The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00-02469 - ~ "---",i~..~" Stanley E. Schneider, Ed.D. Director, Guidance Associates 412 Erlord Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 732-2917 Guidance Associates of P A Branch Office 473 Lincoln Way East Chambersburg, PA 17201 Eugene H. Stecher, M.A. Licensed Psychologist 473 Lincoln Way East Charnbersburg, P A 17201 (717) 263-9392 CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION Thomas J. Williams, Esq. MDW&O Ten East High Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq. 52 East High Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 Re: Custody of Joshua Ryan Kayn, age 4, b. 3/5/97 Father, Dennis R. Kayn, age 54, b. 11/5/45 Mother, Teresa D. Kayn, age 36, b. 11/5/63 Dear Attorneys; Introduction. I initially performed a custody evaluation in this matter in September of 2000, involving both an in-home evaluation and an individually administered psychological evaluation with each parent. A thirteen page report was available by October 5, 2000, and it made three recOJ:tlDlendations: joint legal custody, primary physical custody for mother, and liberal partial physical custody for father. I also suggested that individual counseling for each parent might be beneficial. Subsequent to that evaluation father came to my office once, and he made five or six relatively brief phone calls to me. He wanted clarification about whether the report meant that he should receive less time with the child than he had before, and the answer was "no." In subsequent conversations with both attorneys this information was conveyed. Father also seemed to need a sounding board for his disappointments and complaints about trying to negotiate custody matters with mother. My response essentially was fourfold: talk to Teresa, discuss unresolved matters with your attorney, be prepared to live with any decisions that you make as a father, and seek counseling. I pointed out to him that it was my responsibility to practice ethical1y and to maintain objectivity and that I could not take the counselor's role. The week of June 4 I received a call from attorney Williams requesting a second evaluation. The request was confinned in a subsequent letter (6/4) which attached an order (5/29) by the Honorable J. Wesley Oller, Jr. allowing either party to "retain an evaluator" prior to the August 2 hearing, costs to be paid by the party seeking the evaluation. Father has followed througb. with this PLAINTIFPS EXHIBIT Counseling. Psychological Testing. Anger Management. Mediation/Custody. Litigatl (ab,;o~ //.Jto-f ' --~~ IU tmJ responsibility. In phone calls with both attorneys, the option of a fresh third party perspective was discussed. I met with father and son on the morning of Tuesday, June 12, for approximately 2.5 hours. I met with mother and son on the morning of Wednesday, June 20, for approximately two hours. There were subsequent phone calls with both parents for clarification of infonnation, and father was interviewed at my office on July 5. Assessment methodology. I reviewed documents related to an alleged child abuse incident: Chambersburg Hospital Report of Suspected Child Abuse (2/6/01), Protective Service Investigation Report (2/7/01), Cumberland County C & Y notification of suspected abuse (2/8/01), Child Abuse Interview Report (Earl Greenwald, M.D., 2/8/01), Medical Examination (Earl Greenwald, M.D., 2/8/01), Addendum from Earl Greenwald, M.D. (3/2/01), and Cumberland County C & Y letter offindings (3/30/01). I further interviewed both parents, with special focus on reactions to the observations made in the last report, and made parenti child observations. The parents also completed a self-report questionnaire and the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems as it applies to their own relationship. With the possible exception of abuse issues, parental criticisms of one another are not included in this report unless the problem impacts parenting and both agree on the information, and/or there is confirmation from a reliable third source. CustodY Goal. Father hopes to be considered for more custody time, and before the child begins school in the Fall of 2002 he would prefer primary physical custody, but he would at least like the recently mandated summer schedule to be in effect year round, i.e., one week per month in addition to the standard every other week-end and one week-day overnight arrangement. Father mentioned that he had kept infonnation about multiple day care centers in the area, and he specifically mentioned programs at Shippensburg and Wilson colleges. Mother wishes to maintain primary physical custody either without changes in the current schedule or with further limitations of father's time. She worries about the difficulty of trying to adjust to two day care programs. She pointed out that Joshua's current day care has a 6/1 adult to child ratio with a very low turnover rate and that he has been there two years. CustodY Coo.peration. Both indicate that cooperation on the court ordered time and place of child transfer has been good, even though there have been changes in those factors, but there have been differences of opinion on specific requests for flexibility. Mother gave this example of how communication breaks down: [1] Father requests a time change. [2] Mother says "no" due to Joshua being invited for dinner at a mend's followed by a swimming lesson. [3] At the last minute the family calls and cancels dinner. [4] Father asks Joshua ifhe went to the family's home for dinner. [5] Joshua says "no." [6] Father concludes that mother was lying. [7] Tensions and hard feelings are increased. In father's view the whole matter could have been avoided by simply prioritizing the parent's request. GAP/CustodyEvallJoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6/20/01 2 ~. '""~, ' ""~", - ~". ,', ,~' "' ,,~ Unstructured Observation. Father's Home. Child's Room. Joshua took me upstairs to show me his room while father completed paperwork. There have been no essential changes since the last evaluation. The child's tent, a small air mattress, smaI1 plastic chairs, and toy items are in his bedroom rather than in the family area, but his bed still sits, full of stuffed animals, at the foot of his father's bed. Behavior. Joshua was friendly, evidenced good rapport with his father, and displayed good self- management during my visit. Father's behavior toward the child was supportive, encouraging, and affectiouate. Joshua was watching the Wizard of Oz when I arrived, and, off and on, continued to watch that video. When he took me upstairs, he named the stuffed animals that were in his own bed. I asked Josh to show me where he sleeps, and he crawled up on his father's bed, put his hand on a pillow, and said, "there." When about fifteen minutes had gone by he chose to go outside, and father put some toys in full view outside the sun room so that he could play. During the visit Joshua played outside for a time and then would come inside, and that pattern continued. He would talk briefly to his father each time; e.g. about IIying to plant followers. He followed his father's boundaiy setting to give the adults conversational privacy. At a point in time Joshua was allowed to go next door on his own to ring the bell and ask if Andy (age 11) could play. He came back to say that no one answered. Father showed some evidence of distraction and stress, perhaps an exacerbation of attention deficit and depressive symptoms for which he takes the medications Adderall and Paxil. When Joshua took me upstairs I found the water running at full force in the bath room. Father also took 2 to 3x longer than average to complete the personal data questionnaire. Consistent with feeling excessive stress is the self-report of a 15 pound weight loss and loss of appetite "most days. " When providing personal data, after the "children" item, father wrote the name ofhis daughter but not the names ofhis sons. He also initially indicated "blanks in memory most days," but later indicated that it wasn't so. He also endorsed the items "adult sexual abuse" and "adult emotional abuse," and these were left blank on the previous evaluation questionnaire. Perhaps he was confusing the sexual abuse item with what allegedly recently happened to Joshua. Mother's Home. Child's Room. The appearance of the bedroom was similar to my last visit. Over twenty pieces of Joshua's art work are on display. The bed is full of stuffed animals. Pictures in the room include one of father holding up a catch of fish. [Mother advised that she added father's picture based on comments in the first evaluation report.] Behavior. Joshua was playing with his dinosaurs in the middle of the living room floor when I arrived, and there was also a dinosaur and anima1 book in the area. Rapport between mother and son was very good throughout the visit, and mother evidenced both patience and enthusiasm in the interactions. At my request Joshua took me to his room and was able to name all the stuffed animals on his bed. Joshua chattered with his mother and dramatized stories as she sat on the floor with him and completed the assigned paper work. She occasiona1ly responded to his requests, such as helping GAP/CustodyEvallJoshuaKayn 61I2I01 6/20/01 3 . " ~ -"""'I him to get something out of the toy closet. Due to Joshua's desire for his mother's attention, it took her somewhat longer than usual to complete the paper work, and he also tended to interrupt our attempts to talk. Mother did set boundaries and redirect him, but he returned fairly often. Joshua had a brief crying spell when he was told that grandmother and stepgrandfather had come to take him to day care, but he settled rather quickly as his mother took him out to the car. [As during the first evaluation, Joshua was more attention seeking and emotional in mother's environment. But mother was also the one who did not use the TV as a parenting tool. However, during the first evaluation, father was the one that didn't use the TV as a parenting tool. The spaciousness/freedom offather's home compared to mother's is certainly also a factor. We must further consider that during visits with father, father has 100% time to give the child, while mother must be constantly sending him off to day care. There is also the possibility that father may criticize mother to Joshua.] Mother. Mother had concern in her voice and was close to tearfuIness a few times, but she did not report high levels of emotional tunnoil or behave in ways that would suggest levels of stress, depression, anxiety, or anger that interferes with judgment. [Mother appears to be managing her emotions more constructively than father.] Interview. Father. Residence. Dennis continues to live at 247 Cheslnut Drive in Shippensburg. The home is for sale, and he is waiting for "an acceptable offer." He could not be definite about when a move might occur. Alcohol use. The last report indicated that Dennis had developed an evening habit of drinking a martini or vodka tonic and a beer, which resulted in "a little bit of euphoria," and since that was "more potent" than he wanted, there was a change to two beers in the evening. Dennis now reports that he drinks one beer in the evening, "It tastes good with a snack and reading the paper." He believes that his drinking "never affected behavior, " but why, then, does he keep changing the habit to less? [Father noted that mother had expressed concern about alcohol use, but he did not express awareness that the evaluator also mentioned concerns about alcohol use in the previous report.] Slee.piru! Arratll!ements. Dennis acknowledged "no change" in the sleeping arrangements, and said, "As often as not he'll be in bed with me or will crawl into his own bed with his animals. " Father offered that Joshua wants "affection and to be held." He emphasized the love that father and son have for each other, and he indicated that the sleeping arrangement should not be an issue at this tender age. He affirmed that in the future there would be a separate bedroom for Joshua. [Father took note that "mother" had concerns about sleeping arrangements, but again he didn't express awareness that the evaluator also mentioned dependency concerns about the arrangement in the previous report.] GAP/CustodyEval/JoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6/20/01 4 -- = ~- ~"; Extended Farnilv. Dennis advised that he has maintained contact with the older children through regular phone calls and cards since the last evaluation. There are plans for a trip to Florida this year to see the extended family. Personal Care. Dennis' work place recently began to offer EAP services, and he is taking advantage of four free counseling sessions with Susan Day at Summit Behavioral Health. To date he has attended one session. He continues to see Dr. Hegarty every 60 days for medication management. He indicated that he had been taking the medication long enough that he was no longer sure of its degree of helpfulness. [Father did not connect taking this counseling step with anything that was said in the previous evaluation. ] Father/Son Interaction. Dennis indicated that he tries to do at least one special thing with Joshua each week-end that they are together. He mentioned activities like ball games, attending concerts at the Capitol Theater, hiking, fishing, swimming in mends' pools, Saturday morning library time, watching videos, reading books, and playing games like Booby Trap. About 75% of the time they will attend church. He mentioned being eligible for five weeks vacation and the possibility of doing some traveling. Interview: Mother. Residence. Teresa continues to rent the same apartment, and she is currently on a month to month lease. She has a contract to build a home, but that cannot happen until the marital assets are settled. The home would be constructed in the area offRt. 581 at exit 2, just a few miles from her work and Joshua's day care center. She anticipates that it could be a full year before the project can begin. Extended Family. Teresa advises that she and Joshua made trips in October and March to Florida and Missouri respectively and saw most of her family at those times. Her mother and stepfather, one or the other, or both, have been visiting in this area since the end of May and are scheduled to return home June 21. [Mother appears to have the more active relationship with extended family.] Personal Care. Teresa advises that she took seriously the observation in the first evaluation about the helpfulness of counseling. She has been in sessions with Lucretia Hurley-Browning since January of this year. They have addressed the repression issues that were mentioned in the earlier evaluation as well as self-assertiveness. The counselor challenged her to pray for Dennis daily, and she has managed to let go of some of her anger, although she might only say the prayers three times per week. She completed her Divorce Care class that was meeting last Fall and found it to be very helpful. She is currently active in a women's outreach group at her church. [Mother appears to have made a conscious decision to take self-care steps based on the first evaluation. ] Mother/Son Interaction. Teresa advised that Joshua had completed one set of swimming lessons and that she would probably sign him up for the next set. They go with Joshua's mend and parent GAP/CustodyEval/JoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6/20/01 5 ~- '"' "Jl'iiltJ to see plays by the Popcorn Hat Players. Church attendance is usually weekly, and Joshua attends his own class and sings in the children's choir. They attend church events such as picnics. Vacation Bible School fell on the week that he was with his father. Summer activity will probably include trips to Washington and Baltimore. Neighborhood friends are Brandon (4) and Trevor (4). Mother noted which relationship goes smoother and which requires more supervision. Evening time usually consists of a quick dinner, and then going to play, perhaps to the playground and swimming pool, and riding a bike with training wheels. Alleged Child Abuse. The following represents my understanding of the chronology and content of events: [1] Joshua was with father on Wednesday, January 31, and father reports observing "no visible injuries." The child was transferred to mother the next day, Thursday, February 1, at about 6:30AM. [2] The alleged abuse occurred between Thursday, Feb. 1 and Sunday, Feb.4 when mother was visiting a male friend in Norfolk, Virginia. [3] The alleged perpetrator was mother's adult male companion. [4] Mother's male friend was with her and Joshua from late Thursday evening until after lunch on Sunday. [5] Following complaint of discomfort by Joshua while bathing, Mother reports seeing a penile scratch or abrasion on Friday. [6] Mother and Joshua returned home after lunch on Sunday. [7] Father received Joshua at McDonald's in Carlisle on Tuesday evening, February 6, 5:30PM. [8] Father took the child to Chambersburg Hospital the same evening where he was examined at 8:19PM. [9] Father reported that the child's penis was "pulled," causing injury. Joshua told the nurse, " (name) pulled it." [10] Two days later Joshua reported this same act to an examiner and indicated that it took place "on top of his clothing. " [11] Medically, the scratch is not consistent with the type of injury one might expect from the action described, and it is considered "medically trivial" and "accidental." [12] Cumberland-Perry C & Y detennined the abuse charge to be "unfounded," [13] Any negative interaction between Joshua and mother's companion cannot be defined with reasonable certainty. GAP/CustodyEvalIJoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6/20/01 6 " . In reading over the documentation, I had several concerns: [1] Joshua apparently did not use the word "penis" during his initial examination. [2] Joshua subsequently stated that mother "very very much" hurt his penis, but who believes that statement has credibility. Why, therefore, should other statements be believed if this one is ignored? [3] Inconsistency and judgment uncertainty in a three to four year old is not surprising since that is an age when memory, object constancy, language development, and comprehension, are still in fluid fonnation. There is a possibility that Joshua bears some degree of hard feelings toward mother's male friend. [1] The three had walked and played on the beach on Saturday. At their apartment (?) they attempted to put Joshua down for a nap. He would not listen to his mother to stay in bed. Her male companion provided verbal back up and eventually physically placed Joshua in bed. [2] Joshua had begun a habit of resisting his mother's authority by unbuckling his seat belt. Mother's companion admonished him about not doing that as they left after lunch on Sunday. One of father's very strong objections is any action of mother's which places a third party in the position of disciplining Joshua. Mother responds, "I looked at these situations as someone backing me up rather than discipline. I assume that Andy and Jennifer's parents monitor Joshua when he plays over there without his father." Father agreed that Andy and Jennifer's parents do supervise and set boundaries for Joshua when he plays at their homes, but he believes that this is a qualitatively different circumstance than that provided by mother. [We could question mother's judgment with regard to placing a three year old child in an emotionally compromised position of acceptance of an .intimate adult relationship, in a confined set of circumstances, apart from that ofhis own parents, which he could not adequately understand. However, on balance, there appears to be insufficient reason for any circumstances related to the alleged abuse to be determinative of a custody decision.] Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Father. Although father endorsed cold/distant feelings and social avoidance, he also endorsed a "dependent" pattern of nonassertiveness, over accommodation, and self-sacrifice, with the friction of vindictive and controlling urges agitating just beneath the surface. This is a rather substantial picture of inner tunnoi1: dependence in conflict with avoidance, and accommodation in tension, with very negative promptings. Perceptions, interpretations, and decisions are likely to be filtered through this confusing array of emotion. Mother. Here we also find a profile of cold/distant feelings and avoidance but without the intensity of the remaining emotional complications. [These observations about father's emotions are consistent with the first custody evaluation and with previous observations in this report. Mother appears to be filtering her perceptions and experiences through a less complicated and confusing screen.] The data to this point in the evaluation basically reinforces the original decision to recommend primary physical custody to mother. The information which follows also came to my attention and seems to point in the same direction. GAP/CustodyEval/JoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6/20/01 7 . , ~,,, . """'"'- -e ~ , " ,~",' Potential Parent Alienation Data. Other sources of data at mother's home included messages left by father on the phone answering machine, and alleged transcripts of phone conversations between father and mother and father and son: [1] After consulting with colleagues, 1 am choosing not to refer to the transcripts because even though father told me, "Teresa did say during three or four calls that she was taping them, and maybe twice when we were exchanging Joshua," he also told me that he never agreed to the taping, and 1 understand that there may be legal/ethical questions about material for which there was not mutual consent. Although by not hanging up and continuing to talk, perhaps that could be interpreted as consent. [2] However, 1 will refer to the messages, because father voluntarily left them on tape, knowing that mother and even Joshua might hear them and pass the information along to someone else. Father's voice is distinctive, and there is little doubt that he is speaking. Before referencing the phone messages, I want to mention one piece of information that mother shared independent of giving me this material. She mentioned that father had told Joshua that there was no money to buy a new car because mother took the money. When asked, father agreed that he said this to Joshua. He felt that "truth" was the most important way to communicate with the child. [Father did not seem to have awareness that his remark was parent alienating and that finances were an adult topic of conversation that was beyond the understanding of a three year old.] Based on five phone messages of April 13 to which I listened when at mother's home, I asked father the following questions, all of which should have had a "yes" response: Do you agree that you called Teresa an "unfit mother" when she didn't have Joshua in bed by 8:30PM? Answer. "No." Do you agree that you left a message saying that most of her "social life" was "usua1ly in the bedroom?" Answer. "No." Do you agree that you left messages at least twice calling her a "slut?" Answer. "No....I may have." Father did say to me, "I do get angry and frustrated... .... but I never made bodily threats." [The implication of this material is that Joshua is probably exposed to parent alienating remarks from father.] Summary. This report may be summarized by reading the bracketed sections or by reading the following summary of information which continues to favor mother as the primary physical custody parent: [1] Mother seemed much more aware of the meaning of the first evaluation and made changes accordingly. Father seemed unaware of applying first evaluation suggestions, although he made some changes. GAP/CustodyEvalfJoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6/20/01 8 - ,"- '_',r, . [2] The appearance that Joshua may be more difficult to manage in his mother's environment should not be attributed to poor parenting skills. [3] Mother appears to be more actively involved with extended family. [4] Mother appears to be managing her emotions more constructively than does father, as indicated by observation, interview, and the IIP. [5] Alleged child abuse issues do not favor either parent, although mother could have been more sensitive to the child's developmental vulnerability. [6] There is evidence of parent alienating remarks by father and a lack of awareness of the child's developmental vulnerability. Recommendation. The recommendation again is shared legal custody and primary physical custody to mother, but should father be given more time in the form of an additional one full week per month until the child enters school full time? It is my professional opinion that the poor communication between the parents and the need to adjust to another care environment at these tender years indicate that the current school year schedule is best kept in place, while also keeping the one extra week per month during the summer for father. 7-9-o} Eugene H. Stecher, M.A. Psychologist Diplomate, Professional Academy of Custody Evaluators GAP/CustodyEval/JoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6120/01 9 ,~'" '~l~"",',-i , . Stanley E. Schneider, Ed.D. Director, Guidance Associates 412 Erford Road Camp Hill, P A 17011 (717) 732-2917 Guidance Associates of P A Branch Office 473 Lincoln Way East Chambersburg, PA 17201 October 5, 2000 Eugene H. Stecher, M.A. Licensed Psychologist 473 Lincoln Way East Chambersburg. P A 17201 (717) 263-9392 CIDLD CUSTODY EVALUATION Taylor Andrews, Esq. 78 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq. 52 East High Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 Re: Custody of Joshua Ryan Kayn, age 3 b. 3/5/97 Father, Dennis R. Kayn, age 54, b. 1115/45 Mother, Teresa D. Kayn, age 36, b. 11/5/63 Dear Attorneys: Introduction. I originally received written notification (8/24/00) from Lynn Y. MacBride, Esq., that the parties had agreed that I would be engllged to con4uct "a psychological evaluation" in this custody matter. In subsequent phone conversations the parents agreed that adult psychological evaluations would be conducted within the broader context of a custody evaluation. Mother requested that the Minnesota Multiphaisic Personality Inventory be used as one of the evaluation tools. This is a frequently used ins1.rulD.ent, and I concurred with the request. I met with father and son on Wednesday morning, September 13, for approximately three hours. Father completed his evaluation at my office on Tuesday morning, September 19. I met with mother and son on Thursday morning, Septem\ler 21, for approximately three hours. Mother . completed her evaluation at my office on Sepember 25. There were also several subsequent phone calls with father for cJarification of data. Assessment Tools. In-Home Observation, Adult Interviews, Personal Data Questionnaires, Parenting Questionnaires, "Bender Motor Gestalt Test, Human Figure DraWing, Subtests from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-R, Inventory ofInterpetsonal Problems-64, Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III, Minnesota Multiphaisic Personality Inventory-2, Rorschach Diagnostic Inkblots. Methodo10llY Note. The parents will observe that a number of criticisms of one another are not mentioned in this report. The concerns which are mentioned are verified by parental agreero.ent or PLAINTIFPS EXHIBIT Counseling. Psychological Testing. Anger Management. Mediation/Custody. Litigation I t:bJo I ~"f "- -- ,- ,-- . " ,~, ~~':, ,. J written data or a reliable third party. When that type of verification did not exist, the criticism was not included. 1 take this approach because it is not in the best interests of the child for the evaluator to escalate conflict and hard feelings between the adults, and the approach a1so IIlinimizes futerference with the main task of the evaluation which is to assess parenting skills. Residence: Father. Father's residence was the marital home for about a year, a large colonial style house which is part of a three year old residential area in Shippensburg, Pa. There is a.large yard area, attractiwIy landscaped. The home is for sale, and father intends to retum to the Chambersburg area. The home was very comfortable and adequately clean and organized during my visit. Joshua's room was on the second floor, and it was empty of furniture (taken by mother at the time of the separation). The curtains had colorful reptiles, a net in one upper corner contained many stuffed animals, and a fire truck sat on the floor. In father's bedroom a child's junior bed was placed at the foot of father's bed. On the first floor there is a large family room and a sun room off the dining area, and I noticed Disney videos and baskets full of toys of alllcinds. There were also many other play items such as a tent. A Great is Thy Faithfulness prayer plaque hung on the kitch\lIl wall, and there was a Bible on the table in the dining room. The Franklin County Pediatric Association # was on the refrigerator. Residence: Mother. Mother resides in a modern apartment complex in Mechanicsburg, Pa. There is a large yard area to the back, and a swimming pool and playground area are available. The apartment was comfortable, organized, and clean during my visit. A closet space which housed mother's computer work area, also coutained numerous children's videos. Other features of the residence included a Women's DevotiOl\lll Bible, a Jl1ag11tine called Divorce Care, and many dolls crafted by maternal grandmother. Mother showed me one that looked like Joshua which was her favorite. Joshua has his own room in whiCl11 observed a jU1lior bed, age appropriate books and games of all kinds, a live gold:fish, characatures of dinosaurs on the walls, a day care singing award, numerous examples of Joshua's art work on the walls and ceiling. abstracts of Joshua's foot prints and hand prints, three needle work pictures celebrating Joshua's birth, a shadow outline of Joshua's body on the closet door, and many stuffed I\llimllls. He said that he sleeps with "bunny." There was also a series of pictures on the chest of drawers which illustrated Joshua's schedule for the day. [M:other receives the edge for creative environment.] ~AC~GRO~ INFORMATION Personal Data: Father. Dennis is next oldest of three brothers. His own father is deceased, and his mother lives in Syracuse, NY. The parents did not divorce. Dennis experienced a tragedy with his father who suffered from Bipolar disorder, received electro-convulsive therapy and institutional treatment, and eventually took his own life. Dennis did fairly wen in school with B/C marks, and GAP/CustodyEvaVJoshuaKayn 9100 2 - -~ . .~-~+; he has two years of formal educatibn beyond high schooL He was matried to his first wife from 1972 to 1989, and he and Teresa married in 1991. When asked about the recent separation, he said, "We stopped caring about each other......she created horrible divisions in my family ........ maybe age had something to do with it." Dennis views his parents as hard working blue collar people who met their obligations. They stressed financial security, "Us boys were always doing something to make ntonl;y." The parents were strict, but father also showed affection by putting his atm.around his boys and giving hugs. Mother was not affectionate. A "strap was often used for discipline.....there was yelling and grounding for long periods of time. It was abusive by today's standards." For the past 14 years Dennis has worked as a banker for F & M TlUSt. Prior to that he was a Sales and Marketing Director for Caron International for 6 years, and he worked in the Training and Development office of Xerox for 13 years. He lists interests as golf, reading, and fishing, and group involvements include Kiwanis and the Church of God. He named friends as Randy and Ken. Personal Data: Mother. Teresa is the oldest of two siblings. Her mother lives in Kansas City, Missouri, and her father is tw\lIlty minutes away in Kansas. The parents divorced wh\lIl Teresa was age 10, and she lived primarily with her mother. Both parents remani.ed and still "got along well." There were about four years when father lived out of state. Parental strengths were identified as maintaining a.good relationship, being fair, doin$ What they thought was best, and staying close to extended family. There were also sit down talks to give parent to child guidance. Weaknesses were identified as being too strict with some things; for example, having to clean one's plate. Teresa was also a "latchkey kid." Discipline at times took the form of "ten swats with a belt....I didn't think it was abusive, but my sister did. .. Teresa went on to attend college and received a BS degree with B/C marks from Central Missouri State. She was matried to her first two husbands from 1986 to1987 and 1988 to1989 respectively. She sees herself as young and immature at that tit\1e. When asked about the separation from Dennis, she said, "He was drinking and unittvolved......called me names in front of Joshua.......one time hurt me physically sexually......he wasn't consistently available to Joshua." For 14 years Teresa worked for the Def\lIlse Department, and for the past three years she has been a Budget Analyst at the Naval Supply Systems Command. She listed her interests as playing with Joshua, reading. and church activities. She attends Aldersgate United Methodist Church. She named friends as Helen and Cindy. [Father was able to accept some responsibility for the separation. Both parents come from homes where discipline was probably excessively harsh, but father appears to have more insight about it. (However, neither parent has made child discipline an issue.) Adult intimacy problems are evident for both in the form of multiple marriages. Both were able to name parental strengths and shortcomings. Mother spoke more gerterously of the home enviromnent and positive family relationships. Both have numerous personal and social interests.] pSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIO.\'JS GAP/CustodyEvalIJoshual<ayn 9/00 3 . ,'" > ' -0"-' .< , Self-report Dennis indicates that he received professional counseling in matters involving l1is son as a teenager. For over a year he bas taken the antidepressant Paxil, and also Adderall which '~takes the edge off attention deficit symptoms." He states, "1 work hard on trying not to ponder the problems too much." He acknowledges "most days" feeling anxious, angty, and sad, with . Poor partner communication. He "must have things in order most of the time." He checked the fonowing life problem areas: marital, sociaVrecreational, lonefutess, finances, perfectionism, job/career. At the same time he listed the present set of problems as "mildly upsetting." Teresa sought professional help for marital issues approximately two years ago with Shirley Broadwater, a licensed psychologist. She also told me that she was in the second week of a Divorce Care group, and she is just beginning a Women's Caring and Sharing group. She acknowledges feelings oflonefutess and anxiety "most days." The only life problem that she checked was maniage, but she also rated the current problems as "severely upsetting. " [Both haw sought help for personal problems, mother in the form of counseling and support groups, and father in the form of medication and counseling. Father reports more intense personal problems but, unlike mother, he minimizes the impact.] Subtests ftom tbe W AIs.-R Two subtests which in some way measure social alertness and intelligence were administered: Picture .Arrangement (P A) and Comprehension. The P A subtest requires placing a series of pictures in proper social order. Both adults achieved a scaled score of lIon P A, which is in the average range, or the 63rd percentile. On the C~hension subtest father achieved a scaled score of 16 (Superior) and mother a scaled score of 13 (high average). Mother's score was lower due to her inadequate responses on how to handle two emergency situations: a fire in a movie theater, and getting lost in the forest in the day time. She also could not interpret the saying, "Shallow brooks are noisy. " [Both parents have excenent scores, but the edge goes to father for practical judgment and response to emergencies.] Bender Motor Gestalt Test The client is presented with nine simple figures for drawing and recalL Usually this measure is llSed to screen for neurological problems, but personality features sometimes emerge as wen. Both adults adequately arranged the figures on the page with no overlap. Problems with rotations, perseveration, concrete representation, and angle distortion were not in evidence. Mother's memory was excenent with seven figures recalled. Father could only recall one:figure. He said, "It's the attention deficit thing. I make a lot of lists. " Father's heavy penoil pressure and abrupt strokes may suggest anger and emotional tunnoiI. Mother's tendency to draw stnall:figures, to put each of the first two :figures in a box, and to in part proceed from the bottom to the top of the page, may suggest insecurities and surface dissociation from strong emotional issues (repression). [Neither behavioral hypothesis would have positive value for the child.] GAP/CustodyEvaVJoshuaKayn 9/00 4 ~- ,-- c_ ,,_I ~- L , Human Figure Drawing. Each parent drew a picture of Joshua. The developmental quality of .the pictures was consistent with measured intelligence. There were no unusual features. Father personalizedtb,e picture a little more by presenting the child in a waving stance, placing a toy dinosaur along side, and putting "I love my daddy" on the shirt. Mother's insecurity came through again by placing the feet of the child right on the bottom of the page as a way of anchoring the picture. [The edge goes to father for perceiving the child flexibly and creatively.] lIP -64. This is a self-rating measure which attempts to read characteristics of dominance, self- centeredness, emotiOl\lll distance, social inhibition, lack of assertiveness, excessive accommodation, self-sacrificing attitude, intrusiveness/neediness, and their opposites. Neither PIlfent had significant elevations on the scales as compared to peers or as compared to the intensity of the traits within thomselves. There is some evidence that mother has a neediness which she keeps repressed, and that father is inwardly in conflict between attitudes of dominance and accommodation. [Neither model is favored over the other for the child.] Rorschach. The inkblots require a report of perceptions, and they attempt to provide measures which give insight into ptoblem-solvingstyle, The stimulus is somewhat stressful because there is no obvious interpretation, and the client is thrown back upon hislher fundamental reaction pattern. The interpretations below are somewhat hindered because each adult gave a minimal number of responses. However, there are consistencies in these observations with other data. Mother is a better every day reality tester; in other words, her perceptions tend to be similar to those reported by her peers, while father is much more unconventional. Father tends to overorganize and to elaborate on what he sees. Mothet tends to be conventional and to report the obvious. Father has access to both rational reflection and constructive emotion to problem-solve, but disruptive emotion lies close to the surface. Mother has aCCeSS to rational reflection and the nonnal emotion of daily interaction, but particularly difficult emotions are severely repressed and cause inaccurate perceptions when prompted. The disruptiw emotion which constantly keeps father in turmoil outweighs problem solving resources perhaps two to one. These factors have greater balance in mother's profile. While father may be aware of rather constant emotiOl\lll pain, which may often influence decisions in a poorly managed way, mother will. be victimized by unexpected internal disruptions and by not having sufficient access to a range of emotion for the best decision making under times of duress. Father must deal with poorly organized internal factors, and mother must deal with repressed internal factors. These observations are generally true for these adults, but current circumstances also tend to exacerbate these features. [The eli.tlCllles in these perceptual styles do not present a positive model for the child, but mother would be an emotionally steadier parent figure on a day to day basis.} GAP/CustodyEvalIJosbuaKayn 9/00 5 , " - " - ,,' "'-"fL , MMPI-2. Personality inventories attempt to provide information about long standing traits of individual beluMor and about current symptoms/reactions to present stresses. Fllth~ Father's validity scales suggest that he did not overclaim or underclaim symptoms. He neither reported in an overly defensive manner or in an undercontrolled manner. His responses did not result in elevated primary scales. However, relative elevations sU@gest that he is experiencing some indicators of depression and anxiety, particularly in the form of feelings of social alienation and somalic symptOms. He also str\1i8les to keep the painful is$ues suppressed under the sun ace. He may react to provocative situations with verbal aggression after unsuccessful attempts to suppress resentment. Mother. Mother's validity scales suggest that she will admit to common human shortcomings, but her overall response pattern is significantly defensive on two ways of measuring that phenomenon, and she was very unlikely to endorse items that might put her in an unfavorable light. As a result it is quite difficult to have confidence in the profile. In spite of the defensiveness; the repression scale was elevated, reinforcing p(e~ous observations, and she very often opts for non-traditional feminine roles and values, consistent with her integration ofa math career and ~od. There are some indicators in the secondary scales of immaturity and excessive distrust. [The extremes of either model would not be helpful to the child, but Father is preferred for a less defensive self-report.] Millon m. Fa~er. Father's responses did not result in any scale elevations. However, unlike the l\1MPI, the response style leaned toward presenting a socially desirable picture of self. That may be because the Millon is weighted more heavily toward severe pathology. There were no significant scale elevations, but relative elevations suggest stronger than average degrees of social alienation, anxiety, and a need for order (perfectionism), all of which have been previously mentioned in one context or another. Mo~. Again, mother's responses strongly endorse a socially desirable picture of self. Even so, there is a moderate elevation on the #4 scale and a mild elevation on the #7 scale. Positive featUres associated with the 4 scale include gregarious, extroverted, and socially engaging. Under stress these may take the form of dramatization, excessive attention seeking and acceptance needs, manipulation, and emotional outbursts. Repression is associated with this type of personality. An underlying fear of abandonment is hypothesized. Positive scale 7 features include polite, conscien1ious, organized, respectful, and conforming which under stress may take the form of rigidity, perfectionism, and a self-righteous attitude. [As defined by significant scale elevations, father's profile is preferred.] Problem-Solving Examples. 