HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-03343
i
i
L.. I
oJ
~
-
-01
, ::I:
o
'"
'7
1_
.j oJ
'l t/)
':\ 3
"i.O
.1
;;':1
YI'
\i.. /
~"I:, t.
~:r ~
.....:; Jo
I
,'!
,
i.
: L
'...d
cl
19l
('f)
r<J
,
.3
a.
.(
0'
</
I
i
'\
1
~
"
/'
!
i
I
JEFFREY A. CASSEL, SR.,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. tj(, --jjftJ Civil Term
vs.
DIANE E. HElLNER,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CHILD CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this If.!!. day of .J u/--L , 1996, upon
presentation and consideration of the within Complaint to Confirm
it is hereby Ordered that the parties
counsel shall appear before
the C;onciliator, on TA-4 ".,~dl.tl l-
II u...vt , 1996, at ~:!fJ. f .m. at
,
a Hearing. At such Custo y
Conciliation Hearing, an effort will be made to resolve the
issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define
and narrow the issues to be heard by the Court, and to enter
into a Temporary Order. Either party may bring the child who
is the subject of this custody action to the Hearing; however,
the child/children's attendance is not mandatory. Failure to
appear at the Custody Conciliation Hearing may provide grounds
for the entry of a temporary or permanent Order.
BY THE COURT:
..1J:k)vuJ A-J4"'rJ, (Ic;~ j .5 t:..
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE.
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE,
GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW
TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Office of the Court Administrator
Cumberland County Court House
One Court House square
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
JEFFREY A. CASSEL, SR.,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
va.
DIANE E. HElLNER,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 96-3343 CIVIL TERM
CHILD CUSTODY
JUDGE PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED: The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 1916.3-B(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the
following report:
1. The pertinent Information concerning the child(ren) who is(are) the
subject of this litigation is as follows:
NAME
BIRTHDA TE
CURRENTLY IN
CUSTODY OF
Jeffrey A. Cassel, Jr.
6 October 1 9B9
Plaintiff
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on 8 August 1996, and the following
Individuals were present: the Plaintiff and his attorney, Arthur K. Dils, Esquire. The
Defendant eppeared with her attorney, Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire.
3. Items resolved by agreement: None.
4. Issues yet to be resolved: An ultimate custody schedule.
) ..
I rut}
I
-; -) c
(;' I~ te.
1
/ J. /
,/ ,'It
"
. 'I
t.ltLf'('j, (,,,1..
. j t.:
, I .' .
..._/Ul) I.t'CC,-
i :;) iT-He
'I,'
'Jur,r /(/.
.J. "
. ) \'
I .: I lLd(
I .~.
I!.cC
I
.,}. \ .1(/
. r! \' /} ('.\:) I. II
! ( I' \
) J
j,e I
,\ hu. \ i J
\/
/' ~I u....\ ')--
~, ,
l' ' ('t\ I. )1 ('
; l t ."\
{/
,
::; 1\
6. The Plaintiff's position on custody Is as follows: Plaintiff would like a
shared arrangement. He suggested thet he have the child over the school year, and
the Mother have the child during the summer months. He also suggested that the
Mother have the child during the weekends. The reason he suggested the school
year was that he is In construction and ha Is off from work or has less work during
the winter and will be more able to take care of the child when the child gets off
from school. He denies having a drinking problem. Ha Is married and believes his
environment is acceptable.
6. The Defendant's position on custody Is as follows: Defendant suggested
that she should be the primary custodial parent and that the Father only be given
visitation every other weekend and times over the holidays. She related the fact
that she had primary custody of the child for a period of time beginning in 1 990
forward. She only gave up custody of the child In November of 1996 because her
work schedule hed changed end she wanted the child to be with the Fether
because of her work schedule. She does suggest, however, that the Father has a
drinking and abuse problem and that she does not like the environment for the
child.
7. Need for separate counsel to represent child: None requested.
B. Need for Independent psychologlcel evaluation or counseling: The parties
did not agree to an evaluation due to the cost.
2
9. A hearing in this matter Is expected to take one-half day.
10. Other matters end comments: Ther13 is a long history in this case
beginning back In 1990 when the first order was entered granting Mother primary
custody. This was pursuant to a consent order on e protective order. Mother then
went Into the Army. While she was In the Army, the uncia had primary custody.
That was pursuant to an order dated 1992. However, when Mother got out of the
Army in 1993 she had primary custody up until November of 1996. She shifted
the primary custodial srrangement to the Father because of her work schedule.
She was working at that time through the night. She suggested that she agreed to
this arrangement only during the school year and that It was going to shift back.
Father suggested that that agreement wes to cOI,tinue through the next school
year.
