is apparently based upon Respondent's ongoing position that she should have primary physical custody of the children who have been in Petitioner's primary physical custody in excess of two years. , 16. Respondent has failed and refused to comply with the terms of the Court's Order of October 25, 1995 in unilaterally returning the children early at the end of visits, returning them late at the end of visits, returning them to Father's place of employment at the end of visits, not pickinlJ up the children in the time frame required by the Order, and otherwise failing to comply with the terms of the Court's Order. 17. The actions of Respondent in continuing to press her claim for primary physical custody under the factual circumstances of this case, makes evident that the sole purpose for her action is to create additional expense and loss of time from work for Petitioner, as well as to emotionally and mentally a.ggravate the situation for Petitioner and the parties' minor children. 18. The actions of Respondent relative to her pursuit of custody in this matter and her insistenc~ that a custody hearing be held in this case are vindictive, vexatious, obdurate, obnoxious, and without factual basis. 19. Petitioner has been required to incur substantial attorney's fees associated with the two conciliations in this case, the pending hearing in this case. his investigation by Cumberland County Children & Youth Services and the Pennsylvania State Police, and in attempts to negotiation a resolution of this case. all of which fees have been incurred uMecessarily due to Respondent's actions. 20. The independent custody evaluation pertbrmed by Dr. Arnold V. Shienvold is substantial evidence of the best interests and permanent welfare of the children. and Dr. Shienvold was retained as an independent evaluator with the reconmendation and consent ofaespondent and her legal counsel. 21. Respondent's ongoing attempts to secure physical custody of the children, including pursuit of the matter at a hearing on July 2, 1997, will require that the Petitioner secure the services of Dr. Arnold V. Shienvold to appear at the hearing and testilY in this matter, all of which will create substantial, unnecessary e"pense for Petitioner. 22. While Petitioner recognizes Respondent's legal right to pursue physical custody of the parties' children, Pttitioner submits that there is no factual basis whatsoever for the pursuit of this matter by Respondent. 23. Respondent is pursuing this matter out of vindictiveness as e"pressed above, and because she has been required to pay support by the Cumberland County Domestic Relations Office which support order she has appealed on various occasions, but which order has remained in effect without modification. 24. As indicated, a custody hearing is scheduled in this matter for July 2, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom Number 5 of the Cumberland County Courthouse. 25. Contemporaneously with the custody hearing scheduled in this malter, a contempt hearing has been scheduled based upon a Pelition For Contempt tiled by the Respondent in this case. 26. Contemporaneously with the tiling of this Petition For Special Relief, a Petition For Contempt has been tiled by Petitioner against Respondent requesting that Respondent's contempt be heard contemporaneously with the custody hearing in this matter on July 2. 1997 27. It would be appropriate. in the parties' financial interest, and in the interest of judicial economy to have the within Petition For Special Relief heard at the conclusion of the custody proceedings in this matter. '1 , . ocr ~ ~;uS5 ff .' JOSHPH R. ROSS, III, Plaintiff v. IIN THE COURt OF COMMON PLBAS OF ICUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I INO. 1384 - CIVIL - 1995 I I :CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY BARBARA D. ROSS, Defendant COURT ORDER AND NOW, thi. .iJ.L~ay of ~ ' 1995, upon con.ideration of the attached Cu.tody Conc.l. at on Report, it 18 ordered and directed a. follow. I 1. The Father, Jo.~ph R. Rosa, III, and the Mother, Barbara D. Ro.., .hall enjoy shared legal custody of the minor children, Kyle E. Ross, born August 18, 1990, and Brandy M. Ross, born November 28, 1992. 2. On a temporary basis, physical custody shall be handled as follow. I A. On an alternating week schedule when the Mother has h~r lonq four day period of no work, Mother shall have physical custody from the afternoon on the day she get. off work until she return. the children to the Father or to the daycare the day that she returns back to work. Father shall deliver children to Mother at the beginning of the exchange of custody, and Mother shall deliver the ch~ldren back to Father or daycare at the end of this custody period. B. On those other two weeks when the Mother is off work and available to take care of the children during the day, Mother shall have the opportunity of providing care for the children during the day and may have physical custody of the children until Father returns from work. Mother .hall advhe Father at least three days in advance of any days that she intends to take care of the children during the day. Mother shall handle transportation for exchange of custody of the children on those dates. C. Bxcept for as stated above when Mother has physical cu.tody, Father shall enjoy physical custody. EXHIBIT "A" .' .. J JOSIP! R. ROSS, III, Plaintiff IIN TIE COURT OF COMMON PLBAS or ICUMBBR:.AND COUNTY, PINNSYLVAHIA , INO. 1384 - CIVIL - 1995 I I ICIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY v BARBARA D. ROSS, Defendant PRIOR JUDGI, JUDGB J. WESLIY OLBR, JR. CONCILIATION COIfPIRZI(CB SUMMARY RZPORT IN ACCORDANC! WITH CUMBBRLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCIDtlRB 1915.3-8(b), the undereigned Cuetody Conciliator .ubmit. the followinq report I ' 1. The information pertaining to the children who are the ,eubject of this litigation ie ae tollow., Kyle I. Ro.., born August 18, 1990, and Brandy M. Roe., born November 20, 1992. 2. A Conciliation Conference wae held on October 13, 1995, with the fo1lowinq individuals in attendance, The Father, Joseph R. Ro.e, III, with hie counsel, Bradley L. Gritfie, I.quire, and the Mother, Barbara D. Ro.e, with her couneel, Marianne B. Rudebuech, lequire. 3. The partiee entered into an agreement in accordance with the propoeed Order which is attached. / of,.f1! q ~ DATI re , ; ,'I I,' i' -A , 'l " Riester . Sblenvotd & Asioclates CUSTODY EVALUATION Elliot Riealer, Ph.D. Arnold T. Shlenvold, Ph.D. M.Uada Eub, M.S. Wa)'ll' L. Trona, M.S. Jama Euh, L.S.W. Mlclwl J. AskeD, Pb.D. Bolllli, L. Howard, Pb.D. Amy K. KclllIDt. A.C.s.W., L.'.W. Oaylt Slcd1llUlO, M.S. RoI&IIn4 A. HorrDWI, DJ!4. Joseph Ross v. Barbara Ross Levu ed by: The parties mutually qreed to a custody evaluation at a Cumberland County Conciliation Court meeting with Hubat Gilray, E~uire. Referral Reason: To complete psychological evaluatiODS on all parties and to make recommendations regarding the most appropriate custodia1 arrangement for the two minor children, Kyle E. Ross, date ofbirth, 8/18/90; and Brandy M Ross, date of birth, 11/24/92. Individual Imerviews: Joseph Ross - 3 hours Barbara Ross - 3 hours Michael Dowin - 1 hour Psychological Testing: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) 'aU adults Parent/Child Observation: Both Barbara Ross and Joseph Ross were observed in an interactive play session with each of their children. Home Studies: Home observations were obtained at Joseph Ross' home in rura1 Carlisle and at Michael Dowin's home in Ickesburg, Pennsylvania. Other: MisceUaneous Court documents, personal notes, and an answering macbine tape were reviewed in preparation of this report. The recommendations included at the end of this evaluation are the result of the compilation of aU these sources of data. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Joseph and Barbara Ross were married September 29, 1986. Barbara was 18 years old at the time and Joseph was 20. They had decided to elope when Barbara was still a senior in high school. She did not work for the first year of the marriage. By mutual agreement, she first concluded her high school education. There was some initial disasreement about having children bec.use of their ages.. Barbara admits that Joseph was much more invested in havins childrea. Nonetheless, they decided to have Kyle, who was delivered by C-section in 1990. Brandy wu also delivered by C-section in 1992. There was even greater disagreement about this second child. For Barbara it was a two-fold problem. First of a1l, she was unsure if she even wanted a second child. Secondly, Barbara did not want to have a daughter because of the uncomfortable (717) '40-1313 , 2151 Linslestown Road, Suite 200 . Harrisburs, Pennsylvania 17110 Pase 2 RE: Ross v. Ross relationship she had had with her mother. Joseph, on the other hand, was delighted to have a second child and had no fears of having a daughter. Both Barbara and Joseph agreed that the first three years of their marriase were tIIr1y positive. Problems began to evolve after that time period. Both of them were working the same shift at Frey Communications. Joseph alJeges that Barbara had an extra-marital affair some time in the late 1990's. For a time period, there wu even some disagreement whether Joseph was the biological father of Kyle. According to Barbara, the problems arose &om a lack of communication and a lad, of common activities. She indicates that Joseph worked a great deal of the time, and that he rarely wanted to go out and do different activities. She states that there were aIao time perioda where he would drink. They would, subsequently, get into physical altercations. Barbara does admit that she may have been equally responsible for these, but she reports that he did hit her. Barbara stites that ultimately she became disenchanted with Joseph and preferred to be at work rather than with him. She began a relationship with Mr. Dowin foUowing the birth of Brandy. Eventually, she preferred her time with Mr. Dowin to her time with Joseph. She moved out of the home in March of 1995, and moved immediately in with Mr. Dowin in Perry County. Barbara moved away without the children. She indicated that she would have liked to take the children with her, but that Joseph refused to alJow her to do so. She stated that Joseph would not alJow her to have any overnights with the children before June of 1995. During much of that time the children were being watched by Joseph's step-mother. Joseph admits that Barbara wanted to take the children, but he said" no." He felt that because she was moving out ofbis home into another person's home, it was inappropriate