Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-01007 ~ '~ . i' -',,",~' - ~~ , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW SHELLY E. BOBB, Plaintiff v. NO. ,;2, rrvv -J{} 0 '7 ~ I..L-- CRAIG A. BLAIR, Defendant : IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear, before ~\~~.~c:~~~~~. ,the Conciliator, at --\\v-J~V\r\...<<'\: ,me\. C\ ,~ on the ~ day of , 2000, at C\,- .J:l...m., for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such Conference, 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. Failure to appear at the Conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent Order. BY THE COURT: 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. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the Court, please contact the office set forth above. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the Court. You must attend the scheduled Conference or Hearing. , " -ClC" F\LEI}-Oh ;,," ^R'I >= \"~, CD('.'0-1,' 11,:0101 Q '"'" ,"" " ; ',. J'. , ' ' "~ 00 I'\M\ - \ ~t\ \0: 03 I' I' '-'O'U"\ If{ CUMBERu-\N.J v, I~ ?Ei'iNSYLYAN\I\ ;}". j.OCJ tb.;/- C!?I' ~ ..'- d '~ ~5'. 3'/-00 ~ ~ ~ ~/;;/: 3 -I 'CO --,- u -./ "Id ~ ~ ~ -#_ X/~~ ~' , , ~~ ,,--"., <, , 3.. ,_ _,~flI"W 1, ~.~",?".,~"'n~ c, .m'J'ij.Imr~1 ,,- ,""">:- "p,~ ,,' ~ - I _.~~~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW SHELLY E. BOBB, Plaintiff v. : : NO. 02.lr/)?;J-/IP07 c;..;..e T............ CRAIG A. BLAIR, Defendant IN CUSTODY COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY AND NOW, this Jt-,l ~3 day of 't~_, '000, c~e' the and through her attorney, Maryann Plaintiff, SHELLY E. BOBB, by Murphy, Esquire, of Legal Services, Inc., and respectfully files this Complaint for Custody, and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. The Plaintiff is SHELLY E. BOBB whose current address is 27 South 18th Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The Defendant is CRAIG A. BLAIR whose current address is 1812 Hickory Tree, Kendallville, Indiana, 46755. 3. The Plaintiff seeks primary physical and legal custody of the following children: JACQUALINE N. BLACK, born July 8, 1985 and AMANDA N. BLACK, born July 28, 1987 4. The children were born out of wedlock " ~-. ',,^--,, ". ~ ..~~ 5. Plaintiff currently resides with her husband, Brian Bobb, their daughter, Cortney, and the minor children involved in this action. 6. Defendant currently resides with his wife, their daughter and his step-child. 7. During the lifetime of the children, they have resided at the following addresses with the following persons: Time Address with Whom birth(7/85l-9/92 Fort Wayne, IN various addresses Plaintiff (for approximately 3 of these years, intermittently, Defendant resided with Plaintiff and the children) 1992-1993 Mechanicsburg, PA Plaintiff 1993-1999 Shiremanstown, PA plaintiff,her husband, and their daughter 1999-present 27 South 18th St. Camp Hill, PA Plaintiff,her husband, and their daughter 8. The father of the children is CRAIG A. BLAIR. He is married. 9. The mother of the children is SHELLY E. BOBB. She is married. 10. On August 13, 1999, the Defendant filed a Verified petition to Establish Regular Visitation in the Allen Superior ""~ " Court, State of Indiana, County of Allen to cause number P-87-599. (a copy of the Petition is attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein, and marked as Exhibit "A"). 11. A hearing on Defendant's Verified petition is scheduled for Friday, February 25, 2000 at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Morgan. 12. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or witness or in any other capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody of the children in this or any other Court, except as set forth above. 13. The Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the children pending in a Court of this Commonwealth. The Plaintiff is aware of the Verified petition filed by Defendant in the State of Indiana which is attached to this Complaint. 14. The Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the children, or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the children. 15. Each parent whose parental rights to the children have not been terminated, and the persons who have physical custody of the children, have been named as parties to this action. There are no other persons known to have or claim a right to custody or visitation of the children and therefore, no further notice of the pendency of this action and the right to intervene shall be given, , ~~~ , ' " '~ , ~ ,-Ii,' other than to the parties named herein. 16. The best interest and permanent welfare of the minor children will be served by granting Plaintiff primary physical and legal custody of JACQUALlNE and AMANDA. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to grant her primary physical and legal custody of the minor children. Respectfully submitted, Marya n Murphy, Legal Services, 8 Irvine Row Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 I.D. # 61900 Attorney for Plaintiff -. ,~; j STATE OF INDIANA COUNTY OF ALLEN ) )SS: ) IN THE ALLEN SUPElUOR COURT CAUSE NO. P-87-599 IN THE MATTER OF THE PATERNITY OF ) JACQUALINE N. BLACK AND AMANDA N. ) BLACK, UPON THE PETITION OF ) SHELLY E. BLACK, AND CONCERNING: ) ) CRAIG A. BLAIR ) ) - ~~~~ ~ ""-'-f .- ~ ~ .......-. a=:. ~ ~:: -, :::~ ~:;: ::;...'"- E."~ VERIFIED PETITION TO ESTABLISH REGULAR ,: ,~~J:" ~<:J. CI~ .J(', ;:\~,:::: ~1~:;: VISITATION w "~J f,', '..~- -:i~:= :,~.;,~t~3 ::? ~ :...:~, <:r,> tV C ....,'; I \ I \ ,.-', z Comes now Craig A. Blair, by and through his attorney, Nikos C. Nakos, and does hereby move this Honorable Court to establish a regularly set visitation schedule and in support thereof, Craig A. Blair does offer the following: 1. That Craig A. Blair is the natural father of Jacqualine N. Black and Amanda N. Black. 2. That since April 26, 1992, Shelly E. Black moved the parties' children to Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 3. That since that time, Craig A. Blair has had a total of two visitations with his children, the first one being on May 17, 1999 in Fort Wayne, Indiana. 4. That the second visitation being a total of four days, July 23 through 26, 1999. 5. That during the children's stay and visitation with the petitioner Craig A. Blair, the children expressed a desire to spend additional time with their father. 6. That Shelly E. Black refused to extend any addi- tional summer visitation. 7. That on August 3, 1999 Craig A. Blair attempted to l:':Ih\b'\+ ^ II "/1 ~-' " contact his children in Pennsylvania, via the telephone. 8. That Craig Blair was able to reach Jacqu.aline Black, his oldest daughter, and she informed him that Shelly Black was not going to allow any further contact in the immediate future. 9. That as of August 8, 1999 the telephone number of Shelly Black has been disconnected. 10. That it woul~ be in the best interests of the chil- dren to establish some regular visitation during the summer months and Christmas given the disparity and distance. WHEREFORE, Craig A. Blair, prays for an order granting him a set amount of visitation during the summer months, Christmas vacation and spring break., pursuant to the standard visitation order adopted by this Honorable Court. I I I I I \ I I \ \ I I " I I I I I I , I 'I ~ t Craig A. Blair, under pains and penalties of perjury, does hereby swear that the above and foregoing statements con- tained in the Petition to Establish Visitation are true and accu- rate, based upon his own personal knowledge and belief. ~A; This instrument prepared by: Nikos C. Nakos 15344-02 401 Commerce Building 127 West Berry Street Fort Wayne, IN 46802 (219) 423-3681 -2- - > 'L,. ~:, ~, 'j '" CERTIFICATE"'O"F~~VI~CE I certify that on the ' r~d8y of , 1999, service of a true and complete copy of ~ above an foregoing pleading or paper was made upon Shelly E. Black k/n/a Bobb, 27 South 18th Street, Camphill, Pennsylvania 17011, via ited States mail. s -3- ,~ ~' <,' I ~1IiI<Q VERrFrCATrON I, SHELLY E. BOBB, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Custody Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. CJ.4101~d~ SHELLY E. B B , ,~ 1- ~;l!!, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW SHELLY E. BOBB, Plaintiff VB. NO. CRAIG A. BLAIR, Defendant IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Maryann Murphy, Esquire, do hereby certify that on the day of , 2000 I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint in Custody on the Defendant, CRAIG A. BLAIR at the address set forth below, by placing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, certified/restricted delivery. Craig A. Blair 1812 Hickory Tree Kendallville, IN 46755 Respectfully submitted, Murphy, Legal Services, 8 Irvine Row Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 540-8600 I.D. # 61900 :;;-- ~ ;','1 ,~,- ~' ",~' "."~' ~.- -, - il/;r;iIl!l.Io.......~ 1 L n "~~'- _ c- ",d...;'__;~ <, " H", "' i s~ .,-, ,'J 7,.,.) L~) ,~,.:'l;~~ -~:'1 C"J ~(~ -,.,-1 '-j.:.t> ~9 ., .:r:- r ~ . .. , ' 1- '~~! j . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW SHELLY E. BOBB, Plaintiff : NO. ;2A-uV. IlrD7~-r~ v. : IN CUSTODY CRAIG A. BLAIR, Defendant PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS To the Prothonotary: Kindly allow, SHELLY E. BOBB, Plaintiff, to proceed in forma pauperis. I, Maryann Murphy, Esquire, of Legal Services, Inc., attorney for the party proceeding in forma pauperis, certify that I believe the party is unable to pay the costs and that I am providing free legal services to the party. The party's affidavit showing inability to pay the costs of litigation is attached hereto. i fA \vfrtl1~ Mary Murphy, Esqurre Legal Services, Inc. 8 Irvine Row Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 J.D. # 61900 Attorney for Plaintiff , 'M IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW SHELLY E. BOBB, Plaintiff v. : NO. .;2. iJ<rO - } &7J .., C4,u y;..... : IN CUSTODY CRAIG A. BLAIR, Defendant AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR LEA VB TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 1. I am SHELLY E. BOBB, the Plaintiff in the above matter and because of my financial condition am unable to pay the fees and costs of prosecuting, defending, or appealing the action or proceeding. 2. I am unable to obtain funds from anyone, including my family and associates, to pay the costs of litigation. 3. I represent that the information below relating to my ability to pay the fees and costs is true and correct. (a) Name: SHELLY E. BOBB Address: 27 South 18th Street. CamD Hill. PA 17011 (b) Social Security Number: 310-84-5686 If you are presently employed, state Employer: U.S. Office Products Address: 601 Gibson Blvd.. Harrisburg. PA 17104 Salary or wages per month: $ 781.00 Type of work: collections l......... Ala If you are presently unemployed, state N/A Date of last employment: Salary Or wages per month: Type of work: (c) Other income within the past twelve months Business or profession: -0- Other self-employment: -0- Interest: -0- Dividends: -0- Pension and annuities: -0- Social Security benefits: -0- Support payments: $577.00 Disability payments: -0- Unemployment compensation and supplemental benefits: -0- Workman's compensation: -0- Public Assistance: -0- C>ther: -0- (d) Other contributions to household support If your (husband) (wife) is employed, state Currently unemployed since December 1, 1999, however, he has a five day temporary job making $350.00 gross - ~ - "~- I........ . ftliT ':: (Husband) Name: Brian Bobb Employer: (Formerlv) New Horizons Comvuter Learninl! Center Salary or wages per month: $1.500.00 Type of work: Sales Contributions from children: -0- ( e) Property owned Cash: -0- Checking Account: $100.00 Savings Account: $2.50 Certificates of Deposit: -o- Real Estate (including home): -0- Motor vehicle: Make Dodge S\Jirit Cost $12.500.00 Year 1994 Amount owed $7.100.00 Stocks; bonds: -0- Other: -0- (t) Debts and obligations Mortgage: Rent: Loans: -0- $690.00 $500.87 Monthly Expenses: $2.000.00 (g) Persons dependent upon you for support (Wife) (Husband) Name: Brian Bobb (temvorarv emvlovment) .~ 1- , Jif Children, if any: Name: Jacaualine Age: 14 Name: Amanda Age: 12 Name: Cortnev Age: 6 4. I understand that I have a continuing obligation to inform the court of improvement in my financial circumstances which would permit me to pay the costs incurred herein. 5. I verifY that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ;;;'/0F2!tO c;J~~p LLY B B illtililll'JL a --.fillili1M:U"'-' ! , ll.."'........-""""'i>l~ 'c,,"" , ~ '. '-~ ','- - .'1 CJ L.:;':. ,,- c::~ > :: , I " " . f':':;: ,~~J " " C) ,::? f.::) ,J.. ~,:.,J ~~J ',::; C~ I,:) iTI "--i ~i5 -<. .r:" -< . , , b..-i , , ~~, ^ "-',', ',-"'- ','c' ,.', "',....:-,>.':'j" ":'-', , '" , 0 ,~----' '_,..,'", From the desk of Ed Guido Judge , /1000-1007 U~gSdJLi'crAf JI!\J -rh/'S C4s~ / , /~ //\1 -LJvd//t 11.//1 . It IV IIIA vG A [fi i!..) 'IV b ; -5' ~c.ALdJc d -elL m/iY fAo{)O /JIJ 1Nd/AIV/1 _ I-Y/l~L ,,'M l: Is ])(1 // {if. clc)cJ( '~',;J\.. ' 'Ji,Q~,.,~'. ..'-'..-" ;"-;'" ;\ ";',C\ "..,...'.".,.,." <Calf 1 /IV 1_, ~! J!l ,,' --".,~ ~.; '~, , i ., J ;1 1', IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW SHELLY E. BOBB, Plaintiff/Petitioner v. No. ADO 0 '- \ 00 ft ~ \i0fi~' CRAIG A. BLAIR, Defendant/Respondent IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of , 2000, upon consideration of the wi thin petition for Special Relief, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that this Court will initiate communication with Magistrate Laurie Morgan at (219) 449-7541 prior to the hearing in the Allen Superior Court of Indiana scheduled for Friday, February 25, 2000 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss the matter of jurisdiction in this custody case. BY THE COURT: J. , " ", -,~" ~ ~ L...... ".1i; < y , ' ( IN THE COURT O~ COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW SHELLY E. BOBB, Plaintiff/Petitioner v. No. ~ 0 Cl 0 ~ \ 0 0' t-t ~ \t~~ CRAIG A. BLAIR, Defendant/Reqpondent IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF NOW COMES, SHELLY E. BOBB, Plaintiff/Petitioner, by and through her attorney, Maryann Murphy, Esquire, of Legal Services, Inc., and avers as follows: 1. Petitioner is SHELLY E. BOBB who resides at 27 South 18th Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Petitioner is married and resides with her husband, their daughter, and the minor children involved in this action. 3. Respondent is CRAIG A. BLAIR who resides at 1812 Hickory Tree, Kendallville, Indiana. '. - , ,~"j '~,---' c'" <, 'I <"" , ~' J.-~, , r , ' 4. Respondent is married and resides with his wife, their daughter, and his step-child. 5. Petitioner is the biological mother of the minor children: JACQUALINE N. BLACK, born July 8, 1985; and AMANDA N. BLACK, born July 28, 1987. 6. Respondent is the biological father of the minor children. 7. The parties intermittently resided together with the minor children in Fort Wayne, Indiana for a total of approximately three (3) years between the time of the older child's birth in 1985 until 1992. 8. In or around April of 1992, petitioner moved to Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania with the minor children due to the physical, verbal and mental abuse of Respondent. .,;;.- I";" r , ' 9. Petitioner has been the primary caretaker of the minor children since their births. While Petitioner and Respondent resided together, petitioner was the parent who fed, clothed and bathed the minor children, took them to the doctor and cared for them when they were sick. Respondent did not take an active part in the children's lives from the time of the older child's birth in 1985 until Petitioner's move to Pennsylvania in 1992. After petitioner moved to Pennsylvania, Respondent did not ask to see the children, did not send them gifts for their birthdays or Christmas, and did not write them letters. Respondent called the children on the telephone approximately five (5) times between 1992 and May of 1999. During all of this time, Petitioner remained the children's primary caretaker. 10. In May of 1999, petitioner initiated contact with Respondent to ask him if he would like to meet his daughters. Respondent agreed and petitioner and the minor children met him at a restaurant for dinner in Indiana. The parties agreed that Respondent could come to the Commonwealth to see the children during the weekend of July 4, 1999. Respondent did not come, and " , --.- l-. , ",j , the visit did not take place. Petitioner then drove the children to Indiana where Respondent saw them from July 23, 1999 through July 26, 1999 under Petitioner's supervision. 11. On August 13, 1999, Respondent filed a Verified Petition to Establish Regular Visitation in the Allen Superior Court, State of Indiana, County of Allen to Cause Number P-87-599. (a copy of this petition is attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein and marked as Exhibit "A"). 12. On November 24, 1999, Magistrate Craig J. Bobay of the Family Relations Division of the Allen Superior Court of the State of Indiana granted temporary visitation to Respondent. Respondent did not exercise his period of temporary visitation during the Christmas holiday. (a copy of this Temporary Order is attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein, and marked as Exhibit liB") . 13. A hearing in the State of Indiana regarding a permanent visitation order for Respondent has been scheduled for February 25, '-~ 2000 at 1:30 p.m. before Magistrate Laurie Morgan. 14. This Commonwealth has been the home state of the minor children since April of 1992. (23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5344(a) (1) (i)). 15. Petitioner believes that it is in the best interests of the minor children that the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania assume jurisdiction because the petitioner and the minor children have a significant connection with this Commonweal th, The children's pediatrician is in Camp Hill, the children have attended Cumberland County schools since 1992 and many of their teachers have played an important part in their Ii ves, The children have attended Christ Community Church since 1992, are members of the Youth Group, and have a close relationship with their pastor and fellow Church members. In addition, the children are involved in Girl Scouts, band, soccer, basketball and swimming. (23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5344(a) (2) (i)). 16. Petitioner believes that it is in the best interests of the minor children that the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland '. , I ""lib' County, Pennsylvania assume jurisdiction because there is available in this Commonwealth substantial evidence concerning the present and future care, protection, training and personal relationships of the children, such as teachers, doctors, therapist, friends, neighbors. JACQUALINE suffers from intense cluster headaches. She is on medication and has been advised to attend a pain clinic. For the last two months, JACQUALINE has been home-schooled due to the increased severity of her condition. Although JACQUALINE has had this problem for a couple of years, her doctors have told petitioner that her daughter's condition has exacerbated over the last several months and that stress is a contributing factor in her experiencing more frequent and more intense headaches which are of longer duration. In determining custody, Petitioner believes that it is important for JACQUALINE's doctors to have the opportunity to testify, which they would be unable to do if jurisdiction remains in Indiana. (23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5344 (a) (2) (ii)) . 17. Although there is a simultaneous proceeding in Indiana wherein Respondent filed the attached Verified petition to ~ ^~ ',I L- 'i:!Id I , > Establish Regular Visitation, Petitioner believes that this Commonwealth is a more appropriate forum. (23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5347 (a}). 18. petitioner requests that the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania communicate with the Indiana Court to determine if this Commonwealth is the more appropriate forum to determine custody of the minor children. (23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5347 (c)) . 19. petitioner believes that Indiana is an inconvenient forum, and that it is in the best interests of the minor children that this Commonwealth assume jurisdiction. It is burdensome for the children's teachers, doctors, therapist, friends and neighbors to travel to Indiana to testify in a custody matter. Without the testimony of the above people, the Court would not have the opportunity to assess the children's current living conditions through a number of sources. (a) Pennsylvania has been the home state of the children since .'. l..- ~..', , . 1992 when they were 4 and 6 years of age. The children are now 12 and 14 years old, and have grown up in the Commonwealth. (b) Because of the length of time the children have resided in Pennsylvania, this Commonwealth has a closer connection with the minor children than does the State of Indiana. (c) There is substantial evidence concerning the present and future care, protection, training and personal relationships of the minor children in this Commonwealth (d) This Commonwealth's assumption of jurisdiction would not contravene any of the purposes of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. To the contrary, this Commonwealth is the state with which the children and their family have the closest connection and where significant evidence concerning their care, protection, training and personal relationships is most readily available. (23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5342 (a) (3)). 20. petitioner requests that this Court grant communicate with . , '..1..;....,,'. , @tj Magistrate Laurie Morgan of the Allen Superior Court of the State of Indiana to determine the proper jurisdiction in this custody matter. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court to contact Magistrate Laurie Morgan prior to the hearing scheduled on Friday, February 25, 2000 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss this matter and to assume jurisdiction for purposes of custody. Respectfully submitted: By: ~ n Murphy, Legal Services, 8 Irvine Row Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 Attorney I.D. #61900 Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner ~ ,. STATE OF INDIANA COUNTY OF ALLEN ) )88: ) IN THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. P-87-599 IN THE MATTER OF THE PATERNITY OF JACQUALINE N. BLACK AND AMANDA N. BLACK, UPON THE PETITION OF SHELLY E. BLACK, AND CONCERNING: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ;. ''':--''....''l ~$r i ~.... -'. :::h ~ ',~- '~;~~~~ ( )'!-_~C. ~!;=Z,::" 2~ ~ ~;: VERIFIED PETITION TO ESTABLISH REGULAR VISITA~ION CRAIG A. BLAIR ,- ;;J I."';:' _'" ~. -. :=: ~: ~ .~ ~ '~l W ~:,~# ;g :~1~ ~.>,) ~ ~--: -" , N .-, 0 z Comes now Craig A. Blair, by and through his attorney, Nikos C. Nakos, and does hereby move this Honorable Court to establish a regularly set visitation schedule and in support thereof, Craig A. Blair does offer the fallowing: 1. That Craig A. Blair is the natural father of Jacqualine N. Black and Amanda N. Black. 