Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-03140 '-I, _ ~ _ w';'- '" -~_l', ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR. PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MARIBETIl J.R. BUCHER DEFENDANT 00-3140 CIVILACTIONLAW IN CUSTODY " ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 23rd day of May ,2000, upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before Dawn S. Snnday, Esq. , the conciliator, at 39 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 on the L day of July ,2000, at1:00PM 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 defme 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 TIIE COURT, By: Isl Dawn S. Sunday. ESq~\ Custody Conciliator 'I The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites 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 TIllS PAPER TO YOUR ATIORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HA VB AN ATIORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE TIIE OFFICE SET FORTIl BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 ., >~ WIlilIlI_ w>' . " . ~~._ . r'O" ~~~~ ~"~ ~. "___h'. ~"'< .-.-, " - F/LEf)..tlc~rr't' Q'!'"o [". J~. .;;-. v/ rl'\Jr:. r I ~'r;.. _AJI"I't-, I"'" '-0 "I,,. , ',V!il(Ji\i\.. TAAY 00 HAY 3D f>H 2: 30 WvlBERLAND COUNTy PfNNSYLVAN/A 5-30,cM M-~~.-04~-~ 7l~./U~ ~~_ ~ ~ ~.a::r~ S=.3O .a:J s: 3:? 'Co ~_ .MlI'fIII _ ""~,~, ~;"'''''~'~'i!,,,,,,,,;,,.,,,,,.,,,,..tr,,,,''*'''''''h~~_~_'''''.''''iIiPm_~~..,...,,,.~~ , JJ,. U~I"'I!I~WlW'0L - ,.,. ,-"""t '0 '" ." ,~- - '. '~, > '_':",-. -",~,-"";';;I;,,,,'~",-~ '''''''.'-~.""''-''_''''''''''B'-<'_ ->;"~-,,,,-,-..ci;;0'i ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF CO)\1l\l[ON PLEAS CUJ'vIBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY MARIBETH l.R. BUCHER, Defendant - - : NO. ro - 3F/O &v-J ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, , upon consideration of the attached complaint, 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 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. FOR THE COURT, By: Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the American 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 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 ASSOCIA nON 2 LffiERTY AVENUE Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA v. CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY MARIBETH J.R. BUCHER, Defendant : NO. 61)J 3'4D ~ I~ CUSTODY COMPLAINT 1. The Plaintiff is Robert W. Bucher, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as "Father"), who currently resides at 20 Wheatland Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055 and 2410 West Bayberry Drive, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17112 (pending sale of residence). 2. The Defendant is Maribeth J.R. Bucher (hereinafter referred to as "Mother"), who currently resides at 23 Skyline Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 3. Plaintiff seeks shared legal and physical custody of the following children: NAME PRESENT RESIDENCE DATE OF BIRTH Maribeth Jo Bucher 23 Skyline Drive Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 11/22/83 Samantha L. Bucher 23 Skyline Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 2/3/86 Robert W. Bucher, III 23 Skyline Drive Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 8/3/89 Joseph R. Bucher 23 Skyline Drive Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 2/12/92 4. The children are presently in the custody of the Mother who resides at 23 Skyline Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 5. In their Maniage Settlement Agreement dated November 2, 1998, the parties agreed that they shall share legal custody of their four children and "Father shall have liberal partial physical custody and visitation rights". This has not occurred. A copy of the Paragraph 3 of the said Agreement is marked as Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein 6. During the past five years the children have resided with the following persons at the following addresses: DATES ADDRESSES NAMESOFPERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD 1995 to 11/98 20 Wheatland Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Mother, Father and Children 11/98 to present 23 Skyline Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Mother and Children 7. The Mother of the children is Maribeth J.R. Bucher, currently residing at 23 Skyline Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. She is divorced. 8. The Father of the children is Robert W. Bucher, Jr., currently residing at 20 Wheatland Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. He is married. 