1 asked each parent to give me two examples of how they went about solving a family problem. Father. [1) Father spoke first about his son beCOllling emotionally troubled and involved with drugs in his mid-teens. Father admitted the child to Brooklane for a month and participated in family counseling. There was a later relapse, but the son now lives in Florida, has a good job, and is taking night classes. Father made two points, "1 chose not to look the other way," and, "I never gave up on him and now it's paying off." He said that there is phone contact two or three times per month. [2) Dennis spoke second about his own GAP/CustodyEvaIIJoshuaKayn 9/00 6 ~="' - ~'" -~~, father who became depressed but was reluctant to seek help. Dennis expressed the steps which he took as follows, "I talked with him and begged him.....I met with his doctor and attomey.....even contemplated involuntary admission......and finally he agreed to ECT and drug therapy." Father said, "1 was ouly 22, but no one else in the family took the steps." MothClr. Mother views herself as using the same problem-solving style consistently, namely, looking for a good time to talk things through: [1] She indicated that she would go into the bathroom wh\lIl Dennis was shaving and ask him to talk to her about whatever the probletn might be. She said, "That forced me to listen to and opened up things for discussion." [2] She further referred to her family as one that "can g\lIlerally sit down face to face..... we don't shout." She recalled being concerned about her younger brother's lack of work during a certain period in his life, "We talked about fears, job interviews.....! let him know that I wasn't judging." [Steps tak\lIl by both parents, as described, are laudatory.] Alcohol Use. Mother believes that father had developed a problematic drinking habit prior to their separation. The parents do not agree on how alcohol use might have effected father/son time. Father agrees that he developed an evening habit of drinking a martini or vodka tonic and a beer, an activity which resulted in "a little bit of euphoria. " Father has since decided that this combination was "more potent than I wanted" and changed the habit to two beers. [We have the acknowledgment by father of the need to go from more to less.] Summary of the Psychological Evaluations. MPtJter is a good day to day reality tester who appears to respond to the more painful promptings in her life with insecurity, neediness, abandon- ment fear, manipulation, perfectionism, and repression. Father is a marginal day to day reality tester who appears to respond to the more painful.promptings itt his life with dominance/ accommodation COllflicts, feelings ofbeing overwhelmed, verbal aggression, anxiety and somatic sensitivity, perfectionism, and at times self-medicating with alcohol [In the long run, who is to say which parent provides the poorer model of individual traits, interpersonal engagement, and problem-sohing for the child. Taking each measure individually, father's profile is modestly favored, but there is also the issue of the example of daily alcohol consumption for the child. Also, on a. day to day bllSis the child is likely to see a more emotionally stable self-presentation from mother.] EVALUAlJON OF J'ARENTING Parent Description of Child. Pllrasina Charming Beautiful Bright little boy Father x x x GAP/CustadyEvalfJoshuaKayn 9/00 7 Mother J". , - .<~ A joy Very affectionate Precocious Leader Kind Iffy appetite but healthy No behavior problems Sometimes has to be asked more than once likes the playground zoos baseball swinuning reading at bedtime games Disney movies Puppet shows at church Helping in the flower garden Church/Sunday School Pretty much happy Easy going Compliant An entertainer Loves to sing and do plays The first to volunteer Curious Loving and affectionate Smart Routine is important to him 25th % for height and weight Eats a good lunch each day, not big on breakfast likes eggs x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x [Botl1 parents provide a rich desoription of personal qualities and preferred activities.] Practical Parenting. Mother nursed the child untill5 months, and both parents have participated in changing, feeding, dressing, bathing, playing with, and reading to the child. Neither parent hits for discipline, aI1hougl1 father acknowledges using corporal punishment with his older children. There are no playmates at father's home Joshua's own age, but sometimes older children in the neighborhood will come into the yard and play with him. Father described sending out 40 letters to Day Care centers, receiving 15-16 replies, and narrowing down the options to just a few. Mother advised that Joshua now attends a state certified pre-schoo~ the Capital Area Children's Center, and that his teacher has a master's degree (l saw written material on the Center.). She also stated that her office doesn't expect her to travel and that she has three weeks of sick leave saved and WI. weeks of vacation saved plus the potential to earn nine more vacation weeks in the next two years. GAP/CustodyEvaJlJoshuaKayn 9/00 8 IV'~ i'_ .~ Father has established a Trust Fund for Joshua's future, and he makes a monthly contribution to it. Mother referred to two mutual funds which she and father had begun and said that she has a financial planner to help her with decisions. Father projects that he will encourage sports for Joshua, but, "It's not a must." He sees Joshua as being "a good friend and a golf and fishing companion" in the future. He wants Joshua to learn about faith and Christian beliefs and to have a good value system. Mother also wants Joshua to stay involved in the church. She will emphasize focusing on academics, taking some form of martial arts, and being exposed to traditional sports. Mother emphasized her daily and weekly projects and activities with Joshua: building a birdhouse, going to the butterfly garden at Hershey, cooking together, taking care of the tomatoes and flowers together, making refrigerator magnets, and so forth. She does not have the TV on during the week but allows one video per day on the week-ends. [Both parents are very involved. Mother provided more examples of one to one activity. Father's remarks again hint at some dependency on the child.] Boundary Issues. Mother expressed some concern about Joshua sleeping in father's bed. Father acknowledged that this happens most nights even though. Joshua may start out in his own bed which sits at the foot of father's bed. Joshua spontaneously said to me, "I don't sleep there any more," and when 1 asked where, he said, "In daddy's bed." Father indicated that life is painful for him right now, "rm living day to day," and that the arrangement is "reassuring for both" father and son. He does not intend for the sleeping together to continue for a long time, and he believes that mother would have more right to make an issue of it if the child were of school age. [There is again acknowledgment of sonw dependency of father upon son.] Parenting Measures. Each parent was presented with 30 Child M,,"V,,!!ement Situations. formulated by the examiner, each of which requires a parent decision. The children range in age from infant to older teens. Each decision is rated on a scale from 1 to 7, poor to excenent. The parent responses are then compared to the opinions of professionals who work with families. As an example, father, mother, and the professionals all agree that the foUowing decision feD. in the poor to fair range, "5yr old Becky refuses to eat dinner and must sit at the table for 15 minutes after everyone else finishes." Father's agreement ratio with professionals was 92% and mother's agreement ratio was 90%, both significanliy above average. A flexibility ratio based on situations involving judgment about shared religious practices, masturbatory beha\oior, nontraditiOl\lll sex roles, and interracial dating resulted in 75% for father and l000iO for mother. A caution/safety ratio involving two situations of latency age supervision and younger teen dating resulted in 50% for father and 100% for mother. A ratio for non-harsh discipline resulted in 100% for father and 100% for mother. [perhaps mother by a very narrow margin is preferred by this measure.] GAP/CustodyEvaI!JoshuaKayn 9/00 9 . ~ J'.di'~' , ll.1';, , Gay Sibling. Father indicated that mother has a "gay" brother and expressed concern about the amount oftitne that Joshua might spend with him should the child be primarily in mother's care. Mother said that it was true that her brother was gay. However, in her view gay does not mean pedophile; further she does not believe that one becomes homosexua1 from environmental contact. [Mother's views are basically consistent with those of the professional helping community at large.] Each parent was given a list of 40 child rearing responsibilities to be judged on how family life was conducted Prior to the S\lIlatatiOl!. Both adults gave mother an equal or prinuuy responsibility rating more than 500,,(, of the time. They gave her credit for being more supportive of education, more influential in teaching manners, more likely to get up in the middle of the night when the <;hild is sick, more even handed and reliable in discipline practices, a more patient list\lIler, and a more frequent commU1licator with the child. Both agree that each was equally encouraging of sociaJization. [This measure favors mother.] Issues qf Previous Parenting. Mother has some concerns about the quality of the relationship between father and his older children. Chris was 14 and Kathy 19 when Dennis and Teresa got together. Chris was living primarily with his father, and Kathy lived primarily with her mother. Chris became Involved with drugs as a teen ager, but Teresa said that she takes some responsibility because she was too demanding on Pennis' time. But Teresa further indicated that she and father made a trip to Florida in Februa1y to see the children, that Chris ref\.Jsed to talk to his father, that father engaged in name calling of Kathy, and that they returned home early by plane rather than continue the visit. Father agreed that they came home early, that Chris had refused to talk to him (over money issues), and that he called Kathy an ugly name to Teresa but not to Kathy's face. Father describes his relationship with Chris over the years as "volatile." He said that he was "etema1ly ashamed" of the name calling. There has since been correspondllIlce of apology, and he has helped Chris buy a car. When descn'bing these events to me father placed blame on Kathy for Chris not talking to him and on Teresa for Kathy finding out about the name calling. [As an example of father's behavior, these events appear to represent emotional dyscontrol, delayed problem-resolulion, remorseful feeling, and minimizing self-responsibility in the context of conflict between parent and child.] Mother expfessedfurther concern that even when father's dang/ttm" was in her twenties, he was still buying underwear for her as gifis. The parents do not agree if the behavior was inappropriate. Father acknowledges that this was true at .Christmas when Kathy was in college, when among fifteen to twenty gifts he might send to meet various needs and requests, underwear in the form of bras, panties, and boxer shorts were included. Kathy's mother did the same. [Although it doesn't have to be associated with a negative meaning, this practice most likely would be considered unusual and infrequent by most opposite sex fathers.] GAP/CustodyEvallJoshuaKayn 9/00 10 ~ "-'~ " !h: In-Home Observation: Father, Upon my arrival father was standing outside the home waiting. Joshua was initially appropriately reserved with a stranger but then warmed up and became quite talkative. He showed me his room and bed. Child and family pictures were in full view in the home, including a picture of mother. Joshua displayed a mendly manner and engaging smile. Throughout the morning Joshua chattered with his father who attended to all needs that arose and made suggestion for play. He saw that Joshua got to the bathroom, saying, "He hasn't had an accident in a long time." Father took time from his paper worK to blow bubbles with Joshua and to re$pOnd to other requests. Joshua was initially quite attention seeking but became considerably less so as the newness of the circumstances wore off. Father made it a point to keep Joshua in the same area as himself. At a point father gave Joshua a sip from his coffee cup. Joshua sang and recited as he entertained himself. At a certain point he left the sun room with his dad and came into the play room area where he and I interacted with his play dinosaurs. For a time after finishing his paper wOIk, father held Joshua in his lap and they colored together. Throughout the morning father demonstrated patience, set boundaries, behaved in a loving and caring manner toward Joshua, used words with Joshua in various clever ways, and helped the child to be perceptive about his environment. As I interviewed father, he periodically checked on Joshua's activity and took care of potty needs. He redirected the child when he became excessively noisy or intrusive. At one point he was going to put in a video but decided against it. He encouraged Joshua to go out into the yard and swing his bat. The child was within eyesight. Joshua picked some "flowers" and brought them to us. Father showed me the flower garden where they worked together. ~othfil'. Joshua remembered me from the previous visit, exbibitedthe same manner and behavior as before, and showed his room to me. Child and family pictures were in full view in the home, but there was not an obvious picture offather. Mother prepared a play area on the floor and sat down on the floor with Joshua as she did her paper work. She fielded all of Joshua's comments and requests and talked to hb,n quietly, calmly, and supportively as he chattered and played. She took time to get him some grapes for a snack. At a point in time Joshua and I again played with his dinosaurs as mother completed the paper work. As needed mother would adopt an instruc1ive mode with Joshua, explaining his choices and what would happen with each choice. During mother's interview, Joshua became mildly cranky and demanding, and she put in a video which he eqjoyed. During some additional intenuptions she successfully combined praise with redirection. Joshua had a bowel accident which mother handled with patience, acceptance, and quiet reassurance, and he was only mildly upset. Joshua was otherwise able to entertain himself in a manner~ to his behavior at father's home. Mother showed me the flower garden that she and Joshua worked on together. [Joshua was somewhat crankier at mother's home, and he had the accident. These things could have happened at least in part because I was making a second visit and depriving Joshua of parent time again. The surroundings were also somewhat more coPfiJ>ing Father refrained from using a video as a behavior management tool. He also had mother's picture in full view. Both adults respond to Joshua with an excellent parenting manner.] GAP/CustodyEval/JoshuaKayn 9100 11 !IP'- " -'" ' . ,- ~,,~ ti Inclusive SumJtllU'y. One can summarize this report either by reading the bracketed sections or by ref~to the followUlg chart. For individual items, each large X = one point, and any amount of small x '= one half point. With the exception of residence, the categories are arranged roughly in weighted order from more subjectiw to more objectiw cate201Y (WeiVhtl Father Mother 1. Resid~nce (1) Living space X X Creative environment x X 2. Parent.Report of Personal :Qata (2) Background Information X X 3. Parent Description of Child (3) Qualities X X Activities X X 4. Practical Parenting (3) Joshua X X Additional data support x X 5. Psychological Evaluation (4) Individual Measures X xx Self-report (M) W AlS-R (F) Bender (FIM) HFD (F) Rorschach (M) :MMPI (F) MCMl (F) Problem-solving (F/M) Alcohol use (M) Comprehensive Conclusion xx X 6. Parenting Measures (5) 30 Parental Judgment Situations xxx X SupPortiw additiOIllll data x X Prior to the Separation x X Supportive additiOllal data x X 7. Parent/Child Observation (6) Paren1ichild interaction X X Child self-control X xx GAPfCustodyEvalfJoslwaKayn 9/00 12 -,,-' ='- - . ' By these measures and interpretations, mother is the prefetl'ed parent by a weighted score of 18 to 15 and by a specific kem score of 14.0 to 11.5. With regard to statutory guidelines: [1] The child's preference, due to age, cannot be stated, [2] Harshness of discipline is not an issue. [3] Father is more likely to be g\lIlerous in the amount of custody time given to the other parent. SecondlU"Y Conclusion. These observations should in no way be considered an endorsement for mother to move the child out of state, which is one of father's {ears, but which mother insists that she would not do so long as father and son have a good relationship. Joshua is obviously very comfortable and happy when with his father. SecondlU"Y Recommendation. Each parent could benefit from counseling to address various personal issues. Primary Recommendation. Joint legal custody and primary physical custody to mother. Father's physical custody should include as a minimum: eveJ:y other week-end, including any Mondayand/or Friday that he does not work, one evening for several hours each week, and equal time during holidays, school vacations, and summer. Eugene Ii, Stecber, MA. Psychologist Diplomate, Professional Academy of Custody Evaluators GAP/CustodyEvaVJoshuaKayn 9100 13 '"--'J. ;c._ ~ ~ 1:f;', .. 06/14/2001 10:40 7172643415 F AND M TRUST PAGE 02 +Spriut. Monthly ...temen" June 4. 2001 3 or 7 Customer service 1 -800-828-8008 Imernet sddress www..prlnt.com ClJstomer number 717-530H578~ Sprint lO~;.11 S0fvices Making It Right The FlrltTlme. EVtlryTlme Sptlnt IitrlvAt for excellence in mtultinc ... ycwr communication peeds. Should something 110 wrong, our goal ill to fix it ..... 10 VOll r compl.l. satl,fac:tlon - th. first time. Th.nk.lor VOIIr b".ln.... Summary of chars.: June 4 - July 3 Local services for 717-5311-67811 Other charge. Taxes and surcharges T~:!~~~!~J,!~rn~'.'.. 22.36 .116 7_77 $30.1. Detail of charges: .JUne 4 - JUIV 3 Local aervlc8a for 717-&30..&180 Local phone service LineGuard local loll c.elllng For motrJ II1Ml't"l'Ultlcn about your local toll calling {Jr~8 pltUIS6 refet ro yovr phons dirBctory Direct dial charges TCltallocal services fOr 717-530-6780 13.50 t 4_45 c 4.411 $22.35 .., i.:i'i;ii~i:iiii;iiiiiiti~'H~ii!i:: I..,.} ..~.. ......l...iiWlif;i~iJ4~~I!!~iit~i~~~~~!lfj ...,.,.... "g~,r.. . :.:-~'i~...a"~~z,.. .";:,", .. ~'~2~~M!''':~;i....:.........)!~~:.:~tj~~. .... .... i~r,'.....:.. . 26 ,. 29 7:17 P HAl'lIlIS8URG. PA 717-812-9366 Do Ten.! dlrOl(:l dial chorllos '-.,... 1.0 1,0 1.0 . :~:~ 15.0 .'.0 ~.O .,1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1~0 1.0 . '.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.11 '.0 . .1.0 1.0 . . 1,0 1.0 . .1;0.. 1.0 .10 .10 .'0 .10 1.50 .'0 .10 .10 .'0 .20 .10 .10 .10 .11! .10 .30 .30 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .11! .10 $4.40 o SV€l:l- SPI .1 8/~/ol rp8ge t ~ so, page 2 for explanation . Sprint@ 30f 6 Monthly statement: May 4, 2001 Customer ~ervice 1-800-829-8009 Internet address www~sprint.com Customer number 717-531)-671\1)-609 Sprint Loca! Services Summary of charges: May 4 - June 3 Local services for 717-530-6780 Other charges Taxes and surcharges 21.20 .06 7.65 Detail of charges: May 4 - June 3 Local services for 717-530-6780 Local phone service LineGuard Usage-based services Return call (*69) Local toll calling For more information about 'y'our local toll calling area please refer to your phone directory Direct dial charges Total local services for 717-530-6780 13.50 t 4.45 1 @.75 .75 2.50 $21.20 Direct di-'itemj~edcalls . . ,. -. .1' . . ~~l~~.=.~.~.:.l.~.!..;.;.:.~;.::;.;.~.::~.:.t.i-.t.!.~.:~.[....,.::.'~;.'.;.:..l,..~;..!.:I.....~..:.~.i.::.~~:t:. ...... ..m.. ..... .. .. .. ... ".:;~i~.",.:.ii;..:.,;..~ ::t~,~i,~=~~ltlt;.l;~,~~'~lm:~tII~II~~~l,llt~~~~~~~~ ....~a,y:...,.. llmll!ll{ll~l~tmlm~rll~~,~~tm~~~~~:!f:i!llill"~~~~~m~' ..... ...,'",;,~':~""'t'l"':l""'l""""'" 9 A r.5 6:06 P ISBURG. PA 717-612-9366 .......bay...."'.".."."'.'." ....H....f.l'Il...........?:.............. ....... ....L.........71.7~.....12.:1l~66... ..aYm. ... ............. ...... 1.0 . m;,[~~tw._l~'mtl't.~~~lWi~~~f;'~~~~~~im'llijl;~'tlll!!!1imltlliiftimlt",ll'tt', 'tl'mill~ij,:;~" }~::Aiii1~:'i:~fl:':fiAitRj!i~[ji'l~;:pAi.17:~i2:9~6il... ... ........... .....i:lay .................. ..m .mf6'. l'mml,~~~m~~:llllm~:~11F:~'II~ttml~~;~~m.-'.;~~;~~~~m,ll,ll,mmlm;i.-l,~:,t:~,mm.lm ...........;;";"""';"~c.~",;,;;;;. ~-~~-~-:~~ ,.-i'.,~Jlt._li!I.-,","',.-.~1~i!:1..-"f~~~!!~:!:1~'i:'.;'1,!1~"!!'1,r~i,~~~.-;,';, ;";m,ml~tll,,'m.-,m,lll~'J,.,,.j ";""''';'''''''~''!!'"' :iiHAPiiilm6:5ilpHiiARRiSBURG.pA..717:612-9366. .... ..I.IHOavmmmm ..mm .mf6 ;l'rmj'j":~l~i!"mlm,:lJ~~~l:,.~~~~~~j:>.Am"l~~~~~~i,~ij",;l".j;"."..,.;j~~~,Wllm m.... "".~.6l..m m:i3mmAi36mm 5:45 P HARRfSBURG:PA717~il1:i:93ilii bammm"".To' Total direct dial charges _. u." _, ,., '-J '_'" .~ Sprlnt~ .~- i<t 401 8 Monthly statement: May 4, 2001 Internet address www.sprint.c:om Customer number 717-530-6780-609 Customer service '-800-829-8009 Other charges PA Telcom relay surcharge Total other charges .06 t $.06 Taxes and surcharges Interstate access surcharge For an explanation of the interstate access surcharge p~asecaUI-80o-938-117Z Federal universal service fund For an exptanation of the federal U,-,ivsfsa! service fund please caU 1-800-938-1172. Number portability surcharge For an explanation of the number portability surcharge please call 1-800-938-1172. Emergency 911 surcharge Federal tax State tax Surcharge on basic local services Surcharge on toll services Total taxes and surcharges 4.35 t .36 t .48 t 1.25 t .66 t .49 t .05 t .01 $7.65 Change rn{; 5en.fWcEi For your convenience this section of your bill is provided to easily identify any changes to your Sprint local service account since the last billing statement, and to confirm your carrier selections. Summary for 717-530-6780 Clarrent carrier selections local toll: Sprint long distance: AT&T Confirmation no change no change . ~::!>s'::iI.Direolit..;.1'-:i-t.-.~s;tJ; tt-~~;:" ~...::-..te-Ch&.f1ge - _.. - - Effective April 13, 2001, the rate for local directory assistance has increased to $0.75 per use. Customers can still make two directory assistance calls per month without charge. Customer news continued next page t - see page 2 for explanation -- KKT01027 001093 02 "m.~..'__ ~._... ~..~ - " 0' -! ,- b~ _ '""' - ~~-" April 2, 2001 .....-.r'fJrl' \ , t:. , ~..~~ Teresa, To avoid possible confusion about time with Joshua, I have charted out visitation time, alternating holidays and vacation days by month through the remainder of 2001. This calendar serves as my 30 day notice of the alternating holidays and the 3 weeks vacation due to me. Month Weekends Weekdav Vacation Davs (will be Tues. or Wed.) *Holidavs 4/01 4/6-4/8 4/20-4/22 4 4/19 5/01 5/4-5/6 5/18-5/20 4 5/7 5/30-5/31 5/8 Memorial Day 6/01 6/1-6/3 6/15-6/17 6/29-7/1 4 6/4 6/14 8/01 7/13-7/15 7/27-7/29 . 8/10-8/12 8/24-8/26 4 7/2 7/12 7/01 5 8/6, 8/7, 8/9,8/13 9/4, 9/6, 9/24 9/3 Labor Day 9/01 9/7-9/9 9/21-9/23 4 10/01 10/5-10/7 10/19-10/21 5 10/4 10/8 11/01 11/2-11/4 11/16-11/18 5 11/1 11/29 12/01 11/30-12/2 12/28-12/30 4 12/27 12/31 12/25 Christmas In 2002, we need to exchange holidays. I would have 1/1102. Also from 1/1/01-3/3101, I've used my standard days plus the 1/15/01 holiday. Dennis Kayn cc: Tom Williams DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT " 8/~(){ 3 U!(..'1./ ",.---,,-'-' ~".-._' '. ,~,_,"'-<_:, - C-'\__,~' '.. . ,,~, ,,'.,' "F"'. N' "o'<"'h'."~"",, '."'..1 "'I II ., Ii II II II II II II I , I i i I I !I II II II II !I II II , , , I ! TERESAD. KAYN Plaintiff v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA .2000- : NO. ;;It.j.(ji CIVIL TERM : IN DIVORCE DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant WAIVER OF COUNSELING TERESA D. KAYN, Plaintiff herein, hereby states and certifies as follows: 1. I have been advised of the availability of marriage counseling and understand that I may request that the Court require that my spouse and I participate in counseling. 2. I understand that the Court maintains a list of marriage counselors in the Domestic Relations Office, which list is available to me upon request. 3. Being so advised, I do not request that the Court require that my spouse and I participate in counseling prior to a divorce decree being handed down by the Court. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.s. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 2. f::\~ "2-DOO ~JJVM {L ~ TERESAD. KAYN ~~~-"'-'~"-- ~~_.....''-< ''';'-'-'~ ,~~., ,~. b,,~ . -~ .. ~ -' () ~; -0(" ~LJ; ~~) .s:::.CI ::>~ '2 '2i:' S? S~~ \'-) C) - :;:;.: , , ~- (i) . ,'-' '''., "'-._~_ ,,"_.-_....~::. ." ,'~. _,0',' ~,_.,;,;,,~:,'_ ~':.",,-,;. "';J_-O ,'z;.po",',;-m"l",>,',OCC'" .:. , Y-i.,,-]\ .1 ~ v. : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL TERM j,\ r~ , i~ ~ 'j) i' 'I n I II " l! '1~ ~j [1 II ~ fi t;j 1~ n i ~ !i TERESA D.KA YN Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DENNIS R. KAYN, : IN DIVORCE Defendant r.FRTIFIr.ATF OF ~FRVIr.F I, Deborah R. Clark, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Complaint in Divorce and Waiver of Counseling in the above captioned matter was duly served upon the Defendant, Dennis R. Kayn, by depositing it in the U.S. Mail, certified, restricted delivery, return receipt requested, on April 25, 2000, addressed as follows: Ji i I' I ~ I Dennis R. Kayn 247 Chestnut Dr. Shippensburg, PA 17257 I' I! ~ j! I hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. !: !l Ii ! I I ~ ~ '~ DATE: May 10, 2000 ~mcu( DEBORAH R. CLARK ,., .~ ".",' ~,,'," " -, ....,-".,-,\ ,_,~ '_: L~--__,-,"_~~ ~ _. ' o.-',;,',f.,~,~-""~ ,.. "--~,-~ .., ~,,~-.^- -=~, .' ;j ~ :'ddill"MJ'''M- .~rl tb8'~ ~ lhJ8 tonn ,10 that we e&rI reIum thl8 __ :o,.the',~I~~.'or,O!'l the back If spaci does not >[iZ,!'-_ '" )~ih1.ti~~.~-thI! 8rucl~ n~mber. IO:~\fI1l1l',mjf~~iw...d8IIvo...and tho da!e 1>:: ~$lllQ wish to receive. following services (fOr $n llXlra lee): 1. Cl Addressee's Add- t I. 2. ~RestriCled DflIlvery ,s Con$ult;P,DSllllaBterforle$. '&. 4af'W~i 313 J: I' Ii ! I ! 'EJ Certified C1lnsured proD I .ill 4b..Servill8 Type Cl Reg~red Cll;xp.,.,. Mall : Refuri)'$~for Merchandise 7. GiIlU;lhiery 8. ~ : .ii'S~ ress Only/ffeq~ed /IIld~ifs paid) ~l~L:: > ..;' Z 332 /17& 313 us Postal SeIVice Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail See reverse Sen1fiENNIs R KAYN Stre~,meHESTNUT DR Postffltt~~ PA 17257 Postage $ Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee on m Return Receipt Showing to - Whom & Date Delivered ~ RebJmR~, ... Dato~ress;,;,;~1.ll.::Z ~ r::i .- o ,iOTA co. ' <'tp ~ ~ ~. " ..., a: <( o .~ . $:2 ;.,?;'" vr;" rI/'-'] .:?-"[1,: -5;:-.-l.t f?,S~ r-' <.~ :s::D ~O 55:0 r- Q ;g .....,. C:). ,.:;} ,~ .bo --< () <1 ~:,::j i;;,::o r- -j""JrTl 2?g :r~ g;fi - -;' L " .~- ~, TERESA D.KA YN Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 200-2469 CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KAYN, : IN DIVORCE 2 g 0 Defendant g! E '~~:;[J ~~iD N :ai3 TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDER C::cJ c' L ...> -""J ,.-,,( ) AND NOW this t;l.tt day of May, 2000, upon consid~m ~f t1~~ STIPULATION FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDER of the parties and cciinsElt;in t~ matter and their request for temporary resolution of the custody dispute, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that: 1. Teresa D. Kayn and Dennis R. Kayn shall have shared legal and physical custody of Joshua R. Kayn, born March 5, 1997. 2. Dennis shall have periods of physical custpdy according to the following schedule: a. Friday, May 12, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Saturday, May 13, 2000.at 6:00 p.m. b. Friday, May 19, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday, May 21, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. c. Friday June 2, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday June 4, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. d. Friday, June 16, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday, June 18, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. e. Friday, June 30, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Tuesday, July 4, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. f. Friday, July 14, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday, July 16, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. " - - . ,.- - "~ " _ .~, 0, , .~ - b"j' MRY-10-2000 17:04 JRCOBSEN & MILKES 717 249 8427 P.03 . , . . . g. On alternate weekends thereafter from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. h. Every Tuesday from 12:00 p.m., noon, until Wednesday morning at 7:00 a.m. I. At such other times as the parties may agree. 3. Mother shall have physical custody of Joshua at all other times except as specifically provided herein. 4. For weekend visits, the parties shall meet to transfer custody of Joshua at the parking lot of the MacDonald's restaurant on Walnut Bottom Road, in Carlisle, PA near Exit 13 of Interstate 81, or at such other place as the parties may agree. 5. For weekday visits, Father shall pick up Joshua at the Capital Area Children's Center, Mechanicsburg, PA, for his Tuesday visitation and will return him to the Capital Area Children's Center, Mechanicsburg, PA on Wednesday morning, or make such other arrangements as the parties may agree. 6. Both parents shall be responsible for continuing Joshua's church attendance and spiritual growth. 7. During periods of physical custody, neither Dennis nor Teresa will exercise physical custody overnight in the presence of a third party of the opposite sex not related by blood or marriage. 8. Neither party shall attempt to undermine the mutual love and affection the child has for the other parent, and neither party shall, in the presence of the child. make any disparaging or negative remarks concerning the other parent. Both parties shall hold out the other parent as one to whom the child should show respect and love. , l' " ~ i.j MAY-10-2000 17:05 JACOBSEN & MILKES 717 249 8427 P.04 1 . , .' 9. The parties may modify this custody arrangement by mutual agreement. By the Court: ~ 6: ~~ 3- If). -00 AK3 Cc: Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq. Attorney for aintiff Lynn Y. MacBride, Esq. Attorney for Defendant )0 ,- '-. " --- ~- ' " ~ri MAY-10-2000 17'05 JACOBSEN & MILKES 717 249 8427 P.05 , TERESA D.KAYN Plaintiff ; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . : NO. 200-2469 CIVIL TERM ; IN DIVORCE v. DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant STIPULATION FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDER Whereas the parties are unable to reach a permanent agreement regarding the legal and physical ,custody of their son, Joshua Ryan Kayn, but wish to provide for the temporary rights of both parties to have time with the child pending further negotiation and litigation, it is hereby agreed and stipulated as follows; 1. Plaintiff is Teresa D. Kayn, (Mother) presently residing at 469 Brook Circle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, PA 17055. 2. Defendant is Dennis R. Kayn, (Father) presently residing at 247 Chestnut Drive, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17257. 3. The parties are wife and husband and are the parents of a child, Joshua Ryan Kayn, born March 5, 1997, presently age 3, who was born to their marriage. 4. The parties agree to submit this Stipulation to the Court with a request that a Temporary Order of Court be entered in accordance with its terms. The parties agree that this Stipulation is entered into solely for the purpose of providing for temporary resolution of the custody dispute and is not intended as a permanent agreement and shall not prejudice either party with regard to their rights or their position in the custody litigation pending between them, which is presently scheduled for a conference before the Conciliator on August 4, 2000 at1 0;30 a.m. 5. The parties agree, and hereby stipulate, that, on a temporary basis, the Court may enter a Temporary Custody Order to provide as follows: ~~ ORDER OF COURT 1. Teresa D. Kayn and Dennis R. Kayn shall have shared legal and physical custody of Joshua R. Kayn, born March 5,1997. 2. Dennis shall have periods of physical custody according to the following schedule: a. Friday, May 12, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Saturday, May 13, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. b. Friday, May 19, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday, May 21, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. c. Friday June 2, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday June 4, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. d. Friday, June 16,2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday, June 18, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. e. Friday, June 30, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Tuesday, July 4, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. f. Friday, July 14, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday, July 16, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. g. On alternate weekends thereafter from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. h. Every Tuesday from 12:00 p.m., noon, until Wednesday morning at 7:00 a.m. i. At such other times as the parties may agree. 3. Mother shall have physical custody of Joshua at all other times except as specifically provided herein. 4. For weekend visits, the parties shall meet to transfer custody of Joshua at the parking lot of the MacDonald's restaurant on Walnut Bottom Road, in Carlisle, PA near Exit 13 of Interstate 81, or at such other place as the parties may agree. '" ... .wi,.,:; MAY-10-2000 17:06 JACOBSEN & MILKES 717 249 8427 P.07 0/ 5. For weekday visits, Father shall pick up Joshua at the Capital Area Children's Center, Mechanicsburg, PA, for his Tuesday visitation and will return him to the Capital Area Children's Center, MechaniCSburg, PA on Wednesday morning, or make such other arrangements as the parties may agree. 6. Both parents shall be responsible for continuing Joshua's church attendance and spiritual growth. 7, During periods of physical custody, neither Dennis nor Teresa will exercise physical custody overnight in the presence of a third party of the opposite sex not related by blood or marriage. 8. Neither party shall attempt to undermine the mutual. love and affection the child has for the other parent, and neither party shall, in the presence of the child, make any disparaging or negative remarks concerning the other parent. Both parties shall hold out the other parent as one to whom the child should show respect and love. 9. The parties may modify this arrangement by mutual agreement. . ~ ~_I()-OO ~~ By the Court: The Plaintiff and Defendant do verify that they stipulate as set forth above and that the statements herein are true and correct to the best of their knowledge and information and belief. JJz~ {l kl TERESA D. KAYN, p~ ~~~f~~ {lQ c.. ANDREA C. J C BSEN, Esq. Attorney for P aantiff TOTAL P.07 'rl"","'- -0' tij~~"" ""- '1IliiII , " ~.~. ~,~ _~'"",.""~"~'.'~"",, ~ ~_, .~O IDlllililliliillillll' . ~ , ..~ - ~, . 0< , '~ ,. """" "";" .. I', Ii Ii , Ii , 0 0 0 C 0 -1'1 5_ ::J!: "~ -onJ :PO '-r"" rnn1 -eo: ~'11~ 2::.0 "'.1,"11 ZC;~ ,'.,0 ~:2,: \>) '~~ ~C) .~;:l 2.;\.) -"'";" -". !:"~Cj N O,rn J>C: ~ Z "'" ::;! 'D -< ,'~,,-o..~" --,.,C, -<,_"",-~" . _',_,C_Lo_,_' ',-. TERESA D.KAYN Plaintiff v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. a.()O()-~M CIVIL TERM : IN DIVORCE DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant ORnRR AND NOW, this~f?day of Ap;. r '/ ,2000 upon consideration of the attached Complain, it is hereby directed that the parties a~d their respectiv~nsel appear before . '" )( . the Conciliator, attf"/1.;:,..1 to. (~r:~ the to+hdayof :::'ulf-, 2000, at -:J.:()() o'clock ~.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. FOR THE COURT, By It'-+ k q~ Custody Conciliator (ff.) '-I: OU tF"~ ? 7 Pi: ":\; 1:- i 'i, .... ..l, C' ",!~,-,c... '.."'" ,\-, -\.II\',~,...: ,'_J lj,-Jur~l i p~Nr',(;::;\lL'\!6.i\II;:\ _ ...-'" ,1" Jl,)).o() &/'. ~ ~ ~ ~ p~ l/-;tl.c;o 7~ ~ ~ ~. - t(:i).CJ~ ~ ~ ~ tI'~ #~. , ~ -' "~- ,,~ " " ' -~-' 1Im!_ _.-~-~ "I" =~ -"'" .",," '~"-"'-" >, ,- '~ "'.'-''''''~'-I'.'" -' --:~"- ,--,^,,: ,~- "-0--"""'.' ; ,,,,"-, ..r~,,", ">-, - ,,- ~',~",,-' "; -:,.-,_:, ,,"-,," :-"'-'j;~'~_'-C,.:..\;",._,;",<, " ~ -""-,>;';;:1 TERESA D.KAYN Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. . : NO. 1/1). :1-'1&' 9 CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant : IN DIVORCE NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take prompt action. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a decree of divorce or annulment may be entered against you by the Court. A judgment may also be entered against you for any other claim or relief requested in these papers by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you, including custody or visitation of your children. When the ground for the divorce is indignities or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, you may request marriage counseling. A list of marriage counselors is available in the Office of the Prothonotary, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM FOR ALIMONY, DIVISION OF PROPERTY, LAWYER'S FEES OR EXPENSES BEFORE A DIVORCE OR ANNULMENT IS GRANTED, YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY OF THEM. 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 -1< ,~.-"' - , - ~,~, ',-0'- _ .,,'_~ ,-ci~"'" ,_~ ",'., _' "~_,,,,~,_, -"M_ ,,__ ~< '~n ~, - """-''',",<<-,,,,;' ,,'_;"- '.'~_'_' ,>' -'-'"""';=j,-'1 TERESA D. KAYN, Plaintiff v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. fHJ ..2 'ft.? CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KAYN, : IN DIVORCE Defendant COMPLAINT UNDER THE DIVORCE CODE COUNT I - DIVORCE 1. Plaintiff is Teresa D. Kayn, presently residing at 469 Brook Circle, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055. 2. Defendant is Dennis R. Rayn, presently residing at 247 Chestnut Drive, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17257. 3. Both parties have been bona fide residents in the Commonwealth for at least six months immediately previous to the filing of this Complaint. 4. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married September 20, 1991. 5. There have been no prior actions of divorce or for annulment between the parties in this or any other jurisdiction. 6. Neither party to this action in divorce is currently a member of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. 7. Plaintiff has been advised that counseling is available and that the Plaintiff may have the right to request that the Court require the parties to participate in counseling. 8. The marriage between the parties hereto is irretrievably broken. 9. Plaintiff requests the Court to enter a decree of divorce. -- - ~ < '" __~ _r_ "_~,, " -,,- -, 6~.~"'~, ~"^" '.-0'_> _," - ~.,-. "'~ _,,' v"~ ~;"'''''''+"'''''^''''',",'' , _, c~. '" -.",,' '141~;""L'<-;;'--""_h,_ ,,' _. "_--';;'1 COUNT II - CHILD CUSTODY 10. Plaintiff incorporates herein the prior paragraphs by reference. 11. Plaintiff seeks a court order awarding her shared legal and pnmary physical custody of the parties' son, Joshua Ryan Kayn, born March 5, 1997, presently age 3, with whom she is presently residing. Joshua was born to the marriage of the parties. 12. Joshua is presently in the physical custody of his mother. 13. During his life, the child has resided with the following persons at the following addresses: from birth to May 1999: with Dennis and Teresa Kayn at 204 Minnich Road, Chambersburg, Franklin County, P A 17201; from May 1999 - April 2000, with Dennis and Teresa Kayn at 247 Chestnut Drive, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, PA 17257; from April 2000 - with Teresa Kayn, at 469 Brook Circle, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055. 14. The parties have been discussing separation and have begun arrangements to sell the marital home. Mother intends to remain with the child in Cumberland County. The future plans of Father are unknown. 15. Father has threatened Mother on several occasions that if she interferes with his custody of Joshua, he will remove Joshua from the area, and relocate to another country. 16. Mother moved from the marital home with Joshua but does not wish to deprive Father of shared legal custody or partial physical custody or visitation rights with regard to his son. Mother fears that if there is no Order of Court establishing the rights of both parties to custody of the child she may be totally deprived of his custody by father and the child's schedule of care will be totally disrupted. ~,~, _c_ "~,~,,,,_,,,,,.,...,~o,,~,^__~,__",,, ><"",.,.,~~ .~- - ~ . ,-" - .. ^".~ ,,-'_ ~'" ,-". C';j 17. The parties have been unable to agree upon terms for custody of their son after their separation. Mother is a loving parent who has always been the primary caretaker of the child since his birth. Over the past year, the child has traveled to work with mother each day from the marital home in Shippensburg to his day care provider located near Mother's work at the Navy Depot in Mechanicsburg. This arrangement was set up in order to facilitate Mother's availability in the event of her son's need for her during the workday. On a daily basis, Father does not dress or feed the child in the morning and does not eat dinner with his son. Mother is responsible for all arrangements as to child care for the child, feeding him, arranging for his medical care, purchasing his clothes, changing him, bathing him, caring for him during non-work hours, etc. 18. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or witness, or in another capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody of the child in this or another court. 19. Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the children pending in a court of this Commonwealth. 20. Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child. 21. Mother believes that she is best able to provide a stable loving home for her son and that his best interest and permanent welfare will be served by granting the relief request and awarding her primary physical custody of Joshua, awarding Father partial physical custody for the purpose of visitation, and granting the parties shared legal custody of the child. 22. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been terminated ~,p- 'do, ^" ,~ ~" ,-- ~."-',."~',~'.,,, - ..."; '^ '.~',;; ""',~'. "-"""~-~""';-,'"'''__'_ _;,p','",-""",,,,,;-,","O'" '-C"_",_, ,- __ ~ 1>,;'[2i.~j\ and the person who has physical custody of the child has been named as parties to this action. 23. Plaintiff request this Court to enter an Order granting the parties shared legal custody of the child, and granting her primary physical custody of Joshua subject to the grant of partial physical custody to Defendant. COUNT II - EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION 24. Plaintiff incorporates the prior paragraphs by reference. 25. The parties are the owners of personal property subject to equitable distribution between them as marital property. 26. Plaintiff requests the Court to equitably divide such items of marital property between them. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests this Court to: a. Enter a final Decree of Divorce divorcing the Plaintiff from the Defendant; b. Award the parties shared legal custody and award the Plaintiff primary physical custody of the parties' minor child subject to reasonable visitation with the Defendant; and c. Grant equitable distribution of the marital property of the parties; and . ~ --' " ~ ..~,=.,-'" ".." "-_0 .","'-, _,';-.0 o"",,.;,",.,c . -'.'~'''" """ ..",.....~ ";~.