for the children. Furthennore, she was moving to Perry County and they lived in Cumberland County. He stated that although he new Mr. Dowin he did not know the circumstances under wbich his children would be living. Joseph also stated that Barbara made little preparation to have the children go with her. Furthermore, she did not exlubited alot ofintere5t in visiting with them for the first three months that she was gone. Obviously, he and Barbara disagree on this latter point. With respect to time and care of the children, Barbara and Joseph both admit that they shared many of the responsibilities of child rearing during the time period that they were together. Both of them fed the children, bathed the children, and clothed the children. They would also share in the overalJ supervision of the children. They relied heavily on both of their families to help care for the children when they were working. Barbara and Joseph worked a prolonged second shift during the marriage. Therefore, they needed childcare in the evenings through the night. Since that time, Joseph has left his job at Frey Communication to take a job at West Shore Printing. He has worked there for 18 months. He no lODger works the second shift. His work .. Page 3 RE: Ross v. Ross hours are now Itom 7:30 am to 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday. He must occasionally work over.time on Satw'days, wbich he tries to do when the children are with their mother. Barbll'l, 00 the other hand, contiIlues to work at Frey Communication. She has very recently switched to a new work schedule giving her daytime hours. Since the separation the children have been primarily residing with their father in the original marital residence. FoUowing an August 1995 condliation conference, a fairly Bexl'ble schedule of access wu arranged for Barbara so that she could have custody of the children on her days off. Unfortunately, this entails a considerable amount of travel for the children as Barbara lives close to an hour away Itom the marita1 residence. Nonetheless, she has been fairly consistent in maintaining her contact and handling most of the transportational needs. Joseph has not attetDpted to obstruct any of Barbara's visitation time since the temporary custody order bas been put into effect. However, with the children beginning full-time school, this arrangement is becoming increasingly difficult. Joseph is suing for primaJy physical custody of the children. It is his belief that he has always provided the most stable environment for the children. He does not believe that Barbara has maintained the children as her first priority. He points to the fact that during the marriage she was never willing to stop working in order to be a "stay at home mom." He stated that on multiple occasions he would ask her to do that and that she would decline. Furthermore, he feels that Barbara has not been able to become settled in what she wants in her life. He points to the two pre-marital affairs as indicatioDS of some of her instability. He also feels that her decision to move immediately to Mr. Oowin's residence, leaving her children an hour away is further evidence of her lack of commitment to the children. Joseph stated that since the separation he has taken 00 100% responsibility for the children's medic.aI, dental, and academic needs. He states that on multiple occasions he has told Barbara of doctor appointments or school activities that she either forgot or attended late. Joseph is alsoconcemed about the environment in .vhich the children would live in Perry County. He reports that Barbara and Michael are relatively heavily consumer~ of beer. He states that both of them have had ours in the past and that, to his knowledge, Michael has lost his drivers license. Joseph indicates that aU of the extended family for the children is located in the Carlisle area. He has had a close relationship with his family and believes that the children are closely bonded to them. He also believes that the children have been developing ext~emely weU since the separation and are emotionaUy weU adjusted. He does not want to do anything that would impair that growth. Interestingly, Joseph does not feel that Barbara is, or was, a bad parent. Independent of the concerns mentioned above, Joseph states that if Barbara lived closer, he would be more than happy to share physical custody of the children with her. He recognizes that the children need and love their mother. Page 4 RE: Ross v. Ross Barbara would like custody of the children changed to her. She feels that her relationship with the children has been somewhat impaired by Joseph's anger at her. She believes that he originally kept the children &om her in order to hurt her and there have been times when he bu not been flexible in allowing her to see the children. She believes that the children would be better off with her because, "I do not need to be employed." She states that she currently works in order to be able to pay her support and that most of her work is done on the weekends. She also indicated that the children would be better if placed with her because: 1. "I cook and let the kids help." 2. She feels that the children spend too much time in daycare and pre- kindergarten. She indicat.es that a lot of her expenses go to the covering of daycare but she does not see the daycare IS having really helped Kyle in his academic preparation. 3. She loves the children very much and that they enjoy being with her. 4. She feels that she is more concerned about their overall dietary needs and gives them healthier foods than Joseph. She also believes that she is more concerned about their overall educational experience and exposes them to activities other than television. 5. Finally, she feels that there have been times that the children have not been clean enough. She can make sure their hygiene is more adequately cared for. Like Joseph, Barbara sees Joseph as being a very good and strong parent. She admits that he has always been involved with the children, and that he is e"tremely family oriented. She believes, however, that he goes .overboard" in that area by having the children with their "granny" too much. She was able to name multiple strengths of Joseph lIS a parent, but had no good options, or alternatives on how to work out the custody. BARBARA ROSS: Barbara is a 27 year old woman who currently resides with her fiance in Ickesburg, Pennsylvania. Barbara presented for all of her appointments in a timely manner. In fact, she was eager to be involved in the evaluation process. She attended all of her sessions in relatively casual attire. She was always clean and neatly groomed for her appointments. Barbara was pleasant and communicative during her sessions. Barbara's affect during her session vacillated considerably. There were many times during her session that she became tearful in talking about the situation. Her tearfulness may be a sign of acute sensitivity. However, there is also an immature and childlike quality to some of these interactions. Barbara's thinking appeared to be somewhat concrete and simple. She often contradict\.'<i herself regarding various attitudes and motivations. For example, she indicated that she did not want to work and was only employed in order to pay her child support. Her preference was to stay at home with the children. On the other hand, she indicated that she is not a home body, that she likes to work, and that Joseph was constantly trying to get her to stop working. It is not believed that Barbara has distorted thinlcinB, but rather her thought processins is not weU organized. Other than the stress of the current situation, Barbara denied any other Page 5 RE: Ross v. Ross significant symptoms of anxiety or depression. She also denies any history of psychiatric or emotional problema. There was no indication during these interviews that she suffers &om severe psychological symptoms such u hallucinations, delusions, or ideas of reference. With respect to personality characteristics, Barbara appears to be mendly, socia1, and out- going. She has shown a tendency to be somewhat immature in her interactions and certainly had a difficult time remaining committed to her marriage. This msy be a function of the early age It which she married Joseph, but her means ofleaving the relationsbip showed a great degree of irrespoDSlbility and impulsivity. On the other hand, she has shown commitment and respoDSlbility to her job and she has been in her ~'UITent relationship for approximately two years. In genera1, however, Barbara shows alack ofinsjght and self-awareness. Barbara's MMPI results are valid. Individuals who answer in this pattern tend to deny common human &ailties and are trying to present themselves in an overly positive Hght. Such socially approved answers can be given by a psychologicaUy naive individual or by a person who is being very evuive, or consciously deceptive. These individuals are generaUy &ee from disabling fear snd anxiety. They seem to have a relaxed attitude toward responsibilities, yet they tend to be proficient and capllble. Often, these woman reject traditional feminine values and do not want to be perceived as feminine. They can be tl'ugh and uninJubited. Recognition and status are valued by these woman and they typically project an air of self-confidence, a feeling of security, and a relative absence of worries. In the interactive play session, Kyle had a difficult time separating from his mother. Therefore, Kyle spent very Httle time with the evaluator. When his mother joined him. he became more relaxed, talkative, and spontaneous. He admitted that he gets afraid, at times, and he likes doing things with his mother. Barbara also needed to get comfortable within the session, but once she did, she began to talk with the children and direct their play. She made good eye contact with them and gave suggestions on how to build various shapes and structures. Kyle spontaneously stated that his mo~her lives with Michael and that be must decide who he wants to Hve with. He was not asked that question. He was able to state that he now lives with his father, but that he has mends at both bis mother's and father's house. He stated that he does not have enough time to go up and visit with his mother. He appeared prepared to make some of these statements. Overall, Barbara was attentive and involved with her children during the play session. Brandy wu not overly ta1kative. She appeared to be shy and whiney within this session. She used a considerable amount of baby talk and was quite demanding. Furthermore, her languap development seems to be somewhat below age level. .. , , Page 6 RE: Ross v. Ross The home visit