2. That since April 26, 1992, Shelly E. Black moved the parties' children to Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 3. That since that time, Craig A. Blair has had a total of two visitations with his children, the first one being on May 17, 1999 in Fort Wayne, Indiana. 4. That the second visitation being a total of four days, July 23 through 26, 1999. 5. That during the children's stay and visitatiOn with the petitioner Craig A. Blair, the children expressed a desire to spend additional time with their father. 6. That Shelly E. Black refused to extend any addi- tional summer visitation. 7. That on August 3, 1999 Craig A. Blair attempted to t\Afl fi-h" bi+ > , ~ ' . cont"ct his children in Pennsylvania, via the telephone. 8. That Craig Blair was able to reach Jacqu.l!line Black, his oldest daughter, and she informed him that Shelly Black was not going to al.low any further contact in the immediate future. 9. That as of August 8, 1999 the telephone number of Shelly Black has been disconnected. 10. That it woul~ be in the best interests of the chil- dren to establish some regular visitation during the summer months and Christmas given the,dlsparity and distance. \!IInIl"8ll!ll'QRE, Craig A. Blair, prays for an order granting him a set amount of visitation during the sununer months, Christmas vacation and spring break, pursuant to the standard visitation order adopted by this Honorable Court. Craig A. Blair, under pains and penalties of perjury, does hereby swear that the above and foregoing statements con- tained in the Petition to Establish Visitation are true and accu- rate, based upon his own personal knowledge and belief. ~Jd:- This instrument prepared by: Nikos C. Nakos 15344-02 401 Commerce Building 127 West Berry Street Fort Wayne, IN 46802 (219) 423-3681 -2- ',. l"', -' fl".. iIIifr : ' CJl:RTIFlCA~OP~~VlCE I certify that on the . 13d'8y Of~ 1999, service of a true and complete copy of~above '~gOing pleading or paper was made upon Shelly E. Black k/n/a Bobb, 27 South 18th Street, Camphill, Pennsylvania 17011, via ited States mail. -3- I ~I SJ:ATE OF INDIANA COUNTY OF ALLEN ) ) ) IN TIm ALLEN SUPERIO~ COURT FAMll.. Y RELATIONS DIVISION CAUSE NO. P-87-599 IN RE: THE MATTER OF ) PATERNITY OF JACQUELINE N. ) BLACK and AMANDA N. BLACK) ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ) SHELLY E. BLACK, ) Petitioner, ) ) and ) ) CRAIG A. BLAIR, ) Respondent. ) The Petitioner, Shelly E. Black, appears in person and by counsel, Timothy Claxton, and the Respondent, Craig A. Blair, appears in person and by counsel, Nikos Nakos. The Petition for In-camera Interview is denied. Hearing is held on Respondent's Petition to Establish Regular Visitation. Temporary visitation is granted Respondent as follows: two (2) hours of supervised visitation this evening at Petitioner's sister's home; four (4) hours of visitation on November 25, 1999 (Respondent to transport' to visit; Petitioner to transport from visit); and, forty-eight (48) hours of consecutive visitation during the Christmas holiday on dates to be determined by the Petitioner, with transportation for said holiday visitation at Respondent's cost. Further hearing regarding a permanent visitation order to be set by the parties, if needed. DATElD: Novf'mhf'r?;l 1 QQQ GJ. BOBAY NonCE TO BE GIVEN BY: _COURT _CLERK _OT:HER~ PROOFOFNaTICEUNDER 1RIALRUl.E72{D) A copy of the et1IIy vms saved either by mail to the address of record, deposited in the attomey's distnb.rtion box, or perronaIlydistrilxrted tothefunowingpersons: ../ N. Nakos, #104 T. Claxton, #11 RCD. ~1T.@l NOnCE: \0., <t-Ci.q _DJG~ O_~\9W OF PERSON WHO NOTIFIED PARTIES: _. - - Exhlhl+' "fOil ~ ~b COURT CLERK OTHER " ~ 1- , ' VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing instrument are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: c;J!m/fY) , , ~QJL~tJ ~ E LY . B B - - '" ",.'jOj, "',.., " "l.-.:. . !'r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW SHELLY E. BOBB, Plaintiff . . : NO. :;. 000 '- 100 I[ @~~J1A>L. VB. CRAIG A. BLAIR, Defendant IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Maryann Murphy, Esquire, do hereby certify that on the day of , 2000 I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing petition for Special Relief on the Defendant, CRAIG A. BLAIR at the address set forth below, by placing a copy of same in the united States Mail, postage prepaid, certified/restricted delivery. Craig A. Blair 1812 Hickory Tree Kendallville, IN 46755 Respectfully submitted, Maryann Murphy, Legal Services, 8 Irvine Row Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 540-8600 I.D. # 61900 . ~3 Pa.C.S.A. 15343 .~ole 2 : : Upon separation of parent,s, custody is ,i~ parent with physical poss~ssion of the ;'1hild. yet primary jurisdiction for pur- iRPses of judicial resolutiO;D of custody !issue remains in the community child !~cognizes as "home"; but once *e ini- , It.al six-month period had ruil,. the "home Islate" becomes the place ill which the idhild has lived with the custodial parent 'I~efore commencement Qf th,e proceed- ,ifig. (Per Montemuro, J., with two , , I~pdges concurring in the result.) War- ;mal! v. Warman, 439 A.2d 1203, 294 Pa. .I~uper, 285, 1982. i i! Where child had lived in Pennsylvania , , iltfom birth until custody prQceeding was : ~rought by father and the; c;:hild \Vas re- iIPoved by her mother to ,N:e:w' York after ! ~ommencement of proceec:ling but be- ! ~ore service of petition" }>enrisylvania ,was child's "home state,": wi,Wn the Uni- ! form Child Custody Jurisdiction' Act, and ! 40urts of Pennsylvania had jurisdiction , " CHILDREN AND MINORS to determine custody. Com. ex reI. Dcta- viano v. Dombrowski, 434 A.2d 774, 290 Pa.Super. 322, 1981. 3. Initial decree "Initial decree," within 23 Pa.C.S,A. ~ 5349 (repealed; see, now, 23 Pa.C.S.A, ~ 5349), providing that court may de, cline to exercise jurisqiction if petitioner for initial decree has wrongfully taken the child, can be initial decree as to primary custody, vi,sitation, or depend. ency and the amount of custodial con, trol appropriate to remedy parental nc. glect or ignorance, or may treat several of the subjects at once, while a "modifi. cation decree" is an :order modifying or replacing a prior de~ree concerning the identical issues. (Per Montemuro, J., with two Jud~s concurring in the re. suit.) Warman v. Warman, 439 A.2d 1203, 294 Pa.super. 285, 1982. 1 5344. Jurisdiction :, , il (a) General rule."'-A court of this Commonwealth which is COIn' ~etent to decide chilii ctistody matters has jurisdiction to make a fhild custody determination by initial or modification decree if: ii " (1) this Commonwealth: " (i) is the home state of the child at the time of commence ment of the proceeding; or (ii) had been the home state of the child within six months before commencement of the proceeding and the child is ah, sent from this Commonwealth because of his removal or reten, tion by a person claiming his custody of for other reasons, and a parent or person acting as parent continues to live in this Commonwealth; (2) it is in the best interest of the child that a court of this Commonwealth assume jurisdiction because: (i) the child, and his parents. or the child and at least onc contestant. have a Significant connection with this COIDmon wealth; and (ii) there is available in this Commonwealth substantial ,\'1' dence concerning t~e p~esent or future care, protection, tpin ing and personalr<<lati()\lshlps of the child; i ' .I (3) the child is phYSically present in this Commonwealth, "n.. (i) the child has been abandoned; or 526 r~STODY I' ,~, (ii) it is nec~ry in an~. I~; because he has been subject I, ''!lJS ment or abuse ,Dr is otherwis I (4) (i) it appears that no otl .,Under prerequisit~s substantial ,i(!>' (2) or (3), or another state . ~tion on the grounq that this Con , >,<Ite forum to dete~'mine the cusl ,"'. '(!i) .it!s in the best interest: "j-" JUrIsdiction; or :I: (5) the child welfare I1genci; _"contestants for the! child live ',.~ome of the persOI'l to whom' cu , .J}o be satisfactOI;~ for the welf ,,'{II) Physical pr~nce bjsuffl ,I ~X3,) and (~), physi~1 presence in , : !l{f'(,the chlld and Olle of the cont : ,~er jurisdiction 0/1 a col/rt of . child custody deterrn:ination. , ~f Phy~caI presll1llce unnec ~kl' ,~hile. desirable. is not a ~me his custod)r. J"...,,;ec. 19, P.L. 1240, No. 206, ~ 2, I': .' Hllltorlcal and S ~f"9i"~. 5 P L 69! N 14 :.. " '\J.,,~OI(a) (42 Pa.C.S.A. ii,' ',5~j. 2, ", Ll>w Review Co : "" _ . 'On v. 11wmpson: The jurisdic- f . '. '~the emma of child <F.tody cases , ... Parental KidnaPl'ing Preven. Ubrary Re~ Notes of I C< Co D. Ho He 527 ~3 lts, custody is session of the tioD for pur- n of custody munity child once the ini- m, the "home ,0 which the ,tadial parent the proceed- -0' with two 'esult.) War- 1203, 294 Pa. Pennsylvania Jceeding was child was reo :w Yark after ling but be, Pennsylvania thin the Uni- tion Act. and I jurisdiction n cmLDREN AND MiNoRs' to determine custody. Com. ex reI'~ viano v. Dombrowski, 434 A.2d ri4 210 Pa.Super. 322, 1981. ' ., ,,; '~l~)' 3. Initial decree . 'I'" , "Initial decree:' within 23 Pa ~ ~ 5349 (repealed; see, now, 23 kC.8.A. ~ .5349), providing that court may de. chne to exercise jurisdiction if petitioner for initial decree has wrongfuny taken th~ child. can be initial decree as to pnmary custody, visitation, or depend. eoey and the amount of custodial con~ trol appropriate to remedy parental ne. gleet or i~oranceJ or m~y treat several of the subjects at once, while a "modifl. cation. decree". is an order modifying or replacmg a pnor decree concerning the identical i~sues. (Per Montemuro, J.. with two Judges concurring in the re- sult.) Warman v. Warman, 439 A.2d 1203, 294 Pa.Super. 285, 1982. ".' , court of this Commonwealth which is com. custody matters has jurisdiction to make a nation by initial or modification decree if: ~ealth: state of Ihe child at the time of commence:' , eding; or '. '" e home state of the child within six months ment of the proceeding and the child is ab- amonwealth because of his removal or reten. laiming his custody or for other reasons, and n acting as parent continues to live in this st interest of the child that a court of this me jurisdiction because: 1 his parents, or the child and at least one significant connection with this Common. lable in this Commonwealth substantial evi- the present or future care, protection, train. elationships of the child; ysically present in this Commonwealth, ana; hecJI ,~lxLndoned; or CVSTODY 23 Pa.C.SA. ~ 5~144 (ii) it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because he has been subjected to or threatened with mistreat- ment or abuse or is otherwise neglected or dependent; (4) (i) it appears that no other state would have jurisdiclion under prerequisites substantially in accordance with paragr,aph (1), (2) or (3), or another state has declined to exercise jurisdic- tion on the ground that this Commonwealth is the more appropri- ate forum to determine the custody of the child; and (ii) it is in the best interest of the child that the court assume jurisdiction; or (5) the child welfare agencies of the counties wherein the contestants for the child live. have made an investigation of the home of the person to whom custody is awarded and have fOlmd it to be satisfactory for the welfare of the child. (bl Physical presence Insufficlent.-Except under subsec1ion (3)(3) and (4), physical presence in this Commonwealth of the cMld, ," of the child and one of the contestants, is not alone sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a court of this Commonwealth to make a child custody determination. (c) Physical presence unnecessary.-Physical presence of the child, while desirable, is not a prerequisite for jurisdiction to determine his custody. 