~ ",-",~"O'-0;";""'""-" '''o<-'-:~;'._ _ ',"-';"'__~'-\I d. Grant such further relief, as the Court shall deem proper and just. Respectfully submitted, .;(0 Ap:J. )..oou BY: Andr . Jacobsen JACOBSEN & MILKES 52 E. High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 249-6427 (717) 249-8427 - Fax Attorney No. 20952 ~ v_, ,> ,m" - ~"> ,''',,,-,,,-~ '__. ~~, - ~,~" '#,0 O,''',NA- .".- ""~,~" ,-'" ~"--;i-"i~""',,, __ ,,_, __ ,,'_ ';";.' " I hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa..C.s. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: Jo A~ 2000 ~ ;fl kdu, TERESAD. KAYN ~ 'j"i:.o.< :"-'"", - '~ "--, op Ii=. -0 .j::. r.; - VJ ~ ~ "_-,0 {If ~ iU ,Ul Ul o -0 0- j ri2 tt ~~. ~)" ';.O>~: =2 o C' ". , ':.~; (-) r-",] C) --;, :,J- {~ ~ j:) .,< ;~.,' C;'i-o'c-''',;'; --,..~<L,;~:- . ""~O. ;'1~ --~---':,";:-.i~'" '1"'" "="'~'~'"'i ~ , " , TERESA D.KA YN Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KAYN, : IN DIVORCE Defendant r.FRTIFIr.ATF OF l';FR\lIr.F I, Kelly N. Michels, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Temporary Custody Order dated May 12, 2000 in the above captioned matter was duly served upon the Lynn MacBride, attorney for Defendant, Dennis R. Kayn, by depositing it in the U.S. Mail, postage paid, on June 5, 2000, addressed as follows: Lynn MacBride, Esq. WALKER & MACBRIDE 247 Lincoln Way East Chambersburg, PA 17201 I hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: June 5, 2000 -I(~rf lJJouYf- KELLY . ICHELS 'j l"r -'* ~'~ ~ , 'ra~l1 ",". 'k'> .. . ';"-" ,,~.; , " '.c, ",;,,"" , .,,~" C. 0 0 0 c: 0 -r; $: c.. ",:; -otr/ c::: J:: -n l11r.p ~';,,. ;:l~ Z,.,. Zr- / :~?[::7 (;) ",t~: \.0 ~~,!~ -<:...<. C;CJ "1:1 ,~ ZD ~.i,,- >&; L- (,')(.0 2; t::) j;! -; :q -< ,,:, .... -"'" . ,""",,," ;/".~~,~, ',',0" '_ '.'",<~,"'io'~hj '- ''"'''';:''', ~. ,'. )""'.i! . ~- . AUG 1 0 lJOOmW TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this ---LL ~y of August, 2000, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. This Court's prior Order of May 12, 2000 shall remain in effect subject to the following modifications: A. Father's alternating weekends with the minor child shall be extended until Monday morning at 7:00 a.m. B. The parties will continue discussions with respect to modifYing transportation and may do so either through a written agreement between legal counsel via a letter or by the filing of a stipulation with the Court. 2. Counsel for either party may contact the Conciliator to schedule another Custody Conciliation Conference via a telephone conference if counsel for the parties desire the Conciliator to be involved in any further matters. Additionally, either party retains the right to petition the Court to have this case scheduled for a hearing or requests other relief as appropriate from the Court. BY THE COURT, \ " J. cc: Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire Lynn MacBride, Esquire 5 COf''E..S rr"Ial~ I'fl.//OO ~ " '-. ----'" .. , Fit r:r\J',--,r- ~CLJ-'Jr+-j\..jt OF ~'l" ~",,~. ,~, l""'RY l'~'- l. '"' j 1 ,,-'I 1'.', I J I p ,"~~ I , ,'" L ,_", V II \l 00 AUG \ \ Pi'l 3: 1..8 CU'I~r'-' '."0 "('U'S1V wlbCl"llJ\ri G-J 11'l1 I PENNSYLVllNiA - 0"'''''''' . .,""..""...,-' ~~ ",", """,,, ""'" "'~.,_~IrM~ . ~ .., - i' ,"~ 1"fI!I.1l!l'jJ<,!,: . ,'-- -~^ .,~,..;"-.,,, ':"4'''''' ,~i"';';-':''-~;;;;'~''-<';;.\,--,.,'._,~j.' ,,'..I ~~<~1 .. .. TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff v IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: 1. Wesley Oler, Jr. CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WIlli THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: JoshuaR.Kayn, bom March 5, 1997. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on August 4, 2000, with the following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Theresa D. Kayn, with her counsel, Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire; and the Father, Dennis R. Kayn, with his counsel, Lynn MacBride, Esquire. 3. The parties agree to the entry of an order in the form as attached. -Ji ~( 00 DATE 6I-rkJ Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquir Custody Conciliator , ~ '''''''-$>''';' TERESAD. KAYN, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant : IN CUSTODY PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Dennis R. Kayn, in the above captioned matter. Date: 9 \ I I (") 0 ~~~~~ Ly Y. Mac . , Esquire 247 Lincoln Way East Chambersburg, P A 1720 I (717) 264-6494 TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Dennis R. Kayn, in the above captioned matter. Date: C11'-0--<:70 or . Andrews, Esquire 7 est Pomfret Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-0123 iIl'~""" ~~'l.~~I~Bil:i-ili:l<\ii~,tj;I>Ji!ilJru~"lii'W"d'ci_-'J>IW~';~'i~~~~" "~'_.-- ......iiII!I'I' -"""'-ut =. = . ~-,,- ,. ~ ,,~~, , iIlla""---W--illll1i!lili''V'~ o c :<=':': rf\f,~-,: 7:,i~~_ ::.(:;:; C~I._' ~Et~') J"C -7 ~. Q C) en '-C1 C'O G" - ,-) ::'n ~ W (N 'l;-::':d ,)T\ -'L./ .,}(l) ~.?~, S ~ -' "- ,--,,- , ' '" '" '" ~~"~ " - - ^ ,. - .,,"-'-" " TERESAD. KAYN, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant : IN CUSTODY i ORDER AND NOW, this ~ day of February, 2001, in accordance with the Motion of Special Relief filed on behalf of the Defendant, Dennis R. Kayn, Plaintiff, Teresa D. Kayn, is directed to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. A hearing for this purpose is scheduled for the<RJId day of /i)~..J.../ ,2001 at <( : 3D o'clock A:,M. in Courtroom #1 in the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pa. 17013. tkc.. e..l<:.1 '&t'O. V de> J Cn-...) ~~z-(j r.z. -,? 1/)' h" ~ulretg~~h:dg'e.p{~ci; p~v/dZ'-j21t2 P.!?I/{~~LA( p,at (<)0"-"1+ ~6-oif c.ohCf) t", \:,~ .2l~&Q,~ tk.t- (.; 1 d pO 1\) f..v It-v .oJde..> .3 co.....Jt. l a e.S.1l17 0 V I ~\'. 11', CC: Taylor P. Andrews, Esq. Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq. -P\~ C~ d-""O'b .() \ ~~ ~ //1;;1 ,M./ ...,.. .. 0:: f::L~O-O;:HCE ": ;:-T' :~i '~ll,,!.r"')hi(i.Tbl.:-JY _" <---' 1'\ I 01 FES - 8 FH :3: [) ! CUMBi~;:Li\\~D COUi'~TY PENNSYLV!~NiA " .. "".c, '~""~"""'~'i":-~' ,,'~. . ",I!ii\ll'f~~M! Pf1'\'ftl_~Ii>l~'~i""<',,~_,~~,,_~",.~__OOl!~ f"'- -" _';',l ,(,,' ., " TERESAD. KAYN, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant : IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF Defendant father, Dennis R. Kayn, by his counsel, Taylor P. Andrews, Esq., respectfully represents the following in support of this motion for special relief: 1. This Court entered a Temporary Custody Order in the above captioned case on May 12, 2000. This order was amended on August 11,2000. Copies of the orders are attached hereto as Exhibit A and B. 2. In accordance with the above referenced order, Father obtained custody of Joshua Kayn for a midweek visit on Tuesday, February 6,2001. 3. When Father bathed Joshua on February 6, 200l, Father noticed an injury to Joshua's penis. Joshua reported that the injury resulted from an intentional act by a male companion ofJoshua's mother, the above named Plaintiff. 4. Father took Joshua to the local hospital for examination. The report by Joshua was relayed to police authorities and father believes also, possibly to Child Protective Services. An investigation into the report by Joshua has commenced. 5. Out of concern for Joshua's well-being and the integrity of the investigation into Joshua's injury Father did not return Joshua to mother on Wednesday morning. 6. Father would like to keep custody ofJoshua until the reports ofJoshua's injury are investigated, and depending upon the results of the investigation, until Father has an opportunity to request a change in the Temporary Order of Custody. . :]-~ WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court to grant special relief by ordering that Defendant Dennis R. Kayn, shall keep custody of Joshua R. Kayn until such time as the investigation by Child Protective Services is concluded and this Court shall have entered an order reinstating the Temporary Custody Order of May 12, 2000 as amended in August, or shall have entered a new order superceding the Temporary Custody Order of May 12, 2000 as amended in August. a 0 . Andrews, Esquire West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-0l23 ~'''"'''~. _. ~ ~ ~~ ' u ~ ~, . I _ "~ ~_~ ,.. a' ~~ ....,,~" TERESA D.KA YN Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 200-2469 CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KAYN, (') c::> c- C:J 0 :;:'"' -~1 ~~! ~ ~;~ c-::. ~: . ':; ;"":, -. ".;. ..:.J~..:J ~...: >.'.1 . ) . :.-... ' ..,... .:-,~{~ AND NOW this t ~ ii day of May, 2000, upon conside'ia?ton :~f thI~ ~~ ~ ~fn STIPULATION FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDER of the parties and couhselTin ttg! : IN DIVORCE Defendant TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDER matter and their request for temporary resolution of the custody dispute, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that: 1. Teresa D. Kayn and Dennis R. Kayn shall have shared legal and physical custody of Joshua R. Kayn, born March 5, 1997. 2. Dennis shall have periods of physical custody according to the following schedule: a. Friday, May 12, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Saturday, May 13, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. b. Friday, May 19, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday, May 21,2000 at 6:00 p.m. c. Friday June 2, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday June 4, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. d. Friday, June 16, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday, June 18, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. e. Friday, June 30, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Tuesday, July 4, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. f. Friday, July 14, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday, Juiy 16, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. Ex\.\ l.f 4- .1.~' _I, _ .~ .... ~= "~" .~., ~AY-10-2000. 17:0~ JACOBSEN 8. MILKES 717 2~9 842: P.03 g. On alternate weekends thereafter from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. h. Every Tuesday from 12:00 p.m., noon, until Wednesday morning at 7:00 a.m. i. At such other times as the parties may agree. 3. Mother shall have physical custody of Joshua at all other times except as specifically provided herein. 4. For weekend visits, the parties shall meet to transfer custody of Joshua at the parking lot of the MacDonald's restaurant on Walnut Bottom Road, in Carlisle, PA near Exit 13 of Interstate 81, or at such other place as the parties may agree. 5. For weekday Jvisits, Father Shall pick up Joshua at the Capital Area Children's Center, Mechanicsburg, PA, for his Tuesday visitation and will return him to the Capital Area Children's Center, Mechanicsburg, PA on Wednesday morning, or make such other arrangements as the parties may agree. 6. 80th parents shall be responsible for continuing Joshua's church attendance and spiritual growth. 7. During periods of physical custody, neither Dennis nor Teresa will exercise physical custody overnight in the presence of a third party of the opposite sex not related by blood or marriage. 8. Neither party shall attempt to undermine the mutual love and affection the child has for the other parent, and neither party shall, in the presence of the child, make any disparaging or negative remarks concerning the other parent. Both parties shall hold out the other parent as one to whom the child should show respect and love. "..._~.~~.~ . ~- ~",. , , ~~'''''''''"''-~'''''''l'' ~AY-10-200~ 17:05 JACOBSEN & MILKES 717 249 84?7 P.04 9. The parties may modify this custody arrangement by mutual agreement. By the Court: ~ ~ ~~ 5-/&-00 RJ<3 Cc: Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq. Attorney for aintiff Lynn Y. MacBride, Esq. Attorney for Defendant lJiII&!>JiI*j"~-'~ -'"~ ~ ~ AUG 1 0 {~:(;;/j} TERESA D. K.A YN, Plaintiff v IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA CIVIL ACTION - LAW DENNIS R. K.A YN, Defendant NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this ~ day of August, 2000, upon conside~tion of the attached Custody Concili:ition.F~epor~' it is otd~ alld.,djrected.as follows: 1. This Court's prior Order of May 12, 2000 shall remain in effect subject to the following modifications: A. Father's alternating weekends with the minor child shall be extended until Monday morning at 7:00 am. B. The parties will continue discussions with respect to modifying . transportation. and may do so either through a written agreement between legal counsel via a letter or by the filing of a stipulation with the Court. 2. Counsel for either party may contact the Conciliator to schedule another Custody Conciliation Conference via a telephone conference if counsel for the parties desire the Conciliator to be involved in any further matters. A<lditionally, either party retains the right to petition the Court to have this caSe scheduled for a hearing or requests other relief as appropriate from the Court. BY TIlE COURT, f!l1~ )OA~L) 11 ~ J. esley Cler, . cc: Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire Lynn MacBride, Esquire TRUE COpy FROM RECORD In Testimony whereol, I here unto sat my hand and the seal. ~ "'" 1""'.... fa. ~ T~~~~ t~~. honotary ~ Ex~,bj g - c",'''c.'' --, -' '-"'.,,'_:;,_a..c-..;__, li1 - TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant : IN CUSTODY PRAECIPE Defendant hereby withdraws the Motion for Special Relief filed in the above captioned case on February 7, 2001. Date: 3 _~f _0 ( . Andrews, Esquire st Pomfret Street isle, P A 17013 (717) 243-0123 UUID( -. ~- ,e""'';'" . '~l' ,."~.",,, ,.-, .,~, ,,- ~ -!l~Ii- , ., ..'40' "<> , .,.,... "., .." ~ - (') 0 0 c: -n ~ -". ""OTI] :I~'~ ;J mrn "" 2::::c N -"--:C;""1 :Z<;,~ .iO w,..,. ~1~~; ~o -0 < l~~ )>C' ::E: Z' ~ );>2 );' :z; '::) :0 =< -..J -< =,~, .",,",," ';~......... - ~" 'im~."~ '" '.,~,' , .. TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff vs. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant : IN CUSTODY t ORDER AND NOW, this 1 day of February, 2001, in accordance with the Motion of Special Relieffiled on behalf of the Defendant, Dennis R. Kayn, Plaintiff, Teresa D. Kayn, is directed to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. A hearing for this purpose is scheduled for the;(Jrd day of /i)~ ,2001 at <i : 3D o'clock L1JM. in Courtroom #1 in the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pa. 17013. t'kc.e.l<.I,t'O,. vdo JCb-0 s~z(jre..-'?l'" I,' ~u~ret:g~~h::~g, c-P(~ ci ~ p~v I d~j ~ itz P.b,~1I.~c;L>I( 17,0 t- '{Jv,,-,'.f <;l.ot{ (ohm to 1.o<!...2.IWf'ne~~ttz &c L~I d pe.Jl 1<>0 f<iJ (tv tVdC.J <j C00'f. r l CC: Taylor P. Andrews, Esq. Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq. ~ ~1J1 ,i\.L/ f'n p r ;:,' , ", '"',,' r:....'.. ,; ! >' ;:~ -, l.. d" . ,,- F:!_~:D"'C)~r::ICE f'~ ,. ~"C.'.', '^""T'RY \..):'" . i',',.' r'[t"li\il; /-\ OIFEB-8PH2:f)l CUMf3E:fiLAND COUNTy' PENNSYLV,4NiA I I I I' II i~".."" !':""", .0"" ,,' " ;:--'t~-=_. ~.~ , ~ ,- _ ""~" "~,~,,_.A,,...;~_~~iW!f\;:1t'lt'W~l'!Rt~'~iJilIl't~~~l.l'll!M1ij$I~~'13~~illl ,~~. ' -. - " -">, " - r'~ vs. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL TERESAD. KAYN, Plaintiff DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant : IN CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this _ day of February, 2001, in accordance with the Motion of Special Relieffiled on behalf of the Defendant, Dennis R. Kayn, Plaintiff, Teresa D. Kayn, is directed to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. A hearing for this purpose is scheduled for the _ day of ,2001 at o'clock M. in Courtroom #1 in the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pa. 17013. Pending the hearing, Dennis R. Kayn shall maintain custody of Joshua R. Kayn. By The Court J.O. CC: Taylor P. Andrews, Esq. Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq. ,'~'-~ , . ~~" -.:, TERESAD. KAYN , Plaintiff vs. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant : IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF Defendant father, Dennis R. Kayn, by his counsel, Taylor P. Andrews, Esq., respectfully represents the following in support of this motion for special relief: 1. This Court entered a Temporary Custody Order in the above captioned case on May 12, 2000. This orqer was amended on August II, 2000. Copies of the orders are attached hereto as Exhibit A and B. 2. In accordance with the above referenced order, Father obtained custody of Joshua Kayn for a midweek visit on Tuesday, February 6, 2001. 3. When Father bathed Joshua on February 6, 2001, Father noticed an injury to Joshua's penis. Joshua reported that the injury resulted from an intentional act by a male companion of Joshua's mother, the above named Plaintiff. 4. Father took Joshua to the local hospital for examination. The report by Joshua was relayed to police authorities and father believes also, possibly to Child Protective Services. An investigation into the report by Joshua has commenced. 5. Out of concern for Joshua's well-being and the integrity of the investigation into Joshua's injury Father did not return Joshua to mother on Wednesday morning. 6. Father would like to keep custody of Joshua until the reports of Joshua's injury are investigated, and depending upon the results of the investigation, until Father has an opportunity to request a change in the Temporary Order of Custody. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court to grant special relief by ordering that Defendant Dennis R. Kayn, shall keep custody of Joshua R. Kayn until such time as the investigation by Child Protective Services is concluded and this Court shall have entered an order reinstating the Temporary Custody Order of May 12, 2000 as amended in August, or shall have entered a new order superceding the Temporary Custody Order of May 12, 2000 as amended in August. a 0 . Andrews, Esquire West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-0123 -,.,,,,~,,~., ' ~_ . ~.J.i' -~~~~ ,- ~- ~ ',,,---.' , ~_.,' I - . (- -,',o-_'.')"~_:::,,,' " TERESA D.KA YN Plaintiff :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 200-2469 CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KA YN, -" ~ ~ q '~f~P! 'b. ~! :~ ji3 -< . ;~;g C:~::. ,-... :..,'~,:.!:~ -.- --'...... ......, ~..2 [:j ;'."l..:.. ......... . .''''J . .. ) AND NOW this t 7. ttday of May, 2000, upon conside~~n ~~f t?~f& :.~ - ~ STIPULATION FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDER of the parties and cotlhselTin tf1?, : IN DIVORCE Defendant TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDER matter and their request for temporary resolution of the custody dispute, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that: 1. Teresa D. Kayn and Dennis R. Kayn shall have shared legal and physical custody of Joshua R. KaYn, bomMarch 5, 1997. 2. Dennis shall have periOds of physical custody according to the following schedule: a. Friday, May 12,2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Saturday, May 13, 2000 .at 6:00 p.m. b. Friday, May 19, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday, May 21, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. c. Friday June 2, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday June 4, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. d. Friday, June 16, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday, June 18, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. e. Friday, June 30, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Tuesday, July 4,2000 at 6:00 p.m. f. Friday, July 14, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday, July 16,2000 at 6:00 p.m. Ex\\~,f 1/ ~ I (H ,- J."':'.<iJ00. 17 :0~ ' ."'n'!:',iTA~~1't(f'\'l1l/.~S' ., 'c , 717 2~~ ~4.<: P.03 g. On alternate weekends thereafter from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. h. Every Tuesday from 12:00 p.m., noon, until Wednesday morning at 7:00 a.m. i. At such other times as the parties may agree. 3. Mother shall have physical custody of Joshua at all other times except as specifically provided herein. 4. For weekend visits, the parties shall meet to transfer custody of Joshua at the parking lot of the MacDonald's restaurant on Walnut Bottom Road, in Carlisle, PA near Exit 13 of Interstate 81, or at such other place as the parties may agree. 5. For weekday vvisits, Father shall pick up Joshua at the Capital Area Children's Center, Mechanicsburg, PA, for his Tuesday visitation and will return him to the Capital Area Children's Center, Mechanicsburg, PA on Wednesday morning, or make such other arrangements as the parties may agree. 6. Both parents shall be responsible for continuing Joshua's church attendance and spiritual growth. 7. During periods of physical custody, neither Dennis nor Teresa will exercise physical custody overnight in the presence of a third party of the opposite sex not related by blood or marriage. 8. Neither party shall attempt to undermine the mutual love and affection the child has for the other parent, and neither party shall, in the presence of the child, make any disparaging or negative remarks concerning the other parent. Both parties shall hold out the other parent as one to whom the child should show respect and love. -"'-""; . nH'l'-ll<l-~1<l1<l1<1 l'(:eS JACOBSEN & MILKES 717 ~4~ ~427 P.04 '. 9. The parties may modify this custody arrangement by mutual agreement. By the Court: Cc: Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq. Attorney for aintiff Lynn Y. MacBride, Esq. Attorney for Defendant ~ () ~~ 3-/(1-00 RKS ~"'" =,.."t AUG 1 0 {(;fijJ TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff v IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this ~ day of August, 2000, upon conside~tion of the attached Custody ConciliatidrtReport,it is ordered anddW'...ctixl."as follows: 1. This Court's prior Order of May 12, 2000 shaH remain in effect subject to the following modifications: . A. Father's alternating weekends with the minor child shall be extended until Monday morning at 7:00 a.m. B. . The parties will continue discussions with respect to modifying . transportation. and may do so either through a written agreement . between legal counsel.via a letter or by the filing of a stipulation with the Court. .2. Counsel for either party may contact the Conciliator to schedule another Custody Conciliation Coi1ference via a telephone conference if counSel for the parties desire the Conciliator to be involved in any further matters. A'{iditionally, either party retains the right to petition the Court to have this case scheduled for a hearing or requests other relief as appropriate from the Court. BY THE COURT, filii )oAflj1c) a.; 1. esley Oler, . cc: Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire Lynn MacBride, Esquire TRUE COpy FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof, I here unto SlIt my bal1(\ a>> OM ~ '"' l~bW, Pa '- T~ .~~ ~~~. honotary ~ Ex~\bj 2, >- IT ,.;: I-' L'JQ ~dF; :J..,---""_. '< .1 (;) (~-~,', ,,:::,,:,..'!-= ,_u!...;,~ du.J Ll..jE u.. o ~,~" . :J TERESAD. KAYN, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant : IN CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this ! t, ~ay of March, 2001, in accordance with Defendant's Motion to withdraw his prior Motion for Special Relief, and considering that Plaintiff joins in the motion, the hearing previously scheduled for March 22,2001 is cancelled, and Defendant is given leave to withdraw his Motion for Special Reliefby praecipe. CC: Taylor P. Andrews, Esq. Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq. -0>; e~3'~~~ - 0- f---- 7 ~?~ " ~ ,~. -"-"',,:.,---' ,~- ::-j '---- ~ .' _ 'J c;,; .\1 ,- [~- F. ..", C>.. c , ~ . . o o ,'-,'-'J"O'" -~ , TERESA D. KAYN, Plaintiff vs. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant : IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT'S WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF Defendant father, Dennis R. Kayn, by his counsel, Taylor P. Andrews, Esq., respectfully represents the following in support of this motion withdrawing his prior motion for special relief: 1. On February 7, 2001 Defendant father filed a Motion for Special Relief in the above captioned case seeking to retain custody of his son, Joshua until certain matters were investigated or until further order of Court. 2. After conferring with the parties' counsel, the Hon. J. Wesley Oler, Jr. denied the immediate relief sought by Defendant father, but scheduled a hearing on the Motion for Special Relieffor March 22,2001 at 8:30 A.M. 3. Custody and visitation of Joshua Kayn by Defendant father, and Plaintiff mother has proceeded since February 7th in accordance with the Court's orders that have been entered at the above caption. 4. Defendant father does not seek any new relief from the hearing scheduled on March 22,2001, and Defendant father therefore seeks to withdraw his motion for special relief 5. Plaintiff mother through her counsel, Andrea Jacobsen, Esq. concurs in this motion. ~~ WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court to grant leave to Defendant to withdraw his Motion for Special Relief, and to cancel the hearing previously scheduled for March 22,2001. ~/'"v~~,j . "".!ii._''''....;.--......r'rl.i'~. ,~"" '" , "" I '" ,~, -" " ..tlM/t~I." , ~,' ""~~-.~'"""'WRllllillliil~~ '. ..",~; ~L ,j., dK - M'_~~. "" I I (") c::::J 0 C " :s: :J: :::i -0 CD :r~ : '1 ~:~ nlrn AJ z~. _A> '-fd zr... ~~: Ln ~~~~ ~~ ~O ::l;:t'> $8 ::l: ,'~' -~.,' .....~ ........, Z / - ~~m )>c - ",-,./ .... ~ w 5'i r" -< ,~ '" ._"""'4_'__""_ , ' - ,,',',0:: ,< -"" ::""~ '0' ; - -, "," '" ".,-.:..~,. . ,', \"~ >- " TERESA D. KAYN : IN TIIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERlAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION : CIVIL ACTION - SUPPORT DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant : NO. 00761 S 200{> SUPPORT ~O\lO.... a.'-\l.~ c,vil (,FRllFT(, A TF OF SFRVT('F I, Paul Jacobsen Rains, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Subpoena dated March 19, 2001 in the above captioned matter was personally served upon Robert L. Crudden and/or keeper of records, at F & M Trust, 20 South Main Street, Chambersburg, PA 17201. I hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.c.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: March 20, 2001 ~A/- PAUL JACOBSEN RAINS ~ . -",' oj"," ',. ;' . ". ~ '" 0 0 0 c " s: ~ '"'Oo:! :!~ - <I fTlrT! ;;::; 'F; Z:..<:-, f''' !",', Z[,::,~ ;.;;:l? ~;~~: LJ ~~:::;CJ r:-,"1 ~ -,.', -~ -L-'"l )>~ '~,"~cj Zl..~< be, r- (sIn -c :r;! 7' =<! ::D s:- -< - -~ "'" F: \FILES\DA T AFILE\Gendoc.cur\l 0309-pra,1 Created: 04/05/01 01:57:54 PM Revised: 04/05101 03:20:55 PM TERESAD. KAYN, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL ACTION - LAW DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant IN CUSTODY PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Enter the appearance of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO on behalf of Defendant in the above matter. MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO ~'""""' By Thomas J. Willi ,Esquire Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-3341 AttomeysfurDerendant Date: AprilS, 2001 - ~~ ~ - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire JACOBSEN & MILKES 52 East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013-3085 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO y Tricia D. Eckenroad en East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: ~ .sj 2aJ, ~~,~~' "1li!iII!iiI1. """'.........rllllt:li.tlllJ IM_ ~.~iiIIMii~ - ......-. .- , .I~'- .~ ,.. o S -oE~ rnr'-:--, -;;;; -.-, ~5" -<.c.::, ~C) d;c) 5~2 Z --I -< -- - o ~ CJ " ~ -0 'A"J , G' .----, JT; .jr......l '-~ /-) :~~~ >!:': ~-~?() c5rn c-1 -,~ :0 -< ~ -'- o ::::> Iv "Y-" . ".'"~.Q - - ..' ~- .1. TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : PACSES CASE NO: 847102601 : Docket No: 00/61 ~ 2000 00 -~4lcq ~\",( : IN SUPPORT DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Dennis R. Kayn, in the above captioned matter. Date: c; ~,} .rO I Ta or . Andrews, Esquire 7 st Pomfret Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-0123 ;"'-'<.' -, ~ . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire JACOBSEN & MILKES 52 East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013-3085 MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO By Tricia D. Eckenroad Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: ~ ~ ~I ''''~'-''''''''''''''^,*r''''' ,,~-, '.,,, ,,"',,- "-II .~ ~,_. -""". 'iN ,,,"" ~",-,~_~~~-_.."......:...'"", ;',"" ",,",,_ e.,' ,.- ,,~ ., ,"', , i, J.;,l, ",,,, .0_"_ .".-W'\ 0 Co C: C -TJ :=;. :p:- C) C- :>~ III r~" 2'::~~_- rJ tJl:..' I - m , -<-~' , " [<l:, ~ J::. ""' (") ZC~ - 5> 0 9 c~ rn c:: -:::'" .:J :c:-; =< :IJ f';...) -< 11;; - - ~. "J P;\FILES\DA TAFILE\Gendoc.cur\10309-pra.2 Created: 04105/01 01:5'7:54 PM Revi~1i 04/10/01,07:57:02AM , TERESAD.KAYN, Plaintiff v: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA oo-;;l.'-I~9 NO. 00761 S 2000 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PACSES CASE NO. 847102601 DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant IN SUPPORT PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Enter the appearance of MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO on behalf of Defendant in the above matter. MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO By -l["..~ wJL .-,Ii Thomas J. Wi ams, EsqUire Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Date: April 10, 2001 ".- ~.'" '" -~ , "~j CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire JACOBSEN & MILKES 52 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3085 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO y Tncia D. Eckenroad Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: April 10, 2001 L';~itiiliili~~t'llr J ~' ....'~"~"'"~~ -,< "M ~...~ =, -,--,~, '-"L '~","'^,~, ' ~1lIll.-~ ""~''"&./,~:L!~ '''''''--.......~ , ,'" . ~. - ", .~> ::U.','-' ,., '<< " () .:::::;, C , ) ~ ,~~ ,J rt," =-r) " r-np-; :::J ~~.~ cg}:-: -....'r~ r:: (j *~~J ~?~ _u , )> ., W (:..; C ~ Z ::::> =< ...J .-J -< ~ ~ - ~~ - I",~ e4/1ef2ee1 e8:27 71 72431807 MDWO PAGE e2f02 i:\"~\FtLES\DATAflILIS\G.nd.o<:.cwl.10.:J~r".lI- Crenwl: ~Q'1ll1 OJ:$1::f4 rM R~"l<<:d: O<ll10l0IOB:OI:10AM TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COl\1MON PLEAS OF CUIvIBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000-2469 CNILACTION -LAW DENNISR. KAYN, Defendant IN CUSTODY PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTy, Please withdraw my appearance on bebalf of the Defendant, Dennis R. Kayn, in the above captioned matter. Attorneys for Defendlll1t Date: April 12 f 2001 ~~~~~~........... -: J. " .., ~."~ ~,""",o~ ""'-J~i'~ "":'.-.-.n'ij' rulll/lili' , ,., *' ''''< " ,V,C _~ ~. .lllllilllli1M'~,",I. ~,,~ "~ 'II " GCr_' fTI[T1 ;:::: ::r' ,._/;'- (?I~l,:- --< , ~ c::::c ~t~ )>C 2: ::2 . -... - o G :::;".-. ~. ~ 7~ ..-,"'} ~~,--;;:; C."'; --0 ,--,,> (') pl &:" P t<ECEI\lC I APR 1 2 2001 l\JlD\Nr . ,~''"'''' ,~~'..~ .~ - ~~~- '""'""""','. 4',",""___"""""- .. I TERESA D. KA YN PLAINTlFF V. DENNIS R. KA YN DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 00-2469 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Thursday, May 03, 2001 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Huhert X. Gilroy, Esq. , the conciliator, at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Friday, May 25, 2001 at 9:30 a.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. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: /s/ Hubert X. Gilroy. Esq.ff Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. Fer information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. 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. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY 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, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 '" ~"" .'~ . k" ~'"__~ ~ "'W'" ",",'~' ,,~'" . ~, w.. ;:'::L lI}--OfFtCE OF ,-;;-'Tir~,mNiV O!It~Y-i< 1'113:32 CUME:!:HL4i\~l) COUNlY PENNSYLVANIA 5t1~/ .5'- tf.tJ/ .5'~-c:>/ . (}d. ~mJ/;t. 4W~ 7!~ ~ $4~ ~ dw -~# fi.~#' l \ ~~!l!If!!Il'J"""l"-" . "'" l"~ "",~,~~ ,..~-,~ . ,..)fll!!'1!i!~n'].1! '........ l~ ~"'"~~1'" " '" ~;""i , TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintif:llRespondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2000-2469 CNIL ACTION - LAW DENNIS R. KAYN, DefendantlPetitioner IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _ day of , upon consideration of the attached Petition for Contempt, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before , the conciliator, at on the _ day of ,at .m. for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or ifthis cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the Court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. FOR THE COURT, By: Custody Conciliator 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 our office. 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. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY 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, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 . " , "';'.v! F:\Fll..ES\DATAFILE\Gendoc.cur\10309-pet.1 Created: 04/05/0101:57:54PM Revised: 04130/01 10:16:32 AM TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintif1lRespondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2000-2469 CNIL ACTION - LAW DENNIS R. KA YN, DefendantJPetitioner IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AND MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, comes the Petitioner, Dennis R. Kayn, by and through his attorneys, MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO, and hereby files this Petition as follows: 1. Petitioner is Dennis R. Kayn, an adult individual currently residing at 247 Chestnut Drive, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter "Father"). 2. Respondent is Teresa D. Kayn, an adult individual currently residing at 469 Brook Circle, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("hereinafter "Mother"). 3. The parties are the parents of Joshua Ryan Kayn, born March 5, 1997, who is the subject of this custody action. 4. Respondent filed a Custody Complaint and a Temporary Custody Order was entered on May 12,2000, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A" 5. A Conciliation Conference was held on August 8, 2000, in which two modifications were made to the original Order of May 12, 2000 by agreement ofthe parties. A copy of the Order issued following the Conciliation Conference is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B." 6. Pursuant to the Orders, Petitioner has custody of the child every other weekend for three days, as well as every Tuesday or Wednesday night. 7. Paragraph 7 of the Order dated May 12, 2000, which provides, inter alia, that "neither Denni~ nor Teresa will exercise physical custody overnight in the presence of a third party of the opposite sex not related by blood or marriage." 8. On February 1,200 I, Mother visited with a non-relative male (whose name is known to Petitioner only as Cohen) in Virginia Beach, during which visit Mother was accompanied by the child. , I 1 I , , I I i I - .. -~ ~-"' ~: 9. During said visit, the unknown male not only supervised the child, but physically disciplined him. 10. On the weekend of March 31-April1, 2001, the unknown male visited Mother's residence in Mechanicsburg while the child was in Mother's custody. 11. In September, 2002, the child will start school. 12. At the present time, Mother utilizes day care for the child at great expense to her and to Father. 13. Petitioner is requesting the Order be modified so that he and Respondent equally share in the custody the child on alternating weeks. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays Your Honorable Court to reappoint the Custody Conciliator to enforce the Order as to non-relative male visitors and to consider the above changes in the original Order. MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO By -fL~ VvJt~ Thomas J. Wi. s, Esquire Ten East Higli Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Date: April 30, 2001 ~~.'~~ ~_. ~ ~ ^ -.... -- -- MP-Y 1 2 7.000 rf TERESA D.KAVN v. Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSVLVANIA : NO. 200-2469 CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KAVN; : IN DIVORCE Defendant TEMPORARVCUSTODVORDER Jd*h AND NOW this day of May, 2000, upon consideration of the STIPULATION FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDER of the parties and counsel in this matter and their request for temporary resolution of the custody dispute, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that: 1. Teresa D. Kayn and Dennis R. Kayn shall have shared legal and physical custody of Joshua R. Kayn, born March 5, 1997. 2. Dennis shall have periods of physical custody according to the following schedule: a. Friday, May 12, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Saturday, May 13, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. b. Friday, May 19, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday, May 21,2000 at 6:00 p.m. c. Friday June 2, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday June 4, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. d. Friday, June 16, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday, June 18, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. e. Friday, June 30, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Tuesday, July 4, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. f. Friday, July 14, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. until Sunday, July 16, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. EXHIBIT "A" -- '- '" ., ", Ii , ,L~_ ~'~i)lllf"pill~:' ~ .~" ~~~~ - g. On alternate weekends thereafter from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. h. Every Tuesday from 12:00 p.m., noon, until Wednesday morning at 7:00 a.m. . i. At such other times as the parties may agree. ',.... 3. Mother shall have physical' custody of Joshua at all other times except as specifically provided herein. 4. For weekend visits, the parties shall meet to transfer custody of Joshua at the parking lot of the MacDonald's restaurant on Walnut Bottom Road, in Carlisle, PA near Exit 13 of Interstate 81, or at such other place as the parties may agree. 5. For weekday visits, Father shall pick up Joshua at the Capital Area Children's Center, Mechanicsburg, PA, for his Tuesday visitation and will return him to the Capital Area Children's Center, Mechanicsburg, PA on Wednesday morning, or make such oth.er arrangements as the parties may agree. 6. Both parents shall be responsible for continuing Joshua's church attendance and spiritual growth. 7. During periods of physical custody, neither Dennis nor Teresa will exercise physical custody overnight in the presence of a third party of the opposite sex not related by blood or marriage. 3. Neither party shall attempt to undermine the mutual love and affection the child has for the other parent. and neither party shall, in the presence of the child, make any disparaging or negative remarks conceming the other parent. Both parties shall hold out the other parent as one to whom the child should show respect and love. ~-,~ ~~ ~...... '--"" "~~ ~ ,- ._~ ~~'~ -" 9. The parties may modify this custody arrangement by mutual agreement. By the Court: /5L Cc: Andrea C. Jacobsen. Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff Lynn Y. MacBride, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Tn '.. ~ 'f" ...... ,-. .......~ ~ !"',.... '-. ~ A ""'.,.,,..,, ,~, '" """ /:>; ~' 'I" '. , ".. ,~".... ", "'"' , i. ,. 1;'1'"". '.. . ,~M .k _. " ~_. ~, ".'.'"'~i.,~~ ,~, AUG 1 0 ZIiOi.JJP TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this ~ day of August, 2000, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conci1i~tioil Rcptirt, it is ordered and,.di..--ected as follow;.;: 1. This Court's prior Order of May 12, 2000 shall remain in effect subject to the following modifications: A. Father's alternating weekends with the minor child shall be extended until Monday moming at 7:00 a.m. B. The parties will continue discussions with respect to modifying transportation and may do so either through a written agreement between legal cOUllSelvia a letter or by the filing of a stiptdation with the Court. 2. Coun~el for either party may contact the Conciliator to schedule another Custody Conciliation Conference via a telephone conference if counsel for the parties desire the Conciliator to be involved in any further matters. Additionally, either party retains the right to petition the Court to have this case scheduled for a hearing or requests other relief as appropriate from the Court. BY THE COURT, f!lIL )DA~ C) ~ J. esley Oler, cc: Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire Lynn MacBride, Esquire TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof, I here unto set my hand aoo tlwl seal of said ColI?> at Carlisle, PI. '- ~~ri~V~~~M-- . notary EXHIBIT "B" -,'"""""'"" ~...,~ , '. ., ~.~ ~ ........ ~ .. . ~~ . . . ~".'" "~~'c,,"" ,'~ '~""""blo; TERESA D. KAYN, Plaintiff IN 1HE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANlA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: J. Wesley Oler, Jr. CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1HE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: I. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: JoshuaR.Kayn, bom March 5, 1997. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on August 4, 2000, with the following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Theresa D. Kayn, with her counsel, Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire; and the Father, Dennis R. Kayn, with his counsel, Lynn MacBride, Esquire. 3. The parties agree to the entry of an order in the form as attached. ~ ~ DO DATE fY-1J Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq . Custody Conciliator <. ," ....~ - ~, ~'- VERIFICATION The foregoing Petition is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in the preparation ofthe lawsuit. The language of the document is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. &~/2~ Deunis R. Kayn ,-...~'~. ~ " , '" """~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certifY that a copy of the foregoing Petition for Contempt was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire JACOBSEN & MILKES 52 East High Street Carlisle,PA 17013-3085 MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO 6fJic'fi.fj. a1~1-1 Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: April 30, 2001 ~i6ilIiIrtjiill~JI*IlP""""~ .....i~~Wd.Ii ,.....~"...'"''"'," .il(~ """" ~'.- I~ "" .". .~, .<'~ n 0 C 0 ~~ -i"! -CJ tr~ 3: :~ mnl :r~ ~:~U -,< , ~ 'i ;d Lr". I ~~Tln w.i:;; -<L_ .:."_'.)(J [C'C; :~-l j ~- '"D ~CJ yr-" ;1~ i1 Z>~~I :;Ii: 5>c~ r;-;> ts~ ~ :J1 ~ ~ ~ F r~ .. ~ ,() <> , -C,j "- N C} "'" ... '" ~ \' ~. ,-..,,'-, ,- .-,"'. ~. "\i ;1 , I I ., " 'I , \ " mAY 2 5 2001J/1 TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL IN CUSTODY DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant COURT ORDER AND NOW, this 1_"\ tt day of May, 2001, upon Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: consideration of the attached Custody 1. A hearing is scheduled in Courtroom No. I of the Cumberland County Courthouse on the d neL day of flu.