showed that Barbara and her liarlCt, Mlchae~ live in a trailer on a large lot l"hIlaccess road is unpaved, but there are other houses in the neighborhood. There was a basketball net and a swing set with a separate slide in the yard. A large shed outside the home had a refiigerator in it which has a tap for a keg that is kept within. The trailer has three bedrooms and is weU kept. The children enjoyed playing outside during this visit. There was a dog and a pet parrot at this home. Several children were noted playing in the neighborhood. In general, everyone appeared relaxed in this setting. and both Michael and Barbara interacted with the children approprilltely. JOSEPH ROSS: Joseph is a 30 year old man who resides in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. A!s mentioned above, Joseph is employed at West Shore Printers, where he has worked for 18 months. He stated that he enjoys his job, but switched to this job in order to get daylight hours. This allowed him greater time availability for the children. The changed job also necessitated a slightly lower income. Joseph was delayed in starting his evaluation process. His slow start was the result of financial concerns and he wanted to be sure that Barbara had started the process. Nonetheless, once he began his sessions, he was cooperative and open to the evaluation process. He presented for all of his scheduled appointments in a timely fashion. He was typicaUy dressed in casua1, but clean clothing. He appeared to be open and spontaneous in bis responses to questions that were asked of him. Joseph's affect was somewhat subdued during the evaluation. He seems to be resigned to the fact that his marriage is over, but does not seem to have totally accepted that. In fact, during the evaluation Joseph stated that he still loved Barbara, but recognized that be would not have a relationship with her. Therefore, there is a mildly depressed edge to his affect. There was also stil1 present signs of frustration over the entire situation. Joseph denied, however, any significant clinical symptoms of depression. Although he sometimes becomes stressed by the children, he denies any overt anxiety or agitation. Joseph's thinlri"g appears to be clear, concise, and goal directed. He seems to be of average inteUectuaI ability, although he tends to conceptualize things in very simple, unidimensional terms. There was no evidence of cognitive distortions. Joseph denied any bistory of psychiatric or psychological treatment in the put. Joseph appears to be a relatively conservative, responsible man. He has a traditional view of family and has attempted to maintain a more or less stable family routine for the children. Page 7 RE: Ross v. Ross Interpersonally, Joseph appears to be somewhat uncomfortable in his social situations. Family seems to be of greater importance for his social contacts than are other acquaintances in his environment. Yet, Joseph appears to be committed to meet the needs of his children. Joseph alSQ completed the MMPI.2. Joseph's validity profile is very similar to that of Barbara's. Individuals with this profile tend to deny common human frailties and attempt to present themselves in a positive Ught. Josepb's profile differs in that individuals with this profile admit to being in some distress. typically as a result of situational dissatisfaction. There are indications that this individual worries a good deal and suffers &om some depression secondary to the adjustment issues. Individuals with this profile have been descnbed as being naive, optimistic, and self-centered. They also have a fairly high need for afti:ction and attention. They can be rigid, at times, and are seen as being sensitive and, perhaps, over-sensitive. On the other band, they are seen as fait' minded, frank, and submissive. These men will sttempt to avoid unpleasant issues and they lack insight in dealing with their problems. They also tend to be clear thinking and have very moralistic beliefs. They tend to be lacking in self-confidence. There is no psychiatric diagnosis associated with this profile. Joseph's interaction with Kyle and Brandy was very positive. He immediately got onto the floor with the children in the play room and began playing with them. Brandy was "fused" to Joseph through much of the session. Kyle was very talkative, expressive and open about emotions. Josepb seemed quite comfortable working with Brandy. He did a moderate amount of verba1izations with them and openly showed affection to them by kissing their heads as they played. The children decided to build "our house," which meant Joseph's, Brandy's, and Kyle's. Joseph was quite patient with the children and used age appropriate language. He worked hard to keep them involved on the tasks. Brandy, again, exhibited her speech problems and Kyle may have been the best interpreter of what Brandy had to say. Jo~eph indicated that Brandy has been reported to have had a seizure at the sitter's house, so he has taken her to Hershey Medical Center for a neurological examination. The results of that evaluation were normal. Brandy is to begin speech therapy at the Capitol Area Intermediate Unit. In general, this was a very positive and affectionate play interaction. The children's conversations centered around their activities both at home and within this office. Joseph reinforced positive behavior and was able to distract the children from any problems they had during their play. It is obvious that the children and Joseph spend a lot of time with each other and know each other fairly weU. Joseph's home visit revealed that he Uves in a ranch home on a wge corner lot in suburban CarUsle. The yard is weU kept and has a large opel!. play space. There is a swing set and sUding . . Page 8 RE: Ross v. Roll board present in the yard. There was also a toy box on the back patio along with a gas gri1l. The timily keepl rabbits in a hutch in the back of the yard. The home was clean although sparsely furnished. The fiJrniture, however, il adequate for the family's needs. The children have their own bedrooms, Kyle's being somewhat larger than Brandy's. The house is safe and comfortable to live in. There is a play room for the children and Joseph encouraged the children to play where he could see them. During the visit, Joseph wu attentive and interacted with bis children. He appeared to be an active parent who constantly watches out for bis children's safety. There are many children within the neighborhood in which Joseph lives. MICHAEL DOWIN: Michael is a 26 year old man who currently works at Frey Communication. He has been a laborer for them for the past two and an half years. Prior to that, he had spent four years in the Marines &om which he had been honorably discharged as a Corporal. Michael is originally &om Blain, Pennsylvania. He graduated from West Perry High School in 1989. He is the product of split parents. He never met bis biological father, so he was raised by his step-father and biological mother. He has one older brother who lives in \~lfginia with whom he has very little contact. He states that he was an average student in school and did no get into trouble. He was not particularly involved with activities, but worked on a farm after school. Michael stated that he met Barbara in 1994, but that they moved in together in 1995. He stated that he gave little thought to the fact that she was married; "We worked with it." He stated that he had no idea when she was moving out, so they had no strategy with respect to the children at that time. He had not met the children prior to her moving in with him. Michael had never been around children as young as Barl,ara's. It is Michael's feeling that the children are better with them because they would have a "mother and father figure with them." He admits that on days they work, given their new schedule, the children would have to be with a sitter &om 4:30 am until 7:00 pm. He indicated that they have talked to a sitter who watches children in their area. Michael also believes that country living is better than city living and the children could benefit from that. He denied that he and Barbara have any marital plans at this time. Michael presented as a relatively pleasant, casually dressed young man with long brown hair. His conversation was very simple and straight forward. He communicated with very few words. He appears to be of average inteDectuaI ability. Michael denied any problems with anxiety or depression. He also denied any other significant psychiatric bistory. The only counseling he had was through his ARD program because ofhis DUI charge. He denies the use Page 9 RE: Ross v. Ross of drugs, has Dever been arrested other than for the charge of the DUI, and never was either busted or put into the brig while in the Marines. With re&pect to drinking, Michael admits that he drinks beer on his days off. He stated that he will drink up to one case ofbeer a week. He also admits that they keep a keg at the house. He does admit that Barbara drinks a little less than he does, and that they do drink while the children are there. His DUI was in 1994, but that is the only time he was arrested for driving under the influence. He indicates that he received a disciplinaty slip at work for drinking on the job. However, he denies that he was drinking on the job. He also denies that he has ever called off work for a hangover or any other alcohol related event. Michael also completed the MMPI-2. His validity profile was remarkably similar to both Barbara's and Joseph's, so it will not be redescnbed at this time. AtfectuaUy, individuals with this profile may be showing a response to situational stresses. There is a poSSIbility of notable drive and bigh energy. A history of minor problems with societal rules is also conceivable. These individuals generally show mild independence, non-cooformity, adaptability, and occasional impulsiveness. They are active and energetic individuals who are pleasant enthusiastic, and optimistic. They see themselves as very ~'U!ine and put a premium on physical strength, assressiveness, and a preference for action over thought. Similar men tend to have a narrow range ofinterestl and a lack of originality. Other pOSSibilities include a preference for the practical, and minima1 insight. There is no psychiatric diagnosis associated with this profile. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDA nONS: Both Barbara Ross and Joseph Ross would like primary ~hysical custody of their children. Joseph has had primary physical custody of the children since he and Barbara separated in Marth of 1995. Barbara has had an extremely liberal access schedule with the children which was geared around her days off from work. However, given the fact that she lives almost 50 miles away from Joseph, it is impossible to maintain this schedule during the school year. This is especiaUy true since Barbara has switched her schedule to a daylight shift. A5 a function of that change, she would be unable to bring the children to school in Cumberland County on days that she was working. Joseph believes that he offers a more stable and consistent environment for the cbildren. He recognizes their need for their mother and states that if she were to move into the Carlisle School District he would accept a shared custodial arrangement. He does not believe that it is in their best interest to have such an arrangement given the current distance between him and Barbara. . . . " Page 10 RE: Ross v. Ross It is the recommendation of this evaluator that Joseph Ross maintain primary physical custody of his children. Joseph has been able to consistently provide a stable environment for the children. He has worked hard to maintaln their routines, and to maintain the environment in which they were comfortable during the marriage. Furthermore, after working through the initial stages of the separation, he has worked flexibly with Barbara to aUow her access to the children. There have been no attempts to alienate the children from her either through brainwashing or forced absences. Joseph has a good understanding of his children's needs and desires. He has consistently met their health related needs and requirements. He has done so at times without the help of Barbara, but he has attempted to inform her of those needs as they occurred. Barbara, on the other hand, has o~en had a difficult time making herself available to meet those needs. Furthermore, Barbara has presented some serious contradictions in her own motivatioaa around the best interests of the children. ~ mentioned above, Barbara has contradicted herselfu to whether or not she would prefer to stay at home and be with the children, or whether she would prefer to work and be away from the home. The vacillation with respect to this issue is consistent with some of the immaturity of Barbara's thinking, and some lack of direction in her deci.ion making. Furthermore, serious concerns exists around the environment at Barbara's house with respect to drinking. Alcohol seems to be an important part of the lifestyle of she and Michae~ and there seems to be litt1e indication that that lifestyle would be curtailed if the children were there. Barbara also gave very little forethought into the impact on her relationship with the children, or conversely their relationship with their father, by her moving to Perry County. This lack of forethought indicates a lack of consideration for the children's needs when these decision were made. Finally, some of Barbara's focus on financial concerns that arise as a result of support and childclIJ'e lead one to believe that some of these concerns are of greater importance to Barbara than the basic needs of the children. It should be noted that both of these parents indicated that the other has shown themselves to be 4 good parent in the past. Regardless of the concerns that they express about each other, or the concerns that have been expressed within this report, that factor should be kept in mind when devising any C\lstodial schedule. The greatest amount of flexibility and access possible should be allowed to whichever parent ultimately gains plimary custody. If custody does rest with Joseph, then access should be granted to Barbara on the whatever basis is available given her work schedule and the children's school schedule. It is not in the children's best interest, however, to be exposed to 200 miles of travel per day. Besides the fact that that travel in and of itself is burdensome on the children, it is also obvious that inclement weather conditions will make travel to and from school very difficult. The schedule will have 10 be divided in such a way that most of Barbara's access will occur on time olffrom schoo~ such as weekends. That does not change the alcohol related concerns however. Barbara and Michael should be directed to examine their problems with alcoho~ by evidenced by the fact that both have been arrested for DlJl's. Furthermore, the consumption ofa case of beer a week, or the presence ofa keg and perpetual use of alcohol, is not a good model for young children to foUow. .' to '" J '. . Page 11 RE: Roll v. Roll In conclusion, it bas been recommeuded that primary custody remain with Joseph Ro... Libera1access should be granted to Barbara based on the fact that both of these parents have demonstrated the ability to adequately care for the children in the past. A precise acceaa ...'*fule is difficult to recommend because of the ch."lP"g nature of Bubara's work schecMe. Furthermore, Barbara and Michael should be urged to cease the use of alcohol when the chI1dreD are in their custodial care. If Barbara would consider movina closer to Joseph, . more liberal accesl schedule would be poSSIble. J"j 1,J I Q~ ~ rt~(f~~ Amold T. Sbienvold, PlLD. , , I, " " ,I 1 1'1 J '\ 'Ij ", ~ . ' , ,'i I ' ", I' APR 0 9 199?tr JOSBPH R. ROSS, r II , Pldntitt V :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUHBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : :CIVIL ACTION - LAW : :NO: 1384 CIVIL 1995 : IN CUSTODY BARBARA D. ROSS, Defendant COO'R!l' ORDER AND NOW, thi. tJH-.. day of 17.;,.11; J , 1997, .upon conaideration of ~tachec Cu.tody ~~~iation Report, it i. ordered and directed a. follows: 1. A he1tl:ing is scheduled in the above case on the 2~ t of =h , 1997, at q:lJl)A.H. in Court Room No. at iiliIC. tUDe telltimony will .betaken. The parti.. or t eir legal couns.l shall file with the Court in advance of this hearing a memorandum setting forth the history of custody in thi. ca.e, the iSllues currently before the Court, the witnesses that will be called by each party and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. This memorandum shall be filed at least ten days prior to the hearing date. At this hearing, the Plaintiff, Joseph R. Ross, III, shall be the moving party and shall proceed .tnitially with the testimony. 2. Pending further order of this Court, this Court's prior Order of October 25, 1995 shall remain in effect. BY THE COURT, Ir9welt~f~. ~ cc: Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire Marianne E. Rudebusch,Esquire Barbara D. Martin P. O. Box 255 Ickesburg, PAl7037 TRUE 'COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof,l here unto setniy han<J and the Seal at said Cou at Car"", PI I ~ ..: . . . EXHIBIT "e" J. JOS~PH R. ROSS, III, Plaintiff V BARBARA D. ROSS, Defendant tIN THE COUR'l' OF COMMON PLEAS or tCUHBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA t tCIVIL AC'l'ION - LAW . . tNO: 1384 CIVIL 1995 :IN CUSTODY Prior Judge, J. Wesley Oler, Jr. CONCILIATION CONTJ:RJ:NCE SUMMARY REPOR'l' IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURB 1915.3-8(b}, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. 'l'he pertinent information pertaining to the children who are tbe subject of this litigation is as follows: Kyle E. Ross, born August 18, 1990 and Brandi M. Ross, born November 28, 1992. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on April 3, 1997, with the following individuals in attendance: The Father, Joseph R. Ross, III, with his counsel Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire and the Mother, Barbara D. Martin, who did not appear with counsel. Mrs. Martin related to the Conciliator that she still has legal counsel in the nature of Marianne E, Rudebusch, Esquire, but that Attorney Rudebusch would not be appearing at the Conciliation Conference but would represent her at a hearing in this matter.l 3. 'l'he parties appeared before the undersigned Conciliator in October of 1995 at which time a temporary Order was agreed to and the parties also agreed to submit themselves to a custody evaluation. The temporary Order provided that Father have primary custody with the Mother having periods of temporary custody for the two children. 4. A custody evaluation was performed by Dr. Arnold T. Shienvold. Upon conclusion of that evaluation, the parties were still not able to reach an agreement. The Mother now suggests that she wants to have primary physical custody of the minor children I The Conciliator expre..ed concern at the Conference on the attitude of parties and their attorneys to basically disregard the purpose of conciliation and disregard an attempt by the Court to resolve these mattor in advance of the hearinq. Attorneys advising their clients to atttlnd conciliations without them and merely requesting that the cue be scheduled for a hearing certainly ignores the stated intentions of the conciliation process. . .. . wlth the Pather enjoylng perlod. of temporary custody. ~he Pather ls, naturally, unwHHng to agree to that change in the cu.tody arrangement.' 5. ~he parUe. were unable to reach an agz'.em.nt. A hearing i. requlred ln this c.... A h.aring should take no lIIore th.n cne day. DAj} 1lf{1 re 0) f:f-rJ 'I " '. ., " , ,I' , ,. , , "I, " I I 'The evaluation furnhhed by Dr.Shienvold r"ulted in a recommendation that the father continue to maintain primary phyeical cuetody of the children. ' , I .JUN (l 3 1997 (II SHERI REIFSNYDER and DALE REIFSNYDER, wite and husband, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintitts v. NO. 96-5156 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SHEILA HARING, SIDNEY HARING, and BRIAN HALBROOK, Detendants RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this ::;~ day of fu..,~ , 1997, upon consideration ot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, a Rule is hereby issued upon the Defendants, HARING, to show cause why the Plaintitfs' Motion to Compel should not be granted. Rule returnable 2.0 days of service. ,4Jz.. .'~;, 1') 'n; "~. . ,;;.1 , . Schmidt and RoncaI'C 11I.._ro ..~ ca__1I '.., Low, I ...-- ...-.._..._ .,11. ,., ,.u..... JUN 0 3 199'i ,,~ ....._,-.-+~-_.---- ". L, " ~ . I' , " I I " , I ~ ; ., ,~ ,. , . I' <"" .,....,of.,' , ;.:;~ " It r~ ." r' . 'J' :'il' J I,' ", 'I' I , .., ",/" ,> .~ \ ~ ,', "~"',' ';,., .1" .~ I " '. ) "', I, ....'" " <..1'0 , \, \ ti., I , II' 'q I , ~ i .' {I ", " \ I 1" " 4" ~ I 1 " " . , I , I' ,,' . l( I I ;i L".; , , " , ,I to. " ,'" , \ I " , ' \> \ '1111 , I ' , , ""1' \ " ~'d I' 1 " '1 r/, 1 , , , , , ,":,1' ' 11 \ ! I J ''j, ',',j i , i,1 II " 'II. , ,I li"1 ,\ . I ,1 , -I' 'I ' ,I ~ G ~o - "'C ~ ~ t :g I~ EJlti ~u '.1, " 'I ,Ii' 'j'; ',- 'I 'I I II "\",1'."1 ' ". ; ". ; '~' 1 ;,' " I '("'1 I'l" ,':(' , I ' '1\:1, '" . , , ,II' " , ~ I . :f,1 ,/ ': I' ' , " ,) , I I I I I j-' I'" ',','l I , a ... ~ g ~I ~ ~elll ,~ !