9. The relationship of the Plaintiff to that of the children is that of Father. Plaintiff currently resides with the following persons: NAME RELATIONSHIP Earla Lauren Megan Matthew Wife Stepdaughter Stepdaughter Stepson 2 . -, ~ --~- .' -.. ,- " ~-, . ",,-- -,~ - " -. ,", "'-'~~~V'-"_.~"n -)-,_"'""'-'-'-P"" '-k~"",-~-;';"'-:u"'-'" .".' - " . e--~'-,-l.';::--\' 10. The relationship of the Defendant to the children is Mother. Defendant currently resides with the following persons: NAME RELATIONSHIP Maribeth Jo Bucher Samantha L. Bucher Robert W. Bucher, III Joseph R. Bucher Daughter Daughter Son Son II. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or witness, or in another capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody of the children in this or another court. 12. Plaintiff has no infonnation of a custody proceeding concerning the children pending in any court of this Commonwealth. 13. Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the children or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the children. 14. The best interest and pennanent welfare of the children will be served by granting the relief requested because an order is necessary to ensure physical custody to Father. Father, a physician, is fit and able to care for his children and provide the necessary stability for the children. Mother, as primary custodian, not only has failed to encourage Father's relationship with the children but actively interferes with this relationship. Mother has attempted to alienate the children from Father. 3 _" ~ .'" ",'~ '._. ',' 0 _',~~ _0,,',,<<,"""'" ".,;,,,. - ",~ ,,'''_' "",,,.V""__,'~.""","",,'~,:,',,~, ,;" ",'__~,,~ "j 15. Father has attempted, through counsel, to resolve this situation with Mother without litigation but to no avail. 16. Each parent whose parental rights to the children have not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the children have been named as parties to this action. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests the Court to grant shared legal and physical custody of the children to the Plaintiff. DATE: May~ 2000 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, P A 17070-1931 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court J.D. 32317 Attorney for Plaintiff 4 EXHIBIT "A" '"' -.L; ,_'.',.~~ ,:_,,,,,,,,_,..,.,,,,-,-.-~___ - _______,;., :"",_,":'.._J1L..~_._ "' ",,- I" .'" - " . "",~~h \ , (j ~ I,,,) .--' MARRIAGE SEITLEMENT AGREEMENT od. ~ THIS AGREEMENT, made this .., /" day of G--- YI.o , 1998, by and between ROBERI' w. BUCHER, JR., hereinafter called Husband, and MARIBEI'H J.R. BUCHER, hereinafter called Wife; WITNESSEI'H: WHEREAS, Husband and Wife are lawfully married; and WHEREAS, differences have arisen between Husband. and Wife in =nsequence of which they have deteniUned to live separate and apart from each other and agree to =nsent to the entry of a no-fault divorce; and, WHEREAS, Husband and Wife desire to settle and detennine their rights and obligations. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows: 1. SeParation. It shall be lawful for each party at all times hereafter to live separate and apart from the other at such place as he or she may from tiloe to time choose or deem fit. The foregoing provision shall not be taken as admission on the part of either party of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the causes leading to them living apart. Each party shall be free from interference, authority and =ntrol, direct or indirect, by the other as fully as if he or she were single and unmarried. Neither shall molest the other or compel or endeavor to compel the other to cohabit or dwell with him or her. 2. Division of Property. Wife acknowledges receipt of the items of property identified on the attached Exhibit "A". Husband shall retain as his 1 / . . F. The parties acknowledge that the properties set aside to each shall be the sole and separate property of the party taking possession of same. G. The parties agree that they waive any claim and all interest in the other's retirement and any and all assets assigned to the other hereunder and agree to sign any d=umentation reasonably requested to effectuate this waiver of interest. 3 . orrIn CUS'IODY: The parties agree that they shall share legal custody of their four children: Maribeth Jo B.1cher, born November 22, 1983, Samantha L. B.1cher, born February 3, 1986, Robert W. B.1cher III, born August 3, 1989 and }Joseph R. B.1cher, born February 12, 1992. wife shall have primary physical custody of parties' minor children. Husband shall have liberal partial physical custody and visitation rights. The parties acknowledge their mutual =ncern that Husband and wife each play a significant role in the lives of the children. 