~ I ~ r- , 2001, at 1 !,~/) A.M. at which time testimony will be take in the above case. At this heanng, the father, Dennis R. Kayn, shall be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties shall file with the court and opposing counsel a memorandum setting forth the history of custody in this case, the issues currently before the court, each parties position on those issues, a list of witnesses who will be called to testify and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. This memorandum shall be filed at least five (5) days prior to the mentioned hearing date. 2. Pending further order of this court, the prior custody orders entered in this case shall remain in effect subject to the following modifications: A. Father's weekday visitation shall be from Wednesday through Thursday rather than the existing order which specifies from Tuesday through Wednesday. B. Father shall select three (3) weeks for summer vacation during the upcoming summer, one week in June, one week in July and one week in August. Father's counsel shall notify Mother's counsel in writing as to when Father desires to exercise this timeframe. The weeks Father selects shall coincide with his alternating weekend schedule and shall be from Friday through the following Friday and shall not interfere with Mother's regularly scheduled alternating weekends. This letter should be sent to Mother's counsel within five (5) days from the date of this order. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on summer vacation for the Father, legal counsel for the parties may contact the Conciliator directly and conduct a telephone conference call with the Conciliator after which the Conciliator may recommend a further order to this court. This :~ , " .. , "T!~(\r:Y o 1 f'; ,~, Y ~':' 0 F ~ ; ;',j 9 CUi'/:"Li :;_... . "'.~ _ ,,,,,..d\' I \t r';Ei\Ji\~S\(L \i;l"..i'<it \ ", ,,~-, -,' , " , '-" ~ " '"" ~ ~ "'''''''''- -,',,' ,- ,~ ( , ..... cc: " , L - ^ -, ,"L 'J ,,'~, c, , -'JiJi.::~1 i I I J i I ,1 provision for summer vacation with the Father will not prejudice the Father's ability to seek additional vacation time with the child during the school year timeframe. C. At the hearing scheduled in this case, either party may bring up any issues of alleged violation of the prior order whereby they may be seeking the court to direct enforcement of those provisions or some other type of appropriate sanction. D. In the event either party retains an evaluator prior to the hearing and desires to have an evaluation done or an update on a prior evaluation, the other party shall cooperate in scheduling any evaluation sessions and also make the minor child available for any evaluation sessions. This provision is based upon an asslllllption that the parties seeking the evaluation shall incur the costs. However, the results of the evaluation and any written report shall be shared with both counsel regardless of which party has retained the evaluator, and the evaluator may speak with legal counsel for both parties in advance of any testimony. BY THE COURT, Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire ~ ,0" Ij?p . , I,"~ II 'j ,,',",' , J' '"' _~ .;1 ..... TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff v IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: J. Wesley Oler, Jr. CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: I. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Joshua R. Kayn, born March 5, 1997. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on May 25, 2001, with the following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Teresa D. Kayn, with her counsel, Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire; and the Father, Dennis R. Kayn, with his counsel, Thomas 1. Williams, Esquire. 3. The current order provides Mother having primary physical custody and Father having various periods of temporary physical custody. Father has filed a petition to modify the current order and is seeking primary physical custody. The parties are unable to reach an agreement and a hearing is required. The Conciliator recommends an order in the form as attached. Hubert X. Gilroy, E Custody Concili r ("!:zs1 {J { DATE OVtJ. " , ^" ,,~- ,-,"', ,-- ,'-" .." ;. -' - " -. ... ~ TERESA D.KAYN Plaintiff v. DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant ,',or'". .'.... ,."", .,; '. ~ ~_"'''''<ri'' c'~,,',".:,', , .. , : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL TERM : IN DIVORCE CFRTIFICATF OF ~FRVICF I, Andrea C. Jacobsen, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S PRE-HEARING MEMORANDUM in the above captioned matter was duly served upon counsel for Defendant, Dennis R. Kayn, by personal service at his law office at the following address: Thomas J. Williams, Esq. 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 I hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: July 26,2001 '--' .-.x ~" ~. - ""'';; "c:j I ! ,1 'I !1 ij il " :j I' I 11 'I IJ II ~ 'I 'I 1 ., ! i~ i! ii 1 I I I I , , j I I I ~" "-",'1_.'" ,_,' '.<c_",. . ~. , ,,~ , ,",,-., ~-- " , 1 , ... ( ... c~ ~,~ '~,-' a.:;.~ . :"'-) c- J;-- :-1 "-~ " "IJ' ~'" F: \FILES\DA T AFILE\Gendoc.cur\1 0309-hea,mem lftde Created: 06l0lfOl 03:26:51 PM Revised: 07/27/0110:09:20 AM TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL ACTION - LAW DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT (FATHER)'S HEARING MEMORANDUM I. WITNESSES: Dennis R. Kayn; Father will testify essentially as set forth herein with regard to the basic background facts and the issues as describe below. II. FACTS: Father was born November 5, 1945 and so is presently 55 years of age. Mother was born November 5,1963 and so is presently 37 years of age. The parties married on September 20, 1991. ltwasFather's second marriage, Mother's third. They lived and worked in Chambersburg - Father at a bank (F & M Trust Company) and Mother at Letterkenney Army Depot Their only child, Joshua Ryan Kayn, was born March 5, 1997. At about that time, Mother's job was abolished at Letterkenney and she elected a substitute position at the Mechanicsburg Naval Depot The distance from their first marital residence in Chambersburg to the Mechanicsburg Naval Depot is approximately 60 miles. Father continues to work at the Chambersburg bank. The parties decided to build a house in Shippensburg following the birth of their son to reduce Mother's daily commute. The new marital residence in Shippensburg is about 15 miles closer to where Mother works in Mechanicsburg than the previous marital residence in Chambersburg. Father urged Mother to explore opportunities closer to home to reduce travel; however Mother liked her job in Mechanicsburg and decided to stay there. L--- JUt 2 7 2001 When Mother began her job in Mechanicsburg in approximately June of 1997, Father became the primary homemaker and primary nurturing parent This continued from the time Joshua was three months through the age oftwo. On April 15, 2000, Mother suddenly and unexpectedly left the new marital residence in Shippensburg and moved into an apartment in Mechanicsburg, taking Joshua with her. III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Upon moving to Mechanicsburg, Mother then filed a Complaint for Custody in Cumberland County Court; requesting primary custody. Father opposed this, and wanted primary custody of Joshua in himself. Pending a decision by the Court regarding custody, and an Order to see his son, Father agreed to a Temporary Custody Order which was entered on May 12,2000 by Stipulation of the parties. Mother would not allow Father to see Joshua until a Temporary Custody Order was signed. The Temporary Custody Order essentially provided Father with every other weekend, plus one weekday overnight As it turned out, this arrangement has essentially continued until the present On October 8, 2000, the Custody Conciliation Conference occurred pursuant to Mother's Custody Complaint Although represented by counsel who met with the Conciliator, Father never met with the Conciliator, nor participated personally in the Conciliation Conference. Counsel apparently agreed to a minor modification of the Temporary Custody Order. Father left the Conciliation Conference under the impression that a hearing would then be scheduled by the Court to resolve custody; however, Father obviously misunderstood the procedure and an Order was entered August 11, 2000 pursuant to the Conciliation Conference Report, making the minor change, but otherwise leaving the Temporary Custody Order in effect Following the Conciliation Conference, an independent custody evaluation was done by Eugene H. Stecher, M.A. in Chambersburg in September, 2000. Mr. Stecher issued a report dated October 5, 2000, in which he recommended that Mother have primary custody. Upon receipt of the custody evaluation, Father was given the impression that the result ofthe evaluation was essentially binding as far as custody and there would not be a hearing. So he let the matter go and continued to follow the Temporary Custody Order of May 12, 2000. Paragraph 7 of the May 12, 2000 Temporary Custody Order provided; During periods of physical custody, neither Dennis nor Teresa will exercise physical custody overnight in the presence of a third party of the opposite sex not related by blood or marriage. Earlier this year, Father discovered that, on at least two occasions, Mother had violated that provision with a Naval Department employee, had lied to Father about it, and had solicited Joshua to lie to Father about it too. Thereafter, Father filed a Motion for Special Relief. On February 9, 2001, the Court entered an Order which scheduled a hearing for March 22,2001. On advice of counsel, Father discontinued that proceeding and instead filed the instant Petition for Contempt and Modification of Custody that is presently before the Court as there are several issues on which the parties are unable to agree. IV. ISSUES: a. Transportation. Father is driving about 925 miles per month and Mother about 120 miles per month for transportation. It is 40 miles one way from Father's home in Shippensburg to Joshua's day care in Mechanicsburg and 55 miles from Father's workplace. The round trip is about 95 miles and takes about an hour and 40 minutes each Wednesday. On weekends when the parties share transportation, they meet at a McDonald's on Exit 13 ofI-81 which involves a drive of about 30 minutes (one way) for each ofthem. Father has a 1989 Buick Regal that currently has in excess of200,000 miles. The vehicle is unreliable and has developed a series of mechanical problems that needed to be repaired and he is unable to buy a better car in view ofthe high amount of child support and $1 ,OOO.OO/month mortgage that he is currently paying. Father has difficulty with night vision. He can drive safely on interstates where the traffic is essentially going one way, but gets blinded by oncoming headlights. The weekday visits, where Father does all the driving are particularly physically demanding; recently, Father fell asleep on Interstate 81 while driving home from dropping Joshua off at daycare, finding himself in the medial barrier. Father believes that, in view of his driving difficulty, and in view ofthe fact that the driving was due entirely to Mother's decision to live and work in Mechanicsburg, the transportation responsibilities should fall on Mother. b. Contempt. Father has religious and moral convictions against adultery. The provision ofthe Temporary Custody Order, referred to above, which prohibits paramours staying overnight was done at Father's insistence. He recognizes and confesses the mistake he made by entering an affair with Mother while she was still married to her second husband. More important than Father's own beliefs, is his concern ofthe impact of having another man (or other men) stay in the house with Mother will have on Joshua. Father has no concern with Mother having a relationship with other men; his only concern is the message that sends to his son and how this exposure may result in troubling memories later on. Father feels that Joshua's well being is of the utmost importance and both parents must place Joshua and his needs above any other people or activities. Father requests that the existing prohibition against co-habitation in the presence of his son be continued and enforced. c. Change of Custody. In September of 2002, Joshua will start kindergarten. Mother has had primary custody for the past year, with Father relegated to every other weekend and one weekday overnight Although the weekday overnight has been difficult because Father does all the transportation, he has done it because he feels that two weeks without seeing his son is too long. With Mother living in Mechanicsburg, and Father living in Shippensburg, it seems likely that one party will be limited to every other weekend during the school year beginning the end of August, 2002 depending on the location of the school. Because of this, and for the reasons referred to above, Father requests that he be given primary physical custody at this time with the understanding that custody will be reviewed the summer of 2002 to make any changes necessary for when Joshua starts school. Alternatively, Father requests an equal custody arrangement For a pre-school child, and particularly one who has had a close relationship with his Father, there is no reason why this should - ",.. not be beneficial for this child because it will not be possible once the child starts school in September of2002. Alternatively, Father requests that the custody arrangement of the past two months be continued. At the Conciliation Conference, it was recommended that one of Father's weekend visitations be expanded to one week each month. d. Holidays. Father requests that the parties alternate the following major holidays. These are holidays which are recognized by the parties' respective employers; 1. Christmas/New Year's Date; July 27, 2001 11. President's Day 111. Martin Luther King Day IV. Easter v. Memorial Day VI. Independence Day V11. Labor Day Vlll. Veteran's Day IX. Thanksgiving Weekend MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO By l~~~ ~,d~ Thomas J. Willi s, EsqUIre Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013-3093 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Father, Dennis Kayn . ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Hearing Memorandum was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows; , I; i:i " i 11 iA ::; Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire JACOBSEN & MILKES 52 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3085 ij i'j MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO l'i " I " i! cSli:-:.J2- ()~ Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: July 27, 2001 """"""i,_ '. TERESA D.KAYN Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. DENNIS R. KAYN, : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL : IN CUSTODY Defendant PLAINTIFF'S PRE-HEARING MEMORANDUM This Pre-hearing Memorandum is submitted pursuant to the May 29, 2001 Court Order of Hon. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., in advance of the custody hearing set for August 2, 2001 on Father's Petition for Contempt and Modification of Custody Order. A. History of custody in this case: This case involves the custody of 4-year old Joshua Ryan Kayn, born March 5, 1997. On April 30, 2001, Father filed the Petition which is presently before the Court. This is the first hearing in this matter; prior custody issues were settled by agreement of the parties. Joshua was born to the marriage of the parties, and is their only child.' From birth until age 3, the child lived with both parents. In April 2000, the parties separated, and Mother and Joshua moved from the marital home. Since that time, Joshua has resided primarily with Mother, who lives and works in Mechanicsburg. Joshua spends time with Father, who lives in Shippensburg and works in Chambersburg, on alternate weekends, for one weekday evening and overnight per week, and for additional shared holiday and vacation periods. Custody terms initially determined by written stipulation, were adopted in the Temporary Custody Order of May 12, 2000. By its terms, the parties share legal and physical custody, with Mother having actual primary physical custody, as indicated above. The Stipulation prohibits either parent from exercising physical custody overnight in the presence of an unrelated third party of the 1 Mother has no other children. Father has two other grown children by a prior marriage. ~ J~""~,,"i -. opposite sex, and also provides that neither party shall make disparaging or negative remarks concerning the other parent. On August 8, 2000, an initial conciliation conference was held before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. At that time, the parties agreed to modify their custody stipulation to extend Father's alternating weekend visits from Sunday evenings to Monday mornings at 7:00 a.m., and to allow the parties to modify transportation arrangements by written agreement. A Court Order of August 11, 2000, was entered on the parties' agreement. On February 7, 2001, Father filed a Motion for Special Relief seeking an immediate change in primary custody from Father to Moti;Jer alleging that JO$t1ua had been abused by Mother's boyfriend, Scott Cohen, and admitting that Father was withholding Joshua from Mother contrary to the existing Court Order. After conference with counsel, this Court denied Father's request for special relief, but set a hearing on the Motion. Upon consent of counsel, pending such hearing, the Court directed that Mother "shall not permit Scott Cohen to be alone with the child pending further Order of Court." Father's allegations were investigated by Cumberland County Children and Youth Services which determined the allegations were unfounded. Because Scott Cohen is a Lieutenant Commander [LCDR] on active duty in the US Navy, the charges were also investigated by the United States Navy Criminal Investigative Services, (NCIS) Domestic Violence Unit, which found no merit to the charges and no basis for any further action. On March 15,2001, Father sought leave of Court to withdraw his Motion for Special Relief and to cancel the hearing set on his allegations. On April 30, 2001, Father filed the instant Petition for Contempt and Modification of Custody Order. Father's Petition asks the Court to allow the parties to equally share in the custody of the child on alternating weeks and to enforce the Order as to non-relative male visitors. An Answer to the Petition has been filed by Mother. At a conciliation conference set on Father's Petition, the parties agreed to modify the night of the weekday visit and to arrange for Father to have custody of Joshua for three one-week work 2 " vacation periods during the months of June, July and August 2001. A court Order issued on May 29, 2001, set a hearing on the custody petition of Father and claims of violations of the prior Orders and directed the parties to cooperate if either retained an evaluator prior to the hearing. B. Issues before the Court: Father seeks to change the present custody arrangement to increase his time with Joshua. As set forth in his Petition he seeks to have custody of Joshua on alternate weeks. The issue before the Court is whether, under the circumstances, it is in the child's best interests to continue the status quo, with Joshua primarily in Mother's custody, or to increase Father's time with Joshua. Father further seeks to enforce the provision of the original stipulation for a temporary order which prohibited Mother from having non-relative male overnight guests during custody periods. Father is also concerned about the cost of the day care attended by Joshua. Mother believes that the current primary custody arrangement is in the best interest of Joshua and should remain as is. Mother has always been the primary caretaker of Joshua from the time of his birth, and this has continued through the separation of the parties. Mother has always been more active with regard to health issues or day care concerns of Joshua. Mother believes she is better able than Father to continue to provide Joshua with a stable home environment directed to the child's needs. She believes that she is better able than Father to provide Joshua with a model for a positive attitude toward both parents, and better able to place the child's needs before her own. Mother has shown that she is willing to accommodate Father's requests for increased time with Joshua and to regularly accommodate herself to Father's requests for visitation time or date changes. Mother believes that Father's frequent remarks in front of Joshua, including remarks made in telephone messages left on her tape machine, which insult and criticize Mother, are contrary to the best interest of Joshua to learn to love and respect both his parents. The disrespectful remarks violate the stipulation of the parties and the court order adopting its terms. Mother seeks the 3 "",,- '. Court's direction of compliance with the terms of the Order. Mother believes that after a year of separation the parties have moved on with their personal lives and it is not necessary to continue to preclude overnight custody in the presence of a companion of Mother or Father. Father has suggested no valid reason for changing the current status quo of the child during the work week and increasing his time to an equal share in Joshua's custody. The concerns suggested in his Petition - the great expense of the day care utilized by Mother, and the weekend visits with Mother's boyfriend while Joshua was in Mother's custody - do not warrant a change in the current schedule, and the established routine of Joshua at his current young age. The evidence will show that Father's allegations of misconduct by Scott Cohen are unfounded, and without any credible corroboration. In September 2000, upon the agreement of the parties, Eugene H. Stecher, M.A., Licensed Psychologist, of Guidance Associates of PA, performed a custody evaluation in this matter involving an in-home evaluation and individually administered psychological evaluation of each parent. In his report dated October 5, 2000, Mr. Stecher recommended that the parties exercise joint legal custody, with primary physical custody for Mother, and liberal partial custody for Father. He also suggested individual counseling for each parent. The cost of the evaluation was shared by the parties. In June 2001, upon the request of Father, Mr. Stecher performed a second evaluation, at the request and expense of Father. In his report dated July 9, 2001, Mr. Stecher reaffirmed his prior recommendations. He noted that Mother had acted upon his prior recommendation for counseling, and Father had not. In his reports, Mr. Stecher discussed questions related to Father's use of alcohol, and the continued pattern of Father sleeping in the same bed as his son. Mr. Stecher also observed that Joshua is probably exposed to parent alienating remarks from Father which insult Mother or hold her out in a negative light. 4 ~w ,~ .~ .- Mr. Stecher specifically recommended that Father not be given more time - not even in the form of an additional one full week per month until the child enters school full time. C. Witnesses to be called by Mother: Mother anticipates calling the following witnesses; 1. Teresa Kayn - Mother: Mother will testify about Joshua's daily routine, his child care, his well-being, and her role as his primary caretaker since birth. She will testify regarding their current home, how the custody arrangement since separation has worked and not worked, and how the child relates to herself, her family, neighbors, friends, day care provider, etc. She will discuss concerns that have arisen, based upon things the child, and other parties have said to her, and to others, and her observations of the child. She will discuss what steps she has taken to assure Joshua's well-being. She will testify as to her difficulties in communicating with Father, attitudes and actions of Father and his family towards her and Joshua, and her relationship with her own family. She will testify about Father's use of alcohol and her concern about its effect on his ability to provide safe appropriate care for Joshua. She will present other testimony relevant to the determination of custody. She will testify regarding her employment, her after work activities, her counseling. Mother will testify regarding her relationship with Scott Cohen, and the incident of alleged abuse. Mother will testify regarding parent alienating remarks made by Father about her in front of Joshua and her concerns about the effect of such remarks, in light of her own experience. 2. Eugene Stecher - Guidance Associates of Pennsylvania, 473 Lincoln Way East, Chambersburg, PA 17201, Custody Evaluator: Mr. Stecher will be called to testify as a Expert Witness who has performed two custody evaluations of the matter, the second of which was performed as Father's witness. Mr. Stecher will be asked to report his findings and conclusions as set forth in his reports of October 5,2000 and July 9, 2001. 3. Gina Capriotti - Capital Area Children's Center, 44 South 38'h Street Camp Hill, PA 17011, Director, Day Care Program: Ms. Capriotti is Director of the day care program attended by Joshua. Ms. Capriotti will testify regarding child's day care program, his well- being, her contacts and observations of Joshua and his parents. 4. April Tennant or Tina Thomas - Capital Area Children's Center, 44 South 38'h Street Camp Hill, PA 17011, Teachers, Day Care Program: Ms. Thomas and Ms. Tennant are teachers at the day care program assigned to Joshwa's class. Ms. Thomas or Ms. Tennant will testify regarding child's day care program, his well-being, contacts with the parties and observations of Joshua and his parents. 5. Helen Shackelford - 4505 Valley View, Blue Springs, MO 64015, Maternal Grandmother of child: Ms. Shackelford is Mother's mother. She resides in Blue Springs, MO, but has regularly visited her daughter over the years during the parties' marriage and since their separation. She will testify regarding her observations of her daughter and son-in-law as caretakers of Joshua, and about Joshua's well-being. She will testify regarding her observations of Father's behavior in the McDonald's parking lot at the time of a custody transfer. She will testify regarding telephone calls from Father, 5 ~ ". and statements made to her directly by Father and through Joshua during telephone conversations. She will report on statements made to her by Joshua about Father's conduct and comments about Mother. 6. Jodi Kiessling - Friend, neighbor, of Mother and Joshua: Ms. Kiessling is a friend of Mother's and a co-worker at Mechanicsburg Navy Depot. She is also the mother of a young child who is a friend of Joshua's. She will testify regarding her observations of Mother with Joshua, and the kinds of activities in which Mother is involved with Joshua and his friends. 7. Reverend Lucretia Hurley Browning - Counselor of Mother: Rev. Browning is a pastor and a counselor affiliated with First United Methodist Church who has been working with Mother on issues related to Mother's parentin9, as recommended by Mr. Stecher. Mother reserves the right to amend this list and to call additional witnesses as it becomes necessary to develop this case further. Due to his young age, Mother does not propose that Joshua be asked to testify. Proposed Resolution: Mother proposes that the Court enter a Custody Order which basically confirms the status quo as follows: 1. The parties be awarded shared legal custody of Joshua. Z. Mother be awarded primary physical custody of Joshua. 3. Father be granted significant periods of partial physical custody, according to the following schedule: a. Father shall have physical custody of Joshua on alternate weekends, from Friday evening through Monday morning - extending through Tuesday morning, if Monday is a work/school holiday. When Joshua begins school, the weekend visits will end on Sunday evenings, or Monday evenings if Monday is a work/school holiday. b. Until such time as Joshua begins kindergarten, Father will have custody each week from Wednesday afternoon until Thursday morning, with Father picking Joshua up and returning him to his day care program. When Joshua begins school, the weekday overnights will cease. 6 "~ ~, ". c. Father shall have the right to custody for up to four additional one-week periods each calendar year, three of which shall be taken, one week each month, during June, July and August. The one week periods shall be taken during school breaks, and during Father's work vacations. These one week periods shall not be scheduled over Mother's regularly scheduled weekends or holidays, or at the times of her previously scheduled vacation weeks, if Father had prior written notice of such vacation plans. 4. Mother shall also have the right to take up to four weeks of vacation each year with Joshua. These one week periods shall not be scheduled over Father's regularly scheduled weekends or holidays, or at the times of her previously scheduled vacation weeks, if Mother had prior written notice of such vacation plans. During those weeks. Father shall not be entitled to his regular weeknight visitation. 5. There shall be no ongoing prohibition of overnight guests of the opposite sex during periods of custody. 6. The current prohibition against either party attempting to undermine the mutual love and affection the child has for the other parent shall continue. Likewise, the parties should be obliged to continue to hold out the other parent as one to whom the child should show love and respect. Respectfully submitted, BY: Andrea . a en, Esq. JACOBSEN & MILKES 52 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6427 Attorney No. 20952 7 A:-... '~-"-' - .- o ~" MAY 25 200.,,(7 TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff v IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this 1_"\ rt day of May, 2001, upon Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: consideration of the attached Custody 1. A hearing is scheduled in Courtroom No. 1 of the Cumberland County Courthouse on the d IlcL day of (Iu~, A'::- ,2001, at q; ~tJ Jl.M. at which time testimony will be take in the above case. At this hearmg, the father, Dennis R. Kayn, shall be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties shall file with the court and opposing counsel a memorandum setting forth the history of custody in this case, the issues currently before the court, each parties position on those issues, a list of witnesses who will be called to testify and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. This memorandum shall be filed at least five (5) days prior to the mentioned hearing date. 2. Pending further order of this court, the prior custody orders entered in this case shall remain in effect subject to the following modifications: A. Father's weekday visitation shall be from Wednesday through Thursday rather than the existing order which specifies from Tuesday through Wednesday. B. Father shall select three (3) weeks for summer vacation during the upcoming summer, one week in June, one week in July and one week in August. Father's counsel shall notify Mother's counsel in writing as to when Father desires to exercise this timeframe. The weeks Father selects shall coincide with his alternating weekend schedule and shall be from Friday through the following Friday and shall not interfere with Mother's regularly scheduled alternating weekends. This letter should be sent to Mother's counsel within five (5) days from the date of this order. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on summer vacation for the Father, legal counsel for the parties may contact the Conciliator directly and conduct a telephone conference call with the Conciliator after which the Conciliator may recommend a further order to this court. This i"" f..'J "-':, ,""---, L ~ttl;o .L ..~ ,i1~_JIIlI!IlIII'~.... ~r.IW,,~ ~ ~ - ~..' , r> f' I f ~ d~ i':.:~Y :70 ,'-- ,~, I ;';r-...;'i)J\T\/ ,,1.11' ' 1.1';,-\ ~~'-"!~~~,~~~.,~ WI[. ~~1!QI!m1 't~~ . -.~ - "-" -,. -'- '"-~ .~ - "' ','.- ",,'" "'"< >, ~ ~ o p ~~~~~J~j~JI'~_.IIl~L~~,._I1f!ll2Bm~ ~,,,~ ... provision for sununer vacation with the Father will not prejudice the Father's ability to seek additional vacation time with the child during the school year timeframe. C. At the hearing scheduled in this case, either party may bring up any issues of alleged violation of the prior order whereby they may be seeking the court to direct enforcement of those provisions or some other type of appropriate sanction. D. In the event either party retains an evaluator prior to the hearing and desires to have an evaluation done or an update on a prior evaluation, the other party shall cooperate in scheduling any evaluation sessions and also make the minor child available for any evaluation sessions. This provision is based upon an assumption that the parties seeking the evaluation shall incur the costs. However, the results of the evaluation and any written report shall be shared with both counsel regardless of which party has retained the evaluator, and the evaluator may speak with legal counsel for both parties in advance of any testimony. BY THE COURT, cc: Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire J. .. ~-'~. .... ~. . ~J TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff v IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: J. Wesley Oler, Jr. CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915 .3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Joshua R. Kayn, born March 5, 1997. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on May 25, 2001, with the following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Teresa D. Kayn, with her counsel, Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire; and the Father, Dennis R. Kayn, with his counsel, Thomas J. Williams, Esquire. 3. The current order provides Mother having primary physical custody and Father having various periods of temporary physical custody. Father has filed a petition to modify the current order and is seeking primary physical custody. The parties are unable to reach an agreement and a hearing is required. The Conciliator recommends an order in the form as attached. Hubert X. Gilroy, E Custody Concili r r(2s1 0 { DATE aViJ ,,. ',.-- ,--- -c', , '.,,1 TERESA D. KAYN Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KAYN, : IN DIVORCE Defendant ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AND MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ORDER COMES NOW, Teresa D. Kayn, by her counsel, Andrea C. Jacobsen, JACOBSEN & MILKES, and answers defendant's Petition for Contempt and Modification of Custody Order as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. By way of further response, the Temporary Custody Order of May 12, 2000, was entered upon the written Stipulation and consent of the parties and counsel. 5. Admitted. By way of further response, the Court Order of August 11, 2000, was entered upon the agreement of the parties. 6. Admitted that pursuant to the Orders, Mother has primary physical custody of Joshua and Father has physical custody of the child on alternate weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Monday morning at 7:00 a.m. Admitted that pursuant to the Orders, Father is to have custody every Tuesday from 12;00 p.m., noon, until Wednesday morning at 7:00 a.m. and to be returned by Father to the day care center. By way of further response, upon request of Father, Mother agreed to modify the night of Father's midweek visit from Tuesday to Wednesday. She agreed to change the starting time from 6;00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. She also agreed to meet Father at 6:30 a.m. on Thursday mornings in Carlisle, and to drive Joshua to his day care center in Mechanicsburg, despite the agreement for Father to do so. "",0' , "', ~.'" 'T.'- ':'~"'~" ..'. ',' _ _ r. ",~ --, " '-~ ,,",', - "i "'1, j " I I " I J ,!,'I: !, II ,I II " I il II 'I, I ! I' I i~ " !I !I 'I I 'I :i ;! 'Ii , I I I I I I I 7. Admitted. By way of further response, it is averred that the Order of May 12, 2000, was entered on agreement of the parties, upon the expectation that it was only for a temporary period pending a conciliation conference set at that time for August 4, 2000. At the time of the Order, the parties had only recently separated and neither party was involved in a romantic relationship with anyone else. Both parties were interested in assuring that the transition for Joshua was as non-disruptive as possible. 8. Admitted that Mother visited on the weekend of February 1, 2001, with a non-relative male, and that she was accompanied by Joshua during the visit. It is denied that the said party is known only to Father as "Cohen," as the party is identified as "Scott Cohen" in the Order of this Court dated February 7,2001, entered on Father's Motion for Special Relief. By way of further response, after the separation of the parties, Mother became friendly and subsequently romantically involved with Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Scott Cohen, a U.S. Navy Officer, who in February 2001 was stationed in Virginia Beach, VA. As that relationship developed, Mother believed that it was appropriate to take Joshua along with her for a weekend visit. 9. Denied. It is denied that the male is unknown to Father, as aforesaid. It is further denied that Scott Cohen supervised the child and it is denied that he physically disciplined the child. To the contrary, it is averred that Father has made repeated unfounded claims against Scott Cohen, a Commander in the United States Navy, stationed in Virginia Beach, VA. 10. Admitted that on Sunday, April 1, 2001, LCDR Cohen visited Mother's residence in Mechanicsburg for a few hours during the afternoon while the child was in Mother's custody. Denied that LCDR Cohen visited for the weekend or on March 31, 2001. LCDR Cohen did not stay overnight at Mother's home. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted that Joshua is in childcare during the time Mother is at work. Denied that it is at "great expense" to Mother or to Father. To the contrary, it is averred that the cost of daycare of $114 per week is reasonable for the time and quality of care provided and the nature of the 2 '-",,-'--- ,'" -<~' , ",- - , ;.~ lL';i program offered. The expense is well within the means of the parties whose joint gross annual income as of 1999 was over $135,000. 13. No answer required as the averment sets forth a prayer for relief. NEW MATTER By way of further response, Mother avers that 14. The parties have now been separated for over a year, and Joshua has had the opportunity to adjust to his present situation. The parties have moved on in their lives and there is no ongoing reason for precluding the exercise of overnight custody in the presence of a third party of the opposite sex. 15. Father has made allegations against Mother and Scott Cohen which were set forth in Defendant's Motion for Special Relief filed with this Court. In that Motion filed February 7, 2001, Father admitted he was withholding Joshua from Mother contrary to the existing Court Order. He sought an immediate change in primary custody from Mother to Father. After conference with counsel, this Court denied Father's request for special relief, but set a hearing on the Motion. Upon consent of counsel, pending such hearing, the Court directed that Mother "shall not permit Scott Cohen to be alone with the child pending further Order of Court." 16. Father's allegations were investigated by Cumberland County Children and Youth Services which determined the allegations were unfounded, and, because they involved LCDR Cohen, were also investigated by the United States Navy Criminal Investigative Services, (NCIS) Domestic Violence Unit, which found no merit to the charges and no basis for any further action. 17. On March 15 2001, Father sought leave of Court to withdraw his Motion for Special Relief and to cancel the hearing set on his allegations. 18. It would not be in the best interest of Joshua to modify the current primary custody arrangement at this time. 19. The parties live and work at a considerable distance from each other, Mother works in Mechanicsburg and Father works in Chambersburg. A shared custody arrangement would 3 ,,- '>T~' . --',- ~, ""0 ",- _'O'~~ either require that Joshua be in two separate day care programs or spend the day at a considerable distance from his primary custodian half the time. To change or split day care for Joshua would be disruptive to his current arrangement, where he has been placed upon the consent of both parties, for the last two years. The daycare placement has been a stable factor in Joshua's life. 20. If Joshua were to be enrolled at his present daycare program on alternate weeks, the cost of care for such program would not be reduced, as, in order to reserve his place at the center, Mother would continue to be responsible for Joshua's full tuition for those weeks, even if he attends only every other week. 21. Mother isa loving parent who has been providing Joshua with a stable home environment and Joshua has been doing well in her primary care. She has attempted to assure Father's regular participation in Joshua's life and has modified her schedule on multiple occasions to accommodate his requests for changes in visitation times or days or transportation arrangements. 22. A change in the present primary physical custody arrangement would not be beneficial to Joshua. Upon the agreement of the parties, Eugene H. Stecher, MA, Licensed Psychologist, Guidance Associates of PA, conducted a psychological evaluation of the parties in this custody matter. His report included a Primary Recommendation that primary physical custody be awarded to Mother. 23. The present custody arrangement has existed with Father's consent over the last year. There is no reason why a change at this time would be in the best interest of Joshua. To the contrary, it would disruptive to him and contrary to his well-being. 24. Paragraph 8 of the Order of May 12, 2000 states: Neither party shall attempt to undermine the mutual love and affection the child has for the other parent, and neither party shall, in the presence of the child, make any disparaging or negative remarks concerning the other parent. Both parties shall hold out the other parent as one to whom the child should show respect and love. 4 ,~." . ~-,,' ~- - 25. Father has repeatedly ignored this provision which was entered on the Stipulation of the parties. Father has criticized Mother to the child, has made disparaging and negative remarks about Mother to the child, and has on numerous occasions left insulting and derogatory messages about Mother on her telephone answering machine, with every reason to expect that it was likely that Joshua would overhear the telephone messages when they were played back. Father has called Mother such names as "slut" in these messages, has repeatedly announced that Mother is unfit, and that she is failing to meet her parental responsibilities. 26. Father has ignored paragraph 8 of the May 12, 2000 Order on multiple occasions. After a visit with Father, Joshua reported that his Daddy said that his mother is bad, that she isn't going to heaven, that she has lied to the Judge. After screaming at Mother, Father has advised Mother that he told Joshua that it was Mother's fault that he screamed. Father has told Mother, in front of Joshua, that he doesn't know how Mother can sleep at night since she is collecting child support from him and, is not paying half of the mortgage for the home where he is living. He has said to Mother in front of Joshua that she is not fit to be raising a child. 