~Io; ~s~~~~ Eo< :Z;~1II III risg eG~~a' '" \ ,: I '. "f' , ' .......i , . " .,.. , I' J ) ,I ,~; ! . ' . . ~ 'J1, . , { I', ;. .,".,' . "\'1 . . I. ! J I , l. ~ , i I .' " i .~,~ : " r. : \, t . ' I' \ ~ I I " ! .i '. ~ ; " ~ :: . ~ /' " : ,j~' I I .' j ~; ,~ , ;; .' , .. " I. i, , . ~ ~ ~ o ~ C ::l o U " ~ ~ E o *= < 'It ,~, . ~ '. 't '. " : .....', { " , , ,.~\. " ',' fI, " .'1.' ,. . "" " ,.~ :.. . . .. ~ ,. . ,I'.. . 1"\ ;, >I" I ~ . ~p . l" ..: 't.tl ~ , ~"" . ' , 'V , .1 II :;JO . " ," . ~ j' " 1 " . ,".~ \ " , " ~ G ~ ~ - 1; 0 - ~ "U "" - 0 : t - ~ :s 0 I.J 0_ t 5 1 ~~ U ~ e ~ 0( I J ~I <, j . , \ ~ I' ' 'i ' ,"1, ' 'PI , ' I , i I i " ",1\ I, , ,II I. ): .1 I 4 ,I ~I , ,. 1,1' , ;, . ! :~ '{ , ~, . , , I ~ ~h ; l;!..rn:::~ ~~!irn ~l;!~~j j. I'" , ,I. " \ ,I " . , ." .~ ~J. ~f~ " ,'" t 'I .--. iO I', l'l . , L I, 1\ , I , ' , ~ - ~ I , . J.'" ' ~-, . . t. '.) 1','. , .. , ~ .. I .~~ G I ~~ )' . \.' ~ . I l' " \ 4 , , , '. f'" . . ......~\ ' ~.,~., ~,'\ .~ t ~, 0,'_' " ".1 I ;-'i,' ,') . ,. I.:. I .. '1'1 #-' \ \ liP,' " l... ' ,.. ,~ . '. , , <i!J<' '; \ '."~'':~_i. (~ , ~Il!"'" r , I' ,i " ,- ; ,P ,.... ,'. " :'11:' , I~ 1 ' ;p;, l,ll \.:'1.1.:, JUN 0 3 1997 111 SHERI RBIFSNYDBR and DALE REIFSNYDER, wife and husband, IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA plaintiffs , ,. v. NO. 96-5156 SHEILA HARING, SIDNEY HARING, and BRIAN HALBROOK, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RUL~ TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, thb day of , 1997, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, a Rule is hereby issued upon the Defendants, HARING, to show caus. why the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel should not be granted. Rule returnable days of service. J. ,.. ,/:11,1 , " ',II , , ., " ' '\1 , , "Ill ,'I' I '/,.," ''1'" " l ; /. ',: I j I' ~:i .' 1 f I ','J, \1 I,ll .~ " t !, 1':11,i ':1" I r II' " , , , r I, ~ 0 <t.ur:: ow'" Za:< 0....0.. a:(J) . J o w C!) rCl z.... a: ,~ <( <:::J v, ......00 o(J)~ s::: - IDa:.::l: ~~~..,:r; g :I: , , , , I ." ,'\ , ~ I II ';:""11' ", "j . , _ ,ji; . , . J rt "t. < '.' t. . ~ ',;~' ~ G ~ ~ - ~ 0 - ~ .. 'U "" - C) - " ~ .5 ~ t ::I C) I 1,,/ I: 'C I II 5 I ~ ! $!I. , & \ ~ i 1 ~j e I ! " 1 t, '1 "1 't"'J., ';0 ," .~ " ,. . J\' . " " 1(" I:, , !, .,j I,' I ,} ~ ~. " " " ,'. .". .....,.',.\ . ,,~,,- ~. .,'~ I'. ,'I..,' . '. . ,t 'f- ., :,'.1; ,1, I:, ,I, ,'i' I ~,. ~') ;. 'I j' 1'1'0 I ..' 'f" ,~ . ,: ' ..,.~.. '.' I. '", -. ,.,'" , i~ j ,U" ,,_' , .'f,.."'...... '.' ..li' ,or" '~ " ~," ., ',_.r f, , :."i' ' Ii,' ,1, .1./ ., , , " '1\ I I , , I " " :.' ,rl " ," ! , ,11" ; .----., , ........ \ l 'lilt, , , , I , . " Ii ;t \ , I ; I '.. I , \ .~,~ 1 r.r ~I r . ' I', I , . " " , I . , , ~ I , .' , " , l! I :' I ',' " , JI. , , JUN 0 3 1997 (?( SHERI REIFSNYDER and DALE REIFSNYDER, wife and husband, . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. I I NO. 96-5156 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SHEILA HARING, SIDNEY HARING, and BRIAN HALBROOK, Defendants BULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this , 1997, upon day of consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, a Rule is , hereby issued upon the Defendants, HARING, to show cause why the Plaintiffs' Motion to compel should not be granted. Rule,returllable days of service. J. I JUN 0 a 1997 V1~ SHERI REIPSNYDER and DALE REIFSNYDER, wite and husband, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. NO. 96-5156 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SHEILA HARING, SIDNEY HARING, and BRIAN HALBROOK, Defendants RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this day at , 1997, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, a Rule is hereby issued upon the Defendants, HARING, to show cause why the Plaintift.' Motion to Compel should not be granted. RUle returnable days at service. J. , , , I, SHERI REIFSNYDER and DALE REIFSNYDER, wife hu.band, and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I I I I I I I SHEILA HARING, SIDNEY HARING, I and BRIAN HALBROOK, I Defendant. I Plaintitt. v. NO. 96-5156 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, thb day of , 1997, it i, hereby Ordered and Decreed that the Plaintiff.' Motion to Compel i. vranted. Defendant. HARING .hall .erve upon Plaintiff.' coun.el, unobjected to Answer. to Interroqatorie. and Re.ponses to Reque.t for Production of Document. within fifte.n (15) day. from the date of thi. Court'. Order. J. SHERI REIFSNYDER and DALE REIFSNYDER, wife and husband, I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I I I I ., , .. I I ., I ,. .. ''',) Plaintiffs ", .!l ..J v. NO. 96-5156 SHEILA HARING, SIDNEY HARING, I CIVIL ACTION - LAW and BRIAN HALBROOK, I Defendant. I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED .LAIMTI...' NOTIO. TO CO.PIL D...KDAMm ....I.CI.' ...110..1 '1'0 ..OUIIT ~R .RODUCTIOM O. DOCUIUIMT. AlII) U..... TO III'1'IRROClATORII. AND NOW, Comes the Plaintiffs, SHERI REIFSNYDER and DALE REIFSNYDER, by their attorneys, SCHMIDT AND RONCA, P.C., and .et. forth a. follows: 1. Thi. case involves a motor vehicle accident which occurred on or. about October 18, 1994, at approximately 6:45 a.m. on S.R. 581 in Lemoyne Borouqh, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. On April 7, 1997, Plaintiffs served upon Defendants HARING, Interroqatories and Requests for Production of Documents. (Se. certificate of Service attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). 3. To date, the Plaintiffs have not received a Request for Extension of Time, Objections, or Answers or Responses to the Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents and Answers to Interr9qatori... , ) ,., I ',.'] ,1"1 , J , , ,,") , , , ) ,','II :' "" ..; , !,,". .JUN 0 :1 1997 ,.,S SHERI REIFSNYDER an4 DALI REIFSNYDBR, wife and hUsban4, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. NO. 96-5156 SHEILA HARING, SIDNEY HARING, and BRIAN HALBROOK, Defendants I CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED . . RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this day of , 1997, upon consi4eration of the Plaintiffs' Hotion to Compel, a Rule i. hereby issued upon the Defendants, HARING, to show cause why the Plaintiffs' Hotion to Compel should not be granted. RUle returnable days of service. J. 'I SHIRl REIFSNYDER and DALI REIFSNYDER, wife and hu.band, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLlAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. NO. 96-5156 SHEILA KARING, SIDNEY HARING, and BRIAN HALBROOX, Def.ndants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED I' ORDER AND NOW, this day ot' , 1997, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel i. 9ran~ed. Defendants HARING shall serve upon Plaintiff.' coun..l, unobjected to Answers to Interrogatories and Respon... to Requ..t for lC, :lduction of Documents within fift.en (15) day. from the date of thia Court's Order. ,J. I " .' , SHIRl REIFSNYDER and DALI REIFSNYDBR, wite hu.band, I IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLV4NI~ , ...J I and I I I I I SHEILA HARING, SIDNEY HARING, I and BRIAN HALBROOK, I Detendant. PlainUrr. v. NO. 96-5156 CIVIL ACTION - LAW , ' '.J .. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ',~ PLaIII'l'I... , KOTIO. TO COIIP.L D...IIDAII'1' BAAI.G.' ".PO... TO ..ou.aT POR PRODUCTIO. O. DOCUJllllI'l'a AIID AIIa..R. '1'0 III'1'.UOGJI.'1'ORI.. AND NOW, Come. the Plaintitfs, SHERI REIFSNYDER and DALE REIFSNYDER, by their attorneys, SCHMIDT AND RONCA, P.C., and .et. forth a. tollowSI 1. This case involves a motor vehicle accident which occurred on or about October 18, 1994, at approximately 6:45 a.m. on S.R. 581 in Lemoyne Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. On April 7, 1997, Plaintitts served upon Detendants HARING, Interrogatories and Requests tor Production ot Document.. (See Certiticate ot Service attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). 3. To date, the Plaintitts have not received a Request tor Extension ot Time, Objections, or Answers or Responses to the Plaintitt.' Request tor Production ot Documents and Answer. to Interrogatorie.. ,,'1 .') , l " " , I ,,' " . , 4. The Detendants, HARINGS', tailinq to answer or respond to Plaintitt.' di.covery reque.ts, is prejudicinq the Plaintitt.' ca.e becau.e they cannot prepare for depo.itions or trial. WHEREFORE, the Plaintitfs respecttully request that this Honorable Court i..ue an Order directinq the Detendants, HARING, to provide unobjected to Answers to Interrogatorie. and Re.pon.es to Request for Production ot Documents within titteen (15) days trom the date of the Court'. Order or Buffer sanctions pur.uant to Pennsylvania RUle ot Civil Procedure 4019. Respecttully submitted, SCHMIDT AND RONCA, P.C. By: /~ /t~ Scott B. Cooper Attorney at Law 209 state street Harrisburq, PA 17101 Attorney 1.0. 170242 (717) 232-6300 Attorney for the Plaintifts , . ,,... ....1 "Ir.~.. aDd DALI "Ir.~.a, Wife lUebaDd I I I I I I I .DlLA 1lU1.", .IDDY DIlI.G, I aDd .alu DLBIOOIt I DefeDdaDt. I aDd .1aiDtiff. .. I. 'I'D COV." or 0011IIO. .LIIU CUllBIRLUD COVll'l'Y, .....YLVUU 110. U-51U CIVIL ACTIO. - LAW J1JJlY "RIAL D.IlUD.D C.RTI.ICATI O. .IRVICI AND NOW, thia 80~h day ot N~ ' 1997, I, Scott B. Cooper, I.quire, attorney tor the Plaintitts, hereby c.ertity that I have, this day, served the Plaintitts' Kotion to Compel Detendant HARINGS' Response to Request tor Production ot Document. and Answers to Interrogatories, by depositing a copy ot the same in ths United states Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Christian S. Erb, Jr. Metzger Wickersham Knauss & Erb 3211 North Front street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Ronda R. Riser, Esquire Rillian & Gephart 218 Pine Street P.O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108 SCHKID'l' AND RONCA, P.C. By; ~ tUr Scott B. Cooper Attorney at Law 209 state street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney 1.0. '70242 (717) 232-6300 Attorney tor the Plaintitt. .., , , " . . .. J ;, " I " '~, , , , , I II ~ ,:,.: , , , " J" I' I .~f ' . I ,.' I,"' .' ',i "', ~L . ,.J ,<'" .~ t. . , ':'1' -, I I I.' . 1 .' ~. I . , .I~ ~. \ ....i , I , . .,,:'. d. ',,," . , ':.' I ,I , , " f' .. . ..' \; GEORGe J. MILLER, plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF V. CUMBERLANO COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 96-2963 CIVIL TERM IN EJECTMENT CHRISTOPHER s. WEAVER, SR., and CHRISTINA M. WEAVER, Defendants '. " ORDIR O. COURT un IIOW, this .