HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-03597
BRIAN E. NOLL,
plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNT'l, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
96 - ,1 ')' " I e <~', <..( "11..-
vs.
TRACEY J, NOLL,
Defendant
COMPLAINT 'OR CUSTODY
TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE SAID COURT I
1. Plaintiff is Brian E. Noll, residing at 38 West Coover street,
Mechaniosburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant is Tracey J. Noll, residing at 444 Sioux Drive,
Hampden Township, Mechanicsburg, cumberland county, Pennsylvania,
3. Plaintiff seeks custody of the following childl Brandon E.
Noll, D.O.B. April 28, 1992,
The ohild was born in wedlock and presently is in the custody of
Traoey J, Noll at the above-stat$d address.
During the past five (5) years, the child has resided with Plain-
tiff and Defendant, together with a step-sister, stephanie sale, age
11.
Tracey J. Noll is the natural mother of the child and Brian E.
Noll is the natural father of the child.
4. The relationship of Plaintiff to the child is that of father
to son. The Plaintiff currently resides with the following persons:
his sister, Jennifer Young and her husband Robert 'loung.
5. The relationship of Defendant to the child is that of mother
to son. The Def.endant currently resides with the following persons:
Stephanie sale, her daughter, age 11.
6. plaintiff has not participated as a party or witness, or in
another oapa~ity, in other litigation concorning the oustody of the
ohild in this or another court. Plaintiff has no information of a
custody proceeding concerning the child pending in a court of this
Commonwealth. Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the
proceedJ.ngs who has physical custody of the ohild or olaims to have
custody or visitation rights with respect to the child,
7. The best interests and permanent welfare of the child, Brandon
E. Noll, will be served by creating an Order regulating the primary
oare, custody and control of the child, because of the f.ollowing:
(A) Plaintiff can provide for the minor child, Brandon E. Noll,
with a suitable, stable, helpful and proper environment.
(8) Plaintiff is a fit parent who can take care of his child.
(C) since separation on April 28, 1996, Defendant has refused to
allow Plaintif.f with regular and standard custody contacts with
his son and has, unfortunately, denied Plaintiff of reasonable
custody contact with the child to the child's detriment.
(D) Defendant, after reasonable request, has unjustifiably refused
to allow Plaintiff reasonable custody contact with his son and has
acted in a pattern to deny Plaintiff any custody contact, to the
child's detriment.
(E) A regular and timely custody contact schedule for both
parents is in the best interests of the child.
3
",l.
...,
.
v)
" ,1
.., 0 ~J
';:i , ' 1
~ ,
)- ..,
.......
.. .., '''I
Q
I'
i ~
'y If)
I", -
[. .. I:l.~
~-;, t"; , 1
, .
,1
lI- e')
~\, :(j ',"-
,?,
l'-'
r-J , "-J
li".ll; t"; 'ill
i:..J ,"
1'-- ., ,
" ,0 ')
U loP (J
'"
"
BRIAN E, NOLL,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYI.VANIA
vs,
TRACEY J, NOLL,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION, LAW
NO, 96-3697 CIVIL TERM
CUSTODY
AND NOW, this
I.f-' ORDER
/ "r day oLS; 1~/?'"rJlli.. 1996, upon receipt of
,
the Conciliator's Report, It eppearlng that the parties have agreed to the terms and
provisions of this Order which was dictated In their presence and approved by them
and their counsel, It Is hereby ordered and directed as follows:
1. The parties shall share legal custody of their minor child,
Brandon E, Noll, d,o,b, 28 April 1992,
2, Mothar shall have primary physical custody of the minor
child subject to parlods of partial custody with Father In accoldance
with the following schedule:
A, On every Friday whan Fathar Is not working, from
prior to whan Mother goes to work until Saturday morning at
which time Father will drop off the child prior to his going to
I "
"
, ,
;j ,I
)
.~' , "
1
"
f,> l
'.
work;
5, The Plaintiff's position on custody Is as follows: See attached Order,
6, The Defendant'a ponltlon on cuatody Is as follows: Sea attaohad Order,
7, Need for separate counsel to rapresent child: None requested and the
Conolllator does not believe eny Is necessary,
8, Need for Independent psychological evaluation or counsallng: Neither
party requested,
D~e: Sepwmber 10,1996
~J. 1
~ /
F /tl~t..-,
Ic ael L, Bengs
Custody Conciliator
/)
, ,
, ,.\
\ ~ " ,.. \
I I,'). \,'1
, ", \",'-
\'!,'. .'j' ,.,
',:Ii
. t,li I ":'
\., I' "\ I,' ,1\ .II ~ 1\
\. ...'" I
I'JI'ft' &~(. "f? 1:1fI:6 't d7f dt'1
/:.j'r ,"c"l ,-" ''; // -"l ~
n""i~t! A/..tK'I,/ t'/.)......" .
1'JI-4!J ~ - ,-#
~ ,11tc1.kd./ z,. t?~ ~"'",,~
, '
BRIAN E. NOLL, I
plaint.iff/ Petitioner I
I
vs. I
I
TRACEY J. NOLL, I
Defendant/Respondent I
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
96 - 359'1
C-9JiPl.AUfT/J>f.iTITXQ" I"QR HODH'IC,I\TIQN QI"c;:YnOj)L~Rllt:.R
TO THE HONORABLE, 'fHE JUDGES OF THE IlAID COURT I
1. Plaintiff/Petitioner is Brian E. Noll, an adult individual
who currently resides at 23 Bellaire Avenue, Carlisle, Cumberland
County, pennsylvania, 17013.