1990, Dec. 19, P.L. 1240, No. 206, ~ 2, effective in 90 days. Historical and Statutory Notes 1977, June 30, P.L. 29, No. 20, ~ 4 (11 P.s. ~ 2304). Prior Laws: 1980, Oct. 5, P.L. 693, No. 142, 9 201(a) (42 Pa.C.s.A. ~ 5344). Law Review Commentaries Thompson v. Thompson: The jurisdic- tion Act. Note, 16 Pepperdine L,Rev. lional dilemma of child custody cases 409 (1989). mder the Parental Kidnapping Preven- Ubrary References C.J.s. Divorce ~ 612. C.J.s. Parent and Child ~ 32. Divorce e=290. Parent and Child ""2(5). WESTLA W Topic Nos. 134, 285. Notes of Declslons Contempt 20 County as home .tate 11 Beeline of Jurisdiction 4 Habeas eorpus 22 Home state 7-11 In general 7 Burden of proof 9 In general 1 -\buse 15 \doptlon 16 -\greements 19 Best Interest of chUd 14 Rurden of proof, home state 9 Conflicts of law 2 527 ~ 5345 CHILDREN AND "c;C:, &lJNQIa Notes of Declslons+;'" of her chance to be heard" ,\t'~'fji.:,. permanent custody orde where _ ~n~ t~ia! court merely d~t:;' ~ JUrISdIctIOn was more a ~ dta Kentucky. Aldridge v XI'.:;t'lIela A.2d 602, 326 Fa.Super. 49. 19~~ ,~ Mother should have been . ,;_. u er oPportunity to address :v~ llrkxIt. ther's petition for rede~nts of fa. custody where her failure to natloll. of hearing resulted, at least in apPtar. her counsel's confusion r~ froaa er procedure for contesting j "sdJ.Pfop. of, l?wer court, and prOCedurr:l ctfoQ aTlsIng from that confusion sh default ha,ve precluded mother from p ould, DIll eVIdence on such a sensitive an~ tant matter as modification of a O::~ decree. Joseph E.H. v. Jane E.H-7' A.2d 739, 283 Pa.Super, 109. 1980.",~ 1.-:" Z I 'e . on child custody pe- lTed to be served On lbeas corpus petition ted, herself to juris- '3ma COUrts for all ed with adjudication Weymera, 427 A.2d 61,1981. of hearing on child tisfied due process on mother's attor~ ther did not receive ~ was sent to wrong d ling brought by fa- flot depriVe mother rw ~ to persons outside don to Jurisdiction '~~, ,. this Conunonwealth; Sub- e.-:-Notic~ required for the exercise of jurisdiction utSlde thiS Commonwealth shall be given iii' a Iy calculated to give actual notice and be: . , may lal delivery ,outside this Commonwealth inlhe bed for semce of process within this Common-' Ii ~ner prescribed by the law of the place in which '~de fOt service of process in that place in an Its coUrts of general jurisdiction' ' 'ill of mail addressed to the pers~n to be se~ . recelpt; or it' I .by the court, including publication, if otb~ HlOn are ineffective. . : rotice und tl' , " . . er lIS sectIOn shall be served, mailed published at least ten days before any hearing in 1. ,', vice.-Proof of service outSIde this Commoll- ie by affidavJt of the individual who made the lanner prescribed by the law of this CommoD- nsuant to which the service is made. or the law ch the SCT\"j, t :s made, If servicE' is mad;: '!iy ~". 23 Pa.C.S.A. !i 5,347 ,fSTODY 'I proof may be a receipt signed by the addressee or other ....11, ,,,Jence of delivery to the addressee. 'id) Submission to jurlsdictton.-Notice is not required if a per- . 'n submits to the jurisdiction of the court. .J(), Dec. 19, P.L. 1240, No. 206, ~ 2, effective in 90 days. Mar Laws: "080 Oct. 5. P.L. 693, No. 142. , ! iOl(a) (42 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 5346). HIstorical and Statutory Notes 1977, June 3D, P.L. 29. No. 20. ~ 6 (11 P.S. ~ 2306). Cross References ,: ~ding force and res judicata effect of custody decree, see ~ 5353 of this; title. . ;nder of parties outside of Ctlrnmonwealth, see ~ 5351 of this title. ",od of notice. intrastate application, see ~ 5364 of this title. ~~sonal appearance of out of state parties, see ~ 5352 of this title. Notes of Decisions custody of children was not enforlooable in New York, where last publication date of service by local publication in Penn- sylvania was not at least ten days. prior to the hearing, and where order permit- ting local publication in Pennsylvania could not have been reasonably calculat- ed to give actual notice since wD:e and children were believed to be loca.ted in New York. Harrison v. HarriSOI1l, N.Y. A.D. 2 Dept. 1986, 116 A.D.2d 553. 497 N.Y.S.2d 408. \ctual notice 1 torelgn proceedings 2 I. Actual notice Fact that children's father and pater- Jl grandparents. who were Pennsylva- ":a residents, were not notified of Mas- ,lchusetts hearings on temporary custo- ", and jurisdiction did not deny father ind paternal grandparentS due process ,[ law, where they were notified of entry f temporary custody order and of the ;,:et that a hearing to determine custody ,as scheduled for certain date, giving ~Cm an opportunity to raise the issues ; jurisdiction and inconvenient forum :llhat hearing. Carpenter v. Carpenter, '14 A.2d 1124, 326 Pa.Super. 570, 1984. Pennsylvania did not properly acquire ;1 personam jurisdiction over wife in ~i\'orce proceeding, and thus, Pennsylva- :~Ia divorce decree awarding husband Z. Foreign proceedings Pennsylvania was not bound to recog- nize order of West German court modi- fying Pennsylvania custody order, where father had not been given notice or op- portunity to be heard in the foreign pro- ceeding. Goodman v. Goodma'll, 556 A.2d 1379. 383 Pa,Super. 374. 1989, ap- peal denied 565 A,2d 1167, 523 Pa. 642. ~ 5347. Simultaneous proceedings in other states (al General rule.-A court of this Commonwealth shall not exer- cise its jurisdiction under this subchapter if, at the time of filing the ,etition. a proceeding concerning the custody of the child was pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction sulbstan- tially in conformity with this subchapter, unless the proceeding is stayed by the court of the other state because this Commonwe:alth is a Illore applCOpriate forum or for other reasons. 539 J . . 23 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 5347 . . CHILDREJo;I AND MIl\QR~ I l' i: h f' i' IiI ~ (b) Procedure.-Before hearing the petition in a custody prUCtte ing, the court shall examine the pleadings and other informa!, . supplied by the parties under section 5350 (relating to informal:~: under oath to be submitted to the court) and shall consult the cl 1\: custody registry established under section 5357 (relating to reg;:;r: of out-of-State custody decrees and proceedings) concerning -II,: pendency of proceedings with respect to the child in other stales. i: the court has reason to believe that proceedings may be pending !: another state, it shall direct an inquiry to the state court adminislr" tor or other appropriate official of the other state. (c) Stay; communication with other court.-If the Court is If' formed during the course of the proceeding that a proceedill.' concerning the custody of the child was pending in another Sial; before the court assumed jurisdiction, it shall stay the proceedill)' and communicate with the court in which the other proceeding " pending to the end that the issue may be litigated in the mo" appropriate forum and that information be exchanged in accord ance with sections 5360 (relating to hearings and studies in anutlH" state; orders to appear) through 5363 (relating to request for CO\JI' records of another state). If a court of this Commonwealth I"" made a custody decree before being informed of a pending procted ing in a court of another state, it shall immediately inform Ih;<: court of the fact. If the court is informed that a proceeding ,,;<' ,_commenced in another state after it assumed jurisdiction, it s\'al: likewise inform the other court to the end that the issues ma \' )" litigated in the more appropriate forum. 1990, Dec. 19, P.L. 1240, No. 206, ~ 2, effective in 90 days. Historical and Statutory Notes 1977, June 30, P.L. 29, No. 20, 9 ; ,: P.S. 9 2307). PrIor Laws: 1980, Oct. 5. P.L. 693, No. 142. 9 201(a) (42 Pa.C.S.A. 9 5347). , r!: Cross References Rules of Civil Procedure, venue, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 1915.2, 42 Pa.eS.A. '1 R r- Foreign country 1 ProceedlDgs 3 Stay 4 Vacation of order 2 Notes of Decisions child custody case, and since C;c:,::' court failed to do so, its orders (I'U,,: ' disregarded. Goodman "', Goock.. 556 A.2d 1379, 383 Pa.SupcL J71 " appeal denied 565 A.2d t 16 c, '" 642. 1. Foreign country West German court should have ab- 2. Vacation of order stained while the Commonwealth was Upon learning that custody Zlell":,', actively exercising its jurisdiction over proceedil1g in Texas prior to ]1\"" 540 ,-> ~'" '~ODY I~f her petition for custody in state. Ii!! court had duty to vacate its award i,#4lJporary custody in proceeding be- ,",It; Grun v. Grun, 496 A.2d 1183, ltI' Pa.5uper. 432, 1985, affirmed 514 A:il!'1372, 511 Pa. 374. ;~", 'dings J,'~b d' ,. M' ,'EJ:.bus an s moving In lnnesota ~,to declare Minnesota forum incon- tllll<!nt for custody dispute constituted a ~' within meaning of this sec. dcDt' Levinson Through Levinson v. (Irinson, 512 A.2d 14. 354 Pa-Super. 407,1986. :J:"",~J, ",Slay PennsYlvania court, which acquired ~on over mother's custody com- DJliDt on October 4, was not required to Wet to Texas court in which father filed cUstody action, where affidavit attached to:, father's request for custody was IItIDiI October 24. Scheafnocker v. silltafnocker. 514 A.2d 172, 356 Pa.Su- "',UB, 1986, :T~ court complied with provision of llDIIorm Child Custody Jurisdiction Act 1\1 Pa.CSA. ~ 5341 ct seq.] requiring ~J ,j;~,~k 15348. Inconvenient forum '1.) General rule.-A court which has jurisc ~bapter to make an initial or modification de~ ~se its jurisdiction any time before making lliit It is an inconvenient forum to make a cust under the circumstances of the C,LSe and that , aie'is a more appropriate forum. (b) Moving party.-A finding of inconvenie1 l118de upon the court's own motion or upon moti cuardian ad litem or other representative of the (e),Factors to be consldered.-In detennininl ltnient forum, the court shall consider if it is in dilld that another state assume jurisdiction. F, 1Ila~ take into account the following factors, am ," (1) If another state is or recently was the child. 'his" (2) If another state has a closer connection family or with the child and one or more r' (3) If substantial evidence concerning the , ~, protection, training and personal relatio .more readily available in anoth.er state. 541 , . 23 stay of proceed of child if proc was pending i court of state when it inform of case, and Grun v. Gron. 4 per. 432, 1985, 511 Pa. 374. Once inform court was alread tion to decide c al court was req proceedings bro nal grandparen children. Carpe A.2d 1124, 326 P Pennsylvania cated its earlier tody and stayed before it, after Massachusetts co ing its jurisdicti and after dele chusetts court i tinuing jurisdicti penter. 474 A.2d 1984. , , . I ".. . 23 Pa.C.S.A. !j 5341 CHILDREN AND MINORS Law Review Commentaries End of l~gal, paren~1 kidnapping in Anthony Klein, (1979-80) 25 V'II Pennsylvama. Fredenck N. Frank 752 1 .Lkl', (1979-80) 25 ViII.LRev. 784. '. Parental kidnapping. (1981) 20 Du. Unifonn Child Custody Jurisdi quesne L.Rev. 43. Act. (197S) 51 Temple LQ. 139 ",.., Pennsylvania's developing child custa. dy law. Emanuel A. Bertin and Vanessa !j 5341. Short title of subchapter This subchapter shall be known and may be cited as the U 'f Ch'ld C d J'd' . ill orn, 1 usto y uns 1ctlOn Act. ' 1990, Dec. 19, P.L. 1240"No. 206, ~ 2, effective in 90 days. Historical and Statutory Notes 1977, June 30, P.L. 29, No. 20, ~ I (I, P.S. ~ 2301). Prior Laws: 1980, Oct. 5, P .L. 693, No. 142, ~ 201(a) (42 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 5341). Library References Statu1es $0>226. WESTLAW Topic No. 361. CJ.S. Statutes ~ 371 et seq. In general 1 Operation In other states 2 Notes of Decisions Uniform Child Custody JurisdictillJi Act is not exclusive remedy for parcl\t trying to regain custody of children wh" have been abducted by other parl'nl (Per Spaeth, J., with one Judge connll ring in the result.) Rupel v. Blucslt'ill 421 A.2d 406, 280 Pa.Super. 