\,'" tJ. day of ~, 1997, upon consideration of the attached stipulation for Judgment, it is hereby oaDlalD that this Stipulation is approved and adopted as an Order of Court with the same effect as if it had been set forth in full herein. The parties are further advised that this Order shall be binding and enforceable. , J; , I; By the Court, " , J. John M. Eakin, Esquire ' ' . Couns.l for Plaintiff ~~1.~j ~,'J(J" 1 _ Philip c. Briganti, Esquire LEGAL SERVICES, INC. ~I~~~' Couns.l for Det.ndantstc1'1r---,/ I~ ~ 61 11 ' ,...,.. ~~oo du.L .- .w.iH k~. ~ tUt:j ~ . , . - GEORGE J. MILLER, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS QF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW CHRISTOPHER S. WEAVER, SR., and CHRISTINA M. WEAVER, Defendants NO. 96-2963 CIVIL TERM IN EJECTMENT STIPULATION FOR JYQGM~ AND NOW, this ~ day of tI.'h,{'iL r plaintiff, George J. Miller, and the defendants, Christopher S; , 1997, the Weaver, Sr. and Christina M. Weaver, hereby enter into this StipUlation for Judgment and agree to the following terms: 1. Plaintiff and Defendants agree to the entry of a judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of Seven Thousand Four Hundred Ten Dollars ($7410.00). 2. Defendants shall be permitted to continue occupying the premises they lease from Plaintiff, located at 224 Susquehanna Avenue, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025, until May 10, 1997. 3. Plaintiff shall be granted a judgment for possession of said rental premises, which shall be enforceable on or after May 10, 1997, in the event Defendants have not moved out by that date. 4. The prothonotary forthwith shall release to Plaintiff, through his attorney, John M. Eakin, Esquire, Market Square Building, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055, all sums paid into escrow by Defendants, which total Three Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars . . ($3900.00). Plaintitt shall accept this amount in oomplete ~ati.taotion ot the judgment entered in this matter, and shall mark the judgment as satisfied upon receipt of thes8 funds by his attorney. 5. Plaintift and Detendants, except as provided herein, hereby waive, forgive and discharge each other from any and all claims whatsoever arising trom their landlord/tenant relationship, except for claims related to dam~ges to the rental premise., it any, which may be ascertained and pursued after Detendants vacate the premises. 6. Plaintiff and Defendants agree that the terms of this stipulation shall be entered as an Order of Court. WITNESS: ~~~ tit+- ( ~. 1 Ge/rge c~-'L S. Weaver, Sr. l' I I" ' J ' . I ,. i , ("/J . 0 /'Il' >( '~))l- I l'l "IJir.l'" . t I 'Christina M. Weaver'- "- ,"J ('. ~ " ...;1 1.1,1. " <.1" l' f'. '. . .' cr: , .J F' ''''':''1 .' ~ , ~ " l.: . [.!, f , .' \to .. , '-\'l I ~ ,. it ".. .."" " r... c..:) '(J" .~ ,. . 7~{{(. f>19/-1f:lf? -':)<JhE'~ JkJ. ,,~ '-l.'nv "....:'r'J.IQ..~lg '~blf.I" , " , ' 'I " ,',' , ' " , , " .. 152730060497 Cumberland count~ protho~otarr'. Office P2134/9 . PYS405 Manual Rele Ie Chec Reg Iter Elcrow Tran Dft. Diltribution Clle No Accounting Amount Date Re eal " -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ! 3709 EAKIN JOHN M Chltck Dater 06/04/97 Check No. I 1014 iil t - ~ PYMT/aO~EY ODR ~~~I~ PYMTI 0 EY ODR - ~ PYMT/MO~EY ODR 2~ 2~ PYMT/MO EY ODR RIm: ! - ~ ~YaT/MONE!( ODR IT1 Y T/CHECK 11m: PYMT/MONEY ODR 1 ~ B PYMt/MONEY ODR Em: - ~ PYM IMONEY ODR B ~~ 7 PYMT/CHECK payee totalr 3900.00 ---------------------.---------------------------------------------------------- Grand totall 3,900,00 , . , , ' , ~ " , , , \1, F71 FD-OFFiCe Or- T!II: IF'1n~(1I!(1TiVW 95 Notl ~8 I'll .11 ns CUMI';~:I ,i... , ',I Cl)UJ'1/ \' PENNSl'i.VJlIII\ I , i ct. .9 - , , c:'6 'j, ::r , " Ol ;~-: '&. ~ :; , ~, " c;: ~.:) 8 "'- ~~ 52 .-. .-, -,- !~ ~(" :.~ U? ,,' 'I] t.n 1:;- ~ " 'i~ ". '-" t lI' 'II -- I,. " F ct .~ ~ '" 0 Cf\ " " , , ,i - . ~ C.l11111WW," Of _IYLVAHI" C_' Of C_ 'U"I NOTlCI 0' APPIAL fllOM DISTRICT JUSTICI JUDGMINT ::-=_=::-=::=_, _ ___..'..____~~~LI"..I~. 9 w. ;.;.q (03 C~/,ITuM NOTlCI 0' APPIAL Nolice I. g1..... thot the appellant h,,, filtd In lho oboYe COIK' of Common PI.o. on "",,"01 from the judgment rondor.d by the Dl.lrict Ju.tic. on the ... and In the ..... ". tiIolood below. lUDKW IlIIf1t" et'lf,,,~ lV/iJ~:;__..i;~:~~----..--'G~'fi;ZNAW~DI ~ t.:..t.~'11'Miirrr'.'---, n'..6~~___. .. !!4 ~ 1?(j;J.J ..r~:;r:&.&~-'-U-]WID\lII %'l~ ir S; ~ ,. )-1,..." i'1 t..kve.'- ~~ ,I: a~qdll((-9~ ~ t;;.::}! Thlt bIocl< wi! be,q,.d ONLY whon /hi. nota~on I. rf<quired'uOcJ., Pa.R.c'p,J. No. /I appollsnt was CLAIMANT (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. looa.. ThI. Notice of Appeol. when re<oi..d by lho Di,'rid Ju.~(.. will cpornl. o. 0 1001 (6) In action befCJfe District Justice, he MUST SUPERSl!DI!AS '" tho:L:J- for po~1lon In tHo (0'" FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20) deys after ~~ ~O .bJ YY1.<.l412tl:1Mr1 _~. filing his NOTICE 01 APPEAL. 8/ure LJ-koiOOOOlnty Of!li:JJ*;ly PRAICIPI TO INTIR RULE TO 'ILl COMPLAINT AND RULI TO fill (1h/s seetkin 01 tonn to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see PD, R.CP.J.P. No, 1001(7) in oction beloro District Justico, IF NOT USED, detach lrom CqlY 01 notlco of appeal 10 be SJJfVOO upon appellee). 'RAICIPI. To. l'lothono~ Enter rule upon ~!!.,r<}<< -;- 11.(4.,- .. ~ NIrnfI d .uJOI~sJ (ConvnonPltolNo qlo- d'1l.tJ3 (';",1 fefrn )WithlnlwenIY(20Idoy'oI~~.)O~ofnonprolo_ S/g1olln 01 __ Of ... ._ Of ..., , oppeIIeo{'l. to filt 0 (omplolnl In /hi. l'.IppeCll RULI. To. I CJPF .nll('). (I) You en notiflod thol 0 rule ~ hereby .,,!wed upon you to filt 0 (~t In /hi. oppooI wl/hln Iw.nty (20) doy. 0"" tho do.. of ..,vIc. of /hi. rule upon you by penonoI ..,.Ico or by corliflod or regI.....d moiL (21 N you do not file 0 comploinl within /hi. ~me. 0 JUDGMENT Of NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The dote o.f ...vIc. of /hi. rule ij ..,vIce wo. by moll I. tho dote o.f moI"'9 Dole:~ d.~l. 19~. l L~U D~;"'de,-S:lllM G'C~12'" COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY ii I I I I "I ,1 I I II/'/NIIO 9)njlm~,s , ...--.-..-....-----~-7" --.--,-........~..-.---..'.'... ,- 1'1 '-6~' lJO IOJtd)jQ, UOIUIWt.lJOO.(~ 111'0/1,'010 'llIl ... .Ptll.1 SUM 11M/PIli" W()I/M 'U<JjIJ'I/lIi')'I/() 1r'1 fliIlI'tIJfilS __4....___~..______.___l-._......_..._.~~_.._ _.-C".ti~' .......-....-"..... ~O AVO-.n.. ---."..-.-- SIHl 3~ 380JJ8, a3BlfJ::Jsans aNV (q3~fJl~'~VI NIjOMS ClllW4 PO~:)l'lUU IdlOJUJ G,JOPUt:lS 'jlllW (pemIS'90J) (patl!lJl):)) Aq 0 o:)I^Jd~ luuoumd};q [J ......._.11~ '-_.. ...._._'-..........a. lj() pl)S50qJpll SBM l:J;I1l:J 1341 W04M 01 (t'G;1l1ilddl? O\H lJl)dn jlJoddV JO O'JIION O^I)ql1 OlH oUlhIJuduJo',);)!J \1J11?IdlJJtJ:J IlOp j I)} ')In~f nlll Pr1^JI)\i 111HH Jj)IHJrlj PUI! rJ 'UaaJ91.1 POl4:JCIll? IdlO~)oJ ~;.JoP\Jos '1lIllUfpiJJOI610oJ) (PO!J!lJ1.l:,) /lq [J ():)I^Jl)!l plIJr)IiJiirj};q [r~'--6~ ' .~--"---- UO.' -,-----.'.-4-."\"'. .--..--...._...__'_.._...~~-.-..--..--...-R---.-.n....- (9WIJIJ) 'il....II.Jddll r~4l uodn ,PUy 'OlUJ\)4 pij4:Jlll~1l 'dl"OOJ '.l9pua. '"OW (pOl9IS'6.J) (pal/IINol ~q [J .'''^lOS IOlJoswi I,,~ [] '-'-61 ..........-.............-. (00'''0' 10 a/lip) uo U,OJ941 pOll1u81sup ijOfl'iinr I:JIJISI() EHH uodn' .'R'_""'_-'_"-..--~'~_'':''.'''~;oN GU91d llOI.uWOQ 'iI1ijddV 10 Q:JlloN (.Ill} 10 };do:) U Lj P9"0. I 1041'UJlII" JO lOOM' ~4.N4 I :.11^ VOI:l:lV ,,: .----.-----.......----.....---.. ~o AlNnO:) (SS1toq fJfqP:JI/dcJfl IPOll~ I~oddlll() 1J:"Io/J j~11I ~IJ/I!J H :J.l.J'v s)., va fUll /II] 1 NIII L 1M (] )1/.-1 .18 1 sow O;II~ IO~' II) /t)()J(/ ~;IIH J ",N"^1ASNN3d ~O HJ. 1nhlN01II1II0:) - .1NIV1dWOO all:! 0.1 3lnli ONV W3ddV :to 301.10N :10 301MJ3S :10 :lOOlid Iii' { 0-41 ].. ~ '-0 ' q 3 () '4) -:r .., " . . 1. l G '5,'. \.0 '1\ J J8 * Il9 -:!I ~ ro 2 ..9 r<) 1,)0 0" ~ \\l a, . \0 (0 ~ \0 l() c- .9 g;~ ('6 ,." I) 0 .3 Cl ,f"l/ r"" ~tfl ---- , r , J ~ f I ~- rn c'l" r'0 {) .~ =t " o ~ " rr) .~ 111 ..:....:.J '... '---'- , '8/IS/I. 18:48 FAX 717 781 0288 " , , COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUHIIIRLAND "'lIlIllllool i 09-1-02 110I__ I , I ROB1Rrr Y. MANLOVE - 1901 STATE STREIT " CAIIP HILL, PA . I "-- 1717) 1711-0583 I I ROIEllT Y. HANLOVE 1901 STATI STREET CAIIP HILL, PA 17011-0000 MANLOVE 01-1-02 IilI002 NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT ~NT1FF: _..._ HILLER, GIORGI J 120 WlRTZYILLE RD INOLA, PA 17025 L ., .J 17011-0000 DEFl!NOANT; ~ IfIAVlR, CRIST, 11:'1' AL. 224 SUSQUEHANNA AVI INOU, PA 17025 L v.. .....10....._ j .J DocklllNo.: LT-OOOOl41-U Date Flied: 5/07/1J6 I Rl8IDBNTI~ LEASI THill. TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgmlm=1 paR PJ~ TNTT'FJ" 00 Judgment lna .m....d lor: (Name) MILLER. GEORGI: J o Judgment wu em.red agelnst: (Name) In the emohnt 01 S on: (Oato 01 Judgmem) (!J Judgment Was emered alllllnll nAVER. ~RIST Landlotd/Tenant lIClIon In the amoum 01 S ] , 120 . 00 on !Ill/; 19 /; The amourit 01 r.nt per month, U lIlablished by tho District Justice, liS o Damagea ..MIl be --essed on: (Dille & TIme) Ina (Ollie 01 Judgment) Rem in IITIllrI S Damages Unjust Detention $ Damagea to Property! Residential Luase : S Less Arm Due Defendant - $ Amoum 01 Judgment'" S Judgment COItI S Inlerast on Judgment $ Ancmey F88S S - - - 3.120.00 95.22 .00 .00 TOTAL S 3.215.22 I I I ANY PARTY HAS iTHE RIGHT TO APPEAL A JUDGMENT INVOL V/NG A RESIDENTIAL LEASE AND AFFECTING THE DElNERY OF POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY WfrHIN 10 DAYS OF THE DATE OF JUDGM~NT BY FILING A I NOTICE OF APPfAL WfTH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CN/L DMSION. AMY PMTY AGG,v1!YlD BY A ,lUOClM, ENT fO".MONIY OR A JUDOMI!N1' INVOLVING A rtQN':~1I'JQ(JJAL LeAl! MAY APPIAL WITHIN 30 DAYI OI')!NTAY OFli'Hli Jll~ !Nf JJY !'ILlNO A NOTICE 0{t~~1t f~:'(fI( PROTHO OT~!CL5R~MURT%cC~' :. ."C,M LDMSION. /' ~ ....;:,.;'~I.;.~,(' \. , I '- I -. I ~ ... . ~ -. 'IL" " . - , ..., . {).. ~'. ~ '" .", r , . -'.'. r ~ I Cats , ~." -. ~., :'./:.P~J~I~' ~ .', I I ; .: ~: ~ "'. . d ,; I th. IIll1aIru8l\~C!corre,ct.c:cp~ ... Ih:v:ooeedlngsco"\al~~lJlhe~~gmer:n..;:; h L Dat. '. /().N" i/, ~, tlW '. ';'. : DIsiftct Juttlc. l Mycommalon!bPlr81 riIt on eyofJBllullly, 2000. .....::~~~u.....\.~.: ,.,: ! " ..."../, \" t" " ',. \'" TIme: I ROII:RT V. ~VJ: 1901 STATE STREET CAMP HILL,I fA 17011-0000 I i RJSIDlNTIA~ LEASE THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: FOR PIA TNTI"" 00 Judgment ~ emerld '0/': (Name) J!