27. Father's conduct disrespecting Mother in front of Joshua is not in the child's best interest. The conduct serves to alienate Joshua from Mother, and is potentially harmful to the child. WHEREFORE, Petitioner asks this Court to issue an Order to; a. Confirm and make permanent the parties' shared legal custody of Joshua and Mother's primary physical custody of Joshua; b. Modify the terms of the prior Orders to clarify provisions as to transportation, holiday and vacation issues related to the exercise of physical custody; c. Modify the terms of the prior Orders to delete the prohibition against the exercise of overnight custody in the presence of a third party non-relative of the opposite sex; d. Delete any reference to Scott Cohen, or any limitation regarding the exercise of 5 '""'. , "~ ~ -- - ,~ . custody in his presence, including the provision set forth in the Order of February 7, 2001; e. Confirm and make permanent the terms set forth in paragraph 8 of the existing May 12, 2000, Order of Court, which provide that: Neither party shall attempt to undermine the mutual love and affection the child has for the other parent, and neither party shall, in the presence of the child. make any disparaging or negative remarks concerning the other parent. Both parties shall hold out the other parent as one to whom the child should show respect and love. f. Grant such further relief as this Court may deem proper and just. Respectfully Submitted, " Andrea C. cobs n, Esq. JACOBSEN KES 52 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)249-6427 Attorney No. 20952 6 '>'-"',-'- ~-, --'''''-'''',- "'"-- VERIFICATION I hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.s. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: j~"'2-"7 ,200 \ :J Mllfi 10 ~ ' TERESA D. KA -- _.' " ~ '- '" I:: ii !' . TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant IN CUSTODY ii' J " 11 " ,I 'I i] v. NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL ACTION - LAW RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ,'I' , I II ;,',1 II II ;,,',1 , II II " AND NOW, this ~ day of ;j l~ \ ~ ,2001, upon consideration of the foregoing Motion to Preclude Wire Tap Evidence, a :kule to Show Cause is issued upon Mother, to show cause, if any there be, why the phone conversations involving Father and recorded by Mother, should not be presented as evidence. Rule retumable on Thursday, August 2, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 1 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT, , J .~ ~~,D\ \J" ~_.~, -~ " ;; n r:\FLLES\DATAFILE\wp{wp}.bklltde Created,'06/01/0103:26:5J PM Revised: 07/30/01 02:47:56 PM ff h H I: " ") TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA , \! , ~ i ;1 n v. NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL ACTION - LAW T' :-: " r! " DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant f' ri IN CUSTODY ,; ~; '; MOTION TO PRECLUDE WIRETAP EVIDENCE Ii I: I Ii ~, I: II ti l i'i AND NOW, comes Defenda~t, Dennis R. Kayn (hereinafter referred to as "Father"), by and through his attorneys, MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO, pursuantto 18 Pa. C.S.A. 95721.1 (a)(I) and, in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. In this custodymatter, Father's attorney was advised in May, 2001, by the attorney for Teresa D.Kayn (hereinafter referred to as "Mother") that Mother has been recording telephone conversations of Father made to and from her residence phone. 2. Mother's attorney stated that she believes these recordings were legal since Mother allegedly t\lld Father that he could assume any of his telephone calls would be recorded, and so, by making the calls, he has implicitly consented to being recorded. 3. Father's attorney advised Mother's attorney that there was no such consent to phone calls being recorded, that they were illegal, and that Mother should cease and desist from doing so. 4. Father's attorney later confirmed this in a letter to Mother's attorney which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A." 5. Father engaged Eugene Stecher to do a custody evaluation of both parties and the r: Ii I 11 " child. 6. Mother asked Mr. Stecher to listen to telephone conversations with the Father which she had recorded. 7. In an email messageearlierthismonth.Mr. Stecher asked Father's attorney ifhe could listen to those tapes. Father's attorney, who was on vacation from July 1-15, 2001, was able to check his e-mail on vacation and reply to Mr. Stecher that this matter could be discussed after he returned from vacation, but recommended that Mr. Stecher not listen to the tapes as they may not be admissible as evidence, and listening to them could taint his testimony. !:" !, i I , I 8. Upon return from vacation, Father's attorney found a report apparently dated July 9, 2001 from Mr. Stecher that he refers to "alleged transcripts of phone conversations between Father and Mother and Father and son," though it is not completely clear if Mr. Stecher placed any reliance on these, or even heard them. I"~ i: u !:i " ", '~i 9. Father's counsel has neither been provided with copies of the taped phone .' conversations, nor transcripts of same, though on one occasion Mother's counsel came to the office of Father's counsel and played a recording of a telephone call between Father and the child. 10. It would be improper to use recordings oftelephone conversations made by Mother. WHEREFORE, Father requests: 1. That the Court not consider taped phone conversations involving Father; " , U I,; U 1-: I'{ I" I'j l' I,j H Ii Disallow the testimony of Mr. Stecher as being possibly tainted by being presented by Mother with such phone conversations; Order Mother to reimburse Father for the cost of the evaluation done by Mr. Stecher; and 4. Permit Father the opportunity to have a custody evaluation prepared by 2. :~ Ii ::; 3. ;: I' !: n another professional. Respectfully submitted, MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO By -r~~ \rvcl,~ Thomas J. Wll, s, EsqUIre Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013-3093 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Father, Dennis R. Kayn Date: July 30, 2001 I : I " ~~" MDW&:6 INfrORMAnON' AIMeE' ADvoCACY . TEN EAsr HIGH STREI;T CAJu.'Sl.E. PENNSYLVANIA 17013 TELEPHONE 171.7)24J-.H41 FACSIMILE 171.7) 24J-1850 IN....ERNET www.mdwo.(:om ATTORNEYS & COUNSEllORS AT lA.~' ~ILLlAM F. MAIlTSON JOHN B. FOWLER III EDWARD L SCHORI'P OANfEl K OfJ\RDORFF THOMAS J. WILLlA.\-IS . [vov. OTTO III GEORGE.B. FALLER JR." CARl. C. RISCH MARK A. DENLINGER "BoARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL SPECIA~ST June 4, 2001 An~aC: Jacobsen, Esquire JACOBSEN &MILKES ..52 East High Street Carlisle, pi 17013-'3085 II I': r; i RE: ,TeresaD.Kaynv. DennisR. Kayn No, 2000-2469.. Cumberland CountyC.C.P.' 'Our File No. 10309.1 ' Dear Andrea: The following is Dennis' week in, A~gust. You will see this goes from 8/6 -12/01 and he will return Joshua to day care on the moming of Monday, 8/13/01. , ' " ' , We havij decided to have Eugene Stecker update the original evaluation. Either youor Teresa should be hearing from him directly. @ @ lID ~ We are contiIiuing to work on the answers to Interrogatories. I did discuss with Dennis the inappropriateness of making derogatory remarks concerning Teresa to Joshua or iIi his presence. Dennis coilCeded he has done that, saying it has been when he was provoked to bitterness. He promised me he would not say or do anything to, or in the presence, of, Joshua, that would be in anyway derogatory to Joshua's mother. Dennis indicated to me his' understanding that Joshua needs to respect his mother even if Dennis does not. Should any such conduct reoccur in the future, please let me know about it right away. Regarding the tapes, I have again checked the Pennsylvania Statute on this and am convinced that Teresa has committed a felony; however, neither Dennis or I are interested in pursuing criminal ch;lI'ges against Teresa. I suppose I should take this opportunity to reiterate what i told you earlier that Dennis has not consented and does not consent, to anyone recording his voice. I have given this issue of the tapes considerable thought and concluded that it would be objectionable to possess them as evidence. If you intend to present these tapes as evidence at the hearing on August 2, please let EXHIBIT "A" I N FOR MAT I 0 1'1 . A D V ICE . A D V 0 CAe Y ,," ',' I' Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire June 4, 2001 Page 2 me know so that lean mlike the appropriate objection prior to the hearing. It may be that we will need a separate evidentiary hearing with regard to this issue if you are, going to press it. ' Very truly yours, MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO' Thomas J, Williams TJW/tde Enclosure CC: , Mr. Dennis R. Kayn P:\FIl,ESWAtAFILE\GcaItr>.eur\I03lJ9.aj.4. I N FOR MAT ION . A D V ICE . A D v 0 CAe y 'M I , : ~' i \_'1 ;.! ,I :1 II " I! I ~ j ~ i ;-'1 ::'i ti ,;;1 [I 1,1 , !I !'j !,] :1 ;'j t, II Ii 'I II I' ,I II II il I II II ,I (I I 'I --, ,'~h"'",,,,,, c ,,~ VERIFICATION I, Thomas J. Williams, Esquire, counsel for Dennis R. Kayn depose and say, subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of my knowledge; that my client is presently unavailable; that I am authorized to execute this Verification on his behalf, and that I will supplement this Verification in the near future with one executed by my client. --~ '~d Tho s J. Williks, Esquire r ~ Date: July 30, 2001 ." "' -,- ~ -- , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion was served this date by via hand delivery, addressed as follows: Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire JACOBSEN & MILKES 52 East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013-3085 MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO cia D. Eckenroad Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: July 30, 2001 - TERESA D.KAYN v. DENNIS R. KAYN, AND NOW, this Plaintiff Defendant .1." ~l' : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION. LAW : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL : IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT day of August, 2001, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Preclude Wiretap Evidence and the Answer filed by Plaintiff thereto, said Motion is hereby DENIED. " \ BY THE COURT: Hon. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., Judge ~~ - ,~ TERESA D.KAYN Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. DENNIS R. KAYN, : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL : IN CUSTODY Defendant ANSWER TO MOTION TO PRECLUDE WIRETAP EVIDENCE And now comes Plaintiff (Mother), by undersigned counsel, and answers Motion to Preclude Wiretap Evidence filed by Defendant (Father) as follows: 1. Denied as stated. It is denied that Father's counsel first learned of the recording of telephone conversations in May 2001. To the contrary, it is asserted that over a year ago, in May 2000, Father's counsel,' Lynn MacBride, Esquire, was advised in writing that Mother intended to tape the telephone conversations that Father made to her home because of his abusive, obscene and inappropriate remarks concerning Mother. See attached copy of letter of Mother's counsel to Lynn MacBride, Esq., dated May 30, 2000, attached hereto and made part hereof as Plaintiffs Exhibit A. In April 2001, after Thomas J. Williams, Father's present counsel, entered his appearance, undersigned counsel brought the letter and the ongoing abusive conduct of Father to the attention of Mr. Williams. 2. Denied as stated. It is denied that Mother's attorney stated that Mother "allegedly" told Father that he could assume any of his telephone calls would be recorded. It is assented that Mother's attorney expressed her opinion that, because Father was informed in advance that Mother intended to tape the conversations, and had never raised an objection to the taping, Father's awareness and conduct constituted consent to the recording. On the basis of Father's conduct, the recording was consensual and not illegal. Father was previously represented in this matter first by Lynn MacBride, Esquire, and then by Taylor P. Andrews, Esquire, before present counsel entered his appearance in April 2001. ~ ~ 3. It is admitted that Father's current counsel recently raised an objection to the taping of Father's telephone conversations with Mother's home. The objection of Mr. Williams was the first indication or notice from Father or any of his counsel that Father did not consent to the taping of the conversations. 4. It is admitted that Father's attorney sent the letter of June 4, 2001, to Mother's attorney. The letter speaks for itself. 5. It is admitted that Father engaged Eugene Stecher on June 4, 2001, to do an update of his prior custody evaluation of both parties and the child. An initial evaluation by Mr. Stecher, performed in September 2000, with a report dated October 5, 2000, was performed upon the request of both parties. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied insofar as the paragraph sets forth the content of e-mail messages between Mr. Stecher and Father's attorney, or insofar as it attempts to characterize the actions of Father's attorney, as Mother is without knowledge or information upon which to confirm or deny the truth or accuracy of the averments. 8. Denied insofar as the paragraph sets forth conduct of Father's attorney, or insofar as it attempts to characterize the actions of Father's attorney, and the report of Mr. Stecher, and insofar as the paragraph sets forth the conclusion of Father or his attorney regarding the report from Mr. Stecher, as Mother is without knowledge or information upon which to confirm or deny the truth or accuracy of the averments. By way of further response, Mother asserts that the Report of July 9, 2001, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B, speaks for itself. 2 1-'" .. "-, 9. It is admitted that Father has never been provided with copies of the tapes of conversations made by Mother, nor with transcripts of the tapes, It is admitted that on one occasion counsel met and played a recording of a telephone call between Father and child. By way of further response, it is asserted that after initial discussions between counsel regarding the best means for transcribing the tapes, Mr. Williams advised Mother's counsel that he did not wish to obtain the tapes. Mr. Williams has repeatedly rejected the opportunity to listen to the tapes, and has declined to have possession, of the tapes, or transcripts which Mother's counsel offered to provide to Father's counsel. See the June 4, 2001 letter of Mr. Williams to Mother's counsel, in which Mr. Williams states: "I have given this issue of the tapes considerable thought and concluded that it would be objectionable to possess them as evidence." A copy of the letter is attached to Father's Motion and is also attached hereto and made part hereof as Exhibit C. See also letter of July 6, 2001 of Mother's counsel to Mr. Williams, which renews the offer to make the tapes available to Father's counsel. A copy of the letter is attached hereto and made part hereof as Exhibit D. 10. No answer required as the paragraph sets forth a conclusion of law. If deemed factual, the averment is denied. By way of further response, Mother, by counsel, asserts as follows: 11. The taped phone conversations involving Father include tapes of messages left by Father on Mother's telephone answering machine. It has been held that, as a matter of law, those tapes are not subject to any exclusionary rule, since a party leaving a message on an answering machine evidences by his conduct, his awareness of, and his consent to the recording of his message on tape. See Com. v. DeMarco, 578 A.2d 942, 396 Pa. Super. 357, (1990). 3 -"-, 12. Father was aware of and, by his conduct, consented to the recording of his voice for other conversations as well as for those messages left on the telephone answering machine. On at least one occasion, Father even remarked that he was probably being taped, and still continued the conversation. 13. There is no reason to conclude that the testimony of Mr. Stecher would be "tainted" by knowledge of the remarks of Father in phone conversations. As set forth in his report, Mr. Stecher reached a conclusion that Mother should be awarded primary physical custody of the child initially in October 2000, without any knowledge of the taped conversations of Father. In his report of July 9, 2001, Mr. Stecher is clear that he does not rely upon the taped conversations to reach his recommendation that Mother be granted primary physical custody of the child. The report notes that the information obtained from the parties and child reinforces the original recommendation. See Stecher Report of July 9,2001, (Exhibit B, hereto) at p. 7. The additional information from the tapes is described as seeming "to point in the same direction," not as the basis of the Evaluator's opinion. 14. The recordings of Father's messages left on the home answering machine and the transcripts of conversation between Father and Mother and Father and the child provided documentation of parent alienating conduct by Father. The information in the tapes listened to by Mr. Stecher was not the only source of such information - Father has admitted it in correspondence, see letter of June 4, 2001 from Mr. Williams to Mother's counsel, Exhibit C, hereto, in which derogatory remarks regarding Mother are conceded. Father also acknowledged such conduct in his interview with Mr. Stecher, see Report of July 9, 2001, (Exhibit B, hereto) at p.8. 4 ,. .=; 15. In his letter of engagement to Mr. Stecher, Father's counsel advised the Evaluator that Father was seeking an update of the report of October 5, 2000, for the purposes of the hearing of August 2, 2001, and states: At a minimum, this would include reinterviews with the parents and the child; beyond that, we will be guided by whatever you think best and appropriate to complete a thorough and independent evaluation for Judge Oler." Letter of June 4, 2001, from Thomas J. Williams, Esq. to Eugene H. Stecher, MA, copy attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit E. To exclude Mr. Stecher's testimony because he did in fact complete a thorough evaluation would be unreasonable. 16. On July 6, 2001, Mother's counsel spoke by telephone to Eugene Stecher, who sought information regarding the legality of the tapes which Mother had brought to his attention during the evaluation process. Mother's counsel informed Mr. Stecher that the conversations were recorded after notice to Father that Mother intended to tape them, and in the absence of any objection from Father about the recording, or any indication that he did not consent to the recording. See letter of July 6, 2001 from Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq. to Eugene H. Stecher, MA, copy attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit F. 17. The timing of Father's instant Motion, and the proposed exclusion of the testimony of Mr. Stecher is highly prejudicial to Mother. Father has long been aware that Mother has been recording the conversations to her home phone. Even Father's current counsel has known of the taping and the existence of the tapes for over two months, since shortly after he entered his appearance in April 2001. Despite such knowledge, he has repeatedly rejected Mother's offers to allow him access to the tapes. 5 - -.. ' or"~ 18. In early June 2001, Father's counsel raised the possibility that he might seek an evidentiary hearing with regard to the tapes. See Exhibit C. In early July, Mother's counsel confirmed that she might be using the tapes at hearing. See Exhibit D. Father's delay until July 30, 2001, three days before the hearing, to first apprise the Court of his concern, and to request the disallowance of the testimony of Mr. Stecher is dilatory and highly prejudicial to Mother. 19. There is no reason why Father should be permitted to set aside the evaluation of Mr. Stecher. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Father's Motion to Preclude Wiretap Evidence should be denied. Respectfully submitted, BY: An rea . Jacobsen, Esq. JACOB & MILKES 52 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6427 Attorney No. 20952 6 :;~ .. "~ ., ."~ , ':/ I Cl iCi' -'., --~-= ' I"~ "'--",-, "',; /7 ,-./ ..."-,,n/ 'L -"C"- '"';"-'", ' '""," . ',,-',< "',', '." .-~'~' ''I'~~~1m1 ~-- ~- - ,'>- > --y -.-~= =~,. ~' " " ... I .'-.,-- '"-"~ ~" ~ ~W,' ,;"",, 'r--, ''''-~,'':'_-"-,,,".~' " "'i" ' ~- ",' . Samuel W. Milkes Andrea C. Jacobsen JACOBSEN & MILKES 52 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3085 Tel717-249-6427 Fax 717-249-8427 May 30, 2000 ~/Il~ ( /' //'.." .'-/ /," ~ ',j \1 v-~:/ )~? II Lynn MacBride, Esq. WALKER & MACBRIDE 247 Lincoln Way East Chambersburg, PA 17201 Via Fax: 717264-1662 Re: KAYN v. KAYN, Cumberland County, No. 200()"'2469, Civil Term, In Divorce Dear Lynn: I recall that you may be out of town for another week and I look forward to discussing this matter with you upon your return. In the meantime, Teresa Kayn has contacted me about the telephone converSations between Dennis Kayn and herself and their son and I wish to respond to them by notice to him through your office. From what she has told me, your client has made abusive and threatening remarks to her - calling her a 'cunt," and indicating that if she did not agree to giVe him additional time with the child, he would keep Joshua for a week. Dennis has also attempted to place their child in the middle of discussions between himself and Teresa with regard to the visitation schedule. For example, Teresa has heard him say to Joshua, "Ask mommy why she won't let me see you this week.' This clearly is at odds with the spirit and the provisions of the Temporary Order, which provides in paragraph 8: 8. Neither party shall attempt to undermine the mutual love and affection the child has for the other parent, and neither party shall, in the presence of the child, make any disparaging or negative remarks concerning the other parent. Both parties shall hold out the other parent as one to whom the child should show respect and love. Your client's remarks are certainly inappropriate, and contrary to the interests of Joshua. Lest there be any question about the accuracy of my client's report, I have suggested to Teresa Kayn that she begin tape recording conversations between Dennis and Joshua or herself. This should either end the problem or at least dfer a practical way of documenting the truth of what is said between these individuals. I have discussed with Teresa that it may be unlawful to do this tape recording without a person's advance knowledge but this letter is intended to constitute advance notice that recording will be occurring. Teresa has nothing to hide or to defend and this wi" help assure that point. Lynn MacBride, Esq. May 30, 2000 Page 2 I hope your office will forward this to Mr. Kayn in your absence. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, JACOBSEN & MILKES ~p , . t 1~ r _ ') >2-~ !l1'latNZ L -:5ft1lJ.xh2;e~ ).J!K'-- BY: Andrea C. Jacobsen ACJime Cc: Teresa Kayn ( corr)0530macbride.kay -~ l., '~'" ~.~ St.nley E. Schneider, EdD. Dir?Ctor, Guidance Associates 412 Erford Road C.mp Hill, PA 17011 (71 7) 732-2917 Guidance Associates of P A Branch Office 473 Lincoln Way East Chambersburg, PA 17201 Eugene H_ Stecher, M.A. Licensed Psychologist 473 UnwIn Way East Chambersburg, P A 17201 (71 7) 263-9392 CmLD CUSTODY EVALUATION Thomas J. Williams, Esq. MDW&O Ten East High Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq. 52 East High Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 Re: Custody of Joshua Ryan.Kayn, age 4, b.3/5197 Father, Dennis R. Kayn, age 54, b. 11/5/45 Mother, Teresa D. .Kayn, age 36, b. 11/5/63 Dear Attorneys: Introduction. I initially perfonned a custody evaluation in this matter in September of 2000, involving both an in-home evaluation and an individually admimRtered psychological evaluation with each parent A thirteen page report was available by October 5, 2000, and it made three recommendations: joint legal custody, priInaty physical custody for mother, and h'beral partial physical custody for father. I also suggested that individual counseling for each parent might be beneficial. Subsequent to that evaluation father came to my office once, and he made five or six relatively brief phone calls to me. He wanted clarification about whether the report meant that he should receive less time with the child than he had before, and the answer was "no." In subsequent conversations with both attorneys this infonnation was conveyed. Father also seemed to need a sounding board for his disappointments and complaints about trying to negotiate custody matters with mother. My response essentially was fourfold: talk to Teresa, discuss unresolved matters with your attorney, be prepared to Jive with any decisions that you make as a father, and seek counseling. I pointed out to him that it was my responsibility to practice ethically and to maintain objectivity and that I could not take the counselor's role. The week of June 4 I received a call from attorney Williams requesting a second evaluation. The request was confirmed in a subsequent letter (614) which attached an order (5129) by the Honorable J. Wesley Oller, Jr. allowing either party to "retain an evaluator" prior to the August 2 hearing, costs to be paid by the party seeking the evaluation. Father has followed through with this Counseling. Psychological Testing. Anger Management. Mediation/Custody. Litigation "" c' -,' ,-', ^j responsibility. In phone calls with both attorneys, the option of a fresh third party perspective was discnssed. I met with father and son on the morning of Tuesday, June 12, for approximately 2.5 hours. I met with mother and Son on the morning of Wednesday, June 20, for approximately two hours. There were subsequent phone calls with both parents for clarification of information, and father was inteJViewed at my office on July 5. Assessment methodology. I reviewed docl1tt1eDts related to an alleged child abuse incident: Chambersburg Hospital Report of Suspected Child Abuse (2/6/01), Protective Service Investigation Report (2/7/01), Cumberland County C & Y notification of suspected abnse (2/8/01), Child Abuse Interview Report (Earl Greenwald, M.D., 2/8101), Medical Examination (Earl Greenwald, MD., 2/8/01), Addendum from Earl Greenwald, M.D. (3/2/01), and Cumberland County C & Y letter offindings (3130/01). I further interviewed both parents, with special focus on reactions to the observations made in the last report, and made parent/child observations. The parents also completed a self-report questionnaire and the Inventory of Interpersonal Prob1el1ll1 as it applies to their own relationship. With the possible exception of abuse issues, parental criticisms of one another are not included in this report unless the problem impacts parenting and both agree on the information, and/or there is confirmation from a reliable third source. Custody Goal. Father hopes to be considered for more cnstody time, and before the child begins school in the Fall of2oo2 he would prefer primary physical custody, but he would at least like the recently mandated swmner schedule to be in effect year round, ie., one week per month in addition to the standard every other week-end and one week-day overnight arrangement Father mentioned that he had kept infonnation about multiple day care centers in the area, and he specifically mentioned programs at Shippensburg and Wilson coneges. Mother wishes to maintain primary physical custody either without changes in the current schedule or with further Jimitations of father's time. She wonies about the difficulty of trying to adjust to two day care programs. She pointed out that Joshua's current day care has a 6/1 adult to child ratio with a very low turnover rate and that he has been there two years. Cnstody Cooperation. Both indicate that cooperation on the court ordered time and place of child transfer has been good, even though there have been changes in those factors, but there have been differences of opinion on specific requests for flexibility. Mother gave this example of how communication breaks down: [11 Father requests a time change. {2] Mother says "no" due to Joshua being invited for dinner at a friend's fonowed by a swimming lesson. [3] At the last minute the family calls and cancels dinner. {4] Father asks Joshua ifhe went to the family's home for dinner. (S) Joshua says "no." [6] Father concludes that mother was lying. [7] Tensions and hard feelings are increased. In father's view the whole matter could have been avoided by simply prioritizing the parent's request. GAP/CustodyEvaIIJoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6/20/01 2 ,,' 1-- , "I Unstructured Observation. Pather's Home. Child's Room. Joshua took me upstairs to show me his room while father completed paperwOlt. There have been no essential changes since the last evalua1ion. The child's tent, a smaD. air mattress, smaD. p1as1ic chairs, and toy items are in his bedroom rather than in the family area, but his bed stilI sits, full of stuffed animals, at the foot of his father's bed. Behavior. Joshua was fiiendly, evidenced good rapport with his father, and displayed good self- management during my visit Father's behavior toward the child was supportive, encouraging, and affectionate. Joshua was watching the Wizard of Oz when I arrived, and, off and on, continued to watch that video. When he took me upstairs, he named the stuffed animaJs that were in his own bed. I asked Josh to show me where he sleeps, and he crawled up on his father's bed, put his hand on a pillow, and said, "there." When about fifteen minutes had gone by he chose to go oulside, and father put some toys in full view outside the sun room so that he could play. Owing the visit Joshua played outside for a time and then would come inside, and that pattern continued. He would talk briefly to his father each time; e.g. about trying to plant fonowers. He fonowed his father's boundary setting to give the adults conversationaI privacy. At a point in time Joshua was allowed to go next door on his own to ring the ben and ask if Andy (age 11) could play. He came back to say that no one answered. Father showed some evidence of distraction and stress, perhaps an exacerbation of attention deficit and depressive symptoms for which he takes the medications Addera1l and Pm. When Joshua took me upstairs I found the water rnnn1rlg at full force in the bath room. Father also took 2 to 3x longer than average to complete the personal data questionnaire. Consistent with feeling excessive stress is the self-report of a 15 pound weight loss and loss of appetite "most days." When providing personal data, after the "children" item, father wrote the name ofhis daughter but not the names ofhis sons. He also initiaI1y indicated "blanks in memory most days," but later indicated that it wasn't so. He also endorsed the items "adult sexual abuse" and "adult emotional abuse," and these were left blank on the previous evaluation questionnaire. Perl1aps he was confusing 'the sexual abuse item with what allegedly recently happened to Joshua. Mother's Home. Child's Room. The appearance of the bedroom was similar to my last visit. Over twenty pieces of Joshua's art worl< are on display. The bed is full of stuffed animals. Pictures in the room include one of father holding up a catch of fish. [Mother advised that she added father's picture based on comments in the first evaluation report.] Behavior. Joshua was playing with his dinosaurs in the middle of the living room floor when I arrived, and there was also a dinosaur and ~m,,1 book in the area. Rapport between mother and son was very good throughout the visit, and mother evidenced both patience and enthusiasm in the interactions. At my request Joshua took me to his room and was able to name all the stuffed animals on his bed. Joshua chattered with his mother and dramatized stories as she sat on the floor with bim and completed the assigned paper worl<. She occasionally responded to his requests, such as helping GAP/CustodyEva1/JoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6120/01 3 - " .-" ,.; "" ~,' ' c him to get something out of the toy closet Due to Joshua's desire for his mother's attention, it took her somewhat longer than usual to complete the paper wOlt, and he also tended to intenupt our attempts to talk Mother did set boundaries and redirect him, but he returned fairly often. Joshua had a brief crying spell when he was told that grandmother and stepgrandfather had come to take him to day care, but he settled rather quickly as his mother took him out to the car. [As during the first evaluation, Joshua was more attention seeking and emotional in mother's environment. But mother was also the ,one who did not use the TV as a parenting tool. However, during the first evaluation, father was the one that didn't use the TV as a parenting tool. The spaciousness/freedom off ather's home compared to mother's is certainly also a factor. We must further consider that during visits with father, father has 100% time to give the child, while mother must be constantly sending him off to day care. There is also the possibility that father may criticize mother to Joshua.] Mother. Mother had concern in her voice and was close to tearfulness a few times, but she did not report high levels of emotional turmoil or behave in ways that would suggest levels of stress, depression, anxiety, or anger that intlaf".es withjudgment. [Mother appears to be managirlg her emotions more constructively than father.] Interview. Father. Residence. Dennis continues to live at 247 Chestnut Drive in Shippensburg. The home is for sale, and he is waiting for "an acceptable offer." He could not be definite about when a move might occur. Alcohol use. The last report indicated that Dennis had developed an evening habit of drinking a martini or vodka tonic and a beer, which resulted in "a little bit of euphoria, " and since that was "more potent" than he wanted, there was a change to two beers in the evening. Dennis now reports that he drinks one beer in the evening, "h tastes good with a snack and reading the paper." He believes that his drinking "never affected behavior, " but why, then, does he keep changing the habit to less? [Father noted that mother had expressed concern about alcohol use, but he did not express awareness that the evaluator also menlioned concerns about alcohol use in the previous report.] Sleeping Arrangements, Dennis acknowledged "no change" in the sleeping arrangements, and said, "As often as not he'll be in bed with me or will crawl into his own bed with his animals. " Father offered that Joshua wants "affection and to be held." He emphll"'~ed the love that father and son have for each other, and he indicated that the sleeping arrangement should not be an issue at this tender age. He affirmed that in the future there would be a separate bedroom for Joshua. ~~~~that~~had~~~sleeping~~~~he~ express awareness that the evaluator also menlioned dependency conc~ about the arrangement in the previous report.] GAP/CustodyEval/JoshuaKayn 6/12101 6/20/01 4 - _'0 '" [, ':"~f:i Extended Family. Dennis advised that he has maintained contact with the older children through regular phone calls and cards since the last evaluation. There are plans for a trip to Florida this year to see the extended family. Personal Care. Dennis' work place recently began to offer EAP services, and he is taking advantage of four :free counseling sessions with Susan Day at Summit Behavioral Health. To date he has attended one session. He continues to see Dr. Hegarty every 60 days for medication management He indicated that he had been taking the medication long enough that he was no longer sore of its degree of helpfulness. [Father did not connect taking this counseling step with anything that was said in the previous evaluation. ] Father/Son Interaction. Dennis indicated that he tries to do at least one special thing with Joshua each week-end that they are together. He mentioned activities like ball games, attending concerts at the Capitol Theater, hiking, fishing. swimming in mends' pools, Saturday morning library time, watching videos, reading books, and playing games like Booby Trap. About 75% of the time they will attend church. He mentioned being eligible for five weeks vacation and the possibility of doing some traveling. Interview: Mother. Residence. Teresa continues to rent the same apartment, and she is currently on a month to month lease. She has a contract to build a home, but that cannot happen until the marital assets are settled. The home would be constructed in the area offRt. 581 at exit 2, just a few miles from her work and Joshua's day care center. She anticipates that it could be a full year before the project can begin. Extended Family. Teresa advises that she and Joshua made trips in October and March to Florida and Missouri respectively and saw most of her family at those times. Her mother and stepfather, one or the other, or both, have been visiting in this area since the end of May and are scheduled to return home June 21. [Mother appears to have the more active relationship with extended family.] Personal Care. Teresa advises that she took seriously the observation in the first evaluation about the helpfulness of counseling. She has been in sessions wilh Lucretia Hurley-Browning since January of this year. They have addressed the repression issues that were mentioned in the earlier evaluation as wen as self-assertiveness. The counselor challenged her to pray for Dennis daily, and she has managed to let go of some of her anger, allhough she might only say the prayers three times per week. She completed her Divorce Care class that was meeting last Fall and found it to be very helpful. She is currently active in a women's outreach group at her church. [Mother appears to have made a conscious decision to take self-care steps based on the first evaluation. ] Molher/Son Interaction. Teresa advised that Joshua had completed one set of swimming lessons and that she would probably sign him up for lhe next set. They go with Joshua's mend and parent GAP/CustodyEvalIJoshuaKayn 6/12101 6120/01 5 ,. ,- 'Q,; I : i : to see plays by the Popcorn Hat Players. Church attendance is usually weekly, and Joshua attends his own class and sings in the children's choir. They attend church events such as picnics. Vacation Bible School fen on the week that he was with his father. Summer activity will probably include trips to Washington and Baltimore. Neighborhood mends are Brandon (4) and Trevor (4). Mother noted which relationship goes smoother and which requires more supervision. Evening time usually consists of a quick dinner, and then going to play, perhaps to the playground and swimming poo~ and riding a bike with training wheels. t, L i r i I. I I i Alleged Child Abuse. The fonowing represents my understanding of the chronology and content of events: i I I i [1] Joshua was with father on Wednesday, Januaty 31, and father reports observing "no visible injuries." The child was transferred to mother the next day, Thursday, February 1, at about 6:30AM. [2] The alleged abuse occurred between Thursday, Feb.l and Sunday, Feb.4 when mother was visiting a male mend in Norfolk, Virginia. [3] The alleged perpetrator was mother's adult male companion. [4] Mother's male mend was with her and Joshua from late Thursday evening until after lunch on Sunday. [5] Following complaint of discomfort by Joshua while bathing, Mother reports seeing a penile scratch or abrasion on Friday. [6] Mother and Joshua returned home after lunch on Sunday. [7] Father received Joshua at McDonald's in Carlisle on Tuesday evening, February 6, 5:30PM. [8] Father took the child to Chambersburg Hospital the same evening where he was examined at 8:19PM. [9] Father reported that the child's penis was "pulled," causing injury. Joshua told the nurse, " (name) pulled it" [10] Two days later Joshua reported this same act to an examiner and indicated that it took place "on top ofbil! clothing." [11] Medically', the scratch is not consistent with the type of injmy one might expect from 1h.e action described, and it is considered "medically'trivial" and "accidental. " [12] Cumberland-Perry C & Y detennined the abuse charge to be "unfounded, " [13] Any negative interaction between Joshua and mother's companion cannot be defined with reasonable certainty. GAP/CustodyEvaIIJoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6120/01 6 " u U,.., In reading over the documentation, I had several concerns: [1] Joshua apparently did not use the word "penis" during his initial examination. [2] Joshua subsequently stated that mother "very very much" hurt his penis, but who believes that statement has credibility. Why, therefore, should other statements be believed if this one is ignored? [3] Inconsistency and judgment uncertainty in a three to four year old is not surprising since that is an age when memol)', o~ect constancy, language development, and comprehension, are still in fluid formation. There is a possibility that Joshua bears some degree ofhard feelings toward mother's male mend. [1] The three had walkl:d and played on the beach on Saturday. At their apartment (?) they attempted to put Joshua down for a nap. He would not listen to his mother to stay in bed. Her male companion provided verbal back up and eventually physically placed Joshua in bed. [2] Joshua had begun a habit of resisting his mother's authority by unbuckling his seat beh. Mother's companion admonished him about not doing that as they left after lunch on Sunday. One of father's very strong objections is any action of mother's which places a third party in the position of disciplining Joshua. Mother responds, "I looked at these situations as someone backing me up rather than discipline. I assume that Andy and Jennifer's parents monitor Joshua when he plays over there without his father." Father agreed that Andy and Jennifer's parents do supervise and set boundaries for Joshua when he plays at their homes, but he believes that this is a qualitatively different circumstance than that provided by mother. [We could question mother's judgment with regard to placing a three year old child in an emotionally compromised position of acceptance of an intimate adult relationship, in a confined set of circumstances, apart from that of his own parents, which he could not adequately understand. However, on balance, there appears to be insufficient reason for any circumstances related to the alleged abuse to be detemrinative of a custody decision.] Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Father. Although father endorsed cold/distant feelings and social avoidance, he also endorsed a "dependent" pattern of nonassertiveness, over accommodation, and self-sacrifice, with the mction of vindictive and controlling urges agitating just beneath the snrface. This is a rather substantial picture of inner twmoil: dependence in conflict with avoidance, and accommodation in tension with very negative promptings. Perceptions, interpretations, and decisions are likely to be filtered through this confusing array of emotion. Mother. Here we also find a profile of cold/distant feelings and avoidance but without the intensity of the remaining emotional complications. [These observations about father's emotions are consistent with the first custody evaluation and with previous observations in this report. Mother appears to be filtering her perceptions and experiences through a less complicated and confusing screen.] The data to this point in the evaluation basically reinforces the original decision to recommend primary physical custody to mother. The information which follows also came to my attention and seems to point in the same direction. GAP/CustodyEvalJJoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6/20/01 7 ,,_,ok Potential Parent Alienation Data. Other sources of data at mother's home included messages left by father on the phone answering machine, and alleged transcripts of phone conversations between father and mother and father and son: [1] After consulting with colleagues, I am choosing not to refer to the transcripts because even though father told me, "Teresa did say dwing three or four calls thllt she was taping them, and maybe twice when we were exchanging Joshua, " he also told me that he never agreed to the taping, and I understand that there may be legal/ethical questions about material for which there was not mutual consent. Although by not hanging up and continuing to talk, perhaps that could be interpreted as consent. [2] However, I will refer to the messages, because father voluntarily left them on tape, knowing that mother and even Joshua might hear them and pass the information along to someone else. Father's voice is distinctive, and there is little doubt that he is speaking. Before referencing the phone messages, I want to mention one piece of information that mother shared independent of giving me this material. She mentioned that father had told Joshua that there was no money to buy a new car because mother took the money. When asked, father agreed that he said this to Joshua. He felt that "truth" was the most important way to communicate with the child. [Father did not seem to have awareness that his remark was parent alienating and that finances were an adult topic of conversation that was beyond the understanding of a three year old.] Based on five phone messages of Aprll13 to which I listened when at mother's home, I asked father the following questions, all of which should have had a "yes" response: Do you agree that you called Teresa an "unfit mother" when she didn't have Joshua in bed by 8:30PM? Answer. "No." Do you agree that you left a message saying that most of her "social life" was "usually in the bedroom?" Answer. "No." Do you agree that you left messages at least twice calling her a "sIut?" Answer. "No....! may have." Father did say to me, "I do get angry and frustrated.......but I never made bodily threats." [The inlplication of this material is that Joshua is probably exposed to parent alienating remarks from father.] Summary. This report may be summarized by reading the bracketed sections or by reading the following summary of information which continues to favor mother as the primary physical custody parent: [1] Mother seemed much more aware of the meaning of the first evaluation and made changes accordingly. Father seemed unaware of applying first evaluation ~lIIions, although he made some changes. GAP/CustodyEva1/JoshuaKayn 6/12101 6/20/01 8 , . '.;A. [2] The appearance that Joshua may be more difficult to manage in his mother's environment should not be attributed to poor parenting skiDs. [3] Mother appears to be more actively involved with extended family. [4] Mother appears to be managing her emotions more constructively than does father, as indicated by observation, interview, and the TIP. [5] Alleged child abuse issues do not favor either parent, although mother could have been more sensitive to the child's developmental vulnerability. [6] There is evidence of parent alienating remarks by father and a lack of awareness of the child's developmental vulnerabilily. Recommendation. The recommendation again is shared legal custody and primary physical custody to mother, but should father be given more time in the fonn of an additional one full week per month lUltil the child enters school full time? It is my professional opinion that the poor communication between the parenls and the need to adjust to another care enviromnent at these tender years indicate that the current school year schedule is best kept in place, while also keeping the one extra week per month during the summer for father. ~~ 7-J-. .,.,t.~ '7-9-01 Eug e H. Stecher, M.A. Psychologist Diplomate, Professional Academy of Custody Evaluators GAP/CustodyEvaVJoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6120/01 9 - "--~ ~ .. - ~1~t . TEN-' EAST .HIGH STREET CARLlS~.E, PENNSYLVANIA 170i3 TELEPHONE (717) 243-3341 FACSIMILE (717) 243'1850 tNTERNIT www.md-wo.crim , ,...V..y '.'. " , "','.'t1S' '~lT?RNE~',~ ~ COU,~~ELLO.~S ,,'j '~,~\<OOI . Wri..Ll,AM-F. MARTS()N JOHN B. FO\xil.EidIl EO\'\'ARD'L S(':I-IURPP '" DANIEL K.l)f:..'\RO\)R;'l-' . TI;I(i~1A,S j:"\XlILLV\;V;S ,. , .Ivo V. (Wrc) III GEt)RGE B.-Ft\LlERJR.~-:-. . . CARl: C. RISC!~ , MARK A. DENL![\I(;nt ~.B(1AIU} CERTIfiED ~t\'!l TRIj}L $PE<::L\UST M~~&5 " June4,20Ql , . ' , ' Andreae. Jacobsen, Esquire> ' JACOBSEN & MILKES " 52 East High Street Carlisle, PA.17013-30S5 ' , ' , ' , , ' '.' . . RE: TeresaD.Kaynv.DerujisR. Kayn No, 2000~2469- CUmberland CO\illty C.C.P';, ' OurFileNo.10309.1' ' Dear Andrea: . . , ,. , . -':, -," -' -. . . Thefollowing is Dennis: weekinAugust. Y oU-.,villsee thisgoes from 8/6 ~12/01and he will return Joshua to day care on themorningo(Moriday,S/13/0L .' . '. -' -. - -, , ' , . .' -- . , ' , , - - ' . . ,., ..' . .",'.. -' , "We havedeeided t<>)JaveEug~eSteel}er update the Qriginal evaluation. ,Either you or' Teresa shonldbe hearing fromhimdireetly.' " , ' ' .' , ' , I didd.iscuss withDen:nistheinapprqpriateness ~fml!klngderogatory reiD,arks concerning Teresa toJoshua or ill hisPnlsence:Dennis conceded he has done that; sayingithl!S been when he ' was provoked to bitterness. He promised me he would not say or do anything to,ilrin tile presence 'of, Joshua, that would be in anyway derogatory to Joshua's mother: Dennis indicated tome his illlderstanding thatJos)lUaneedstotespecthismother even if Dennis does not. Should any ~uch ,conduct reoccur mtlw future, please let in~ knoW' about it right away,' , . . . , .,. - . - ,. ..' . ..; '-'- . , " - -- -" ' '-- , '.' , Regardingthetapes,Ihav~again eheckedthe Penn$Yivania Statute ()n this and amcmIVinced , that Teresa has committed a felony; however, neitherDeiniisofI are interested inpursuingcrinlinal'" " charges against Teresa. I sUPPQse'I shouidtake this opPilItiulity toreiterate whatltold you earlier that Dennis has not consented and ,doe~ not consent; to anyone recording lnsvoice. ,I have given this issue of the tapes considei:a:blethought ilnd concluded thatit vvouldbeobjecti6nable topos~ess then!. as evidence. If you intend topresentthesetapes as evideneeat the hearing oil August2, please let , ' , INJ' ORMA:Tl.O N" A nVIC E" A'DVO C AC V'"~ , ' ~~~ ,-,~, '"'I I Andrea c: Jacobsen,Esquire .". 'June4,2001" , Page 2 ' , ,- , , , . -,. ,,',' .-: ' ,:., '. -. -' '. , , '. " '. - " . . " .', .' . . me' know so that!, Callrrt3.ke tlie' appropriate, o"jection prior to the hearing; It' may be that yve will need a separate evidentiary heariD.gWitht~gatd to this isstieif you ar(going to pressi.t. _ " . " "-'---'.' ., , , -, ' '.Verytrulyyours, ' ' , . .. l\1:'ARTSON DEARDOlU'FWILLIAMS&OrfO ,- , - . - - .,' ..".,'<P~,,',' Thomfu;J,Williams ' TJW/tde Enclosure " cc: Mr:Dennis R. Kayn F:\FlLES\DAT AALEU3erilti,cu~\1O~09-aj.4 INFORMATION · -AD,VICE" A.DV'OCACysM, L' , ,.--- , .....~ c J ~,.. i i Samuel W. Milkes Andrea C. Jacobsen JACQBSEN & ~LKES ?~ East High Stjreet Cat~lsle, PA 17013-3085 July 6, 2001 , Tel 717-249-6427 Fax 717-249-8427 Thomas J. Williams, Esq. 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Kayn v. Kayn Dear Tom: By letter of June 4, 2001, you advised that your client did not consent to anyone recording his voice. I so instructed my client, and she has ceased taping any calls from Dennis - except insofar as he chooses to leave a spoken message on her telephone answering machine. I have not yet decided if I will present the tapes of the past conversations as evidence at the hearing on August 2. I have already shared some ofthe recordings with you, and renew my offer to make the tapes available to you for review prior to the hearing. Some of the tapes that document your client's inappropriate statements regarding Teresa are simply recordings of messages he left on her home answering machine - as to those remarks, he certainly intended to have his voice recorded. I see no particular legal barrier to theii- admissibility beyond standard hearsay concerns. With regard to the recordings of other telephone conversations between Dennis Kayn and Joshua and Teresa over the last year, your client was on notice that Teresa would be taping the calls, and the reason for her doing so. In this regard, see my letter of May 30, 2000, to Dennis's former counsel, copy enclosed. For over a year, Dennis made no objection to the recording. In fact, in one of the tapes I played for you, Dennis even states that he was probably being taped. Your letter of June 2001, sent more than a year after my letter to Lynn MacBride, was the first indication that Dennis Kayn did not consent to the recording of his voice. Prior to that, with notice to him, and no objection from him. Teresa had every reason to assume your clienfs consent to the taping. As I said, I am not sure that I will be using the tapes, but I don't understand your comment that possession of the tapes would in any way be "objectionable" in and of itself. I tried to contact you today in response to a call from Eugene Stecher. Happily for you, you are off for two weeks. I continue to await your promised responses to our Interrogatories and hope they will be provided to us shortiy after your return to work. Sincerely, Cc: Teresa Kayn Enclosure ACJlme (corr)0706TomWilliams.kay ~ 'MIlKES , . ~. ndre C. JacOb""n \.._- . MQW&:6 "0 J' 2n^ AlTORNEYS & COUNSELLORS .-\T L~I WllllA.\iI f. MARTSOl\: JOHN B. FOWLER III ED\'\'ARI) L.'SCHoRrr DANIEl K. DEARDORff TI~0:I;IAS J. WILLIAM." W Ivo V. On" III GEORGE B. FALLER JR.' CARL C. RISCH MARK A. DE."'UNGER .80ARD CERTIFIED C'\'ll TflIAL SI'EClALfST TEN EAsT HIGH STREET CARLISLE. PENNSYLVANIA 17013 TELEPHONE (717) 243-3341 fACSIMILE (717) 243,1850 iNTERNET www.mdwO.com June 4,2001 Eugene H. Stecher, M.A. Guidance Associates ofPA " 473 Lincoln Way East' Chambersburg, PA 17201 RE: Custody of Joshua RyanKayn Our FileNo. 10309.1 Dear Dr. Stecher: This will confirm my telephone conversation that I represent Dennis R. Kayn with regard to a custody matter that is presently sched:qled fur hearing in Cumberland County Court on August 2, 2001 beginning at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom NO.1 before the HonorableJ. Wesley OIer, Jr. The mother, Teresa D. Kayn, continues to be represented by Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire. As you will ,no doubt recall, y~u performed a Child Custody Evaluation in September of 2000 for these parents with regard to their son, Joshua Ryan Kayn, born March 5, 1997. Your report was dated October 5, 2000. We will need an update of that report for purposes of your testimony at the hearing on August 2, 2001. At a minimum, this would include reinterviewswith the parents an<lthe child; beyond that, we will be guided by whatever you think best and appropriate to complete a thorough and independent evaluation for the benefit of Judge Oler. This will also confirm that my client, Dennis R. Kayn; will be solely responsible for the cost of your eValuatioIl. (i)) (;~ \Q; tQJ ,.......:1 r-' . --~ You may feel free to contact the parties directly or their attorneys as you deem best. For your records and information, I am enclosing a copy of a Court Order dated May 29, 2001 which sets forth the parameters of the evaluation in the last paragraph which includes, inter alia, you are authorized to share your report with, and speak with legal counsel for both parties in advance of any testimony. INFORMATION. ADVICE . ADVOC,~CY'" - , ~-- ~ ' -, ,> Eugene H. Stecher, M.A. June 4, 2001 Page 2 As you are no doubt aware, the mother has had prim~ custody of Joshua since she left the , , marital residence in ShippenSburg on April 15, 2000 and moved to Mechanicsburg. Since then, the father has essentially had custody every other" weekend and one weekday overnight each week. Father is seeking to change this for anumber of reasons !hat I'm sure he win explain to you, including the fact that in August of 2002; Joshua will start kindergarten. Mother has had primary custody for the past year, with Fatherrelegatedto every othetweekend and one weekday overnight. , Although the weekday overnight haS been difficult because Father does all the transportation, he has done it because he feels that two weeks without seeing his son is too long. With Mother living in Mechanicsbutg,and Father living in Sbippensb1l!:'g, it,seems likelY,that one ,party will be limited to every other weekend during the school year beginning the end of AuguSt, 2002.' , If you need to speak with me orAttomey Jacobsen for any reason, please feel free to call; otherwise," I will await receipt of your updated report. . Very tnily yours, MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTIO Thomas J. Williams" TJW /tde Enclosure cc: Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire Mr. Dennis R. Kayn F:\F1LBS\DA T AFILE\Genltr.CIlr\lq309--es.1. I N FOR MAT] 0 N . A D VI C E . A D V 0 CAe y 'M ,; 'J . .. . if I <'i', Samuel W. Milkes Andrea C. Jacobsen JAcoBSEN !&.m.n:S car~fs~-s:A~~ft~~~s .r . '. f '! i :,. ',L \ Tel 717-249-6427 Fax 717-249-8427 July 6, 2001 Eugene H. Stecher, MA Guidance Associates of Pennsylvania 473 Uncoln Way East Chambersburg, PA 17201 RE: Kayn v. Kayn ~A ~3{~ ~p V / Dear Mr. Stecher: Per your request. enclosed please find a copy of the letter which I sent to Lynn MacBride on May 30,2000, in which I advised her of Teresa Kayn's intention to record the conversations with Dennis Kayn. Mr. Kayn has recently raised an objection to the taping of the conversations, and Teresa Kayn has stopped taping his voice - except for voice messages Dennis Kayn chooses to leave on her answering machine. I look forward to receiving the written report of your recent custody re-evaIuation in this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, Cc: Teresa Kayn Thomas J. Williams, ES<\. Enclosure ACJime (corr)0706EugeneSlecher.kay & MILKES ,,--,,~ . TERESA D.KAYN v. DENNIS R. KAYN, AND NOW, this Plaintiff Defendant AUG 0 12~ : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL : IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT day of August, 2001, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Preclude Wiretap Evidence and the Answer filed by Plaintiff thereto, said Motion is hereby DENIED. BY THE COURT: Hon. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., Judge I" TERESA O.KAYN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ,0 '" Plaintiff v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW " c: :,) , DENNIS R. KAYN, : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL : IN CUSTODY r Defendant ANSWER TO MOTION TO PRECLUDE WIRETAP EVIDENCE (;'., And now comes Plaintiff (Mother), by undersigned counsel, and answers Motion to Preclude Wiretap Evidence filed by Defendant (Father) as follows: 1. Denied as stated. It is denied that Father's counsel first learned of the recording of telephone conversations in May 2001. To the contrary, it is asserted that over a year ago, in May 2000, Father's counsel,' Lynn MacBride, Esquire, was advised in writing that Mother intended to tape the telephone Conversations that Father made to her home because of his abusive, obscene and inappropriate remarks concerning Mother. See attached copy of letter of Mother's counsel to Lynn MacBride, Esq., dated May 30, 2000, attached hereto and made part hereof as Plaintiff's Exhibit A. In April 2001, after Thomas J. Williams, Father's present counsel, entered his appearance, undersigned counsel brought the letter and the ongoing abusive conduct of Father to the attention of Mr. Williams. 2. Denied as stated. It is denied that Mother's attorney stated that Mother "allegedly" told Father that he could assume any of his telephone calls would be recorded. It is assented that Mother's attorney expressed her opinion that, because Father was informed in advance that Mother intended to tape the conversations, and had never raised an objection to the taping, Father's awareness and conduct constituted consent to the recording. On the basis of Father's conduct, the recording was consensual and not illegal. 1 Father was previously represented in this matter first by Lynn MacBride, Esquire, and then by Taylor P. Andrews. Esquire. before present counsel entered his appearance in April 2001. c) 7 ,', , (; -< 3. It is admitted that Father's current counsel recently raised an objection to the taping of Father's telephone conversations with Mother's home. The objection of Mr. Williams was the first indication or notice from Father or any of his counsel that Father did not consent to the taping of the conversations. 4. It is admitted that Father's attorney sent the letter of June 4, 2001, to Mother's attorney. The letter speaks for itself. 5. It is admitted that Father engaged Eugene Stecher on June 4, 2001, to do an update of his prior custody evaluation of both parties and the child. An initial evaluation by Mr. Stecher, performed in September 2000, with a report dated October 5, 2000, was performed upon the request of both parties. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied insofar as the paragraph sets forth the content of e-mail messages between Mr. Stecher and Father's attorney, or insofar as it attempts to characterize the actions of Father's attorney, as Mother is without knowledge or information upon which to confirm or deny the truth or accuracy of the averments. 8. Denied insofar as the paragraph sets forth conduct of Father's attorney, or insofar as it attempts to characterize the actions of Father's attorney, and the report of Mr. Stecher, and insofar as the paragraph sets forth the conclusion of Father or his attorney regarding the report from Mr. Stecher, as Mother is without knowledge or information upon which to confirm or deny the truth or accuracy of the averments. By way of further response, Mother asserts that the Report of July 9, 2001, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B, speaks for itself. 2 1,,, 9. It is admitted that Father has never been provided with copies of the tapes of conversations made by Mother, nor with transcripts of the tapes, It is admitted that on one occasion counsel met and played a recording of a telephone call between Father and child. By way of further response, it is asserted that after initial discussions between counsel regarding the best means for transcribing the tapes, Mr. Williams advised Mother's counsel that he did not wish to obtain the tapes. Mr. Williams has repeatedly rejected the opportunity to listen to the tapes, and has declined to have possession of the tapes, or transcripts which Mother's counsel offered to provide to Father's counsel. See the June 4, 2001 letter of Mr. Williams to Mother's counsel, in which Mr. Williams states: "I have given this issue of the tapes considerable thought and concluded that it would be objectionable to possess them as evidence." A copy of the letter is attached to Father's Motion and is also attached hereto and made part hereof as Exhibit C. See also letter of July 6, 2001 of Mother's counsel to Mr. Williams, which renews the offer to make the tapes available to Father's counsel. A copy of the letter is attached hereto and made part hereof as Exhibit D. 10. No answer required as the paragraph sets forth a conclusion of law. If deemed factual, the averment is denied. By way of further response, Mother, by counsel, asserts as follows: 11. The taped phone conversations involving Father include tapes of messages left by Father on Mother's telephone answering machine. It has been held that, as a matter of law, those tapes are not subject to any exclusionary rule, since a party leaving a message on an answering machine evidences by his conduct, his awareness of, and his consent to the recording of his message on tape. See Com. v. DeMarco, 578A.2d 942,396 Pa. Super. 357, (1990). 3 t" 12. Father was aware of and, by his conduct, consented to the recording of his voice for other conversations as well as for those messages left on the telephone answering machine. On at least one occasion, Father even remarked that he was probably being taped, and still continued the conversation. 13. There is no reason to conclude that the testimony of Mr. Stecher would be "tainted" by knowledge of the remarks of Father in phone conversations. As set forth in his report, Mr. Stecher reached a conclusion that Mother should be awarded primary physical custOdy of the child initially in October 2000, without any knowledge of the taped conversations of Father. In his report of July 9, 2001, Mr. Stecher is clear that he does not rely upon the taped conversations to reach his recommendation that Mother be granted primary physical custody of the child. The report notes that the information obtained from the parties and child reinforces the original recommendation. See Stecher Report of July 9, 2001, (Exhibit 8, hereto) at p. 7. The additional information from the tapes is described as seeming "to point in the same direction;' not as the basis of the Evaluator's opinion. 14. The recordings of Father's messages left on the home answering machine and the transcripts of conversation between Father and Mother and Father and the child provided documentation of parent alienating conduct by Father. The information in the tapes listened to by Mr. Stecher was not the only source of such information - Father has admitted it in correspondence, see letter of June 4, 2001 from Mr. Williams to Mother's counsel, Exhibit C, hereto, in which derogatory remarks regarding Mother are conceded. Father also acknowledged such conduct in his interview with Mr. Stecher, see Report of July 9,2001, (Exhibit 8, hereto) at p.8. 4 " _lliil/il;, 15. In his letter of engagement to Mr. Stecher, Father's counsel advised the Evaluator that Father was seeking an update of the report of October 5, 2000, for the purposes of the hearing of August 2, 2001, and states: At a minimum, this would include reinterviews with the parents and the child; beyond that, we will be guided by whatever you think best and appropriate to complete a thorough and independent evaluation for Judge Oler." Letter of June 4, 2001, from Thomas J. Williams, Esq. to Eugene H. Stecher, M.A., copy attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit E. To exclude Mr. Stecher's testimony because he did in fact complete a thorough evaluation would be unreasonable. 16. On July 6, 2001, Mother's counsel spoke by telephone to Eugene Stecher, who sought information regarding the legality of the tapes which Mother had brought to his attention during the evaluation process. Mother's counsel informed Mr. Stecher that the conversations were recorded after notice to Father that Mother intended to tape them, and in the absence of any objection from Father about the recording, or any indication that he did not consent to the recording. See letter of July 6,2001 from Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq. to Eugene H. Stecher, MA, copy attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit F. 17. The timing of Father's instant Motion, and the proposed exclusion of the testimony of Mr. Stecher is highly prejudicial to Mother. Father has long been aware that Mother has been recording the conversations to her home phone. Even Father's current counsel has known of the taping and the existence of the tapes for over two months, since shortly after he entered his appearance in April 2001. Despite such knowledge, he has repeatedly rejected Mother's offers to allow him access to the tapes. 5 , ''', 18. In early June 2001, Father's counsel raised the possibility that he might seek an evidentiary hearing with regard to the tapes. See Exhibit C. In early July, Mother's counsel confirmed that she might be using the tapes at hearing. See Exhibit D. Father's delay until July , I I I I I 30, 2001, three days before the hearing, to first apprise the Court of his concern, and to request the disallowance of the testimony of Mr. Stecher is dilatory and highly prejudicial to Mother. 19. There is no reason why Father should be permitted to set aside the evaluation of Mr. I"~ i' i~ Stecher. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Father's Motion to Preclude Wiretap Evidence should be denied. Respectfully submitted, BY: An e C. Jacobsen, Esq. JACOBSEN & MILKES 52 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6427 Attorney No. 20952 6 A .~ . JACOBSEN &MILKES 52 East High Street Carlisle. PA 17013-3085 Samuel W. MUkes Andrea C. Jacobsen Tel 717-249-6427 Fax 717-249-8427 May 30, 2000 C(Q)f) ~ ~// -~h. -j :;fJ;j/ \ t~ , If/ I" -1..." Lynn MacBride, Esq. WALKER & MACBRIDE 247 Lincoln Way East Chambersburg, PA 17201 Via Fax: 717264-1662 Re: KAYN v. KAYN. Cumberland County. No. 2000-2469. Civil Term, In Divorce Dear Lynn: I recall that you may be out of town for another week and I look forward to discussing this matter with you upon your return. In the meantime. Teresa Kayn has contacted me about the telephone cQlwersations be\ween Dennis Kayn and herself and their son and I wish to respond to them by notice to him through your office. From what she has told me, your dient has made abusive and threatening remarks to her - calling her a "cunt," and indicating that if she did not agree to give him additional time with the child. he would keep Joshua for a week. Dennis has also attempted to place their child in the middle of discussions between himself and Teresa with regard to the visitation schedule. For example, Teresa has heard him say to Joshua, "Ask mommy why she won't let me see you this week.<< This clearly is at odds with the spirit and the provisions of the Temporary Order, which provides in paragraph 8: 8. Neither party shall attempt to undermine the muluallove and affection the child has for the other parent, and neither party shall, in the presence of the child, make any disparaging or negative remarks concerning the other parent. Both parties shall hokl out the other parent as one to whom the child should show respect and love. Your client's remarks are certainly inappropriate, and contrary to the interests of Joshua. Lest there be any question about the accuracy of my dient's report, I have suggested to Teresa Kayn that she begin tape recording conversations between Dennis and Joshua or herself. This should either end the problem or at least offer a practical way of documenting the truth of what is said between these individuals. I have discussed with Teresa that it may be unlawful to do this tape recording without a person's advance knowledge but this letter is intended to constitute adVance notice that recording will be occurring. Teresa has nothing to hide or to defend and this will help assure that poinl ," ,~, N ~_ Lynn MacBride, Esq. May 30, 2000 Page 2 I hope your office will forward this to Mr. Kayo in your absence. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, JACOBSEN & MILKES !Z1'1dua. C .;q.a~)jJi!t~ BY: Andrea C. Jacobsen ACJime Cc: Teresa Kayn ( corr)0530macbride.kay " ,"k-~ ,----'. ~. , Stanley B. Schneider, Ed.D. Director, Guidance Associates 412 Brford Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 732-2917 Guidance Associates of P A Branch Office 473 Lincoln Way East Charnbersburg, PA 17201 Eugene H. Stecher, M.A Licensed Psychologist 473 Lincoln '"Yay East Chambersburg, PA 17201 (717) 263.9392 CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION Thomas J. Williams, Esq. MDW&O Ten East High Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq. 52 East High Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 Re: Custody of Joshua Ryan Kayn, age 4, b. 3/5/97 Father, Dennis R Kayn, age 54, b. 11/5/45 Molher, Teresa D. Kayn, age 36, b. 11/5/63 Dear Attorneys: Introduction. I initially performed a custody evaluation in this matter in September of 2000, involving bolh an in-home evaluation and an individually administered psychological evaluation with each parent. A thirteen page report was available by October 5, 2000, and it made three recommendaUons: joint legal custody, prinwy physical custody for mo1her, and liberal partial physical custody for father. I also suggested that individual counseling for each parent might be beneficial Subsequent to that evaluation father came to my office once, and he made five or six relatively brief phone caDs to me. He wanted clarification about whelher the report meant that he should receive less time with lhe child than. he had before, and the answer was "no." In subsequent conversations wilh bolh attorneys this infonnation was conveyed. Falher also seemed to need a sounding board for his disappointments and complaints about trying to negotiate custody matters wilh mother. My response essentially was fowfold: talk to Teresa, discuss unresolved matters wilh your attorney, be prepared to live with any decisions that you make as a falher, and seek counseling. I pointed out to him that it was my responsibility to practice ethically and to maintain objectivity and that I could not take lhe counselor's role. The week of June 4 I received a call :from attorney Williams requesting a second evaluation. The request was confinned in a subsequent letter (6/4) which attached an order (5/29) by lhe Honorable J. Wesley Oner, Jr. allowing either party to "retain an evaluator" prior to lhe August 2 hearing, costs to be paid by lhe party seeking lhe evaluation. Falher has fonowed through with this Counseling' Psychological Testing' Anger Management · Mediation/Custody' Litigation . r.~ ,0> ,~ . , ,~","' .-=~~ ~. responsibility. In phone calls with both attorneys, the option of a fresh third party perspective was discussed. I met with father and son on the morning of Tuesday, Jwe 12, for approximately 2.5 hours. I met with mother and son on the morning of Wednesday, Jwe 20, for approximately two hours. There were subsequent phone calls with both parents for clarification of information, and father was interviewed at my office on July 5. AsseAAment methodolOllY_ I reviewed documents related to an alleged child abuse incident: Chambersburg Hospital Report of Suspected Child Abuse (2/6/01), Protective Service Investigation Report (2/7/01), Cumberland Cowty C & Y notificat.i.on of suspected abuse (2/8/01), Child Abuse Interview Report (Earl Greenwald, MD., 2/8/01), Medical Examination (Earl Greenwald, M.D., 2/8/01), Addendum from Earl Greenwald, MD. (3/2/01), and Cumberland Cowty C & Y letter offindings (3/30/01). I further interviewed both parents, with special focus on reactions to the observations made in the last report, and made parentichild observations. The parents also completed a self-report questionnaire and the InventoIy ofJnterpersonal Problems as it applies to their own relationship. With the possible exception of abuse issues, parental criticisms of one another are not included in this report unless the problem impacts parenliug and both agree on the information, and/or there is confirtnation from a reliable third source. CustOOv Goal. Pather hopes to be considered for more custody time, and before the child begins school in the Fall of2oo2 he would prefer primaJ:y physical custody, but he would at least like the recendy mandated summer schedule to be in effect year rowd, i.e., one week per month in addition to the standard evety other week-end and one week-day overnight arrangement. Father mentioned that he had kept information about multiple day care centers in the area, and he specifically mentioned programs at Shippensburg and Wilson coneges. Mather wishes to maintain primary physical custody either without cbaJJges in the current schedule or with further limitations of father's time. She worries about the difficulty of trying to adjust to two day care programs. She pointed out that Joshua's current day care has a 6/1 adult to child ratio with a very low twnover rate and that he has been there two years. Cu.~todv COQperation. Both indicate that cooperation on the court ordered time and place of child t'rallsfur has been good, even though there have been changes in those factors, but there have been differences of opinion on specific requests for flexibility. Mother gave this example of how conununication breaks down: [1] Father requests a time change. [2] Mother says "no. due to Joshua being invited for dinner at a friend's followed by a swimming lesson. [3] At the last minute the family calls and cancels dinner. [4] Father asks Joshua ifhe went to the family's home for dinner. (5] Joshua says "no." [6] Father concludes that mother was lying. [7] Tensions and hard feelings are increased. In father's view the whole matter could have been avoided by simply prioritizing the parent's request GAP/CustodyEvaIIJoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6/20/01 2 ._,-',',""-,-'. ->': Unstructured Observation. Father's Home. Child's Room. Joshua took me upstairs to show me his room while faliter completed paperwork. There have been no essen1ial. changes since the last evaluation. The child's tent, a small air mattress, small plastic chairs, and toy items are in his bedroom rather than in the fa.miIy area, but his bed still sits, full of stuffed animals, at the foot of his faliter's bed. Behavior. Joshua was friendly, evidenced good rapport with his falher, and displayed good self- management during my visit Faliter's behavior toward the cbild was supportive, encouraging, and affec1ionate. Joshua was watching the WIZard of Oz when I arrived, and, off and on, continued to watch that video. When he took me upstairs, he named the stuffed animals that were in his own bed. I asked Josh to show me where he sleeps, and he crawled up on his father's bed, put his band on a pillow, and said, "there." When about fifteen minutes bad gone by he cl10se to go outside, and father put some toys in full view outside the sun room so that he could play. During the visit Joshua played outside for a time and then would come inside, and that pattern continued. He would talk briefly to his faliter each lime; e.g. about trying to plant fonowers. He fonowed his father's boundaty setIing to give the adults conversational privacy. At a point in time Joshua was allowed to go next door on his own to ring the ben and ask if Andy (age 11) could play. He came back to say that no one answered. Father showed some evidence of distraction and stress, perllaps an exacerbation of attention deficit and depressive symptoms for which he takes the medications Addera1l and Paxi!. When Joshua took me upstairs I found the water 1'lmni11g at full force in the bath room. Father also took 2 to 3x longer than average to complete the personal data questionnaire. Consistent with feeling excessive stress is the self-report of a 15 pound weight loss and loss of appetite "most days." When providing personal data, after the "cbildren" item, father wrote the name ofhis daughter but not the names ofhis sons. He also initia1ly indicated "blanks in memory most days," but later indicated that it wasn't so. He also endorsed the items "adult sexual abuse" and "adult emotional abuse," and these were left blank on the previous evaluation questionnaire. pethaps he was confusing the sexual abuse item with what allegedly recently happened to Joshua. Mother's Home. Clnld's Room. The appearance of the bedroom was simiJar to my last visit. Over twenty pieces of Joshua's art wotk are on display. The bed is full of stuffed animals. Pictures in the room include one of father holding up a catch offish. [Mother advised that she added father's picture based on comments in the first evaluation report] Behavior. Joshua was playing with his dinosaurs in the middle of the living room floor when I arrived, and there was also a dinosaur and animal book in the area. Rapport between mother and son was veJY good throughout the visit, and mother evidenced both patience and enthusiasm in the interactions. At my request Joshua took me to his room and was able to name all the stuffed animals on his bed. Joshua chattered with his mother and dramalized stories as she sat on the floor with him and completed the assigned paper wotk. She occasionally responded to his requests, such as helping GAP/CustodyEvalIJoshuaKayn 6112/01 6/20/01 3 '''-'''''' ~;''',-~" '.,~'~ ,~,~", him to get something out oflhe toy closet. Due to Joshua's desire for his molher's attention, it took her somewhat longer than usual to complere the paper wod, and he also tended to interrupt our attempts to talk. Molher did set boundaries and redirect him, but he returned fairly often. Joshua had a brief crying spen when he was told that grandmother and stepgrandfather bad come to take him to day care, but he settled rather quickly as his molher took him out to lhe car. [As during lhe:first evaluation, Joshua was more attention seeking and emotional in molher's environment. But molher was also the one who did not use the TV as a parenting tool However, during lhe first evaluation, father was the one that didn't use lhe TV as a parenting tool The spaciousness/freedom of father's home compared to mother's is certainly also a factor. We must further consider that during visits with father, father has 100% lime to give the child, while mother must be constan1ly sending him off to day care. There is also the possibility that father may criticize mother to Joshua.] Molher. Mother had concern in her voice and was close to tearfulness a fi:w limes, but she did not report high levels of emotional twmoil or behave in ways that would suggest levels of stress, depression, anxiety, or anger that interferes wi1hjudgment. [Molher appears to be man'lg;ng her emotions more constructively than falher.] Interview. Father. Residence. Dennis continues to live at 247 Chestnut Drive in Sbippensburg. The home is for sale, and he is wailing for "an acceptable offer." He could not be definite about when a move might occur. Alcohol use. The last report indicated that Dennis bad developed an evening habit of drinking a martini or vodka tonic and a beer, which resulted in "a little bit of euphoria, " and since that was "more potent" than he wanted, there was a change to two beers in lhe evening. Dennis now reports that he drinks one beer in lhe evening, "h tastes good with a snack and reading the paper." He believes that his drinking "never affected behavior," but why, then, does he keep changing the habit to less? [Father noted that molher had expressed concern about alcohol use, but he did not express awareness that lhe evaluator also mentioned concerns about alcohol use in lhe previous report.] Sleeping Arrangements. Dennis acknowledged "no change" in lhe sleeping arrangements, and said, "As often as not he'll be in bed with me or will crawl into his own bed with his animals." Falher offered that Joshua wants "affection and to be held." He emphasized lhe love that father and son have for each other, and he indicated that the sleeping arrangement should not be an issue at this tender age. He affirmed that in lhe future lhere would be a separate bedroom for Joshua. [Father took note that "molher" bad concerns about sleeping arrangements, but again he didn't express awareness that lhe evaluator also mentioned dependency concerns about lhe arrangement in lhe previous report.] , GAP/CustodyEvaJ/JoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6/20/01 4 . ~ 'J,," '~~ t', Extended Family. Dennis advised that he has maintained contact with the older children through regular phone calls and cards since the last evaluation. There are plans for a trip to Florida this year to see the extended family. Personal Care. Dennis' work place recen1ly began to offer EAP services, and he is taking advantage of four free counseling sessions with Susan Day at Summit Beha~oral Health. To date he has attended one session. He continues to see Dr. Hegarty every 60 days for medication management. He indicated that he had been taking the medication long enough that he was no longer sure of its degree of helpfulness. [Father did not connect taking this counseling step with anything that was said in the previous evaluation. ] Father/Son Interaction. Dennis indicated that he tries to do at least one special thing with Joshua each week-end that they are together. He mentioned activities like ball games, attending concerts at the Capitol Theater, hiking, fi~hing. swimming in mends' pools, Saturday morning h'braty time, watching ~deos, reading books, and playing games like Booby Trap. About 75% of the time they will attend church. He mentioned being eligt'ble for five weeks vacation and the possibility of doing some traveling. Interview: Mother. Residence. Teresa continues to rent the same aparlment, and she is currently on a month to month lease. She has a contract to build a home, but that cannot happen until the marital assets are settled. The home would be conslructed in the area offRt. 581 at exit 2, just a few miles from her work and Joshua's day care center. She anticipates that it could be a fuR year before the project can begin. Extended FatIJibr. Teresa advises that she and Joshua made trips in October and March to Florida and Missouri respectively and saw most ofher fatIJibr at those times. Her mother and stepfather, one or the other, or both, haw been visiting in this area since the end of May and are scheduled to return home June 21. [Mother appears to have the more active relationship with extended family.] Pel'!lonal Care. Teresa advises that she took seriously the observation in the first evaluation about the helpfulness of counseling. She has been in sessions with Lucretia Hurley-Browning since Januaty of this year. They have addressed the repression issues that were mentioned in the earlier evaluation as well as self-assertiveness. The counselor cballenged her to pray for Dennis daily, and she has managed to let go of some of her anger, although she might only say the prayers three times per week. She completed her Divorce Care class that was meeting last FaD and found it to be very helpful. She is curren1ly active in a women's outreach group at her church. [Mother appears to have made a conscious decision to take self-care steps based on the first evaluation. ] Mother/Son Interaction. Teresa advised that Joshua had completed one set of swimming lessons and that she would probably sign him up for the next set. They go with Joshua's mend and parent GAP/CustodyEval/JoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6/20/01 5 ,"-',. ,~ . ->, <"~". , ,. ,:-- ~",,- '", to see plays by the Popcorn Hat Players. Church attendance is usually weekly, and Joshua attends his own class and sings in the children's choir. They attend church events such as picnics. Vacation Bible School fell on the week that he was with his father. Summer activity will probably include trips to Washington and Balfunore. NeighboJbood mends are Brandon (4) and Trevor (4). Mother noted which relalionship goes smoother and which requires more supervision. Evening lime usually consists of a quick dinner, and then going to play, perhaps to the playground and swimming pool, and riding a bike with training wheels. Alleged Child Abuse. The following represents my understanding of the chronology and content of events: [1] Joshua was with father on Wednesday, JanuaIy 31, and father reports observing "no visible iIUuries." The child was transferred to mother the next day, Thursday, February 1, at about 6:30AM. [2) The alleged abuse occurred between Thursday, Feb.I and Sunday, Feb.4 when mother was visiting a male mend in Norfolk, V~ [3) The alleged perpetrator was mother's adult male companion. [4] Mother's male mend was with her and Joshua from late Thursday evening until after lunch on Sunday. [5] Following complaint of discomfort by Joshua while bathing, Mother reports seeing a penile scratch or abrasion on Friday. [6] Mother and Joshua returned hmne after lunch on Sunday. [7] Father received Joshua at McDonald's in Carlisle on Tuesday evening, February 6, 5:30PM. [8) Father took the child to Chambersburg Hospital the same evening where he was examined at 8:19PM [9] Father reported that the child's penis was "pulled, " causing injury. Joshua told the nurse, " (name) pulled it." [10] Two days later Joshua reported this same act to an examiner and indicated that it took place "on top ofhis clothing." [11] Medically, the scratch is not consistent with the type of injury one might expect from the action described, and it is considered "medically lrivial" and "accidental." [12] Cumberland-Perry C & y detennined the abuse charge to be "unfounded," [13] Any negative interaction between Joshua and mother's companion cannot be defined with reasonable certainty. GAP/CustodyEvallJoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6/20/01 6 ,~ ' ,'""'-'.",,," , . ',- '~-'~ ~,,- ~,~ ."'