65, IY~" 2. Operation in other states Uniform Child Custody Jurisdicliol: Act is not a "reciprocal" law and is JJi full operation in each state regardless (11 its enactment in other states. Hattoun; v. Hattoum, 441 A.2d 403, 295 Pa.Sup.'L 169, 1982. t. In general All cases decided before enactment of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act must be read in light of its provi- sions, and to the extent that they are inconsistent with these provisions. they can no longer be regarded as the law. Com. ex reL Piggins v. Kifer, 427 A.2d 185, 285 Pa.5uper. 206, 1981. !j 5342. Purposes and construction of subchapter (a) Purposes.-The general purposes of this subchapter are I,,: (1) Avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts 01 other states in matters of child custody which have in the pa" resulted in the shifting of children from state to state Will. harmful effects on their well-being. (2) Promote cooperation with the courts of other states to Ihe end that a custody decree is rendered in that state which can bc" decide the case in the interest of the child. 522 ",' "t ~ 1s.TODY 23 PE :f.1'" : (3) Assure that litigation concerning the cu 'takes place ordinarily in the state with which, I faIllily have the closest connection and where Sl~ ,.cOncerning his care, protection, training and I , ships is most readily available, and that courts . wealth decline the exercise of jurisdiction when faIllily have a closer connection with another s' ~-"3:'. . . . ~,(4) Discourage continwng controverS1es over the interest of greater stability of home env 'Secure family relationships for tht, child. .;Ji: (5) Deter abductions and other unilateral ren it> undertaken to obtain custody awards. ", (6) Avoid relitigation of custody decisions of ( "Commonwealth insofar as feasibl,~. 't (7) Facilitate the enforcement of custody states. f" (8) Promote and expand the exchange of info forms of mutual assistance betwt,en the courts , wealth and those of other states concerned wi .-Jb> Construction.-This subchapter shall be mote the general purposes stated in this section. 1m, Dec. 19, P.L. 1240, No. 206, g 2, effective in 90 ....,'~,. :t-!~' :~\ Historical and Statutory Notes! ,'it; Law.: 1977, June 30, ! 1980, Oct. 5, P,L. 693, No. 142, P.S. ~ 2302).: ~ 201(a) (42 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 5342). t~~i Notes of I1eclslons ~ of other jurisdiction 3 Intent of this : hrpose, In general 1 on the Unifonn' IlDIIsteraI removal of chUdren 2 tion Act (see Ur: Master Edition, '''", ~,~" minations cove:! L Purpose, In general physical posses: The purpose of this act was to provide child are to bj IIbility to the home environment and to whether they ar i family relationships by discouraging in a single do, I continuing controversy over child custo- stand alone, w'! dy, and visitation, to avoid jurisdiction though closely' disputes. to deter objections. to avoid possession an, 811"_ d not covered. .~tion. to promote comity, an to IIIure that litigation concerning ,child two Judges c,' CUstody takes place ordinarily in the Warman v. Wi Ilate in which the child and his family Pa.Super. 285. _ the closest connection. Barndt v. Purpose of Borndl, 580 A.2d 320, 397 Pa.Super. 321, Jurisdiction A l~:. the home env 523 l. ~ 5341 CHILDREN AND ~O.. Law Review Commentaries >areotal kidnapping . A h Prederick N. Frankn 7;; ony Klein, (1979-80) 25 ViIL L.Rev. 784. '. z..a... ping. (1981) 20 Du. Uniform Child Custody J :",;,,' Act. (1978) 51 Temple L.Q. I~ eveloping child custo~ A. Bertin and Vanessa rt title of subchapter ter shall be known and ma b . urisdiction Act. y e cited as the Unifol'Dl . 1240, No. 206, ~ 2, effective in 90 days. Historical and Statutory Notes .L. 693, No 142 -1!J:(,7, June 30, P.L. 29, No. 20, ~ I (11 CSA < ,..S. ~ 2301). . . ., 5341j. Ubrary References No. 361. 1 et seq. tates 2 Notes of Decisions U~iform Child Custody Jurisdiction Ac~ IS not exclusive remedy for pare~nl ~ymg to regain custody of children who aYe been abducted by other parent. (~er ~paeth, J" with one Judge concur. nng In the result.) Rupel v. Bluestein. 421 A.2d 406, 280 Pa.Super. 65, 1980. 2. Operation in other states U~iform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act IS not a "reciprocal" law and is In ~uIl operation in each state regardless 01 Its enactment in other states. Hattoum v. Hattoum, 441 A.2d 403 295 Pa.super 169, 1982. ' . fore enactment of stody Jurisdiction light of its provi- ent that they are e provisions, they arded as the law. . Kifer, 427 A.2d , 1981. es and construction of subchapter he genera! purposes of this subchapler are to: dlctlOna! competition and conflict with courts of atte~s of child custody which have in the past shIftIng of children from state to state wlth m thelT weJJ-being. :,operatwl1 with the courts of other states 10 the '" ri . . I:' :..~ecr ee 1S reIl(iercd in that state which can best I' ;h, ,ni(~re;-:,~ -,' the I,~'bild. ,~srODY 23 Pa.C.S.A. lli 5342 Note 1 (3) Assure that litigation concerning the custody of a child lakes place ordinarily in the state with which the child lmd his family have the closest connection and where significant evidence concerning his care, protection, training and personal rdation- ships is most readily available, and that courts of this Common- wealth decline the exercise of jurisdiction when the child ,rod his family have a closer connection with another state. (4) Discourage continuing controversies over child cusltody in Ihe interest of greater stability of home environment and of sccure family relationships for the child. (5) Deter abductions and other unilateral removals of children undertaken to obtain custody awards. (6) Avoid relitigation of custody decisions of other states in this Commonwealth insofar as feasible. (7) Facilitate the enforcement of custody decrees of other stales. (8) Promote and expand the exchange of information and other forms of mutual assistance between the courts of this Common- wealth and those of other states concerned with the sam'~ child. (b) Construction.-This subchapter shall be construed to pro- nate the general purposes stated in this section. ,990, Dec. 19, P.L. 1240, No. 206, ~ 2,effective in 90 days. Prior Laws: 1980, Oct. 5, P.L. 693, No. 142, ! 201(a) (42 Pa.C,S.A. ~ 5342). Historical and Statutory Notes 1977, June 30, P.L. 29, No. 20, ~ 2 (11 P.s. ~ 2302). Notes of Decisions 3 Intent of this act, based in large part on the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdic- tion Act (see Uniform Laws Annotated, Master EdItion, Vol. 9), is that all deter- minations covering the issue of actual physical possession and control of a child are to be covered by the Act, whether they are linked to other matters in a single document or whether they stand alone, while other detenninatlons though closely associated with physical possession and control of a c:hild, are not covered. (Per Montemurc., J., with two Judges concurring in the result.) Warman v. Warman, 439 A.2d 1203, 294 Pa.Super. 285, 1982. Purpose of Uniform ChIld Custody Jurisdiction Act is to provide stability to the home environment and to family re- 523 Decree of other Jurisdiction Purpose, In general 1 cnllateral removal of ch1Idren 2 1. Purpose. In general The purpose of this act was to provide :tability to the home environment and to ';lIni.ly relationships by discouraging ,Gnt1nuing controversy over child custo- jy and visitation, to avoid jurisdiction :IS.p~tes, to deter objections, to avoid ehtlgation, to promote comity, and to l'>sure that litigation concerning ,child __~SIO~y takes place ordinarily in the ,'ate III which the child and his family ?,ave the closest connection. Barndt v. :;rndt, 580 A.2d 320. 397 Pa.Super. 321, "90, ;'k,,,"i, ''''''"' ,,,,"," I"'''''' . ," . . . .. ,JI,' .. .oC_ c:,: G :,0;:,:;- ~;~ ~ , -, . ~ . . . C) S~ c) "T1 r7J ;::0 "-1 ,,'" -:,h, '"~~:-,Q <,;,:(:} ,-"",i ~,;~'~ ::", ril_ e) --I "'> ::0 -< r",j C,,,) .'1:.1 :J1 (,,) .. -I " "J'......(l (t) ~ is :::l N-' n.. l.C:I ~I)> <no . _. 7' t;P =OAJ" III ,"'"\: _. - '<. ..,. Z-i ..,. 't:>- III 0.. III '-l V1 V1 - ,"~ t , I: ~;i! I .. - ii'i. . :D $ . ~~! r CO ~ j I t I Iii l I IT M M.: ,'"' I I ! I M noor~ "" - 2i "" :L~ -< -. _. >- "" ~::J r::J ,.[1> 11l V'\ ::; ""07"fTI?- ">- 0 7" ;;.. Y::E < s::: ~ -. '""l '-I n -0 o fTI::> -' V'\ '::< IN _ -fT1 ZVl n~ ':,,: ~ ~.IP ~<1. .. - -" II> jO CD CD -:nO! ;;;:~n - J ... o _ - il <0> . -; 11l M M M we w!): l,: ;-, \I! 1'1 ;:: , :1 I' II [ , I I i I , , I I I I \ r , t t I -TF~E;-;1C;; ,5;iS,Th!:;~:::.1;d-i'&:$I"'~~';;~W;;'8'J8!,,'~;W,:;:(.?i;;.P,'-::-;'% - . ~, ~ ~=J 02/25/00 FRI 08:19 FAX 2406462 CliMB/COUNTY COURTS 1aI001 \ f ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* FA"?: )./9. L/'-/9- '1/'Yd.- TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT 3757 912194494682 02/25 08: 13 06'32 16 OK COMMONWEAL.TH OF PENNSYL.VANIA NINTH JUDICIAL. DISTRICT CUMBE:RL.ANO COUNTY EOWARD E:. GUIDO JUPGE COURTHOUSE ONE COURTHOUSE: SQU,l:~RE CARL.ISLE, PA 17013-3387 (717) 240-6290 FAX (7] 7) 2<10-6462 February 24, 2000 TO: DISTRICT JUSTICE LAURlE MORGAN HONORABLE ED GUIDO ~ BOBB V. BLAIR FROM: RE: Attached please find the Petition for Special Relicffiled by the Mother in our Court. I have also en,closed the relevant portions of the Unlform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act which are referenced in the petition. As I indicated by phone, I will follow your lead on this issue. Once you have had the opportunity to review this matter. please call me. Thank you for your cooperation. " I.., "., '.. ~'j",'j,' .~ " .t" \ 1 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY EDWARD E. GUIDO JUDGE COURTHOUSE ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE. PA 17013-3387 (717) 240-6290 FAX (717) 240-6462 February 24, 2000 TO: RE: DISTRICT JUSTICE LAURIE MORGAN HONORABLE ED GUIDO ~ BOBB V. BLAIR FROM: Attached please find the Petition for Special Relief filed by the Mother in our Court. I have also enclosed the relevant portions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act which are referenced in the petition. As I indicated by phone, I will follow your lead on this issue. Once you have had the opportunity to review this matter, please call me. Thank you for your cooperation. Enclosure :sld ~~_.oi.: , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW SHELLY E. BOBB, Plaintiff/Petitioner v. : No. ~()OO' \ 0 () t-t ~~ \!vv11G' CRAIG A. BLAIR, Defendant/Respondent : : IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF NOW COMES, SHELLY E. BOBB, Plaintiff/Petitioner, by and through her attorney, Maryann Murphy, Esquire, of Legal Services, Inc., and avers as follows: 1. Petitioner is SHELLY E. BOBB who resides at 27 South 18th Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. petitioner is married and resides with her husband, their daughter, and the minor children involved in this action. 3. Respondent is CRAIG A. BLAIR who resides at 1812 Hickory Tree, Kendallville, Indiana. l'ilIIilIILit! 4. Respondent is married and resides with his wife, their daughter, and his step-child. 5. Petitioner is the biological mother of the minor children: JACQUALINE N. BLACK, born July 8, 1985; and AMANDA N. BLACK, born July 28, 1987. 6. Respondent is the biological father of the minor children. 7. The parties intermittently resided together with the mino~ children in Fort Wayne, Indiana for a total of approximately three (3) years between the time of the older child's birth in 1985 until 1992. 