~. GIORGI; J o JucIgment ,WIllI entlred against: (Nam.) In th'lIITIount 01 S on: (Dille 01 Judgment) 00 Judgment ~as entered agalnll WEAVER. CRIS'fINE Landlordll;enant liCtIon In the 1IIT10um 01. -L.no . op on 5/1& 19 Ii The ""our. or rent per month, BI established by the DIstrict Justice, Is $ o DlIIT1l1gllll WIN be assassed on: (Date & Tim.) . I I , I I . o this ceae ~I.m_d without preJudice. , o POll8l1BslO~ granted. i Ii1 POSS8S$lon granted II money judgment Is not ~ .1IlIIl1lfirKl , time 01 eviction. o POSllesslon not gl'lllted. o levy Is stJed for deys or 0 generally lItaylld. I o Objectlon t:o levy hu been filed and hearing will be held: a: Place: , l6/28/18 18:42 FAX 717 781 0288 I COMMONWEALiTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY 01': CUIOIIRLAND .....-....., I 09-1-02 0.1_""". ROBERT V. MANLOVE ~ 1901 [STATZ STRIIT CAMP ,BILL, PA ioIo_ ('717)1761-0583 17011-0000 TIme: MANLOVE 09-1-02 1lJ002 NOTICE OF JUDOMENTITRANSCRIPT Pl.AWl'lff: _5__ ~ILL!R, GEORGI J 120 WlRTZVILLE RD INOLl\, fA 17025 L .., ..J VB. DEPENDANT: Ii: -.... MlOfBII WEAVER, CRIST, IT AL. 224 SUSQUEHANNA AVE ENOLA, fA 17025 L -, ..J Docket No.: LT-OOOO 1 U-u Date Flllld: 5/07196 Ina (Data or Judgment) Rem In arrears $ Damagllll UnjU&t Celomlon $. Oamagll8lo Propenyl Rll$ldemlal LlllI8e : $ Less AmI Due Oelendlnl - S Amount 01 Judgmenl '" S Judgment Costs $ Imer881 on Judgmem S. Altumay Fees $ 3.12~ 95.22 ..M ~ TOTAL 3.215.22 $ ANY PARTY HAS ITHE RIGHT TO APPEAL A JUDGMENT INVOL V1NG A RESIDENTIAL LEASE AND AFFECTING THE DEI.NERY OF POSSESSION OF REJJ.. PROPERTY WfTHIN 100AYS OF THE DATE OF JUDOMENT BY FILING A , NOnCE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARYICLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CML DrvISION. ANY PAR1V AGG"II!VED BY A.aUDQM. ENTr.OA MONIY OA. A JUDGMENT INVOLVING A N~.tP~ LEASE MAY APPIW. WrtHlN 30 DAYS p~ INTRY OF 'tH1..lUDOMEfff'BY FIUNO A NOTICE OF ~... ,~.'ItS"'" ~O~~"'~/CU!A~.O.p:,THE C URT pF'CO ;;M.~"~LU., C~L DIVIIION. /' ~>:~;~~."~~;::~~f'\'J, _~~IDate. . .~.I .~ r,,(/?J ~ {?';'&nC$i~uJaf~ ~ ~I ~~Ihlll~. IIlruu~d,eo BOl?9I. r~~ .-'h"proceedlngISCOnlal~ln.~'~.he.iU!fJl.ment.. ,it': j , ,Dille 0,~" / (~~". ( / a L l)o . ",' PI'lJl~ Juatlci!o" .i , ,,- --+. . .-, , commlUlonexplrll"'n"MOndayolJanull/'f, 2IlOO. .... ....:.-.......,.;. .,,' '~~~ ~ '( n ,." . C;;d~( J/I(~/~r V~ ;1/1...6,"- 1~ - .J9~ j (', vJ-r;;... ClhltLr ). f C i'J~". /11. tJtft'lV Sr. ~ me. ,eh'( .(2r -/i.t.. ft";~ 15 ff:?ro!t!! ... .........(.<.".~ -II~ j7A/I"".;11 I) ~f!. vlr/t,,,, -tt.. ",rOfffl.. wJf l1e~ Ie elm) .:L A...o.t !tv,1 In -It." f'1v'ly {Jv ./.J. f'^'/"#' ",,,1 AtIrY( ~I :r. " ' II j, 1" rY -Ik ""j /., ,.01 ,.,.. If - -#< -"J''' ~ dC-lu4 ( I j. itSe. . ) 1ft4 + Ilt~" .fI. . .~. ", '~/J '/} '7r,.,~J'}kr ~. I . L......JeA",C.r sr. h' lr;.,.;~ ,'_ ~ _, I . ,:.iiil/V (iF Cl"""" :. IU'I~ ,.1',1,:" ',: \ ell Il1j~. 1t" .:2,,7- I ulldell'Clled olill' r " :' ,I ~nown to 1:1. !,,' , 13 "/becrlbJ ;" ',:' ,CXl/Cllte~ t;;,; , ' , ' , .' fa VfltllC',S I'il:o" ". I : Ct:, Cr,;' r//;(', /'1f~rj"':fJ SU," 'J"f"~ ' r" 1 '/J.. T ..._.........".: .~___.,~j:......__1~,.,;j.;;,., R' u~';., -;;- , 1/.""'/ ., r(, , I c,:.r,:i- ,i, ;t,~ll. r~Ay" . , . :!:, C I r-': d .!/,~,,) ~'; ~':;e n;J /, -. " ~I.:11 ~ :/./, RECOIID!R NOTARIAL SEiIl CUlISlE, CUMB~l~~DS, NOTARY 'UBlIC MY COMr~ISSION OP~RiCsUNTY COURT HOUS! , JANUARY I. 1998 ~.._,. - ........-..-- ... . . \ SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO. 1996-02963 P CO""ONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. COUNTY OF CU"BERLAND IIILLER GEORGE J VS. WEAVER CHRISTOPHER S ET AL KENNETH E. GOSSERT Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of CU"BERLAND County, Penn.y1vania, who being duly aworn according to law, aaya, the within CO"PLAINT IN EJECT"ENT .aa aerved upon WEAVER CHRISTINA" the defendant, at 1~0~.00 HOURS, on the ~ day of ~ 1922 at 224 SUSQUEHANNA AVENUE ENOLA. PA 1102~ -J CU"BERLAND County, Pennay1vania, by handing to CHRISTINA n. WEAVER a true and atteated copy of the CO"PLAINT IN EJECT"ENT and at the .ame time directing Her attention to the content. thereof. . . . Sheriff'. Co.ta: D,ocket1ng Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 .00 .00 2.00 So an.w~ ~ r-1 ~-t-r-" ~ R. Thoma. K11ne, 5her1!! - .t5.~1D uEORGE J. "ILLER. JR. 06/28/1996 by ,4~ Sworn and .ubacribed to before me thia /O!:' day of ~ 19 "Ie, A.D. ~.~r.....~ '~ u~~. ,. f'ro nono .ry' . ... SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO. 1996-02963 P 88nn~VW~~L~tl"g~RLfn~SYLVANIA' "ILLER GEORGE J VS. WEAVER CHRISTOPHER S ET AL ~ENNETH E. GOSSERT . Sh.riff or D.puty Sh.riff of CU"BERLAND County. P.nnsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within CO"PLAINT IN EJECTMENT was served upon WEAVER CRISTOPHER S the defendant, at 1~0~.00 HOURS, on the ~ day of Jun. 1922 at 224 SUSQUEHANNA AVENUE ENOLA, PA 17023 ,CUMBERLAND County, P.nnsylvania, by handing to CHRISTINA WEAVER. ADULT IN CHARGE a true and atte.ted copy of the COMPLAINT IN EJECTMENT and at the same tin.e directing IiJu: attention to the content. ther.of. Sh.riff's Costs. Docketing S.rvice Affidavit Surcharge 18.00 8.96 .00 2.00 .28.96 So answ.rB', ~ a'/ ~... ~., . "//", ~ R. Tomas K11ne, 5ner111 aEORGE J. MILLER 06/28/1996 by JR. Sworn and Bubscr1bed to before m. this 1V"t: day OfQ.2) 19 qc, A.D. () ,~ r.' )'h..,lh. . 4~r ~ f1tbt.honot..ry' r I ;fiW GEORG! J. MILLER, Plaintiff I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW I NO. 96-2963 CIVIL TERM IN EJECTMENT CHRISTOPHER S. WEAVER, SR., and CHRISTINA K. WEAVER, Defendants ANSWE~ COME NOW the defendants, Christopher S. Weaver, sr., and Chrietina M. Weaver, by and through counsel, Philip c. Briganti, Esquire, Legal Services, Inc., and as their Answer to Plaintiff'a Complaint, state as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit that they entered into a parol lease agreement with Plaintiff for a single home situated at 224 Sue1uehanna Avenue, Enola, East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland county, Pennsylvania, for a month- to-month term with rent at $390.00 per month. Defendants deny that they entered into this agreement on or about July 1, 1993, but rather aver that the agreement was entered into on or about August 1, 1994. Defendants deny that the agreement required them to pay for heat and all utilities, or maintain the yard. Defendants deny that the parties agreed that the rent was payable in advance on the first of each month. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit that they went into po..ession of the house under a parol lease agreement and that they are in possession of said premi.es at the pre.ent time. However, Defendants aver that said agreement only provided for the payment of rent, as stated in Defendants' averment. set forth above in Paragraph 3, which are incorporated herein by reference. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit " that they did not make the monthly rental payments from December 1, 1995 through May 1, 1996. ffowever, Defendants deny that they did not make the rental payments for October and November 1995. Defendsnts further aver that they paid their June 1996 rent into escrow with the Prothonotary ($390.00), as well as an additional three-months' rent ($1170.00). 7. Denied. Defendants deny that Plaintiff gave them the notice attached to Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit "A", or that Plaintiff otherwise properly served them with an eviction notice. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. As set forth in Defendants' New Matter, Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to possession of said premises because Defendants were not served with a notice to quit as required by law. 10. Defendants repeat and incorporate by reference th.ir averments set forth above in Paragraphs 1 through 9. 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants repeat and incorporate by reference their averments set forth above in Paragraph 6. For reasons set forth in their New Matter, Defendants deny that they are liable to Plaintiff for rent in the amount of $390.00 per month, or that they' are liable to Plaintiff in the total amount of $3,510.00. 12. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants repeat and incorporate by reference their averments set forth above in Paragraphs 6 and 11. Defendants admit that they aro liable to Plaintiff for the fair rental value of the premises until possession i. acquired by Plaintiff. 13. Denied. Defendants deny that the fair rental value of tho home is $390.00 per month. 14. Admitted. However, to the extent it is averred, Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to such relief and damages. NEW MATTER I. Payment of Rent 15. Defendants paid to Plaintiff rent payments in the amount of $390.00 per month for each of the months of October and November 1995. 16. Defendants' rent for June 1996 ($390.00), as well as an additional three-months' rent ($1170.00), has been paid into escrow with the Prothonotary. II. Failure to Serve Notice to Ouit 17. Plaintiff tailed to properly serve Defendants \lith a notice to quit before commencing district justice eviction proce.ding. or tiling his Complaint in the above-captioned action, a. required by 68 P.S. Section 250.501. IIX. Lack of Sub1ect Matter Jurisdiction 18. Detendants repeat and incorporate by reterence their averments .et torth above in Paragraph 17. 19. Becaue. ot Plaintitt's failure to properly serve Detendants with a notice to quit in accordance with 68 P.S. Section 250.501, the district justice could not, and this Court cannot, exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action. IV. Breach of the ImDlied Warrantv of Habitabilitv 20. Since in or about March 1995, the roof of the rental premises has leaked, which has resulted in water dripping into the master bedroom at the rental premises, as well as the bedroom occupied by Detendants' daughter. 21. Since August 1995, the glass window in the bedroom of the rental premises occupied by Defendants' son is partially separated from the frame and is ready to fallout. 22. Defendants have repeatedly informed Plaintiff and/or hi. agent, Linda Cohen, of these defects and given him a reasonable opportunity to repair them, but he has failed to do .0. 23. Said defects have reduced the safety, use and value ot the rental premises. 24. Plaintift's tailure to repair these defects constitutes a breaoh of the implied warranty of habitability, entitling Defendants to a reduction in rent, and an oftset against any rent they may owe in the amount ot rent overpayments they have made as the result ot Plaintiff'. breach. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and that the relief requested by Plaintiff be denied. Respecttully submitted, , . , \, ' " .' \ /1 !I, i (.,' ':>;'1 );j . :i /,~t ,l'i-\ /::'t' t;l'~ 1;<,' v., r,Il, ~"'!"i II~)_~-! I;_':!' ~~:,l ~,)i I:,., ' Ill!, ' !