2. Defendant/Respondent is Tracey J. Noll, an adult
individual with a last known address of 5217 East Tr indle Road,
Apt. 3, Mechanicsburg, cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055.
3. Plaintiff seeks modification of a custody order involving
the minor child, Brandon E. Noll, 0,0.13. April 28, 1992.
4. The parties are divorced.
5. During the past several years, the child has primarily resided
with Defendant at her address and the parties have been attempting to
exchange custody of the child on an every-other weekend basis and one
evening per week basis.
6. A custody order dated September 16, 1996 was entered
following a custody conciHation conference. A copy of the Order is
attached hereto as Exhibit "An
7. Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the
proceedings who has physical custody of the child or claims to have
custody or visitation riqhts with respect to the child.
8. Subsequont to the Custody Order dated September 16, 1996,
Plaintiff hall changml iobM and ill nO\~ in a pOflitioll to develop a
greater and more llIeanin<)ful cUfltod l.al l'ollltionllhip with hIs son.
<J, 'rho cunent cUlltody f1chodulo only pl'ovldos Pla.intlff w.ith
cUfltody for foul' (4) full days dudnq il twonty-oiqht (28) day per .iod
and sixteen addit.ional hOUlS dudnq the sallie twent.y-eiqht (28) day
period.
10. ^ much greater custody contact per.iod between Father and
child is warranted and .in the best Interest of the child.
11. The best .interests and permanent wel fare of the chlld,
Brandon E. Noll, w.ill be served by order.ing that both parties share
legal and physical custody of the chlld and directing that a custody
order be entered directing that Plaintiff shall have sha~ed legal and
physical custody of the child, alternatinq holidays with the child and
an extended sUlnmer vacation period for the following reasons I
(A) Plaintiff is a fit parent who can take care of his
child and who can provide him with a supportive, safe and healthy
environment I and
(B) Plaintiff's work schedule is ideal for a shared physical
custody arrangement in that Plaintiff ~an .insure that the child
attends school on a regular basis without changing districts
which would allow him to engage in meaningfUl and appropriate
activities wi.th the chlld, all to the child's benefit; and
(C) Plaintiff desires to become more actively involved in
the child's extra-curricular activities; and
12. Defendant's conduct and behavior is not in the best interest
of the child in that I
2
(A) Defendant has refused to allow Plaintiff greater custody
time with his childl and
(B) Defendant has refused to conununicate regularly with
Plaintiff concerning the child, including refusing to allow the
child to take homeworlt to Father's res idence I and
(el Defendant has not participated in any transportation
provisions on a reguLar basis for the minor child forcing Plaintiff
to incur the ma jority of transportat.J,on tor the custody contacts,
all at Defendant's luxurYI and
(D) Defendant has not afforded Plaintiff with the
opportunity to spend substantial time with the child and has
refused to cooperate with Plaintiff depriving Plaintiff of
meaningful custody contacts between Father and son.
13. Plaintiff is willing to participate in an evaluation with
Defendant and the chHd in order to assist with determining what is
child's best interest.
14. plaintiff is capable and willing to insure that the child
attends and is prepared for daHy school activities while he resides
with him and no legitimate reason exists to deny Plaintiff a substantial
and meaningful custody contact period with his son.
15. An updated custody order is necessary in this case due to the
parties inability to agree upon reasonable custody arrangements which
are in the child's best interest.
3
,-, '"') ~...
1'1 - ';
;-. c."; } "
IU'
, " ~,
I) , .i; ,
,
"
I,
, if} ,
,. c-'~.
L
j j;J
L" I
I, ,,.
11, "', "
l"J L l.J
vs,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN TilE COURT OF COMMON I)I.EAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
BRIAN E, NOl.l..
Pluinllll'
NO, %-3597 CIVIL TERM
TRACEY J, NOLI.,
IMendunl
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
OlmF.l~
AND NOW, lhis 2.'1..L duy llf _,__~__, 2000. uplln receipt ofthc
('llneilialor's Rcport, ituppcurin~ thallhc partics huvc Icachcd un agrccmcnt which wus dictatcd
in their prCSl:ncc und upprowd by thcm and tbeir counsel, il is hcrcby ordcrcd und directcd us
lilllows:
I, All prior Ordcl's cntcrcd in this casc urc VACATED.
2, Thc purtics shull sharc Icgul custody llf their minur child, 13rundon E.
Noll, d.o,b, April 2M, 1992.
3, During thc SChOll I year. Mllthcr shull haw primary physical cuslody 01:-:
I
thc minor child subjeclto pcriods of pllrlinl custody and visilation with Futhcr '/11,
(ollows:
A, On allenlllting wcckends from Friday alicl' Falher's
.',
, "
L , ,',
,
, "
" ,
.) i
..
. , I
)
~. ;' " .. ,
: ,
~ "
"'- :1)
.
work until Monday morning UI which limc Fmhcl' shall return thc
-,
-:
child to thc appropriatc day carc providcr prior 10 school. This
uhcrnuling weckend schcdulc shall cOlllmcncc lln Friduy, March
17,2000,