8. In or around April of 1992, Petitioner moved to Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania with the minor children due to the physical, verbal and mental abuse of Respondent. ~~ , . '. JjjJJJ""- 9. Petitioner has been the primary caretaker of the minor children since their births. While Petitioner and Respondent resided together, petitioner was the parent who fed, clothed and bathed the minor children, took them to the doctor and cared for them when they were sick. Respondent did not take an active part in the children's lives from the time of the older child's birth in 1985 until Petitioner's move to Pennsylvania in 1992. After Petitioner moved to Pennsylvania, Respondent did not ask to see the children, did not send them gifts for their birthdays or Christmas, and did not write them letters. Respondent called the children on the telephone approximately five (5) times between 1992 and May of 1999. During all of this time, petitioner remained the children's primary caretaker. 10. In May of 1999, Petitioner initiated contact with Respondent to ask him if he would like to meet his daughters. Respondent agreed and Petitioner and the minor children met him at a restaurant for dinner in Indiana. The parties agreed that Respondent could come to the Corrunonwealth to see the children during the weekend of July 4, 1999. Respondent did not come, and -~,,-' the visit did not take place. petitioner then drove the children to Indiana where Respondent saw them from July 23, 1999 through July 26, 1999 under Petitioner's supervision. 11. On August 13, 1999, Respondent filed a verified Petition to Establish Regular Visitation in the Allen Superior Court, State of Indiana, County of Allen to Cause Number P-87-599. (a copy of this Petition is attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein and marked as Exhibit "A"). 12. On November 24, 1999, Magistrate Craig J. Bobay of the Family Relations Division of the Allen Superior Court of the State of Indiana granted temporary visitation to Respondent. Respondent did not exercise his period of temporary visitation during the Christmas holiday. (a copy of this Temporary Order is attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein, and marked as Exhibit "B") . 13. A hearing in the State of Indiana regarding a permanent visitation order for Respondent has been scheduled for February 25, '" .' 2000 at 1:30 p.m. before Magistrate Laurie Morgan. 14. This Commonwealth has been the home state of the minor children since April of 1992. (23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5344(a) (1) (i)). 15. Petitioner believes that it is in the best interests of the minor children that the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania assume jurisdiction because the Petitioner and the minor children have a significant connection with this Commonwealth. The children's pediatrician is in Camp Hill, the children have attended Cumberland County schools since 1992 and many of their teachers have played an important part in their lives. The children have attended Christ Community Church since 1992, are members of the Youth Group, and have a close relationship with their pastor and fellow Church members. In addition, the children are involved in Girl Scouts, band, soccer, basketball and swimming. (23 pa.C.S.A. Section 5344(a) (2) (i)). 16. petitioner believes that it is in the best interests of the minor children that the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland l~~j&, County, Pennsylvania assume jurisdiction because there is available in this Commonwealth substantial evidence concerning the present and future care, protection, training and personal relationships of the children, such as teachers, doctors, therapist, friends, neighbors. JACQUALINE suffers from intense cluster headaches. She is on medication and has been advised to attend a pain clinic. For the last two months, JACQUALINE has been home-schooled due to the increased severity of her condition. Although JACQUALlNE has had this problem for a couple of years, her doctors have told petitioner that her daughter's condition has exacerbated over the last several months and that stress is a contributing factor in her experiencing more frequent and more intense headaches which are of longer duration. In determining custody, Petitioner believes that it is important for JACQUALINE's doctors to have the opportunity to testify, which they would be unable to do if jurisdiction remains in Indiana. (23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5344{a) (2) (ii)). 17. Although there is a simultaneous proceeding in Indiana wherein Respondent filed the attached Verified Petition to ~ ~~. -~~., Establish Regular Visitation, petitioner believes that this Commonwealth is a more appropriate forum. (23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5347 (a)). 18. Petitioner requests that the Court of Common Pleas of CUmberland County, Pennsylvania communicate with the Indiana Court to determine if this Commonwealth is the more appropriate forum to determine custody of the minor children. (23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5347 (c)) . 19. petitioner believes that Indiana is an inconvenient forum, and that it is in the best interests of the minor children that this Commonwealth assume jurisdiction. It is burdensome for the children's teachers, doctors, therapist, friends and neighbors to travel to Indiana to testify in a custody matter. Without the testimony of the above people, the Court would not have the opportunity to assess the children's current living conditions through a number of sources. (a) Pennsylvania has been the home state of the children since , . " ~ - ~ ~ ~ 1992 when they were 4 and 6 years of age. The children are now 12 and 14 years old, and have grown up in the Commonwealth. (b) Because of the length of time the children have resided in pennsylvania, this Commonwealth has a closer connection with the minor children than does the State of Indiana. (c) There is substantial evidence concerning the present and future care, protection, training and personal relationships of the minor children in this Commonwealth (d) This Commonwealth's assumption of jurisdiction would not contravene any of the purposes of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. To the contrary, this Commonwealth is the state with which the children and their family have the closest connection and where significant evidence concerning their care, protection, training and personal relationships is most readily available. (23 Pa.C.S.A. section 5342 (a) (3)). 20. Petitioner requests that this Court grant communicate with ~ L - lil.,.~! Magistrate Laurie Morgan of the Allen Superior Court of the State of Indiana to determine the proper jurisdiction in this custody matter. WHEREFORE, petitioner prays this Honorable Court to contact Magistrate Laurie Morgan prior to the hearing scheduled on Friday, February 25, 2000 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss this matter and to assume jurisdiction for purposes of custody. Respectfully submitted: By: \~l /.ct,~l.-lC \Ave / h . Maryann Murp y, Esqulre Legal Services, Inc. 8 Irvine Row Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 Attorney I.D. #61900 Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner ~w:. CUSTODY ~~". 23 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 5343 Note 2 Upon separation of parents~: custQdy is in parent with physical posseS;Sion of the child, yet primary jurisdicticin for, pur- poses of judicial resolution :of custody issue remains in the comm\1nity child recognizes as ''home''; but oQ,ce th~ ini- tial six-month period had run;: the ",home state" becomes the place in: which the child has lived with the custodial parent before commencement of tile proceed- ing. (Per Montemuro, J." with two Judges concurring in the re$ult.) ,War- man v. Warman, 439 A.2d 1203, 294 Pa. Super. 285. 1982. Where child had lived in Pennsylvania from birth until custody proc'eeding was brought by father and the cbild W;lS reo moved by her mother to New Yark after commencement of proceedfp.g but be- fore service of petition, Pennsylvania was child's "home state," within the Unj- form Child Custody Jurisdiction A~t, and courts of Pennsylvania had ~jurisdiction CHILDREN AND MINORS ,1>, (ii) i~ is necessary in a '" becausp he has been subje, it ment or abuse Olr is otheru ~, (4) (I) ~t app~ars that no , under prFreql\isites substanti .' P), (2) Of (3), or another sta .:tion on t~e ~ound that this Cc ,,ate forunt to determine the Cl :J,' '. .(!I) .i~!s in the best intere, . .. Junsdlcpon; or ~. ',... (5) the . child welfare agen eontestan~ for. the child live '.fome of the person to whom', l to be satisfactory for the w, , I (b) Physi~ . prese]~ce lnsufj (a){3) and (~), I1hysical presence or otthe c~'d ;tnd one of the c co~er juris~ic~ion on a court ~ ~~custodr determination. Ie) Phy~icf'I presence unnec, c~d, ~hile' deSirable" is not : d~~ne hi.s custody. 1190' · ,~~. 19,P.L. 1240, No. 206, ~ ~iJ.~" ~.iaws: }980, Oct. 5, P~. 693 No 142 'lI,!,201(a) (42 Pa.C.S.A. ~'5344j. . '~ La R llilt;f" IW eview ~. "En. v. ~.' .onzM..' o.n: 1iheJ'urisdic- IIlliIe'r emma I of c~d CU!ilo y cases ,\$;.~e Parental Kidriapping Preven. >B' ' -ii.i;;, Library Ii 11I",= ""'290. ~t and Child ""'2(5) ~W Topic Nos. 134, 285. :",~...;; ,..~ ...~1 '~..:'.15 ~c:o- 16 II ~"""18 19 . ~Iatereat of ch11d 14 ~f proof, home state 9 '.....i. of law 2 to determine custody. Com. ex reI. Octa- viano v. Dombrowski, 434 Ao2d 774, 290 Pa.Super. 322, 1981. 3. initial decree "Initial decree," within 23 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 5349 (repealed; see, :no~, 23 Pa.C.s.A, ~ 5349), providing t1uj.t court ltlay dc, cline to exercise jurisd~ction if petitioner for initial decree has ;wro~gfuI,ly taken the child, can l.le initial decree as 10 primary custody ~ visitati?n,' or depend. ency and the amount: of custodial con. trol appropriate to rer1te~y parental ne. glect or ignorance, or.' may 'treat severa) of the subjects at once, whil,e a "modifi. cation decree" is: an order rp,odifying 01 replacing a prior decr~e, copcerrning the identical issues. (Per Montemuro, J., With two Judges con~ing in the rc suit.) Warman v. Warman. 439 A,2u 1203. 294 Pa.Super. 2a5, 1982. ~ 5344. Jurisdiction (a) General rule.-A court of this Commonwealth: which is com- petent to decide child custody matters has jurisdic#on to make n child custody determination by initial or modificl\tiondecree if: (1) this Commonwealth: (i) is the home state of the child at the time' of commence" ment of the proceeding; or . '(ii) had been the home state of the child within six month; before commencement of the proceeding and the child is at,. sent from this Commonwealth because of his removal or reten- tion by a person claiming his custody or for othbr reasons, and a parent or person acting as parent continues: to live in thi; Commonwealth; (2) it is in the best interest of the child that a court of thi. Commonwealth assume jurisdiction because: (I) the child and his parents, or the child and at least onr contestant, have a significant cOlmection with this Common wealth; and (ii) there is available in this Commonwealth substantial cri dence concerning the present or future care, protection, trnll' ing and personal relationships of the child; , (3) the child is physically present in this Commonwealth, nn', (I) the child has been abandoned; or 526 HisltorlcaI and Notes of 1 52 custody is sian of the o for pur- )f custody loity child ce the ini- the "home . which the :Hal parent .: proceed- with two lIt.) War. )3, 294 Pa. nnsylvania ~eding was ld was re- York after 'g but be- ansylvania :n the Uni. ,n Act, and jrisdiction :1-1~.1' CHILDREN AND MINoRs t~ determine custody, Com. ex rei. VIano v. Dombrowski. 