4. CHILD SUProRI': Husband agrees to pay child support for the parties 1 minor children in the amount of Two Thousand six Hundred and Forty ($2 ,640. 00) Dollars per month to be effective upon wife's relocation to the Skyline' Drive property. Both parties acknowledge that this amount of child support is reasonable given their respective net in=nes as of the date of this agreement and the marital property allocated to each. The parties acknowledge that circumstances may change in the future which would warrant a modification of the child support. The parties agree that the Court shall retain full jurisdiction over the child support and that this paragraph may be modified by subsequent Court Order. The child support shall =ntinue until such time as the children, or any of them become emancipated, becomes self- 3 ) L- ,~ 1_ '" '-, ~ - ~"j~ . ., upon strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent default of the same or similar nature. I I I II ., 'I I i i II I I I I I I 14. Descriptive Headinas. The descriptive headings used herein are for convenience only. They shall have no effect whatsoever in determining the rights or obligations of the parties. 15. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by arrl shall be construed in a=roance with the laws of the Cormnonwealth of Pennsylvania. 16. Order of Court. With the approval of any court of competent ~ jurisdiction in which any divorce proceeding may nON be pending or which may hereafter be instituted, this Agreement shall be incorporated in any decree of absolute divorce which may be passed by said court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands arrl seals the day arrl year first above written. (SEAL) ~>~ ~ ~~~3~ ~~ W BU01ER, JR. mCUtbf>lA ~J".iLe'A...- (SEAL) MARI~ BU01ER 10 I I \1 -. ~. ~ >< < ..~'" ^~ ..__U. _~~,_'. ~,_'" ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVil, ACTION - CUSTODY MARIBETH J.R. BUCHER, Defendant : NO. VERIFICATION I, Robert W. Bucher, Jr., hereby certifY that the facts set forth in the foregoing CUSTODY COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. -, ,.---"., ,,,c, . . I .,-""I-~'."'," ~__ = """,-,,--, '_V___<-_,"' '.- -":--"-", ,. ~ ~ ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY MARIBETH J.R. BUCHER, Defendant NO. 00-3140 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, do hereby certifY that a copy of the Custody Complaint in the above-captioned matter was made by United States Mail, Restricted Delivery, Certified No. P 425 986 227, Return Receipt Requested, on the above-named Defendant, Maribeth J.R Bucher, on May 23, 2000, at Defendant's last known address: 23 Skyline Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. The original receipt and return receipt card are attached hereto as Exhibit "A". I hereby certifY that the facts set forth above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 94904 relating to unsworn falsificat' Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, s . 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, P A 17070-1931 (717)-774-1445 Supreme Court ID #32317 Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: May 30, 2000 ,~. -,; P 425 .!'i8b. 22'7 us Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail See reverse Sent to Maribeth J.R. Buc er Street & Number k line Drive Post Office, State. & ZIP Code n'csbur PA 170 5 Poslage $ Certified Fee " Special Delivery Fee ill '" ~ '--~- - -~-~ - --'~- ---- + . 'Oi l!!JlNDER: . . :i .~omplete items 1 andfor 2 for additional services. (II .-Qomplete items 3, 4a, and 4b. ':I -Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this Iio card-to you. - ~ -Attach this form to the front of the mall piece. or on the back if space does not ~ .e;::Retum Receipt Requested" on th~ mail piece below the article number. -5 -The Return Receipt will show to whom the artIcle was delivered and the date C. delivered. .. " 3. Article Addressed to: II .!! t 8 I aIs0 wIllIllO _ive the lollOWllqJ'SlIl\11G$$ (for an extra fee): 1. 0 Addressee's Address 2. . Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. 4a. Article Number P 42::; ;il:lb 227 J ~ Ii 11. ;; .. 11 E " 1; ~ Certified II: o Insured, { o COO ~ .! " l t ,. I JI! Ms. Maribeth J.R. 23 Skyline Drive ~echanicsburg, PA Bucher 5. Received By: (Print Name) Do m EXHIBIT "A" ~, , " . ~, ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff ; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA vs. : NO. 00-3140 Civil MARffiETH J.R. BUCHER, Defendant ; CIVIL ACTION - LAW : CUSTODY PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire, as counsel for Maribeth J.R. Bucher, Defendant in the above-captioned matter. Date: June 2, 2000 Max J. Smith, Jr., Esq . J.D. No. 32114 James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 ~ ~ .,- ..;~,:.