~/)j- ~'." )11:' ~ll~ I ,';: ~~ , , 'il ':' i , , , " ,. , , ". l:.o" ',. to f .' , '. ~"" , i::' .... J..,_ r' -- It:) , , ~i ., , c,'_ I:,! . ; j . , c;;, ,).. . . ." :"1 r;'; ~ ; t ~ I f.,~ : -.. ':, r/:j , . , l~ I :.;: ~ " I. . ~ j W ~n U , . I, " .' , . , ' i, . . ~' . '. ,. " " ," " " " i U a ~~. ~ !:l~ iUI ~~ 2~ ,/ ~ . ~ ~ . 5~ . ~~1 ~~ ~ !~ ~~ \D s:: ... . .... . ~ ~ ~ !i! p. . . .., I ~ c' .0 Qv ~. <J' ~ ~\I ""(11,1 .~ '\; ':TJ {I" , ~.." "l ., t'-;-l' - ") ,., 1 ~. . } 2~: -\ '" . ...., i>~ :1 ~. ~~;( ::~; ).., N \;~,\ ' "1.. .. ...-, j; I.n ':~ -, (-' -'" .,' GEORGE J. MILLER, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL NO. 96-2963 Civil Term CHRISTOPHER S. WEAVER, SR. and CHRISTINA M. WEAVER, IN EJECTMENT Defendants, COMPLAINT NOW COMES the Plaintiff, George J. Miller, and brings the following Complaint: COUNT 1 - EJECTMENT 1. Plaintiff is George J. Miller, am adult individual who resides at 120 Wertzville Road, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. 2. Defendants are Christopher S. Weaver and Christina M. Weaver, adult individuals who reside at 224 Susquehanna Avenue, Enola, East pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff, entered into a Parol lease agreement with Defendants on or about July 1, 1993, for a single house situate at 224 Susquehanna Avenue, Enola, East pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, which provided for a month to month term with rent at $390.00 a month payable in advance on the first day of each mor.th with Defendants to pay for heat, pay all utilities and Defendants to maintain the yard. 4. Plaintiff is sole owner in fee simplo of said premises. 5. Defendants under said Parol lease agreement went into possession of said house and at the time hereof are in possession of said house. 6. Defendants are in defaul t in said Lease Agreement in that they failed to make the monthly rental payments for october 1, 1995 and all monthly payments since then. 7. Plaintiff gave Defendants notice to vacate and pay rent current on or about November 1, 1995, copy of which notice is marked Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made part hereof by reference. 8. Defendants have not paid the rent current for the said premises and have failed and refused to vacate the premises and remaining in possession of the leased premises to the time hereof. 9. Plaintiff is entitled to possession of said premises. WHEREFORl, Plaintiff requests the Court to enter Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against tho Defendants for possession of the premises herein described, being a single house situate at 224 Susquehanna Avenue, Enola, East pennsbaro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. COUNT 2 - LOSS OF RENTAL INCOME 10. Paragraphs 1-9 both inclusive are incorporated herein by reference. 11. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for rent for the months of October, November, December, 1995, January, February, DATED: June 13 1996 March, April, May and June 1996, in the amount of $390.00 each amounting to $3,510.00. 12. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for rental value of the premises after September 30, 1995 until possession io acquired by Plaintiff. 13. The fair rental value of the said single home is the monthly rent reserved of $390.00 14. plaintiff claims damages as follows: 1. Unpaid rent - $3,510.00 2. Damages for unlawful detention until possession is delivered. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter Judgment against Defendants of $3,510.00 for unpaid rent through June, 1996 and for additional unpaid rent until possession is delivered which is to be determined. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSXLVANIA: COUNTY OF YORK On this, the ~th day .of June, 1996, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared GEORGE J. MILLER, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within "Complaint in Ejectmentll and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained. ~1:;;'~~ \J. \~~ NOTARY PUBLIC NOla,'a' Sea' ~nld V Marlin, NOlary Public Falrvlew Twp., YOrk Coun Mv COmmiSl'llon Expltes Jul~ 1~ 1991 . , '{, ill 1",; , ;:,1 It, ,r 1'" ._--'1 'f' .. ,;1!," " ~ t, ~i, (~j~ ,n t" [Cl',' I- ',1. Cl - C:l ..,.- ..\1: ;,~ "J' , :..I~ J '~.j ';- ''') I';; ,(,i '1''1: , , , .. ," ~....:. , : ( ", ;, .r1 0' . .i (J ,! h I.. I II;: " __I,ll i," "1, - , 'l!li ,.. d .= I !IJ ~ elt ' I! t.E e,;! , ! ~ i ;~ , i ~ i . 1Il I I' il l!l i II> . "' , z ~ . ~ . I , .., . i I 1 , ~UiA I II ,I I, ~ . ' I" . i, ," , " " ; , , " '. . , . . ;, ,.. .. " " ' ....: -.----.-,.--.---......-.... , (iU,c'''"{ - " ~ .. GlaROB J. M~LLBR. Plaintiff I IN THB COURT or COIlllOIf PLBAB or CUMBERLAND COUJl'l'Y, PBlflf8YLVANIA . . . . v. I CIVIL NO. 96-2963 civil Ter. . . CBRISTOPHBR 8. WBAVER, SR. an4 CHRISTIIfA M. WEAVER Defen4ants : IN IJBCTIIENT . . . . REPLY Plaintiff answers defendants' New Matter as follows: 15.) It is denied the rent was paid for October and November, 1995. No rent was tendered or paid for October. On November 8, 1995, Christopher S. Weaver delivered a check in the amount of $327.00 for partial payment of November rent which check was returned unpaid for insufficient funds. The check was not redeemed or replaced by defendant. The check is attached as Exhibit A. 16.) After reasonable investigation plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge to form an opinion as to the truth of the everment and proof is demanded. It is admitted the prothonotary has received in escrow money deposited by defendant but it is denied the payments are designated for any specific months rent. 17.) It is denied the notice was improperly served and on the contrary it was served in accordance with statute. 18.) Paragraph of inclusion. 19.) It is denied the notice was improperly served as stated in Paragraph 17, subject matter jurisdiction ie not - 1 - dependent on proper service of the notice to quit. 20.) It is admitted defendant notified plaintift ot a leak in the root which complaint was immediately referred by plaintiff to a roofer who repaired the same at plaintiff'S expense. Since that date there were no further complaints. 21.) After reasonable investigation plaintiff is without sufficient intormation to form an opinion of the truth of the averment and proof is demanded. 22.) It is denied that any complaint relative to the roof or window was ever received other than as set forth in Paragraph 20. 23.) After reasonable investigation plaintiff is without sufficient intormation to torm an opinIon of the truth of the averment and proof is dem~nded. 24.) After reasonable investigation plaintiff is without sufficient information to form an opinion of the truth of the averment and proof is demanded. WHEREFORE, plaintiff moves for jUdgment in ejectment and for $3,510.00 plus $390.00 for each month after June, 1996, until possession is delivered plus interest and costs. DATED: August 13, 1996 - 2 - VIlRII'ICATION I, GBORGB J. MILLER, verify that the anawera to the within reply are true and correct, to the beat of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. A. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authoritie.. B~.~~~ ! G. rqr . Mi er DATED: August 13, 1996 , " , , I' f, \'6 )IIJJlL In Ih~ C"urloe Common 1'le~1 ue CUlllh~rlund CounIYII'enn~yh~nla A .P... (1"" \ va. (fJ,ut./.f i.J., / JL 'Jill~1 /. LVlf.a.-~' '>1/ ,dif;u,_ Nil. --1l-'-~-~~ ~ Civil. 19 ~: )71,1.< ".1~,: , ,~" _I? ",'" ,f if , A.,1 ,J~. .J'~. .: I / ~ I I: I , I 'I To ~iWU~, /ALL ../ r'l I , ' i PrutllUIIIlUl'Y 199_- " I' I; i ! I, "I il I ,\ . i 1 , ". "";""""""""'I""",.!,"", ,:111.,," "'''!''\I!;:'Ii,,~~,~~:f::l~;,'qll't4 : , "Il , ? ~.- ~ I .,'/' , ~, t ;"" ,.,".\ ,. 1" '\' " , or I . . ,... t \, . ,~ . '~'1." , , .(. .. 'f,. :.., , .- I ' ' .\ I -'" 7,~-' AllOr\lCY for Plaintiff '.hUI_~~*,~il,i~.ll~~\":,u..\lI'I-i,~,....,,,,j~t'" "l"li',:',:~ ' ,.,'., ,I' " -, , I ! . i " I ~ " I , , , , . " " '/ ',! II~~, I . , l. I .' t I ;I , I ~ ' .,: 'I..... ; p rr) C' No. '-'./,1.'( Term. 19 __ r::" , en P "\ , , 'C'I\ \1'.' '..' 'll.,', I ',' . l'chl'.:, 11..., V~, I ! PRAECIPE Flied 19_ " 'j ;. i" -Jc..":,..,'"......,.......,J<\~I~IU.M"'*'"'\loIt.~II\~I"...' " " , . " , " .' ,'.'jl," i'" I ''',;..,.\. ,~ \ ',~ I' ,..,,"' , , '?-/\-:' ,,' .' " ~" , . . , . , , , u \',~ " 'l' I ~' 'IlP '. . '. ,~ :- ~i}l , ,~J~.. \~. ',,1 t .I ,~ \l ...._ , ~ " '--- . ......, --'-~.- Ally, 7' r '~:'~I. . ~ , . \, t I' r , . , \, . ! " i ~, , . , I .', 'V '" \1 " I' " , \.,, I ~ . . , GEXl~ J. :ULLER, Plaintiff In The Court of COl!llllon Plolas of ) ) l ) ) ) ) Cumberland County, ~ennayLv.nia ~o. 1)6 ;- 2%3 Civil 'rcn1\~9 W l:JH..'!'1rcNr CllIUG!'Ol'llEH s. WE/\VGH, :m.. and CHRISTINA ~l. \1'l':'WBH, Do fcnuun to; O.''l'H ';. We do loLemnly Iwear (or affirm) the COD.titution of the United State. wealth and that we will discharge the that we will support, obey and defend and the ConstitutioD of this Common- duties o~our Omfice_~i ~ fidelity. / C)" ,_ " ----.:.-5.. 11 \~ " ~ ~ -cfi.~n '1i:'~,:J;tr-' --- AWARD We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sw~rn (or affirmed). make the foLlowing award: (Nota: If damaglS for delay are awarded. they shall be separat.ly stated.) i~a iiwQrd Plaintiff $7,410.00, pluo; poo;o;oo;o;ion of tho oroperty at 224 Susquehurma Avenue ,in Enola, all in accordilncc with a Stipulation of the parties dated 29 April 1997. applicable. ) Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name i! 1997 -~ ~ -r:=:~ c: / ,-eh.~n - "}t{~{'-; ~rrRY OF AWARD U Oate of Hear1n8:~ April 30 April 1997 Oata of Award: ;~u'nc!. OF :fow, thel..+"-d.y of >>2;:"1 __rd ",a. entared upon the dOCKaI: ~artilS or their ~r.r.crn~y.. . L9~, at /IJJti.. ../:1.:1.. the above ClDd Ilotice thereof ginD by u1l to the /' +~h'/C. By.1._ i2r...l&> r /I )O(bCl ) Prothonotary F(/~~'I }.w.! ,~}r Oeput:, Arbitrators' cOlllpe".,,~i~n to be paid Up~D appe.l: S .;)9t.l" u) I' Cor'! ~<.l. Cfl Sk,.,u..I: l ILJ.v~ IL-~.J,~ ~\9a<.\ I...ul,.t. }:;.dds - C"~~&.Jfo...JQ), ~-k.t.t" )::j,itlcls " .4.bi-. t.(.. rn ~ II t. c.l '/"/97 '~' ~, e ;RFn' ~t .(;\;"', uJ..... ?;b ~:: " ~>l;.; ,,'" ' .."[" :':' - ~ ::c ~ I 0' po :x 6 .. ::l ,g C' . '":4; '.:8 " .JI , , , , , ~ ;~ r3,"';;1l1 t',_J ,:'~ ,,) Of ~ " ,. GBORGB J. MILLBR I IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLBAS OF I CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA V. . . CHRISTOPHER S. WEAVER, SR. AND CHRISTINA M. WEAVER I CIVIL ACTION - L'W I I NO. 96-2963 CIVIL TERM I 1. U I VACAT. ARBITRATOR ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, MAY 16, 1997, the appointment of Auetin Grogan, Esquire, is hereby vacated and John Weigel, III, Esquire, is appointed in his stead. By the Court, ,l"iuLF d r ~ld E. SheelY,~: Samuel Andes, Esquire - (:~ I'l"~.l :;}.:), /'1'). Chairman v a ~ -6 Q. --'.. Court Administrator ,', Idd ,I ) L\