434 A.2d n40cla. PaSuper. 322, 1981. .290 ';'1:,-: 3. Initial decree ' '1nitial decree," Within 23 Pa. ::~j ~ 5349 (repealed; se.. now, 23 Pa.~ ~ .5349). pro,?di~g .that coUrt lIIay de- cline to exercise JunSdiction if petiti for initial decree has wrongfully .:: th~ child, can be in.itial decree as to primary custody. viSitation, or depend. ency and the amount of custodial con- trol appropriate to remedy parental ne. glect or ignorance, or may treat several of the subjects at onC:e, while a "modifi. cation. decree". is an order modifying Or replacmg a pnor decree concerning the identical issues. (Per Montemuro J with two Judges concurring in th~ r:. suit.) Warman v. . Warman. 439 A.2d 1203. 294 Pa.Super. 285. 1982. .', :ourt of this Commonwealth which is com. ustody matters has jurisdiction to make a ltion by initial or modification decree if. alth: ate of the child at the time of commence:' , .ing; or . ;;:~. home state of the child within six months ent of the proceeding and the child is ab- nonwealth because of his removal or reten. iming his custody or for other reasons, and acting as parent continues to live in this interest of the child that a court of this Ie jurisdiction because: his parents, or the child and at least one ,ignificant connection with this Common. ,ble in this Commonwealth substantial evi. Ie present or future care, protection, train~: lationships of the child; '.rb, .-..,,,n ;ically present in this Commonwealth, and:" n' Jeen abandoned; or . " 526 .. CUSTODY 23 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 5344 (ij) it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because he has been subjected, to or threatened with mistre:at- ment or abuse or is otherwise 'neglected or dependent; (4) (j) it appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under prerequisites substantially in accordance with paragra]ph (1), (2) or (3), or another state has declined to exercise jurisdic- tion on the ground that this Commonwealth is the more appropri. ate forum to determine the custody of the child; and (il) it is in the best interest of the child that the court assume jurisdiction; or (S) the child welfare agencie~ of the counties wherein the contestants for the child live. have made an investigation of the home of the person to whom custody is awarded and have found it to be satisfactory for the welfare of the child. (b) Physical presence lnsufft~ent.-Except under subsection la)(3) and (4), physical presence inithis Commonwealth of the child, ,IC of the child and one of the contestants, is not alone sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a court of this Commonwealth to make, a child custody determination. (e) Physical presence unnecessary.-Physical presence of the child, while desirable, is not a prerequisite for jurisdiction to determine his custody. 1990, Dec. 19, P.L. 1240, No. 206, ~ 2, effective in 90 days. Historical and Statutory Notes 1977. June 30. P.L. 29. No. 20. ~ 4 (11 P.S. ~ 2304). Prior Laws: 1980, Oct. 5, P.L. 693. No. 142, 9 201(a) (42 Pa.C.s.A. ~ 5344). Law Review Commentaries T1zompson v. Thompson: The jurisdic- tion Act. Note, 1I0nal dilemma of child custody C;lSeS 409 (1989). 'Jnder the Parental Kidnapping Preven- 16 Pepperdine L.Rev. Ubrary References CJS. Divorce ~ 612. CJ.S. Parent and Child ~ 32. Divorce p290. Parent and Child $>2(5). lVESTLAW Topic Nos. 134. 285. Notes of Decisions Contempt 20 County as home state 11 Decline of JurIsd1ctlon 4 Habeas corpus 21 Home slate 7-11 In general 7 Burden of proof 9 In general 1 \buse t5 AdoPtlon 16 Agreements 19 Best Interest of chlld 14 Burden of proof home state 9 Coofllcts of law' Z 527 :5345 CHILDREN AND AUN . N .9_ otes of Decisions . of her chance to be heard :"~i' . permanent custody order where Go ?n~ t~ia! coun merely dete~'~ JUrIsdiction was mO"e l1I1ined door K k . apprOp....._ entuc y. Aldridge v Aldri'-. A.2d 602. 326 Pa.Super. '49, 19::-- .47) Mother should have bee . .' . er opportunity to address n:v!'4lDofb, ther's petition for redetenni ertts of r.. cust~dy where her failure to ~Oft d hearmg resulted, at least in pPear .. her counsel's confusion P:,"- rr.., er procedure for contes~.Pl1>p. of. I.ower court, and procedural ;""CliOll arlSlOg from that confusi sh lUll h on ould a.ve precluded mother from Presen Ilot eVIdence On such a sensitive and' tIDe tant matter as modification of a Impor. decree. Joseph E.H. v. Jane E.~ A.2d 739, 283 Pa.Super. 109, 1980. '. ,23 , chi~d custody pe. d to) be served on 'as! cprpus petition 1. ?erse1f to juri.. :13l ~ourts for all w~tq adjudication lexmers, 427 A.2d . 1,981. . braiing On child ~ie9 , due process 'n !m;other's 8ttor- erid~d not receive las ~ent to wrong 'g ib~ought by fa. t deprive mother '. , ' .,,,=,} t~ persons outside this Commonwealth.' b. o~ ~o jurisdiction . au .i~oti~ required for the exercise of jurisdiction .s\d~ thiS Commonwealth shall be given in' r ?~Ic~lated to give actual notice, and may ~ ,I iqehvery .outside this Commonwealth in the A for semce of process within this Common. l'jr [prescribed by the law of the place in whi~h ulei for servl'ce f . . . : ' 0 process tn that place m an ts. courts of general jurisdiction; ',' n iOf. mail addressed to the person to be served receipt; or .., IlY the court, including publication, if other tlOn are ineffective..".. )tic~ under this section shall be served, mJ~ mbhshed at least ten days before any hearing in ~ ~,J~' 11e.-Proof of service outside this COm1l1o;;' e i by affidavit of the individual who made the arner prescribed by the law of this Common. r~uant to v.:hich the service is made, or the Jaw lei the service is made. If service is ma(!e'!jy 538 .......' tSrODY . 23 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 5347 .. ,ii, proof may be a receipt signed by the addressee or other " ,Jence of delivery to the addnessee. , id) Submission to jurisdictl(m.-Notice is not required if a per- . :l submits to the jurisdiction of the court. .-<1, Dec. 19, P.L. 1240, No. 206, ~ 2, effective in 90 days. ?-lor LawS: . '<"0 Oct. 5, P.L. 693, No. 142, . j iOl(a) (42 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 5346). HIstorical and Statutory Notes 1977. June 30. P.L. 29. No. 20, ~ 6 (11 P.S. ~ 2306). Cross References :lding force and res judicata effect: of custody decree, see ~ 5353 of this title. :ndcr of parties outside of Commoriwealth, see ~ 5351 of this tide. "'lod of notice, intrastate appUcation. see ~ 5364 of this title. "~sonal appearance of out of state parties. see ~ 5352 of this title. Notes. of Decisions custody of children was not enforcceable in New York, where last publication date of service by lOcal publication in ])enn~ sylvania was not at least ten days prior to the hearing, and where order permit- ting local publication in Pennsylvania could not have been reasonably ca1lmlat- ed to give actual notice since wife and children were believed to be located in New York. Harrison v. Harrison~ N.Y. A.D. 2 Dept. 1986. 116 A.D.2d 5531. 497 N.Y.S.2d 408. \.:Iual notice 1 lurcign proceedings 2 I. Actual notice Fact that children's father and pater~ '~l grandparents, who were Pennsylva- ":.1 residents, were not notified of Mas- _IChusetts hearings on temporary custo- :, and jurisdiction did not deny father ;~d paternal grandparents due prOCess ! law, where they were notified of entry ! lemporary custody order and of: the . .ct that a hearing to determine custody \.IS scheduled for certain date, gi'Ving ~:cm an opportunity to raise the issues : jurisdiction and inconvenient forum ,: that -hearing. Carpenter v. Carpenter. ," A.2d 1124, 326 Pa.super. 570. 1984. Pennsylvania did not properly acquire ~ personam jurisdiction over wife in ;iWlrce proceeding, and thus, Pennsylva. ~la divorce decree awarding husband 1. Foreign proceedings Pennsylvania was not bound to Irecog~ nize order of West German court modi~ fying Pennsylvania custody order, where father had not been given notice lor op- portunity to be heard in the foreign pro- ceeding. Goodman v. Goodmarl, 556 A.2d 1379. 383 Pa.Super. 374. 19119. ap- peal denied 565 A.2d 1167. 523 Pll. 642. ~ 5347. Simultaneous proceedings in other states (a) General rule.-A court of this Commonwealth shall not exer- :ise its jurisdiction under this subchapter if, at the time of filing the ,etition, a proceeding conc~rning the custody of the child! was ?ending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substan. :ially in conformity with this subchapter, unless the proceeding is i1ayed by the court of the other state because this Commonwealth is , more appropriate forum or for other reasons. 539 , ., 23 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 5347 CHILDREN AND Mlr-;Olt~ 't Jo (b) Procedure.-Before hearing the petition in a custod,' pro' .J ....ttc ing, the court shall examine the pleadings and other informal' . supplied by the parties under section 5350 (relating to informal:'~: under oath to be submitted 10 the court) and shall consult the cbd. custody registry established under section 5357 (relating to reu;,;'.: e..l, of out-of-State custody decrees and proceedings) concerning tic, pendency of proceedings with respect to the child in other states. ,: the court has reason to believe that proceedings may be pendin~ ,. another state, it shall direct an inquiry to the state court adminisl'" tor or other appropriate official of the other state. (c) Stay; communication with other court.-If the COurt is '" formed during the course of the proceeding that a procecdin:' concerning the custody of the child was pending in another 51"1< before the court assumed jurisdiction, it shall stay the proceedlJ'" and communicate with the court in which the otherproceedin~ I pending to the end that the issue may be litigated in the lll<Il' appropriate forum and that information be exchanged in aWIl" ance with sections 5360 (relating to hearings and studies in anolh,: state; orders to appear) through 5363 (relating to request for COli" records of another state). If a court of this Commonweahh i", made a custody decree before being informed of a pending proem' ing in a court of another state, it shall immediately inform Ih;,: court of the fact. If the court is informed that a proceeding w;,' ..commenced in another state after it assumed jurisdiction, it ,I,,,!: likewise inform the other court to the end that the issues ma\ h, litigated in the more appropriate forum. 1990, Dec. 19. P.L. 1240. No. 206, ~ 2, effective in 90 days, Historical and Statutory Notes 1977, June 30. P.L. 29, No, 20, 9 ; ,:. P.S. ~ 2307), Prior Laws: 1980, Oct. 5, P.L. 693. No, 142, ~ 201(a) (42 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 5347). 'f Cross References Rules of Civil Procedure. venue. see Pa.R.C.P. No. 1915.2. 42 Pa.C.S,A. Foreign country 1 Proceedings 3 Stay 4 Vacation of order 2 Notes of Decisions child custody case, and sincL' ('l':.:~", court failed to do so, its order:; (0\1.,. disregarded. Goodman v. Goo,Ii:.. 556 A2d 1379 383 Pa.Super. )7' I'" appeai denied' 565 A.2d 116","; , 642. 1. Foreign country West German court should have ab- 2. Vacation of order .. ,_ stained while the Commonwealth was Upon learning that custody ~h'll"'t.., actively exercising its jurisdiction over proceeding in Texas prior to ]1h>'" 540 (.,;;, I ' ~ODY . I~f her petition for custody in state. Ii!! court had duty to vacate its award iI itinporary custody in proceeding be. ..fit. Grun v. Grun, 496 A.2d '1183, ~ J'a,Super. 432, 1985, affirmed 514 AJii1372. 