~ ~ ,. , '" ~ .~'"'~ ~iilB ,~ ~"" -"," ~, . """'=-"\iIj"'" ,,_, _< ~ *._ l ,-, .", ~ .'''''- 1 I I 'I 1 :1 I I I I I I (") Cl 0 c: CJ " 5:: <- "Om c::: .,IJ mrTJ ;;1::: Z:XJ I --,-;iTt :z:c ~,-']C) (/)..::.;: U'i :~~(S ~.,,::. 'r"'ll ~c -0 ;~jzg ~(") ~ p8 w Om -, ~ w 5S 0'> -< ,". ,", <,- ,_,_'_c. '. ... JUN2G~ ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff, vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-3140 MARIBETH J. R. BUCHER, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this "Z"\ day of . ~ , 2000, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The parties shall submit themselves and their minor Children to a custody evaluation to be performed by Arnold Shienvold, Ph.D., or other professionals selected by the agreement of parties and counsel. The purpose of the evaluation shall be to obtain an independent professional recommendation regarding custody arrangements which would be in the best interest of the Children. The parties shall sign all authorizations deemed necessary by the evaluator. To obtain additional information concerning the parties or the Children, the Father shall be responsible to pay all custody evaluation. However, Father may in the future petition the court for contribution from Mother. 2. The Mother, Maribeth J. R. Bucher, and the Father, Robert W. Bucher, Jr., shall have shared legal custody of Maribeth Jo Bucher, born November 22, 1983; Samantha L. Bucher, born February 3, 1986; Robert W. Bucher, 111, born August 3,1989; and Joseph R. Bucher, born February 12, 1992. Each parent shall have an equal right to be exercised jointly with the other parent to make all major non-emergency decisions affecting the Children's general well-being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion. Pursuant to the terms of this paragraph, each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the children including, but not limited to, school and medical records and information. To the extent one parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent. 3. Pending the completion of custody evaluation, further Order of the Court or agreement of the parties, the Mother shall have primary physical custody of the children and ,,',"- ~I ", " -,~. ..j, ... Father shall have partial physical custody of the Children. 4. The Mother shall have custody of the Children from July 24, 2000, through July 30, 2000, for the purpose of vacation. Each party will provide the other parent an address and phone number where they can be reached during the period of vacation custody. 5. The Father shall have summer vacation with the Children June 21, 2000, and June 22, 2000; and August 13, 2000, through August 27,2000. Father shall call Mother before 4:00 p.m. to set the time that he shall pick up the children each day. 6. Father shall have periods of partial custody to begin on September 8, 2000, two weekends per month, from Fridays at 6:00 p.m. until Sundays at 9:00 p.m.. Father shall also have week nights, twice during the week, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. on the week prior to Mother's weekends. Father agrees to give Mother notice by the third week of each month which weekends and week nights he will be available for the exercise of his partial custody for at least the following month. 7. The parties shall have a mutual first right of refusal for any period of custody for which they will not be available for a period of two hours or more. 8. The parties have agreed that the Father may participate in family therapy with the Children due to present difficulties in the relationship and apparent estrangement that exists between Father and the Children. Parties will seek to use a therapist that is covered under Father's health insurance plan. 9. Mother and Father shall directly communicate with each other whenever possible in accordance with the terms set forth in this Order and they shall not use the Children as a means to communicate to each other as to the modification of this agreement or discuss with them the custody evaluation. Neither parent shall do anything which may estrange the Children from either party or injure the opinion of the Children as to the other party or which may hamper the free and natural development of the Children's love and affection for the other party. 10. Holidays shall be shared as follows: a. Christmas shall be broken into two segments: Segment A shall be from December I ~;, . ~"' ~, -, . o . .... 