~~ ~~~ ' .-._, In reading over the documentation, I had several concerns: [1] Joshua apparently did not use the word "penis" during his initial examination. [2] Joshua subsequently stated that mother "vety very much" hurt his penis, but who believes that statement has credibility. Why, therefore, should other statements be believed if this one is ignored? [3] Inconsistency and judgment uncerlainty in a three to four year old is not surprising since that is an age when memory, o~ect constancy, language development, and comprehension, are still in fluid fonnation. There is a possibility that Joshua bears some degree of hard feelings toward mother's male friend. [1] The three had walked and played on the beach on Saturday. At their apartment (1) they attempted to put Joshua down for a nap. He would not listen to his mother to stay in bed. Her male companion provided verbal back up and eventually physically placed Joshua in bed. [2] Joshua had begun a habit of resisting his mother's authority by unbuclding his seat belt. Mother's companion admonished him about not doing that as they left after lunch on SWlday. One of father's very strong o~ections is any action of mother's which places a third party in the position of disciplining Joshua. Mother responds, "I looked at these situations as someone backing me up rather than discipline. I assume that Andy and Jennifer's parents monitor Joshua when he plays over there without his father." Father agreed that Andy and Jennifer's parents do supervise and set boundaries for Joshua when he plays at their homes, but he believes that this is a qualitatively different circumstance than that provided by mother. [We could question mother's judgment with regard to placing a three year old child in an emotionally compromised position of acceptance of an intimate adult relationship, in a confined set of circumstances, apart from that ofhis own parents, which he could not adequately understand. However, on balance, there appears to be insufficient reason for any circumstances related to the alleged abuse to be determinative of a custody decision.] Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Father. Although father endorsed cold/distant fee_ and social avoidance, he also endo1lled a "dependent" pattern of nonassertiveness, over accommodation, and self-sacrifice, with the friction of vindictive and controlling urges agitating just beneath the surface. This is a rather substantial picture of inner tunnoil: dependence in conflict with avoidance, and accommodation in tension with very negative prompling.<l. Perceptions, interpretations, and decisions are likely to be filtered through this confusing array of emotion. Mother. Here we also find a profile of cold/distant fee_ and avoidance but without the intensity of the remaining emotional complications. [These observations about father's emotions are consistent with the first custody evaluation and with previous observations in this report. Mother appears to be filtering her perceptions and experiences through a less complicated and confusing screen.] The data to this point in the evaluation basically reiriforces the original decision to recommend primary physical custody to mother. The information which follows also came to my attention and seems to point in the same direction. GAP/CustodyEval/JoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6/20/01 7 L_,.",_ . _',,1_, ,"'0_- ,''','" Potential Parent Alienation Data. O1her sources of data at mother's home included messages left by father on the phone answering machine, and alleged transcripts of phone conversations between father and mother and father and son: [1] After consul1ing with coneagues, I am choosing not to refer to the transcripts because even though father told me, .Teresa did say during three or four calls that she was taping them, and maybe twice when we were exchanging Joshua, . he also told me that he never agreed to the taping, and I understand that there may be legal/ethical queslions about material for which there was not mutual consent. Although by not hanging up and con1inuing to talk, petbaps that could be interpreted as consent. [2] However, I will refer to the messages, because father voluntarily left them on tape, knowing that mother and even Joshua might hear them and pass the infonnalion along to someone else. Father's voice is dis1inclive, and there is little doubt that he is speaking. Before referencing the phone messages, I want to mention one piece of infonuation that mother shared independent of giving me this material. She menlioned that father had told Joshua that there was no money to buy a new car because mother took the money. When asked, father agreed that he said this to Joshua. He felt that .truth. was the most important way to communicate with the child. [Father did not seem to have awareness that his rentaI'k was parent aJiena1ing and that finances were an adult topic of conversation that was beyond the understanding of a three year old.] Based on five phone messages of April 13 to which I listened when at mother's home, I asked father the following queslions, all of which should have had a "yes" response: Do you agree that you caIled Teresa an "unfit mother" when she didn't have Joshua in bed by 8:30PM? Answer. .No." Do you agree that you left a message saying that most of her "social life" was "usually in the bedroom? Answer. "No." Do you agree that you left messages at least twice calling her a .slut?" Answer. .No....I may have." Father did say to me, "I do get angry and ftustrated.......but 1 never made bodily threats." [The implication of this material is that Joshua is probably exposed to parent alienating remarks from father.] Summary. This report may be summarized by reading the bracketed sections or by reatlil1g the following summary of infonuation which continues to favor mother as the primary physical custody parent: [1] Mother seemed much more aware of the meaning of the first evaluation and made changes accordingly. Father seemed unaware of applying first evalualion suggestions, although he made some changes. GAP/CustodyEva1/JoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6/20/01 8 " l1'i I [2] The appearance that Joshua may be more difficult to manage in his mother's environment should not be attributed to poor paren1ing skiDs. [3] Mother appears to be more actively involved with extended family. [4] Mother appears to be man:tgi1'lg her emotions more constructively than does father, as indicated by observation, interview, and the TIP. [5] Alleged child abuse issues do not favor either parent, although mother could have been more sensitive to the child's developmental vulnerability. [6] There is evidence of parent alienating remarks by father and a lack of awareness of the child's developmental vulnerability. RerommendatiolL The recommendation again is shared legal custody and primary physical custody to mother, but should father be given more time in the form of an additional one full week per month until the child enters school full time? It is my professional opinion that the poor communication between the parents and the need to adjust to another care environment at these tender years indicate that the current school y~ schedule is best kept in place, while also keeping lhe one extra week per month during the summer for father. =~ 'N- ~ct'D>oo "7-<;-01 Eug e H. Stecher, M.A Psychologist Diplomate, Professional Academy of Custody Evaluators GAP/CustodyEva1/JoshuaKayn 6/12/01 6/20/01 9 , "-.!- M~&5 ',' , ,., . .," ,.', ' .' ~(.I4t I)s., ',," ' , ': . -A~fT~RN~~ & CO,U~SEL~t~_RS r(r -~..I~<OOI . ,'. WILU.A:M F. MARTSt.lN , JOHN B. FO\VI.Eidll . . .EO\'('ARD L S(':HUIl.l'P , -DAN'IEL K DE~RboHFf TI~OJ..4^,S.r'WILUA;-"';S ~ 'Iv.oV Ono 111 GEORGE B.: FALlE.R JR."- . CARL- c. - RISCH, MARK A. DENLlNt;ER TEN:' EAST HIGH STiuiliT .-' CARIJSLE, PEf':JNSYLVAN~ 17013 ' TELePHONE (717) 243-3341 FACS'MU:E '(717) 243-1850 lNTERNET W\'IIW.mdwo.com , . ~~IID O:.RTIFIEO C_ft'll TRIi}L SI'~lAUST . ' June 4, 1001 " , Andreae Jiicobsen, Esquir.e " JACOBSEN & MILKE!:: ," ' 52 East Higp Street Carlisle, PA 17013~3085, ' . " . , , . , . . -" - ' . RE: TeresaD.Kaynv: DeIl11isR. Kayn No. 2000~2469- Ci.ub,berhmd County C.c.P: Our File No. ,1 0309.1 Dear Andrea:, , , , .' . . . " -, , - , ", '. ,-, '. " ..' -. '. . Th~Jollowing is Dennis: weekiD' August.Y ou will see this goes from S/6 -12/01 and he will return Joshuato day.care on themomillg oi"Moilday, S/13/0 L " . , ... . .' .' - ' , . . . , , - , . -" ..' .. . .' , . , We have ,decidtidto llave Euge~eStether update the original.evaluation. Either you or' Teresa should behearing from hiindITectly. .' . ,"'.. . - - , ' , , . , , . -.' . -- -- - " . . - - . ' '. , .,' ." , . , ' , , . We are continuing to work: ,on .theanswers to Interrogatories. . ,'-, ,." . , ' -, . . '. " " . "", '.' -", . ' " " , , , ., -. ' . - . , ' I did discuss with Dennis the inappropriateness of making derogatory remarks concerning', Teresa to Joshua or in his Pi'esenee:Dennis coiIceded he has done that, sayingit ha,s been when he . " was provoked to bitterness. He promised me he w<;>uld not say or do. anything to, or in the presence 'of,Joshua, that would be in anyway derogatory to Joshua's mother. Derinis indicated to me his UllderstandiIig that Jos!lUaneeds torespetthismother even if DeriiIis does not. Should any such conduct reoccur in the future, please let me know about it right away, .,' ' ' ,IN.F 0 R MATI 0 N .. A OVLC E -A IYV 0 C AC y,,"' .L , Andn:a C: Jacobsen, Esquire'," June 4;2001 '" . Page 2: .' : me Irnow so that 1 can mflketh,niPpropriate objection prior tothe he;mng. It may be that we will " , need a separate evidentiary hearilW,withreg~d to this issue if you are going to'pressit., " , ' , ., ".very trulyYours, . - , , . -' - . '. .-, - -, . " ;" ~.'" .' , - - - " '. - , '. ,M':ARrsoN DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO .', , -, . <-r~:' , " " . Th6miisJ.Williamsi' TJW/tde " Enclosure' cc: Mr;DerinisRKayn ,,' F:\fILES\DAT.AFILE\Oeriltr;cur\io309~.4 ", - . " . . '.." . .- ," INFO RM A 1'. ION -Anv I CE"AD VO CA CY 'M ~ I ,',-,,-,", ,_,,,",, ."-''''N" ,;i' ,-,_!.l .J-'[ '~''''''' Samuel W. Milkes Andrea C. Jacobsen JACQBSEN & MlLKES ~2 East High steet C~sle, PA 17013-3085 ;july 6, 2Q01 , Tel 717-249-6427 Fax 717-249-8427 Thomas J. Williams, Esq. 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Kayn v. Kayn Dear Tom: By letter of June 4, 2001, you advised that your client did not consent to anyone recording his voice. I so instructed my client, and she has ceased taping any calls from Dennis - except insofar as he chooses to leave a spoken message on her telephone answering machine. I have not yet decided if I will present the tapes of the past conversations as evidence at the hearing on August 2. I have already shared some of the recordings with you, and renew my offer to make the tapes available to you for review prior to the hearing. Some of the tapes that document your clienfs inappropriate statements regarding Teresa are simply recordings of messages he left on her home answering machine - as to those remarks, he certainly intended to have his voice recorded. I see no particular legal banrier to their admissibility beyond standard hearsay concerns. With regard to the recordings of other telephone conversations between Dennis Kayn and Joshua and Teresa over the last year, your client was on notice that Teresa would be taping the calls, and the reason for her doing so. In this regard, see my letter of May 30. 2000, to Dennis's former counsel, copy enclosed. For over a year, Dennis made no objection to the recording. In fact, in one of the tapes I played for you, Dennis even states that he was probably being taped. Your letter of June 2001, sent more than a year after my letter to Lynn MacBride, was the first indication that Dennis Kayn did not consent to the recording of his voice. Prior to that, with notice to him, and no objection from him. Teresa had every reason to assume your clienfs consent to the taping. As I said, I am not sure that I will be using the tapes, but I don't understand your comment that possession of the tapes would in any way be .objectionable" in and of itself. I tried to contact you today in response to a call from Eugene Stecher. Happily for you, you are off for two weeks. I continue to await your promised responses to our Interrogatories and hope they will be provided to us shortly after your return to work. Sincerely, Cc: Teresa Kayo Enclosure ACJlme (corr)0706TomWlIIiams.kay MQW&:6 'r (J , S' 2nn ArroRNtYS & COUNSEllORS .",:1' L-~I WILLIAM F. MARTSOi\: JOHN B. FOWLER III ErJ'\l'.-\RlJ L. SCHURl'r OAi\:IEl K UEARDORFf TUO:\1AS J. WILLlA,\1:-' . Ivo V. Ono 1II GEORGE B. FALLER JR.' CARl C RISCH MARK A. DE.'JUNGER .BOARO CERTIfIED O"lt TRIAL SPEClAlliT TEN EAsr HIGH STREET CARUSLE. PENNSYLVANIA 170 J 3 TELEPHONE '(717) 243-3341 FACSIMILE (717) 243,1850 INTERNET www.mdwo.com June 4,2001 Eugene H. Stecher, M.A. Guidance Associates ofPA . , 473 Lincoln Way East Chambersburg, P A 17201 RE: Custody of JOShua RyanKayn , Our FileNo.1O~09_1 Dear Dr. Stecher: This will co~ my telephone conversation that I represent Dennis It Kayn with regard to a custody matter that is ,presently schedqIed for hearing in Cutnbedand County Court on August 2, 2001 beginning at 9:3(!) am. iI:I Courtroom No.1 before the HonorableJ. Wesley Oler, Jr. The mother, Teresa D. Kayn, continues to be represented by Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire. A13 you will no doubt recall, you performed a Child Custody Evaluationin September of 2000 for these patents with regard to their son, Joshua Ryan Kayn, bomMarch 5, 1997 . Your rePort was dated October 5, 2000. We will need an update of that report for purposes of your testimony at the hearing on August 2, 200 I. At a minimum, this would include reinterViewswith the parents and the child; beyond that, we will be guided by whatever you think best and appropriate to complete a thorough and independent evaluation for the benefit of Judge Oler. This will also confirm that my client, Dennis R Ka}'ll;will be solely responsible for the cost of your evaluation. (\)) (Q) 11m c'? ~. You may feel free to contact the parties directly or their attorneys as you deem best For your records and information, I am enclosing a copy of a Court Order dated May 29, 2001 which sets forth the parameters of the evaluation in the last paragraph which includes, inter alia, you are authorized to share your report with, and speak with legal counsel for both parties in advance of any testimony. ' ' INFORMATION' ADVICE' ADVOCACY"" Eugene H. Stecher, MeA. June 4, 2001 Page 2 As you are no doubt aware, the mother has had primary custody of Joshua since she left the , . marital residence in ShippenSburg on April 15, 2000 and moved to Mechanicsburg. Since then, the ' father hasessentialIy had custody every other' weekend and one weekday overnight each week. Father is seekirig to change this for a number of reasons ~t I'm sure he will explain to you, including the fact that iii August of2002; Joshua will start kindergarten. Mother has had primary custody for the past year, with Father relegated to every othetweekend and one weekday overnight. . Although the weekday overnight has been difficult because Father does all the transportation, he has done itb~cause he feels that two wl:eks without seeing his son is too long. With Mother living in Mechanicsburg,and Father living rn Shippensburg, itseellls likely that one patty will be limited to every other weekend during the school year beginning the end of AuguSt, 2002.' , If you need to speak with me orAttomey Jacobsen for any reason, please feel free to call; otherwise,. I will await receipt ofyow- updated report. Very trilly yours, MARTSQN DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO Thomas J. Williams. TiW/tde Enclosure cc: Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire Mr. Dennis R. Kayn F:\flLES\DA T AFILE\Genltr.cur\IQ309--a.1. INFORMATION -ADVICE - A D V 0 CAe Y S" ~ " ',.;,,- <, 3r I'"Y I, ~'-! Samuel W. Milkes Andrea C. Jacobsen " , JACoBSEN ,&Mn.n:s c.", " , ,,'"' tt' !i2:East High :' eet CafijisJe, PATio:' -3085 . . j. I, Tel 717-249-6427 Fax 717-249-8427 . ""'- .. July 6, 2001 Eugene H. Stecher, MA Guidance Associates of Pennsylvania 473 Uncoln Way East Chambersburg, PA 17201 RE: Kayn v. Kayn Dear Mr. Stecher: Per your request, enclosed please find a copy of the letter which I sent to Lynn MacBride on May 30, 2000, in which I advised her of Teresa Kayn's intention to record the conversations with Dennis Kayn. Mr. Kayn has recently raised an objection to the taping of the conversations, and Teresa Kayn has stopped taping his voice - except for voice messages Dennis Kayn chooses to leave on her answering machine. I look forward to receiving the written report of your recent custody re-evaluation in this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, Cc: Teresa Kayn Thomas J. Williams, Esq. Enclosure ACJ/me (corr)0706EugeneStecher.kay JACOBSE & MILKES () ------ BY: \::jJaCObSen ~ --.- ,,,,~,,, "4-"'''; '," ~;'~<'''''~', """_~~' -, ,,; ',-, ""<'~""~'-^"- "'-;~',,,,,,,, ",.' , ,"",~'';:''~''''>'-'''''-> ,-,," '''. ,~_-" --,',_" ,~',l r TERESA D.KA YN Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KAYN, : IN DIVORCE Defendant r.FRTIFIr.ATF OF!=;FRVIr.F I, Dana A. Dunkle, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the ANSWER TO MOTION TO PRECLUDE WIRETAP EVIDENCE in the above captioned matter was duly sented upon counsel for Defendant, Dennis R. Kayn, by personal service at his law office at the following address: Thomas J. Williams, Esq. 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 I hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: August 1, 2001 ~O- 1\, ~~}t~ D NA A. DUNKLE ~ , '-C: ~. C' <. ,~ ,. ~ :::-- ',-; ~- , ',,,, ':~) , ~~ ,-, .,"0"' 'e___l_,,_ ~ '-,.,." ~,,"~-""" ''''-0< ,,'<'", _ H< ["."''-' -~. " -,,~ '""' r TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant NO. 00-2469 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AND MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 3rd day of August, 2001, upon consideration of Defendant's petition for contempt and modification of custody with respect to the parties' child, Joshua Ryan Kayn (d.o.b. March 5, 1997) (hereinafter the child), and following a hearing held on August 2, 2001, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. With respect to Defendant's petition for contempt, the court finds that Plaintiff intentionally, voluntarily and willfully violated the terms of the custody order herein, she is adjudicated in contempt, and she is sanctioned to pay the sum of$300.00 through the prothonotary to the use ofthe county. 2. With respect to Defendant's petition for modification of custody, it is ordered and directed as follows: a. Legal custody of the child shall be shared by the parties; b. Primary physical custody of the child shall be in Plaintiff, the mother; c. Temporary or partial physical custody of the child shall be in Defendant, the father, (1) During the summer, for three, non- consecutive two-week periods, notice of which ~ ... .. FilED-OFFiCE O. f)~),"'"n "..,.""TARy A-' : 1,_1 ~,1'_1'I )..; 1 1 01 AUG -3 PM 2: 22 CUMBERU'ND COUNTY PENNSYlVANIA . w~"..~ r8Ih.~_~ " ~. "~""''''''-,!,,"~1W,~,,"~~~1~llU8Jl.~'' '--1, .- shall be provided by Defendant to Plaintiff in writing on or before April 1; provided, that for the balance of the summer of 2001 Defendant shall have a two-week period in August and a one-week period in September, notice of which shall be provided by Defendant to Plaintiff in writing on or before August 9, 2001; (2) During the fall, winter, and spring, (a) On alternating weekends, from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Monday at 7:00 a.m.; (b) Every wee;:k, from Wednesday at 12:00 noon until Thursday at 7:00 a.m. d. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiff shall have custody of the child until 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Day, and Defendant shall have custody of the child from 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Day until 6:00 p.m. on January 30; and Plaintiff shall have custody of the child until 2:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day, and Defendant shall have custody of the child from 2:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day until 6:00 p.m. the following Sunday. e. For weekend visits, the parties shall meet to transfer custody of the child at the parking lot of the McDonald's restaurant on Walnut Bottom Road, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, near Exit 13 ofInterstate 81. f. For weekday visits, Defendant shall pick the child up at the Capital Area Children's Center, ..,"- ' ,--~ ,",~ ~ -~~,1 .' Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania for his Wednesday visitation and shall return him to the Center on Thursday morning. g. Telephone contact between parent and child shall not be unreasonably restricted by either parent and shall not be recorded. h. Nofuing herein is intended to preclude the parties from deviating from fue terms of this order by mutual agreement. 3. All prior orders of custody are vacated. BY THE COURT, Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq. 52 East High Street Carlisle,PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff ~ ~ f- 03-01 Thomas J. Williams, Esq. Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant ~. ) ~ , .. , "k ",,' ~ . TERESA D. KAYN, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA V. DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant : NO. 2000-2469 CNIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this q ~ day of AUGUST, 2001, upon consideration of the attached letter from Plaintiff s counsel, Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire, the Order of Court dated Augnst 3, 2001, is amended with respect to paragraph 2d, so that paragraph 2d shall read as follows: 2d. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiff shall have custody of the child from 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Day until 6:00 p.m. on December 30; and Plaintiff shall have custody of the child from 2:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day until 6:00 p.m. the following Sunday. In all other respects, the order dated Augnst 3, 2001, shall remain as previously entered. By the Court, Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire 52 East High Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 , a/fJ esley Ole J J. f( l . ~ t~~ Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Ten East High Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 :sld j ., d ~" . i I ;~ " ,""" "' II!-, ~ ~ , ", ~ " ,,,", "," --, , ',,",,- ",-'- ~, " > . . ~ "",-' 1;:~,cC}"O~+iCE OF ~' , ;Cr'-JCTARY OJ AUG I 0 ?:fi IQ: ::ll CU' ',,~, ~ ~,," - UNTY 1V:i;);:nV,:\lJ GU I PENNSYLVANIA '''1 l~ ,~~~.,",,~~ ~~, 1I!l!lfIJ!! ,~""J4_~L -" 'MoL .. ,,"'''"'.'''~. --.'<-.-q..i."--, ~",=' ';""" "h."" ~ ',)-(c_",,",,_ ;" -~,'x ,""",,-"-. ~-~ 'S';/j JAC Tel 717-249-6427 Fax 717-249-8427 Samuel W. Milkes Andrea C. Jacobsen The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Re: Kayn v. Kayn, No. 00-2469, Civil Term Dear Judge Oler; After last week's hearing, you issued an Order of Court, dated August 3, 2001, in the above case. I am writing to you because I suspect that there maybe a typographical error in that Order. Your Order of Court provides for primary physical custody in Plaintiff, the mother, and temporary or partial physical custody in Defendant, the father, at specified times. Paragraph 2.d., relating to visitation for the Christmas and Thanksgiving holidays, states, in part, ...Defendant shall have custody of the child from 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Day until 6;00 p.m. on January 30. Emphasis added. The hearing testimony indicated that last year, by agreement, Defendant had custody of the child for Christmas Eve through Christmas morning and again from December 26 through December 30. Given the usual length of Christmas visits, and that the subparagraph is otherwise dealing with holiday time, it appears that the reference in the Order to January rather than December is inadvertent. A visit through December 30 would be in line with the past practice of the parties, and the fact that there is no provision for Plaintiff to see the child for over five weeks if the Christmas visit were intended to extend through the end of January. On August 6, 2001, I tried to call Tom Williams regarding the language of the Order. When I learned he was out of town until yesterday, I wrote him and asked if he could agree to a modification. Tom Williams called me back yesterday afternoon and informed me that his client was out of town for a week with the child and he could not respond to me until he had spoken with Mr. Kayn. To avoid further delay, I am writing now, while this matter may still be in your mind, to request that you review the Order, and, ifthe reference to Jar.uary is an error, issue a correction. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully, JACOBSEN & MILKES Cc: Thomas J. Williams, Esq. Teresa D. Kayn ACJ\me Corrl0809oler.kay , -- r c__ TERESA D. KA YN, Plaintiff r~l_::C,\-.0:~F1CE C' " ".:~'-'.'Cr:OTARY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERIQAI~Irr,COuNty; lItNNSYL VANIA CIVIL Acft{)N;.i.'liAwCOU!'-J1Y tJt.r,jf\fSYLV/t,NIA v. DENNIS R. KA YN, Defendant NO. 00-2469 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AND MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 3rd day of August, 2001, upon consideration of Defendant's petition for contempt and modification of custody with respect to the parties' child, Joshua Ryan Kayn (d.o.b. March 5, 1997) (hereinafter the child), and following a hearing held on August 2, 2001, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. With respect to Defendant's petition for contempt, the court finds that Plaintiff intentionally, voluntarily and willfully violated the terms of the custody order herein, she is adjudicated in contempt, and she is sanctioned to pay the sum of$300.00 through the prothonotary to the use of the county. 2. With respect to Defendant's petition for modification of custody, it is ordered and directed as follows: a. Legal custody of the child shall be shared by the parties; b. Primary physical custody of the child shall be in Plaintiff, the mother; c. Temporary or partial physical custody of the child shall be in Defendant, the father, (1) During the summer, for three, non- consecutive two-week periods, notice of which FILE cr'1Y .~ I " ''-''"''J: shall be provided by Defendant to Plaintiff in writing on or before April 1; provided, that for the balance of the summer of 2001 Defendant shall have a two-week period in August and a one-week period in September, notice of which shall be provided by Defendant to Plaintiff in writing on or before August 9, 2001; (2) During the fall, winter, and spring, (a) On alternating weekends, from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Monday at 7:00 a.m.; (b) Every week, from Wednesday at 12:00 noon until Thursday at 7:00 a.m. d. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiff shall have custody ofthe child until 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Day, and Defendant shall have custody of the child from 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Day until 6:00 p.m. on January 30; and Plaintiff shall have custody of the child until 2:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day, and Defendant shall have custody of the child from 2:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day until 6:00 p.m. the following Sunday. e. For weekend visits, the parties shall meet to transfer custody of the child at the parking lot of the McDonald's restaurant on Walnut Bottom Road, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, near Exit 13 ofInterstate 81. f. For weekday visits, Defendant shall pick the child up at the Capital Area Children's Center, --. ~~ - '~~. ~ M ! Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania for his Wednesday visitation and shall return him to the Center on Thursday morning. g. Telephone contact between parent and child shall not be unreasonably restricted by either parent and shall not be recorded. h. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the parties from deviating from the terms of this order by mutual agreement. 3. All prior orders of custody are vacated. BY THE COURT, ? Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq. 52 East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Thomas J. Williams, Esq. Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant 'Y' '0 _. ,~ ,.,"",^,;--"-'J_-,'- ",'-.--',''n." ",_ ~' -, "~,;;ion,;_'_",_, ',_.., ,'-"~",, ,- ~,-; ~<^,,+,., ,-"<J~,, ~,~, 5_,,-(,; TERESA D. KAYN, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant : IN DIVORCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW AND TO ENTER APPEARANCE Please withdraw my appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff, Teresa D. Kayn, in the above captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, 110 4v 5~s1 ( 'Loo I {1Q~ Andrea C. J en, Esq. JACOBSEN & MILKES 52 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6427 Please enter my appearance on behalf of the, in the Plaintiff, Teresa D. Kayn, in the above captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Carol Un say, Esq. SAlOIS, HU F, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 West . Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 ~.&;;~ L " '_'^ ~ ,~, d<~~, ',-"' '>-'" -, ~ ^-'<', ",,-,- '--' '-~" . ^".-, '. ~, "' ',C'''- '<- ~- () c: -otis ~?~r 2[-- 0)",'- -<....-;:" ~C :E? .....'" ~;;: "'.:::.., -< ,-' C) ,.., :-"/1 ;r;.. G~ -, Lt.) <-::. . --iT'1 \,,-,j ~v C) " ~ =..v ,"-'n_' ~:c;~ i~), ~I --....; :n -< - 0.) ~.. ,,' , "> . 0"-" ~'i TERESA D. KAYN, Plaintiff v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN DIVORCE : NO. 00-2469 CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KAYN, Defendant ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this2/~t;ay of September, 2001, after conference with counsel, the Order of Court dated August 3, 2001, with respect to the custody of the parties' child, Joshua Ryan Kayn (d.o.b March 5, 1997) (hereinafter the child), is amended so that paragraph 2. shall read as follows: 2. It is ordered and directed as follows: a. Legal custody of the child shall be shared by the parties; b. Primary physical custody of the child shall be in Plaintiff, the mother; c. Temporary or partial physical custody of the child shall be in Defendant, the father; (1) For a one-week period from September 17, 2001 to September 24, 2001; (2) Beginning in the year 2002, during the calendar months of June, July and August, for three, non-consecutive two-week periods, notice of which shall be provided by Defendant to Plaintiff in writing on or before April 1 of each year; (3) Each year, during the calendar months other than June, July, and August; (a) On alternating weekends, from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Monday at 7:00 a.m., beginning on the weekend of October 5 - 8, 2001; (b) Every week, from Wednesday at 12:00 noon until Thursday at 7:00 a.m. beginning on Wednesday, September 26, 2001. "<I "I <::f:'p ~ I u "",__' t. Obi ., ? I ~ II 4' f~ . CUMBi::hLPi\D COUN'fY PENNSYLVANIA . .,-"-...."... ,......"w ., ~ '.~ , ,~I\l!1II~ <, ,'1!J~ L "! .!'lI~ ~ ' ',,",,~ n,'. , ,-',""' _ , ~^ ',- ;':t-! d. Notwitihstanding tihe foregoing, Plaintiff shall have custody of the child until 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Day, and Defendant shall have custody of the child from 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Day until 6:00 p.m. on December 30; and Plaintiff shall have custody of the child until 2:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day and Defendant shall have custody of the child from 2:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day until 6:00 p.m. tihe following Sunday. e. For weekend visits, the parties shall meet to transfer custody of the child at the parking lot of the McDonald's restaurant on Walnut Bottom Road, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, near former Exit 13 of Interstate 81. f. For weekday visits, Defendant shall pick the child up at the Capital Area Children's Center, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, for his Wednesday visitation and shall return him to tihe Center on Thursday morning. g. Telephone contact between parent and child shall not be unreasonably restricted by eitiher parent and shall not be recorded. h. Notihing herein is intended to preclude the parties from deviating from tihe terms of this order by mutual agreement. In all other respects, the order dated August 3, 2001, shall remain as previously entered. Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire 52 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Thomas J. Williams, Esquire 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 . ~ i7:o1 Carol Lindsay, Esquire 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17103 -" ' JAC Tel 717-249-1705 Fax 717-249-1634 Samuel W. Milkes Andrea C. Jacobsen September 19,2001 The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Re; Kayn v. Kayn, No. 00-2469, Civil Term Dear Judge Oler: Enclosed please find a proposed Order that I prepared in accordance with our conference of last week. I shared this proposed Order with Tom Williams and he authorized me to forward it to you with the representation that he agrees that it reflects what you told us you intended in your original order. fleave further representation of Teresa Kayn in this matter to Carol Lindsay. Thank you. Respectfully, JACOBSEN & MILKES Cc: Thomas J. Williams, Esq. Teresa D. Kayn Carol J. Lindsay, Esq. Enclosure ACJ\me Corr\09040Ier.kay SEP 2 0 2001 SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY A1TORNEYS.ATeLAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle. PA ,-, - -~ f TERESA D. KA YN, PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER vs. DENNIS R. KAYN, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT __'_~' ,,~, "'f. -,', . _~~ '" '" ," - -,-', '''-~,i I I ~ , 'I : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL TERM : IN DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT 5slL AND NOW this day of (J{io~cJ" , 2001, upon consideration of the within Petition to Compel Discovery, a Rule is issued upon the Respondent to show cause why he should not be compelled to answer the Interrogatories as set out on the Petition. RULE returnable L~ days from date of service hereof. By the Court, ~,O\ J. ;~ I I I i'~, ~"~~-, . " -. ''", ~ ^ ~- ~-. .-, -,<. '"' ",[ ~ l l '-.~ I n'~'7 ;,~ : .l,t, ~~ .-. " -' t-"; :1\ .:,.{;'" ':'" I I~\: v,...u'~',-, i,~: 'I ;'_; ~",-J\.Ji\' P,;:!\!INI(~'\(i \ 1:';1',-11', ' , _I \, '\.; ,-ir\'\'i~\ ,'"' ,H, ~, I'!!'...",.","-"!, . -~ -" -~- . ,~-,-, - .."-1 .,'1' ~~ SAlOIS SHUFIF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS-AT.LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle. PA 1'1' ',:",0',;; -',"",., -.. -, .~_:';; ,-' -,,~. i~ I '. ". "0 i~_ TERESA D. KAYN, PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL TERM : IN DIVORCE vs. DENNIS R. KAYN, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT PETITION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY NOW COMES, Teresa D. Kayn, by and through her counsel, SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, and petitions this Honorable Court as follows: 1. The parties hereto are husband and wife, having been joined in marriage on September 30, 1991. 2. On February 2, 2001, Petitioner served on Respondent a set of Interrogatories. A copy of the Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 3. Despite repeated requests, Respondent has failed or refused to answer the Interrogatories. The most recent request is contained in a letter of September 12, 2001 attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 4. No objection to the discovery has been made by the Respondent. SAlOIS SHUFIF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS'A"'LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle. PA ---'-',,,,. - _ L - - ..', I' .-', WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court to issue a Rule upon Respondent to show cause why he should not be compelled to provide the discovery requested on February 2, 2001. SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF By: CAR 10# 26 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 I; SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 W. High Slree! Carlisle. PA l" " n'. "", ._c. -"" . . ,- ~,.-,-,. ,""j, ,"' [:w '",~ OiL I , VERIFICATION I, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE HEREIN ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 PA. C.S. 94904, RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES. DATE: I~/~/o/ II SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS'A"'LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA -.-', -..-,' --, ",-,.- - '~ TERESA D. KA YN, PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL TERM vs. DENNIS R. KAYN, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT : IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, THIS if {2lf-tJ.~. DAY OF 2001, I, CAROL J. LINDSAY, ESQUIRE, OF THE LAW FIRM OF SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, ATTORNEYS, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I SERVED THE WITHIN PETITION To COMPEL DISCOVERY THIS DAY BY DEPOSITING SAME IN THE UNITED STATES MAil, FIRST CLASS, POSTAGE PREPAID, IN CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, ADDRESSED TO: THOMAS J. WilLIAMS, ESQUIRE Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto TEN EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF By: A l J. liNDSAY, ESQUIRE 44693 26 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 TERESA D.KAYN Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 2000-2469 CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KAYN, : IN DIVORCE Defendant INTFRRor:;ATnRIFR AnnRFRRFn Tn nFFFNnANT Plaintiff Teresa D. Kayn, by her attorneys, JACOBSEN & MILKES, hereby requests that Dennis R. Kay, defendant herein, to whom these interrogatories are addressed, answer fully, in writing and under oath, the following interrogatories pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS Unless negated by the context of the interrogatory, the following definitions are to be considered to be applicable to all interrogatories contained herein: (A) "Documents" is an all-inclusive term referring to any writing and/or recorded or graphic matter, however produced or reported. The term "documents" includes, without jimitation, correspondence, memoranda, interoffice communications, minutes, reports, notes, schedules, drawings, tables, graphs, maps, surveys, books of account, ledgers, invoices, purchase orders, pleadings, questionnaires, contracts, bills, checks, diaries, logs, proposals, print-outs, recordings, telegrams, films, tax returns, and financial statements, any preliminary drafts of all the foregoing, in whatever form, whether printed, typed, handwritten, on paper, tape, film, disc, etc. (B) With respect to documents, the term "identify" means: to give the date, title, author and addressee; to describe a document sufficiently well to enable the interrogator to know what such document is and to retrieve it from a file or wherever located, or to describe it in a manner suitable for use as a description in a subpoena; and to give the name, address, position or title of the custod ian s) of the document and/or copies thereof. EXHIBIT il I -A" - ~ " (C) With respect to an individual, the term "identify" means: to state his/her full name, present residence address or last known residence, and present or last known business address; present employer or last known employer; and any business or personal relationship between the individual and any party to this action. (D) Whenever the expression "and/or" is used in these interrogatories, the information called for should be set out both in the conjunctive and disjunctive, and if set out in the disjunctive, it should be given separately for each and every element sought. (E) Whenever a date, amount or other computation or figure is requested, the exact date, amount or other computation or figure is to be given if known; otherwise, an approximate date, amount or other computation or figure should be given or the best estimate thereof; and the answer shall be identified as an estimate or approximation. (F) No answer is to be left blank. If the answer to an interrogatory or subparagraph of an interrogatory is "none" or "unknown," the answer shall so state. If the question is inapplicable, "N/A" must be written in the answer. If an answer is omitted because of the claim of privilege, the basis of privilege is to be stated. (G) These interrogatories are continuing, and any information secured subsequent to the filing of your answers which would have been included in the answers had it been known or available, is to be supplied by supplemental answers. The subject matter of these proceedings is the above-captioned pending divorce. It is hereby certified that the original and two copies of these Interrogatories were delivered to counsel for Defendant on this date by the undersigned. Dated: JACOBSEN & MILKES By: Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq. Attorney for Defendant . 1. State your date of birth, your date of separation from your wife, Teresa D. Kayn, and your Social Security Number. 2. State your present permanent address and residence. If you reside any place in addition, give address, city and state. For the premises at the present address where you are actually residing, set forth the names and relationship to you of all persons residing with you. 3. State your present occupation, the name and address of your present employer. Please state the position you currently hold with your employer, how long so employed, your current salary, and your salary for the last five years, including the gross pay received, the deductions from gross salary, and the net salary received. Attach photocopies of your last pay stub and your last pay stub for calendar year 2000, and copies of any W-2s, or 1099s received for calendar year 2000. 5. Identify any individual retirement accounts or other qualified tax deferred plan or account in which you havean interest. For each such plan or account, identify the value as of the date of marriage, date of separation and as of the present, and provide a copy of the corresponding statement of the account and/or Plan document. If any share of the account is asserted to be non-marital, describe the basis of the assertion and the calculation of the non-marital share. 