511 Pa.374. ~.... l.1:r-bandtnd.gs . . M' "Sx.bus s mOVIng 10 1Onesota cOm1 to declare Minnesota forum incon- .....t for custody dispute constituted a ~ing" within meaning of this sec- ;.J: Levinson Through Levinson v. ...,mson. 512 A.2d 14, 354 Pa.super. tJ1,1986. ~i ";,Stay ~lvania court, which acquired ~ction over mother's custody com- ilaliit on October 4, was not required to iWer to Texas court in which father filed QlIIOdy action. where affidavit attached io", father's request for custody was IliIIod October 24. Scheafnocker v. silIafnocker. 514 A.2d 172, 356 Pa.Su. ......118, 1986. .Trial court complied with provision of 1JaJIonn Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (Q Pa.e.S.A. ~ 5341 et seq,] requiring ~.'} -<fi?"*J....- 15348. Inconvenient forum 1'iY' General rule.-A court whic:h has jur IUbchapter to make an initial or modification I am:ise its jurisdiction any time before makit diIi'!t is an inconvenient forum to'make a c unifef the circumstances of the case and tha ~}s a more appropriate forum. . (b) Moving party.-A finding oJ inconveJ ~e upon the court's own motion or upon It ~dian ad litem or other representative of t , (e)' Factors to be considered.-In determir l'IiUe\1t forum, the court shall consider if it is cbiJd that another state assume jurisdiction. ~ take into account the following factors, , ~', (1) If another state is or recently was tl "child. 'Ii" c \ (2) If another state has a closer connectil "his family or with the child and one or mo :'t. (3) If substantial evidence concerning ( ,':fe' protection, training and personal rela . . iI$y more readily available in another state. ~,,;: 541 23 sltay of procer of child if pr was pending CIOurt of sta when it infon of case, and Girun v. Grun, per. 432, 198, 511 Pa. 374. Once inforr c'ourt was aln: tion to decide al court was r proceedings bi nal grandpan children. Ca: A..2d 1124. 32( Pennsylvani cated its earlif tC)dy and stay' before it, aftt Massachusetts ing its jurisd and after det chusetts cour tinuing jurisd penter, 474 A.: 1984. '\ 14' , 23 lPa.C.S.A. ~ 5341 CHIWREN AND MINOns Law Review Commentaries End of l~gaI, paren~l kidnapping in Anthony Klein. (1979-80) 25 Viii Pennsylvarua. FrederIck N. Frank 752 .I..K" (1979-80) 25 Vill.L.Rev. 784. '. Parental kidnapping. (1981) 20 Du- Uniform Child Custody Juri'diet".. quesne L.Rev. 43. Act. (1978) 51 Temple LQ. 139. '. Pennsylvania's developing child custo. dy law. Emanuel A. Bertin and Vanessa ~ 5341. Short title of subchapter This subchapter shall be known and may be cited as the Unif Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. onll 1990, Dec. 19, P.L. 1240, No. 206, ~ 2, effective in 90 days. Historical and Statutory Notes 1917, June 30, P.L. 29, No. 20, ~ ] (II P.s. ~ 2301). Prior Laws: 1980. Oct. 5, P.L. 693. No. 142. ~ 201(a) (42 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 5341). Library References Statutes 0=0226. WESTLAW Topic No. 361. C.J.s. Statutes ~ 371 et seq. In general I Operation In other states 2 Notes of Decisions Uniform Child Custody Jurisdicliot: Act is not exclusive remedy for pan:!I~ trying to regain custody of children wl1<. have been abducted by other paren1 (Per Spaeth. J., with one Judge COIKIlI ring in the result.) Rupel v. Bluc~ll'ili 421 A.2d 406, 280 Pa.Super. 65, JO'" 2. Operation in other states Uniform Child Custody Jurisdicliw: Act is not a "reciprocal" law and is rll full operation in each state regardless lit its enactment in other states. HattoulL v. Halloum. 441 A.2d 403, 295 Pa.Sup'" 169, 1982. 1. In general All cases decided before enactment of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act must be read in light of its provi. sions, and to the extent thai they are inconsistent with these provisions. they can no longer be regarded as the law. Com. ex rel. Piggins v. Kifer, 427 A.2d 185.285 Pa.Super. 206, 1981. ~ 5342. Purposes and construction of subchapter (a) Purposes.- The general purposes of this subchapter are 1<, (1) Avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts 01 other states in matters of child custody which have in the pn': resulted in the shifting of children from state to slate "ili> harmful effects on their well-being. (2) Promote cooperation with the courts of other states to Ihr end that a custody decree is rendered in that state which can be'( decide the case in the interest of the child. 522 >" " I.... i ~: ;'TODY 23 P t (3) Assure that litigation concerning the c 'takes place ordinarily in the state with which (a!llily have the closest connection and where s GOncerning his care, protection, training and . shiPS is most readily available, and that court 'wealth decline the exercise of jurisdiiction whe (a!llily have a closer connection with another ':. (4) Discourage continuing controversies ov the interest of greater stability of home et . secure family relationships for the child. ~~ (5) Deter abductions and other unilateral r. -undertaken to obtain custody awards. (6) Avoid relitigation of custody decisions c . CoJl1]11onwealth insofar as feasible. t (7) Facilitate the enforcement of custod states. t (8) Promote and expand the exchange of ir forms of mutual assistance betweem the cou wealth and those of other states concerned ~) Constructlon.-This subchapt,:r shall l: mote the general purposes stated in this sect\( 1990, Dec. 19, P.L. 1240, No. 206, ~ 2, effective in -1'-''''' 't~. Historical and St..tutory Not 1977, June P.S. ~ 23' .*~:~ '~.,..... PrIor Laws: 1980, Oct. 5. P.L. 693, No. 142, i 201(a) (42 Pa.C.s.A. ~ 5342). I~~ ~t~= Ilecree of other jurisdiction 3 hrpose, In general 1 UalIatera1 removal of children Z ~ "t.' L' Purpose, In general '1'be purpose of this act was to provide aability to the home environment and to Iaailly relationships by discouraging CDIItinuing controversy over child custo- dr. and visitation, to avoid jurisdiction dIiputes, to deter objections, to avoid rtlitigation, to promote comity. and to ....... that litigation concerning .child <oolocIy takes place ordinarily in the ~ in which the child and his family 11Ift the closest connection. Barndt v. 8ornd~ 580 A.2d 320, 397 Pa.Super. 321. t'l!lO.,. --,_~~J. .I:; 523 .~~ Notes of Decisions Intent of t 4:>0 the Unifc don Act (se! Master E.ttiti minations c physical po child are t whether the in a single stand alone though clos possession not coverer two Judge~ Warman v. Pa.Super. 2 Purpose Jurisdictio' the home t ~.~. ;" ~ 5341 CHILDREN AND 1l.I.., .......ORs Law Revlew Commentaries ,ntal kidnapping . A h jerick N. Frank~ 75n2t ony Klein, (1979-80) 25 V'U 1- ev. 784. . I . !In. Ig. (1981) 20 Du. Uniform Child Cust d .'. Act. (1978) 51 Temple ';..QY JUrisdic:tfoo . 139. ~loping child custo- Bertin and Vanessa title of subchapter . shall be known and b' -isdiction Act. may e cIled as the Uniform 1240, No. 206, ~ 2, effective in 90 days. Historical and Statutory Notes . 693, No. 142 ~77. June 30. P.L. 29. No. 20 ~ 1 (11 i.A. ~ 5341). ' P.S. ~ 2301). ' Ubrary References . 361. et seq. es 2 Notes of Decisions A U~iform Child Custody Jurisdiction c~ IS not exclusive remedy for nl 1ryIng to regain custody of chiIdre~ho ave been abducted by other parent. (~er ~paeth. J., with one Judge concur. rIng In the result.) Rupel v. BluesteJn. 421 A.2d 406. 280 Pa.Super. 65. 1980. 2. Operation in other states U~iform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act IS not a "reciprocal" law and is In full operation in each state regardless 01 ItS enactment in other states. Hattoum v. Hattoum, 441 A.2d 403 295 Pa.Super 169, 1982. ' . ,re enactment of c>dy Jurisdiction ;ht of its provi- . t that they are provisions, they ded as the law. Kifer. 427 A.2d 1981. 3 and construction of subchapter '.e general purposes of Ihis subchapter are 10: lctlOnal competition and conflict with courts of ;tters of child custody which have in the past ,Hftmg of chIldren from Slate to state wilb thelr well-being. 'peration with the couets of other stales to the ~"cre" IS rendered in ,hat state which can ibesl t "" Interest .)f the chi d. 5.22 -", ;l'srODY 23 Pa.C.S.A. 15342 I~ote 1 (3) Assure that litigation concerning the custody of a child :akes place ordinarily in the state with which the child and his iamily have the closest connection and where significant evidence concerning his care, protection, training and personal rel:!tion- ,hips is most readily available, and that courts of this Common- wealth decline the exercise of jurisdiction when the child and his family have a closer connection with another state. (4) Discourage continuing controversies over child custody in the interest of greater stability of home environment and of ,ecure family relationships for the child. (S) Deter abductions and other unilateral removals of chiIdren undertaken to obtain custody awards. (6) Avoid relitigation of custody decisions of other states in this Commonwealth insofar as feasible. (7) Facilitate the enforcement of custody decrees of other states. (8) Promote and expand the exchange of information and other forms of mutual assistance between the courts of this Common. wealth and those of other states concerned with the same child. (b) Construction.-This subchapter shall be construed to pro- 'note the general purposes stated in this section. :990, Dec. 19, P.L. 1240, No. 206, ~ 2,effective in 90 days. Historical and Statutory Notes 1977, June 30. P.L. 29. No. 20, ~ 2 (11 P.s. ~ 2302). Prior Laws: 1980, Oct. 5. P.L. 693, No. 142, ~ 201(a) (42 Pa.C.s.A. 9 5342). Notes of Decisions 3 Intent of this act. based in large part on the Uniform Child Custody I'urisdic. tion Act (see Uniform Laws Annotated, Master Edition, Vol. 9). is that aU deter- minations covering the issue of actual physical possession and contr"l of a child are to be covered by the Act. whether they are linked to other matters in a single document or whether they stand alone, while other determinations though closely associated with physical possession and control of a child. are not covered. (Per Montemuro, J., with two Judges concurring in the result.) Warman v. Warman. 439 A.2d 1203. 294 Pa.Super. 285, 1982. Purpose of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act is to provide sulbility to the home environment and to fumily re- 523 Decree of other Jurisdiction Purpose, In general 1 Lnllateral removal of chUdren 2 I. Purpose, In general The purpose of this act was to provide :tability to the home environment and to :J.mily relationships by discouraging ~()ntinuing controversy over child custo- :Y and visitation. to avoid jurisdiction ~lSputes, to deter objections. to avoid ;~litigation, to promote comity, and to aSsure that litigation concerning ,child ~usto~y takes place ordinarily in the :late 10 which the child and his family Rave the closest connection. Barndt v. t~dt. 580 A.2d 320, 397 Pa.super. 321. ~ ~ .'". " .".". -,- .,,-..... "..'- ,,"' . "~" ~ ,..--, " ~ ' ,. APR 0 3 zoootIJ SHELLY BOBB, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CML ACTION - LAW CRAIG BLAIR, Defendant NO. 00-1007 CML IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER jf AND NOW, this S { day of March, 2000, the Conciliator being advised that this matter is pending a jurisdictional ruling from the state of Indiana, the Conciliator relinquishes jurisdiction. Either party may request an additional custody conciliation by merely contacting the Custody Conciliator. BY THE COURT, . " """'<;1 :1 ~I I ] - ',i,~_ "-_ , "-~IIiiiio.illiil' , liilHI~ -~ ~ ,_......_~ c - c'......"' g ~". ...~ -;:,6 \ t..;~ 2- -,- ..-otJ .......-\ ~\,'\ ':i'o5' %c,. f.f).t,." :.:L.~\ 1:2:.'-' h(~ ~\.....-' yc::, :;;:, :2. ~. -~ '-'';', n ~, -r'c r':: .,.l~; ", \ ~-' ';:,)~!, t~~~ ,>--i . ,~', '-.,:;" <;3.: ~e ~ "