24 at 1 :00 p.m. until December 25 at 1 :00 p.m.. Segment B shall be from December 25 at 1 :OOp.m. until December 26 at 1 :00 p.m.. Father shall have Segment A in the year 2000, Mother shall have Segment B. b. Thanksaivina: Father shall have the children for the for Thanksgiving in the year 2000 to commence on the Wednesday evening before the Holiday at 6 PM and to conclude on Friday at 9:00 p.m. c. New Year's Dav and New Year's Eve: Mother shall have the Children for New Year's Eve at 10:00 a.m. until the morning of New Year's Day at 10:00 a.m. Father shall have the Children from New Year's Day 10:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m on January 2,2001. d. Except as otherwise indicated above, the parties shall share the period from December 26, 2000, until the Children reenter school in the year 2001 as equally as feasible. e. With the exception of the schedule for the Christmas, New Year's and Thanksgiving Holidays, this Order is entered as an agreement of the parties at the Conciliation Conference. The parties did agree that the Conciliator would make a recommended order with regard to the provisions of the Holiday plan pending the outcome of the custody evaluation by Dr. Shienvold. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. 11. Parties were advised that neither may relocate without further order of Court. BY THE COURT, /~ J. Distribution to: Counsel for Plaintiff, Barbara Sumpie-Sullivan, 549 Bridge St., New Cumberland, P Counsel for Defendant, Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire, James, Smith, Durkin and Conn 34 Sipe Avenue, Hummeistown, PA 17036 ~ 00 \! v~k ~~~~~lIilii~"'I;;;'~""'C~I%,'cl~lli'"~~~~"'ti!!6t~_iiii!~lIil1iItIllil' ~ tn ~ 0 ~ ..:::J :::>5: UjO 8~ ,2 :rc 6C'\ b-'" c..- ';l~ t"r..:: -r)(J r- :'500 tr:ZE ('J ~~ rr: h_~~ z. U.JuJ :::> [!lO- t=-: -, -s; L<- a =s 0 0 c..> O'~--~""'-~_1~11il'Or~"'~"'-~>' '.-1WiIliiIiib . 'I il . . II ~ i; I ~ -,~~ i, - 1 ' ~. I I .-' .. JUN 2 6 200~ ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff, vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-3140 MARl BETH J. R. BUCHER, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned 'Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subjects of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Maribeth Jo Bucher November 22, 1983 Mother, with partial custody in Father Samantha L. Bucher February 3, 1986 Mother, with partial custody in Father Robert W. Bucher, III August 3, 1989 Mother, with partial custody in Father Joseph R. Bucher February 12,1992 Mother, with partial custody in Father 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on June 19, 2000, with the . following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Maribeth J. R. Bucher, with her. counsel, Max Smith, Esquire, the Father, Dr. Robert W. Bucher, Jr., with his counsel, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire. 3. The parties divorced in November of 1988. At the time of the divorce, the parties had entered a Marital Settlement Agreement indicating that there would be shared legal custody, Mother would have primary physical custody and Father would have liberal partial custody and visitation rights. Since that time, the Children lived primarily with Mother. However, for periods of a few weeks, on several occassions " - - I '. ~,'_. ., I . .. ... within the last year, Mother has left the children in the care of Father, while she has gone to Florida to see her fiance. The Father remarried in January of 2000. Since that time, Father reports Mother has allegedly severely restricted his contact with the children. The parties have not been able to reach an agreement on a consistent custody schedule, in part because of objections that Mother has to Father's new wife and her children. Father then filed this petition, initially seeking shared summers, alternate weekends, and one night during the week. However, at the time of the conference, Mother announced her intent to relocate to Florida by year's end. She stated she is getting married but has not chosen a wedding date. Father is in opposition to the move. The parties agreed at the conference to attempt to resolve the primary custody and relocation issues through a custody evaluation by Dr. Shienvold. Mother has indicated she is not willing to contribute financially to the custody evaluation, Father has agreed to be responsible for the costs when the evaluation is completed but reserves the right to petition the Court at a later date for her contribution. There has also been estrangement between Father and the Children, due to what Father believes is Mother's attempt to alienate the Children from him. The parties have agreed Father will participate in family therapy, in particular with the oldest and perhaps the most resistant child, Samantha. 