6. List by address and legal description, giving city, county and state, all real property held by you in your name alone, or jointly with another person, and for each such property, indicate date of acquisition, purchase price, date and place of recording, your best estimate of market value, presently, or, if sold, value at time of sale or other disposition, and an estimate of any mortgages or liens against the property. "1 7. Identify by name and account number any and all bank accounts, both checking and savings, or bank deposits, certificates of deposit, credit union shares, mutual fund accounts, bond funds, etc., held by you in your name alone or jointly with any other person, presently and since January 1996. Please give the name and location of those banks, financial institution, funds, and the approximate balance of the accounts as of the date of these interrogatories, and as of the date of marriage and as of the date of separation identified in answer to Interrogatory No.1, above. If any such account is now closed, indicate the date the account was closed and the balance as of one month prior to its closing, and present location of funds from account. 8. Identify any withdrawals in excess of $500 from any and all bank and investment accounts and holdings, whether checking, savings, certificate of deposit, investment, or otherwise, held by you and/or your Wife since January 1, 2000. Attach copies of statements of said accounts reflecting the balance in each account as of the date of marriage and reflecting the balance as of the date of separation, as of the present and including all statements between these dates. 9. Do you own any stocks, bonds or other securities in any corporation in your name alone, or jointly with another person, or have you held or disposed of any such securities since January 1, 1996? If so, please state name and location of corporation, number of shares held by you and, if held jointly, percentage of your ownership. when acquired, and approximate current value of your interest, or, if no longer held, value on date of sale or transfer. Identify any dividends or other income received on account of such ownership during the last three tax years, and anticipated for the current calendar year. 10.ldentify all property which you own, jointly or individually, or over which you exercise control, which you identify as marital property. For each such item of property, describe the item, state the date of acquisition of the item, its current value and value at date of separation. - < -l'" ,I" -'-.~-' ~,. -, ~'>'~"-~k"'Ei 11.ldenlify all items of tangible personal property, worth in excess of $500, owned by you individually, or jointly with another person, which you have not described above, giving description and approximate value, and date of acquisition. 12. Identify all property which you own, or owned at date of separation, jointly or individually, or over which you exercise or exercised control, which you contend is non-marital property. For each such item of property, describe the item, state the date of acquisition of the item, its current value and value at date of acquisition, or date of marriage, and the basis upon which you claim such item to be non-marital. 13. Set forth all other income received, other than heretofore set forth in answers to the interrogatories, whether reportable or not for federal income tax purposes, during the current year and the past four calendar years and as to each such item of income, set forth date, amount received, and source and basis for income. 14. Please provide a complete copy of all federal income tax returns, or amended returns or notices, which you have filed during the last three years (including partnership and corporation returns if you are partner or an officer, director or owner of five (5%) percent or more of stock in any corporation) with all accompanying schedules and documentation except for the personal income tax returns filed jointly with Teresa D. Kayn. 15. State whether you own or have any interest in or have maintained any life insurance policies, annuity, or medical policy, insuring your life, or the life of any other person. If so, for each such policy, please state the name of the insurance company, policy number, the beneficiary, the premium paid by you on the policy, the type of coverage provided by the policy, the face amount of the policy, and its current cash value, and any loans, by date, amount, and outstanding loan balance, which have been taken against the policy. 16. List the names and addresses of any persons to whom you may have given or lent money in excess of $500 per gift, or loan, for the years 1996 to date. 17. Set forth a list of your outstanding obligations, including but not limited to, mortgages, conditional sales, security agreements, contract obligations, financing statements, promissory or judgment notes, stating whether the obligation is individual, joint, or joint and several, the original and current amount of the obligation, the date and source of monies. 18. State whether anyone, whether individual, corporation, partnership, or any other entity or party owes you any money, or if you hold any mortgages. If so, identify the name and address of the debtor or mortgagor and the amount of the debt. 19. State whether you own, or lease or whether any person, firm entity, corporation or other party supplies you with the use of an automobile, truck or other motor vehicle. If so, for each automobile, truck or other motor vehicle, state: year, make, model, name and address of the legal owner, date of purchase or acquisition, purchase price of the automobile, truck or other motor vehicle. 20.At any time during your marriage, were you engaged in any business enterprise, either solely or jointly with others? If so, for each business, state name, form of the business organization, your ownership share, your dates of ownership and the annual gross profits of the business during the past five years, or if discontinued or sold, the amount of money received as a result of the discontinuance, termination or sale. . 21. Set forth a list of all monies or assets received by you by way of gift, inheritance, or through source other than earning or other reportable income or loans from the inception' of the marriage, including date, amount or value received and source. 22. State whether you have any insurance or annuity coverage not listed in the answer to the preceding interrogatories. If so, for each policy of insurance or annuity state names and address of the insurance company, type of policy, amount of coverage and present cash surrender value. 23. State the extent, type and location of all books, papers, records and other financial documents in your possession or control, which would reflect your income or assets. 24. Have you received or do you anticipate the receipt of anything of value from any source, including but not limited to gifts, judgments, settlement, litigation, devise, bequest, legacies, insurance proceeds, loans, dividends, property in reversion, remainder, or expectancy, or a trust or trusts in which you or any of your children are beneficiaries, or any interest not hereinbefore set forth? If so, identify source, reason, date and amount or value of receipt. 25. Do you have or have there been any safe-deposit boxes, vaults, safes, storage facilities or other places of deposit and/or safekeeping, (hereinafter for the purpose of brevity referred to as "place of safekeeping"), maintained by you, or in which you have deposited any monies, documents, or other items of personal property, or in which you had powers of signature, or access to any such safe-deposit boxes, vaults, safes, storage facilities or other places of deposit and/or safekeeping, in the past five years? If so, state name and address of bank or other location and list all items located in such place of safekeeping. 26. Using the attached Income and Expense Statement form, itemize your average monthly living expenses in detail. 27. State the names and addresses of all persons who were witness to or have knowledge or information of any relevant facts relating to the economic claims raised in this action, including information or knowledge related to the factors set forth in the divorce code with regard to the distribution of marital property, and the determination of the marital or non-marital nature of property, or who possess proof of the facts involved. For such persons, state their relationship to you, and indicate whether any written or recorded statements were obtained by you or for you from any such person. 28. Did you prepare or have prepared any records, accounts, joumals, applications for credit, disability insurance, or similar documents showing your income, expenses, assets or liabilities during the last three years? If so, attach a copy of each such record, account, journal or similar document. 29. Have you in the past hired any professional accounting or bookkeeping services to maintain records of your assets, liabilities, income, expenses, tax retums, and other financial transactions? If so, state the name, address and telephone number of person or firm who has rendered services in the last five years. 30. State the names and address of any and all proposed expert witnesses and annex true copies of all written reports rendered to you by any such proposed expert witness. 31. State your educational background. If you have any post high school education, state names of schools attended, dates attended, degrees or certificates, if any, and course or major areas of study. 32. Do you suffer from any health or medical condition that affects your ability to engage in employment or any other activities of daily living? If so, identify the nature and extent of such impairments and the present and anticipated future functional limitations expected from such impairments. Provide any medical records which exist that document such condition or conditions, the diagnosis and prognosis for such condition and date of onset. If any doctors or other medical practitioners have advised you to limit your activities on account of your medical condition, state the name, address and profession or license of such practitioner, the nature of the advice, the specific limitation advised, and the date of such advice. ss 1 I I I ,I I, " i , COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF I, DENNIS R. KAYN, hereby swear or affirm that the foregoing Answers to Interrogatories are true, complete, and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and that I will provide further information I may receive in the future pertaining thereto. I I I I I I I I I 1 I I The undersigned understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom'falsification to authorities. DENNIS R. KAYN Swam and subscribed before me this day of 2001. Notary Public . JM.1ES D. FLOWER JOHN E. SUKE ROBERT C. SAlDIS GEOFFREY S. SHUFF JAMES D. FLOWER, JR. CAROL). UNDSAY JOHNNAJ. KOPECKY KARL M. LEDEBOHM )OSEPH L. HITCHINGS THOMAS E. FLOWER LAW OFFICES SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER &LINDSA Y APRO~~~~TION FILE COpy CARLISLE, PEi"\INSYL V ANlA 17013 TELEPHONE: (717) 243-6222 - FACSIMILE: (717) 243-6510 EMAIL: clindsay@ssfl-Iaw.com www.ssfl-law.com i' ;; i ~ 1 WEST SHORE OFFICE: 2109 MARKET STREET CAt\-1P HlLL, PA 17011 TELEPHONE; (717)737-3405 FACSIMILE: (717)737-3407 REPLY TO CARLISLE September 12, 2001 Thomas J. Williams, Esquire MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Kayn v. Kayn No. 2000-2469 Dear Tom: I enclose my en'try of appearance in this case. I understand a few items need to be worked out between the parties to conclude their custody arrangement. Andrea Jacobsen has been good enough to stay in the case to do that. I am representing Teresa with regard to the divorce and any custody issues which arise into the future. My review of the File indicates that '''.ndrea Jacobsen served on Taylor Andrews a set of Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents on February 2, 2001. There have been some reminder letters, but no discovery is forthcoming. Please ask your client to answer the Interrogatories and provide the documents requested. Thank you for your help. \j ery truly yours, SAlOIS. SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. .. , , ;' ,., '-.1 .f 'I; , -'I : / i / ,'I. ../'./v[,.I.I~ Carol J, Lindsay CJUtjb Enclosure cc: Teresa Kayn . EXHIBIT ~ " i ....f:J.. ..,. ~- " ~".~, ,~,..". "~. ~ ~" -~ 1l!I,~iiitil- "~ .~ '0" . ,. ~i I (") ,~--,. ~? c :.:?'~ ~ .~ -:--' ct; n [, ) " -l - ., -'.,/ ch ." -.< r:.' c . '.J :So ,.-., , , )> \..,- w '~"f ~ "- -j ;'0 :0 ,-- -< ...... - c '~. II "H I TERESA D. KA YN, PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KAYN, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT IN DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW this 70tt. day of November 2001, upon consideration of the within Petition to Compel Discover, the Rule of this Court of October 8, 2001, is made absolute. Respondent, Dennis R. Kayn, is ordered to answer the Interrogatories propounded within 2.0 days of the date of service of this Order. By the Court, J. () 0 0 ~; -n SAlOIS r.Fr~ :::e "'; SHUFF, FLOWER !':::J l-r1 L::T.i ~ 11._," & LINDSAY z f'-) .'.-' ',' (r' '1>- - - I .~:,) ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW -< ~::c: (:'_~J ,1., [::CJ :::~---j ~. , " 26 W. High Street ~~~~ :r=~ ;J~ :~j Carlisle. PA ,. ~) " >~2:_= 0 (jr-;:'; Ii .' l":'" ::;:,~ :j =< ::0 Iv -< II J( "^' "" . "v',c" ,_~_ " ~ ~_.' ~c"'- ,~~-/ ..". ~^ . ,".,-. ,.;_,,',U"'-H ,,-. - "-"'~"'''''. --"', " _' _M' ~_ JIW , <H_'.' ,","" ~ -l . ~~ '1 l -= JW SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIURNEYS'AT'LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A TERESA D. KAYN, PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL TERM vs. DENNIS R. KAYN, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT : IN DIVORCE PETITION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY NOW COMES, Teresa D. Kayn, by and through her counsel, SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, and petitions this Honorable Court as follows: 1. On October 5, 2001, Petitioner filed a Petition to Compel Discovery seeking outstanding Interrogatory Answers. 2. On October 8, 2001, this Honorable Court issued a Rule upon Respondent to show cause why the discovery requested should not be provided. The Rule was returnable 15 days from date of service. A copy of the Rule is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The Rule was served upon counsel for Respondent on October 15,2001. 3. Counsel for Respondent requested an additional ten days in which to file an answer, which request was granted. 4. Fifteen days and an additional ten days have passed since the service of the Rule, and no answer has been filed. I: II SAlOIS SHUFF, fLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A 1- ," ~ ~-', " ,,- . .-' --,,',.~ WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court to make the Rule absolute compelling Respondent to answer the Interrogatories propounded within a short period of time. SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF By: CA liL J. NDSAY, ESQ E 10#/ 3 26 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS'AT'LAW 26 W. High Sireel Carlisle, P A " --. - ^"-:~: " , , VERIFICATION I, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE HEREIN ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 PA. C.S. S 4904, RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES. DATE: rJ ttJ). J 2-) 7bJ./ :~~~~~t4~' ~~"~~i.+~$'-"-~>.- .,; .' '-~>:~\"'::"-' ~- SAID IS HUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATTORNEYS-"'Ttf.AW 26 W. High Street Carlisle. PA TERESA D. KAYN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAlNTlFF/PETmONER : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : CIVIL ACT/ON -LAW. : NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KA YN, DEFENDANT/REsPONDENT : IN DIVORCE AND NOW th:s ORDER OF COURT _ tl, g{ day of (()~ f'l e. R , 2001, upon consideration of the within Petition to Compel Discovery, a Rule is issued upon the Respondent to show cause why he should not be compelled to answer the Interrogatories as set out on the Petition. /5 RULE retunlable days from date of service hereof. " 'I !! T~~r;:: r,:~.?"f.,~ -:::?r:',,~~ ~~t~~~~~ .~~ -- ....."''''''. ~ ., ~"""'" ........1' "', in Tas;i 1-"/ ,/bc;"'~~, : ~I'e J ;-:t"'~se; ("./ :--and and t 2'1: ji:: :,,:';i " !i le, Pa. Thl . ~,. ... ......... .~., ~ - -f'\"' ! rv ~.... SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY AITORNEYS'AT'LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA .,~ . '-> TERESA D. KA YN, PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL TERM VS. DENNIS R. KAYN, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT : IN DIVORCE AND NOW, THIS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 't) fl.k (fA, V J?- DAY OF 2001, I, CAROL J. LINDSAY, ESQUIRE, OF THE LAW FIRM OF SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, ATTORNEYS, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I SERVED THE WITHIN PETITION To COMPEL DISCOVERY THIS DAY BY DEPOSITING SAME IN THE UNITED STATES MAil, FIRST CLASS, POSTAGE PREPAID, IN CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, ADDRESSED TO: THOMAS J. WilLIAMS, ESQUIRE Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto TEN EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF By: ii.uw_~. ~ .....,,~Iai ^~ ,J..J."".p,Co\ ,~ , ._~~H,~ . ~H "H-' -, ~,- '''''lIi.'.~Q ~, .~ ,-~ ^,".' ,."" .' -~ ,'," " . ~"I 0 0 0 C .";", ~. z: --4 s.. ~?R, 0 ~~~ :D <: 'r- :J:l :'}IIi &ie" '-. (.oJ ()6 . ;.=;. ~'""- ,_... ~ kG " ;~:B ~o :.0: ""-0 0 r- 25m 5>c :;:1 z ::> 55 =< (T' -<, '," , ,'" " .~ .J .. , .- . .~ " '.1 ,-,. "~:t IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY KAYN Vs. KAYN NO. 2000 2469 CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena(s) for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 THOMAS J WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE certifies that: 1. A Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s) with a copy of the subpoena(s) attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least tWenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena(s) is sought to be served, 2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoena(s) is attached to this certificate, 3. No objection to the subpoena(s) has been received, and 4. The subpoena(s) which will be served is identical to the subpoena(s) which is attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s) . Date: 02/19/02 ! File #: M283246 THOMAS J WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE MARTSON DEARDORFF TEN EAST HIGH ST CARLISLE, PA 17013 717-243-3341 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INQUIRIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC. 4940 DISSTON STREET PHILADELPHIA PA 19135 (215) 335-3590 By: Angelique Cianci .. 'li ... v IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY KAYN Vs. KAYN No. 2000 2469 TO: CAROL LINDSAY NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND TIllNGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 DEFENDANT intends to serve a subpoena(s) identical to the one(s) attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made the subpoena may be served. Date: 01/29/02 THOMAS J WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE MARTSON DEARDORFF TEN EAST HIGH ST CARLISLE, PA 17013 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INQUIRIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC. 4940 DISSTON STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19135 (215) 335-3590 By: Ange1ique Cianci Enc(s): Copy of subpoena(s) Counsel return card File #: M283246 . CClMMJNWEI\LTH OF PFNISYLVANIA <XlUNl'Y OF aJMBERIAND KAYN File No. 2000 2469 VS. KAYN : SUBPOENA TO PROOUCE DOCl.t'ENTS OR TH I NGS FOR D I SOOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: MEMBERS FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION (Name of Person or Entity) within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following docunent,:; or things: **SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM** at _MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS INC 4940 DISSTON ST PHILA PA 19135 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the docunents or produce things requested ~,\ this subpoena, together" with the certificate ofcarpliance, to the party making thi, request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonablE cost of preoaring the ~ies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its serv~ce, the party serving thin !;ubpoena may seek a court orde.- o::rrpel1;ng you to carply with it. - . THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLCY/ING PERSON: NAME: 'T'HOMAR WILLIAMS, ESO ADDRESS : TELEPHONE: SU'REf'E <XJURT ATTORNEY FOR: 10 ~ raGrl S'T r'lIRT.TST.R PII 17011 (215) 335-3212 10# .'. DEFENDANT 02/01101 BY THE COJRT: 'ew:w',' K,f,; . 'y,.. - prothonot~6derk, (J"f' , C: 7n.../JI:" DATE: Seal of the Court Civil Oivision Deputy (Eft. 1/97) - ~', . ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA !CAYN Vs. No. 2000 2469 !CAYN CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: MEMBERS FIRST FED CREDIT ANY AND ALL APPLICATIONS AND STATEMENTS. ACCT #188897 PERTAINING TO: NAME: TERESA D KAYN ADDRESS: 469 BROOK CIR MECHANICS BURG PA SSAN: 487765547 CERTll'lliD PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LffiU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RECORD CUSTODIAN . COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE ATTACHED HERETO: I hereby certify as custodian of records that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE: I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX) : ( ) RECORDS ( ) X-RAYS ( ( PATIENT BILLING RECORDS I XRAYS have been destroyed Date Author~zed s~gnature for MEMBERS FIRST FED CREDIT CUMBERLAND M283246-01 *** SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE *** llltl~" r' ." '. ;.1.-..,'" "', ..", .,,~~,~,. ~,-,~'.,.,"-~ ~ ',~, , ~,~' '~,' , .,"'<~, ---'~,''''' - '. .'.-- " ~ (") CJ ~~ C N. <: :::0:: ""Q 0J y.-;;oo -" ~ [11c~' ;;CJ L;..'~ z-~' ,'il Zr;.;. _;'0;" ~/~ .C" (?;~) c:C) -0 " ,\1 ?j;O ::tr.. g~l ~~O - )>'C -; ~ ~ .- .,.. (J1 -< -~ ,",,' ~ " - - ~ ~"' "" L,. '~" -',-J IN TlIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY KAYN Vs. NO. 2000 2469 o ~; ,~ -orj:~- fTlrn Z:JJ 6;~> -<> ~~~ ;-p c= 2: a~ o 0 N -fl :Ji: =-J :t-~.. " --,.... ;O'r~ KAYN CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 (.Ii r:"'j " y (,,;; -'0 3 -: 1 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena(s) for documents ':,) "=!'fl (.j .. :--{ ]c. tlr'ri.ng~ pursuant to Rule 4009.22 THOMAS J WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE certifies that: 1. A Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s) with a copy of the subpoena(s) attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena(s) is sought to be served, 2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoena(s) is attached to this certificate, 3. No objection to the subpoena(s) has been received, and 4. The subpoena(s) which will be served is identical to the subpoena(s) which is attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s). Date: 03/05/02 THOMAS J WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE MARTSON DEARDORFF TEN EAST HIGH ST CARLISLE, PA 17013 717-243-3341 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INQUIRIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC. 4940 DISSTON STREET PHILADELPHIA PA 19135 (215) 335-3590 By: Angelique Cianci File #: M283745 " " '" _h __ _ -~~ IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY KAYN VS. KAYN No. 2000 2469 TO: CAROL LINDSAY NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND TIfiNGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 DEFENDANT intends to serve a subpoena(s) identical to the one(s) attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made the subpoena may be served. Date: 02/12/02 THOMAS J WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE MARTSON DEARDORFF TEN EAST HIGH ST CARLISLE, PA 17013 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INQUIRIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC. 4940 DISSTON STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19135 (215) 335-3590 By: Angelique Cianci Enc(s): Copy of subpoena(s) Counsel return card. File #: M283745 "_.0 ~- -, , '''IIl''''! <:;(Ht)NWEALTH OF pENNSYLVANIA 00UNl'Y OF aJMBERIAND !<AYN Vs. Fi Ie No. 2000 2469 !<AYN SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE ooc:::Lf'ENTS OR TH I NGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSuANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: FIRST UNION BANK, 30 N THIRD ST, HARRISBURG PA 17101 (Nane of Person or Entity) within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following docunent,; or things: SEE ATTAUllilJ AI>lJENlJlJM at ... MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONSc'Ad!iJf&ts)4940 DISSTON ST., PHILA., PA You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested ~", this subpOena, together ,with, the certi.ficate of carpliance, to the party making thi: request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance thereasonab Ie cost of pre~arin9 the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena withi.n t~ent, (20) days after its serv~ce, the party serving thh !;ubpoena may seek a court arde.- carpe 11 ing you to carply with it. TH I S SUBPOENA WAS NAI'E : ADDRESS : ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLONING PERSON: THOMAS J WILLIAMS, ESQ MARTGON DEll'~'IDORFF CARLISLE, PA 17013 TELEPI<lNE: SUPREI'E COURT I D# ATTORNEY f'OR: 215-335-3212 DEFENDANT BY THE CClJRT: ' 0A~/( ..,.. -r ~r Deputy M2B3745-01 DATE: 03/05/02 ., oV )..1- OJ.. Seal of the Court (Eff. 7/97) '" 0- - .. '.';'-'Ii ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA KAYN Vs. No. 2000 2469 KAYN CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: FIRST UNION BANK ANY AND ALL BANKING RECORDS. PERTAINING TO: NAME: TERSA D KAYN ADDRESS: 469 BROOK CIR MECHANICSBURG PA SSAN: 487765547 CERT.lJ!'lliD PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RECORD CUSTODIAN - COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE ATTACHED HERETO: I hereby certHy as custodian of records that. to the best of my knowledge, information and belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. ] NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE: I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX) : ( ) RECORDS ( ) X-,RAYS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) RECORDS. / XRAYS have been destroyed Date Authorized signature for FIRST UNION BANK CUMBERLAND M283745-01. *** SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE *** - '.". <nM)NWEALTH OF pmNSYLVANIA COONl'Y OF aJMBERIAND KAYN Va. Fi Ie No. 2000 '2469 KAYN SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCLt1ENTS OR 11-1 I NGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: MASLAND & BARRICK INC,. 3461 MARKET ST, CAMP HILL PA 17011 (N!r'llE! of Person or Entity) within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena. you are ordered by the court to produce the following c:lcx:u!lent,,; or things: SEE ATTACHED ADD~NDUM at MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONStABg~d940 DISSTON ST. I PRlLA" PA You may deliver or mail legible copies of the docunents or produce things requested t;\ this subpoena, together with the certificate of carpliance, to the party making thiE . request at the address 1 isted above. YbU have the right to seek in advance the reasonab 1 E cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its serv~ce, the party serving thin !;ubpoena may seek a court orde.- ccrrpe 11 ing you to carp ly with it. 11-1 I S SUBPOENA WAS I SSUED AT THE REQJEST OF THE FOLLCIN I NG PERSON: NAME: THOMAS J WILLIAMS, ESQ ADDRESS : 'V\RTSON DEARDORFF ~LoL~. ~A L7013 TELEPI<iNE: SUPREI'E <XlURT I D# ATTORNEY FOR: 21'5-335-3212 ' DEFENDANT BY&u~R .... . prothonotary/~,v'l ~ 4h~;r Division M283745-02 DATE: 03/05/02 Jv- J.,i-OJ. Seal of the Court Deputy (Eff. 7/97) . ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA KAYN Vs. No. 2000 2469 KAYN CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: MASLAND & BARRICK INC COMPLETE FILE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, DOCUMENTS PREPARED FOR . MS KAYN AND RECEIVED FROM HER. PERTAINING TO: NAME: TERSA D KAYN ADDRESS: 469 BROOK CIR MECHANICSBURG PA SSAN: 487765547 CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPfED. IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RECORD CUSTODIAN - COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE ATTACHED HERETO: I hereby certify as custodian of records that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief all documents or things abcve mentioned have been produced. ] NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE: I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX) : ( ) RECORDS ( ) X-AAYS ( PATIENT BILLING . (. RECORDS /XRAYS have been destroyed Date Author~zed s~gnature for MASLAND & BARRICK INC CUMBERLAND M283745-02 *** SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE *** m;llliliy.~~ . ~ ,L.,._l. ~'lImd-'-"';":""'""'"'"'"~""'" I1_J ~" " ~~~_~_~ .e. .'--~-~' -'-~li!iIlllii""'-^"""""" "--..- -~--"., - -~.:-.- ,-. -- T' -.""..,-,-,--, . <" "' -" .. ,~ . . (") C> (> r- p",) -, , ~- s: , CJ crt .'t~ mp'L ~, i ,~ z:L: :;;..:r'M. ;';CJ en/.. Ul --~ /. j r:; C~ i - -,_.' ):; " C .~~; -- :z 0 rn <- I..~) p C Z r:- :f_> :;! :D l::J -< 3 SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY AITORNEYS'AT'LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A TERESA D. KA YN, PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER vs. DENNIS R. KAYN, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL TERM : IN DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW this (3 It; day of May, 2002, upon consideration of the within Petition to Compel Discover, a Rule is issued on Dennis R. Kayn to show cause why he should not be compelled to produce the documents requested in the Second Request for Production of Documents, and why he should not be compelled to answer the Second Set of Interrogatories served on him. RULE returnable z,'D days of the date of service of this Order. By the Court, /1~ L ffJ3 5-I!.O:<.'f\J / d:o:E~~I:i dG "i'I"'Ti")'""'('E l ,.L_' \, 1, '..I ~~ ~"~ '-NW, ""O"'RY U;- ; t !;: <-':". I ~ ,. \);\1_ lP.. 02 ~!n y I 6 Pri I: h ! CUI\'!E:biLN~i) COUNTY PENNSYLVN.JIA (ill . ,_.~ .,,~, ;,-,..' "-" - '.' - -~~-, "." 1T, _ ~~ , "_', ~_L ~"~.-~~'. -~, . P,- ~m " SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS.AT.LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA .'. ", ,',,',' ,,~, ,~", -". - ;" -- "'''" ,..', '':.,,- ~ " ',' '~ , -" ,~ - "< '" -- ;'." -~--,,",., - "";.---..i2I~1 TERESA D. KAYN, PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL TERM vs. DENNIS R. KAYN, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT : IN DIVORCE PETITION TO COMPEL D/SCOVERY NOW COMES, Teresa D. Kayn, by and through her counsel, SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, and petitions this Honorable Court as follows: 1. On March 6, 2002, Plaintiff served on Defendant a Second Request for Production of Documents and a Second Set of Interrogatories. A copy of the discovery requested is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2. Thirty days have passed and the documents requested have not been produced, nor have the Interrogatories been answered. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court to issue on the Defendant a Rule to show cause why he should not be compelled to produce the documents requested and answer the Interrogatories. SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: ~ARoyJ. LINDSAY, QUIRE 1~693 26 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 , , II SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle. PA ~> . . . ~. --",- , " '-' ,,-~'-- - ~" ~"", -". '.--J - - i VERIFICATION I, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE HEREIN ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 PA. C.S. s 4904, RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES. DATE:J1J tUf 7; 2/)(} .2-.. SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS'AT'UW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA =1 I 1 1 ; :I " " !I " 'I i1 Ii " ,I II I, !i " , TERESA D. KAYN, PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL TERM VS. DENNIS R. KA YN, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT IN DIVORCE AND NOW, THIS CERTIFICATE ~ F SERVIC DAY OF 2001, I, CAROL J. liNDSAY, ESQUIRE, OF THE LAW FIRM OF SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, ATTORNEYS, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I SERVED THE WITHIN PETITION To COMPEL DISCOVERY THIS DAY BY DEPOSITING SAME IN THE UNITED STATES MAil, FIRST CLASS, POSTAGE PREPAID, IN CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, ADDRESSED TO: THOMAS J. WilLIAMS, ESQUIRE Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto TEN EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF By: I ,1 il :1 II II I SAIDIS i HUFF, FLOWER I & LINDSAY ~ "-~"A.T.LAW 'Zlnv. Hi!;h Stree, Carlisle. P ^ TERESA D. KA YN, PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL TERM : IN DIVORCE vs. DENNIS R. KA YN, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO: Dennis R. Kayn c/o Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, WflHams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 :1 I, Ii :1 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3 and 4009, II you are required to furnish at our office, on or before thirty (30) days after service II hereof, a Photostat copy or like reproduction of the materials conceming this action or II its subject matter which are in your possession, custody or control and which are not Ii protected by the attorney/client privilege; or, in the alternative. produce the said matter I, at said time to permit inspection and copying thereof: " il Ii II " il il \\ ,I 1. All statements for Defendant's Money Market Account No. 70-18414 at F & M Trust Company from the date of marriage through the date of separation. 2. All statements for the parties' joint Checking Account No. 32 31615 at F & M, Trust Company from the date of marriage through the date of separation. 3. All statements for the parties' joint checking account at F & M Trust Company from the date of marriage through the date of separation. All statements for the T. Rowe Price Account No. 864151 from January 1, 1998 to the present. 5. All statements for the Janus Account No. 56-204007158 from January 13, 2000 to the present. All documents in your possession or control which forr1 the basis for your 4. EXHIBIT I 'A" .-. ,"."'1 ~ SAlOIS HUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY AT-lAW "l6"W. High Slree' Carlisle, PA I I : II II :1 [ i !I II ! claim in the answers provided to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 12, that the IRA identified in Interrogatory Answer NO.5 (Janus IRA No. 203634222) is non-marital. , i I i i I I I I I I i , I I I I I I 6. Any documentation in your possession or control which evidences your claim in the answer you provided to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No.9, that you opened the Janus Account 56-20400758 with $10,000.00 of separate funds. Please provide documentation of the source of the $10,000.00 initial deposit in that account. SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. ArrORNEYSFOR PLAINTIFF By: I I I I i i I I i I i I I I I , I I j ! i SAlOIS FF, FLOWER & LINDSAY OJUI/EYStAT-!.AW 26 W, High Street Carlisle. PA ~'-" TERESA D. KAYN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KA YN, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT : IN DIVORCE AND NOW, THIS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~ 4Z ({ DAY OF ' fztv!1... Ii 2002, I, CAROL J. liNDSAY, ESQUIRE, OF THE LAW FIRM OF SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & II il II :1 \\ :( 11 '1 H 1 " i ,I LINDSAY, ATTORNEYS, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I SERVED THE WITHIN REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS THIS DAY BY DEPOSITING SAME IN THE UNITED STATES MAil, FIRST CLASS, POSTAGE PREPAID, IN CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, ADDRESSED TO: THOMAS J. WilLIAMS, ESQUIRE Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto TEN EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, P A 17013 SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAiNTIFF By: ~- . I ;J ~ 1/ vf.1/ j ,/ . c d?-'{,./ ~ CAROL . liNDSAY, BotJIRE , , ID#\M593 26 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 ,I SAIDIS HUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY AITOJtNEYS.AT.LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisi", PA TERESA D. KA YN, PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL TERM vs. DENNIS R. KA YN, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT IN DIVORCE SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES OF PLAINTIFF ADDRESSED TO DEFENDANT TO: Dennis R. Kayn clo Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 ;\ H ':1 h II Ii II [I PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE No. 4005, TO SERVE UPON THE UNDERSIGNED, 11 II :1 !I :\ ,I i! II 11 il i YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED, PURSUANT TO WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS, AFTER SERVICE OF THIS NOTICE, YOUR ANSWERS IN WRITING UNDER OATH TO THE FOLLOWING INTERROGATORIES. THESE INTERROGATORIES SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE CONTINUING AND IF, BETWEEN THE TIME OF YOUR ANSWERS AND THE TIME OF TRIAL IN THIS CASE, YOU, OR ANY ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF, LEARN OF ANY FURTHER INFORMATION NOT CONTAINED IN THESE ANSWERS, YOU SHALL PROMPTLY FURNISH THAT INFORMATION TO THE UNDERSIGNED BY SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS. SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF By: SAlOIS HUFF. FLOWER & 1..INDSAY ~ATe{.AW ~(; W. High Street CarlisJe. PA i I I i , , I j i I I l TERESA D. KA YN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINT1FF/PETITIONER : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : CIVIL ACTION. LAW : NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KA YN, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT : IN DIVORCE I i i I II II I \ I 11 q :1 :1 1. " I' I " !j !i fi :\ :1 :1 !I 'I 11 il il II II II i I PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES ADDRESSED TO DENNIS R. KAYN. DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF, TERESA D. KAYN, PROPOUNDS THE FOLLOWING SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT, DENNIS R. KAYN, WHICH MUST BE ANSWERED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF SERVICE HEREOF. Identify all shares of stock which you own individually or with any other person as follows: A. B. C. D. E. ANSWER: The number of shares of each stock. The date of acquisition of each share of stock. The cost at acquisition of each share of stock. The date of sale of each share of stock. The sale price of each share of stock. SAIDIS HUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY I\T"LAW ilrw. High Street Carlisle. PA ,'-i. 2. Have you been given any stock options? If so, identify: A. B. C. ANSWER: I I I I I I I ! i I I I I I , I I I The number of shares on which the option was given to the date of the acquisition of the option. The exercise date of the option. The exercise price of the option. SAIDlS HUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ^11'OItNEYS-AT-l.\W 26 w. Hl!lh Street Ca.rlisle. PA 3. , , i (! ;:1 :, ;1 'i II 'I I !\ I, I' II " \1 " ,I ii, :1 II i ! Have you ever owned a Certificate of Deposit at F & M. Trust Company in your name individually or with any other person? If the answer is in the affirmative, please provide the fOllowing information: A. What was the account number? B. What was the date of purchase? C. What was the initial deposit? D. What was the date of liquidation? E. What was the amount received? F. What is the disposition of any funds received for each Certificate of Deposit? i ANSWER: iil I , i i I Ii il !I II I SAIDIS HUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY AT-tAW !6'\\1. High SlTeet Carlisle. PA , II II , 1 , I , , ii II il 'I II i I 4. With regard to your Answer to Plaintiff's First Set of Int<mogatories, Interrogatory No. 32, please state as follows: A. B. The dates on which you have consulted with Dr. Hagerty. Whether Dr. Hagerty has recommended talking therapy and whether you have consulted a therapist. If the answer is in the affirmative, provide the name of the therapist and the dates on which you have treated with the therapist. Provide the date on which you began taking Paxil, and the dosage. Provide the date on which you began taking Adderall, and provide the dosage. State whether, since you began taking Paxil or Adderall, you have not taken those medications for any period of time. If the answer is in the affirmative, state when you stopped or interrupted your taking of those medications. , I. I: ;1 11 ': :\ '" Ij 11 , !: :i " " " " Ii C. D. E. SAlOIS iHUFF,FLOWER & LINDSAY 'o/~T.LAW "26W. High Slreel Carliale. P A fir-. 5. Provide the dates on which you have been treated by Dr. Bricker since the date of separation. ANSWER: I I I I , I ! i I ! i i II d !I il II :1 I, :1 il I !I \1 II I, il " I SAlOIS HUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ..~AT.LAW Z6 W. High Sire.. Carlisle. PA 7. State whether you intend to assert at trial that you have health problems. If so, provide treatment notes for Dr. Hagerty and Dr. Bricker from the date of first treatment to the present, or provide a Release for those physicians so that we can obtain the treatment notes. ANSWER: i ,I il II , i SAlOIS flUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY .W"''lEYSOANAW '!l;"W. High Slreel Carlisle. P A VERIFICATION I, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE HEREIN ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. 1 UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 18 P A. C.S. ~ 4904 , RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES. DENNIS R. KA YN I I I I i ! ! II II II II !I " " il [I I II I i , DATE: SAID IS HUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ~T'LAW . Zti W. High Street Carlisle. PA ;1 ~ 1 i 'I !! :',; ", 'I "1 TERESA D.KA YN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA fi ';J ,I ':1 n '1 'I 11 Ii Ii 11 )1 'I '1 Ii iJ (1 II " Ii II II 'I' , II 'II 'I Ii II 11 :1 ,j Ii I !j VS. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000 - 2469 CIVIL TERM DENNIS R. KA YN, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT : IN DIVORCE I I I I \ 2002 CAROL J. LINDSAY, ESQUI::, OF THE LAW FIRM OF SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & , I 11 II II I I I , i i , II il II I I 'I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE At4iCf1 DAY OF LINDSAY, ATTORNEYS, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I SERVED THE WITHIN PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES THIS DAY BY DEPOSITING SAME IN THE UNITED STATES MAil, FIRST CLASS, POSTAGE PREPAID, IN CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, ADDRESSED TO: THOMAS J. WilLIAMS, ESQUIRE Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto TEN EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. ATTORNEYS FO~ PLAINTIFF By: {kUJ CARO J.l1NDSAY, 10' 4 693 26 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 -'-~ '_iliiiIIllI ., .,,~ -.""" ,~__C '~r ~,~ 0-' ,- lliOO~"~-' ~r . -~~""~ ._" - ,,-., -~-.' ,-- -- ,............- .~- - - .~".-~- - - 1Ili'! () Q I:::-J c: t'V ~' ~. ---,'1 ...-",- -~ .'""T.. , "-1J T1 0.) --J ,"::,',;~ C) " :!J - --- () - '-', i n :,) -4 "c.. (/i -.) --<:; IJ;;