Mother only offered visitation with the Father every other weekend despite
the fact that she allowed the child to be with him primarily from November, 1996,
through the beginning of the summer, 1996. She suggests that the environment of
the Father is unacceptable for the child, but still offered a minimal visitation
schedule. It is suggested that if the Father has some problems, then the Mother
must show that those problems exist and that the child will be affected by those
problems. Without proving that there is a problem with the Father's household,
this is a case that clearly calls out for a sharing of the child between them.
3
The problem that is arising in this case relates to school. The child Is in first
grade and Is to begin school shortly. The Mother lives In Susquehanna Township,
and the Father lives In Mechanlcsburg. Assuming that both parents are otherwise
fit, it appears that one of the two households must be chosen during the school
year in order to accommodate the different school districts, but that the other
parent should be given as much time during the non-school time as possible in order
to maximize his or her contact with the child.
Date: 12 August 1996
iL t [
Michael L. Bangs
Custody Conciliator
4
I
.
..
/il.' i~)
;, ;ill)"
. ,; I '. ~_ I)
h"
en ~
Cl -
J~H
~ ~ ~ i
gq..
= ~ . ,.j
o -< 8 ;1
iJ ~
.;, ..
-'
,
.
J N
"
,~ t.'. .
'.. ,:t'
, .
. "
l'
<,
","
. .-\,
''''1;''
it ..') "
.., .
,
, .
.
,.
..
./i I ~_
\. \
"
, ,
.
'~;(::I i;.~.
, ~- ! .
....
,
J ,f'
" ....
'.
.
. ,
',.,
: i
it II
I (~
~:( I
'J. f \
n'", ~~li i
'. ,I
,\ ).
I ,.
~ :
f
.',
,
'.
'I
r
, ,
\.j./
1 I
i I j
I "
! "
t ,
. , ~.
( f II
I
6. The Plaintiff's position on custody is as follows: Plaintiff would like a
shared arrangement, He suggested that he have the child ovar the school year, and
the Mother have the child during the summer months. He also suggested that the
Mother have the child during the weekends. The reason he suggested thlJ school
year was that he is In construction and he Is off from work or has less work during
the winter and will be more sble to take care of the child when the child gets off
from school, He denies having a drinking problem. He Is married and believes his
environment Is acceptable,
6, The Defendant's position on custody Is as follows: Defendant suggested
that she should be the primary custodial parent and that the Father only be given
visitation every other weekend and times over the holidays, She related the fact
that she had primary custody of the child for a period of time beginning in 1990
forward, She only gave up custody of the child In November of 1996 because her
work schedule had changed and she wanted the child to be with the Father
because of her work schedule, She does suggest, however, that the Father hes a
drinking and abuse problem and that she does not like the environment for the
child,
7, Need for separate counsel to represent child: None requested,
8, Need for Independent psychological evaluation or counseling: The parties
did not agree to an evaluation due to the cost,
2
9, A hearing In this matter Is expected to toke one-half day,
10, Other matters and comments: Thero Is a long history In this case
beginning back in 1990 when the first order was entered granting Mother primary
custody. This was pursuant to a consent order on 0 protective order. Mothor then
went Into the Army, While she wes In the Army, the uncle hed primary custody,
That wss pursuant to an order dated 1992. However, when Mother got out of the
Army In 1993 sha had primary custody up until November of 1996. She shifted
the primary custodial arrangement to the Father because of her work schedule.
She was working at that time through the night, She suggested that she agreed to
this arrsngemant only during the school year and that It was going to shift back,
Father suggested that that agreement was to continue through the next school
year,
Mother only offered visitation with the Fsther every other weekend despite
the fact that she sllowed the child to be with him primarily from November, 1996,
through the beginning of the summer, 1996. She suggests that the environment of
the Father Is unacceptable for the child, but stili offered a minimal vlsitetlon
schedule, It is suggested that If the Father has some problems, then the Mother
must show that those problems exist and that the child will be affected by those
problems. Without proving that there Is a problem with the Father's household,
this Is a case that clearly calls out for a shoring of the child between them,
3
The problom that Is arising In this case relstes to school, The child Is In first
grade and is to begin school shortly. The Mothsr lives in Susquehanna Township,
and the Father lives in Mechanlcsburg, Assuming that both parents are otherwise
fit, It appears that one of the two households must be chosen during the school
year In order to accommodate the different school districts, but that the other
parent should be given as much time during the non-school time as possible In order
to maximize his or her contact with the child,
Date: 12 August 1996
/,.1'1
olJl.llvy'
~ U I ( ltd d (_
Ichael L, Bangs
Custody Conciliator
4
,
JEFFREY A. CASSEL, SR.,
Plaintiff
vs,
)
)
I
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
DIANE E, HElLNER,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO, 96-3343 CIVIL TERM
CHILD CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
, 1996, upon receipt of
the Conciliator's Report, It appearing that the parties failed to reach sny agreement
,.
In this case, it is hereby ordered snd directed as follows:
A hearing Is scheduled for the
day of
1996, at
o'clock _,M" in Court Room Number
of
the Cumberland County Court House, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Both
parties, through counsel, will provide each other and the court with a
list of witnesses ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing along
with a statement as to their expected testimony. Additionally, both
parties will submit their proposal for a resolution of the matter,
BY THE COURT,
EDGAR B, BAYLEY, J,
Arthur K, Dils, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
.
5, The Plaintiff's position on custody Is as follows: Plelntiff would like a
shared arrangement, He suggested that he have the child over the school year, and
the Mother have the child during the Bummer months. He also suggested that the
Mother have the child during the weekends, The reason he suggested the school
year was that he Is in construction snd he Is off from work or has less work during
the winter and will be more able to take care of the child when the child gets off
from school. He denies having a drinking problem. He is married and believes his
environment Is acceptable,
6, The Defendant's position on custody Is as follows: Defendant suggested
that she should be the primary custodial parent and that the Father only be given
visitation every other weekend and times over the holidays, She related the fact
that she had primary custody of the child for a period of time beginning In 1990
forward, She only gave up custody of the child in November of 1996 because her
work schedule had changed and she wanted the child to be with the Father
because of her work schedule, She does suggest, however, that the Father has a
drinking and abuse problem and that she does not like the environment for the
child.
7, Need for separate counsel to represent child: None requested,
8. Need for independent psychological evaluation or counseling: The parties
dirl not agree to an evaluation due to the cost,
2
.
9. A hearing In this matter Is expected to take one-half day.
10. Other mstters and comments: There Is a long history in this case
beginnlnll back In 1990 when the first order was entered granting Mother primary
custody, This was pursuent to a consent order on a protective order, Mother then
went Into the Army. While she was in the Army, the uncle had primary custody.
That was pursuant to an order dated 1992, However, when Mother got out of the
Army in 1993 she had primary custody up until November of 1996. She shifted
the primsry custodial arrangement to the Father because of her work schedule.
She was working at that time through the night. She suggested that she agreed to
this arrangement only during the school year and that it was going to shift back,
Father suggested thst that agreement was to continue through the next school
year,
Mother only offered visitation with the Fathar every other weekend despite
the fact that she allowed the child to be with him primarily from November, 1996,
through the beginning of the summer, 1996. She suggests that the environment of
the Father Is unacceptable for the child, but stili offered a minimal visitation
schedule. It is suggested that If the Father has some problems, then the Mother
must show that those problems exist and that the child will be affected by those
problems, Without proving that there is a problem with the Father's household,
this Is a case that clearly calls out for a sharing of the child between them,
3
.
The problem that is arising in this case relates to school. The child Is In first
grade and is to begin school shortly. The Mother lives in Susquehanna Township,
snd the Father lives in Mechanlcsburg, Assuming that both parents are otherwise
fit, It appears that one of the two households must be chosen during the school
year in order to accommodate the different school districts, but that the other
parent should be given as much time during the non-school time as possible in order
to maximize his or her contact with the child,
Date: 12 August 1996
~U\rlVu1 t,~~
Ichael L. Bangs '
Custody Conciliator
4
,.
\
'.
I
..\
. '
i
.
"j:t j
<.
r:,..., . f\
. i"'" 1I'
...' , .. .~,.,'J ,\
; \" l, ,r
,/
~ , , ..,. ' "
...., . ,I \"
~' .. " .' " 'IC
, l""'.
- ......,..,:i I
, " "'" 11
~ .\ '.J"t\,
. " " ( . ~
~, . I. l.,
",~ "" .' ' 1
, .,t. ~ ,.
',f; ,; '\
". .,. I #
'IjP'
'..;, \ ',,',
1 tl . "
". jf;,;
· - . r. ,:.
,~. .
,
'al
Q)
Q) ......
~ ci)o
's .-
C' '0.....
Ul r;: ...
w 0
. 0....
Ul Q) .....
:-=r;:UlQ.
Co -<: .
. )( ~ Cl
~.- ::J ....
C 0 ::l
SollUl~
J: UJ ..- 't:
5:-= 0 la
....c...:I:
.'
.
. ,
;
cr UJ
.n a: a:
cn~ a~
c:~ VJ~
~ i I ~ ~
w!il ~Ul
gj~ g~
gg UJ~
~ ~
,I.,
.1 .,
-.At
~. jo
, ,
.'
,. "
'.
-, 1
. ,
.
, 'l"
.,'il>.
.
I-
""
~.. A
4t~~
::.~ ~ r'
. ,
L) \
," f,
rl
.. .
. i
~ (\ I,
, 1
"
,
....
f, /
II,i,"
t ii
r ,.
t '
I i Ii
\,
~l r'
./