4. The parties agreed to the entry of an Interim Order in the form as attached. &AJ~ eli sa Peel Greevy, Esquire Custo y Conciliator Date ,.~, " '. 110-, -'. ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY MARIBETH J.R. BUCHER, Defendant : NO. 00-3140 CIVIL PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE Please withdraw my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Maribeth J.R. Bucher. Respectfully submitted, Dated: September~, 2000 ~~ Jame8, Smith, Durkin & Connelly LLP Counsel for Defendant PAlD. # 3'-11'1 P.O. Box 650 HersheyPA 17033 (717) 533-3280 PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Maribeth lR. Bucher. Respectfully submitted, GATES & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Dated: September ~ 2000 ~" .. '1iiIIill&~~~~~~loiI1t.M..~",I/j;\~_~Iili!r.d.'~A~~~ . . .I~.._- ,,- "" ,.., " ~.- .,,~ .' ,,",,1--,,- ~~" .~ "-," <:,'llil~WIilJi'" ,< ,~ C) 0 C 0 C s:: -,., "1JCn (/) :-::1 mrT~ ", Z:J:i " ";~ff2 ZC" f\) co~,,;- --C,i7l ---~, 1)y ~O .,,::: ..." ::~C, )i:,-., :r: :=R 40 ::l:: ~~ r5 Pc ~ am $ U'l ?J .j:' -< -~='"'* .. -" ~='-' ~" , '" .~~ , t I p. ',. . . ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR PLAINTIFF V. MARIBETH J.R. BUCHER DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA 00-3140 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDEROF COURT AND NOW, this 12th day of January, 2001, upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before Dawn S. Sunday, Esq. , the conciliator, at 39 WestMaiu Street, Mechanicsburg,PA 17055 on the 13th day of February ,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. FOR THE COURT, By: Isl Dawn S. Sunday. E~ Custody Conciliato The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites 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 TIIIS PAPER TO YOUR ATIORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATIORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORm BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 I 1'1 II II III III III !~ Iii 1:1 !:j Ii) m III Ii, I:: 'I II h i1 Ii) Ii, II~, f'/7'O( I'I/.tl/ U>O/ , . IIlII ~"~ " J' J" I ,"J ',";, i, 'I';': :.' () ~ ; .. ::: .; i i - CUMt=L;':",j_:' -.\l".' C<JUi',F''/ F;:N~\~)'(LVi\l\J!/\ l fd-.~ M~~.~ ~-~ 'r1rYta ~ -/b ~ ~ ('~ tl'LO-J4t ~ 4 ~? , '" ,. -~_.."" ~,,,,,,,,,,~~!I!'fm;W'ffJm'_~~~~i>'ffill'~',,,..._ r.,.'IlI~ . "t.,y , "'- , {. , s . ROBERTW. BUCHER, JR., PLAINTIFF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MARl BETH J.R. BUCHER, DEFENDANT 00-3140 CIVIL TERM AND NOW, this ~RDER OF COURT q day of January, 2001, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is referred on the petition for contempt to a conciliator. It will not be dealt with as a matter for special relief. Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire For Plaintiff Edgar B. Bayley, J. t.~ f/aU- 0/-/0-01 ~X3 Susan Kay Candiello, Esquire For Defendant Court Administrator :saa . I' r i I: Ii Iii " ,i Ii I' 1,1 'i II ,I ,I I I :, ;1 ! ! :: . ~ T :c' , i' " H .. ~~. ~-"'~ ,~" - ,',,' 1~ -..<-, ~'-n>iT( r~, I !J; i-L-j jl: ~'n U "_' u ('II!. ,;,'::::-~:-_-" " -- -. " -, \.1.....",':".-"'_,1 ;~_, I' [.:. )1 J',r\li 1/ <, 1--, , ." -.' - ,~, vc:Nr~SYL' \l,':'-,'\i!i~, , .',,11 . , --~l~mIDII!~li!f.~~WJJIlT '" i ~P-!!'. ~I~~~ .~"'- , '-' "'-",- >.-0< _ ~ --I r.' -l . '4 ~ Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 Counsel for Plaintiff ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY MARIBETH J.R. BUCHER, Defendant NO. 00-3140 ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 2001, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Petition for Contemp, Enforcement and Special Relief, it is hereby directed and ordered as follows: 1. Make-up Time. Plaintiff shall be awarded make-up time for his lost periods. 2. Consultation. Defendant is prohibited from scheduling any activities for. the children during Plaintiffs periods of custody, If there are previously scheduled activities, Plaintiff, after consultation with the children, shall make the determination as to which activities the children shall attend. 3. Connseling. Defendant shall immediately schedule herself and the children for appointments with Jamie Orris of Guidance Associates. Defendant shall cooperate with the recommendations of Ms. Orris. 4. Christmas 2001. Since Defendant had custody of the children for the entire Christmas 2000 holiday, the Order dated June 27, 2000 is amended so that Plaintiff shall have Segment A of Christmas 2001. This consists of the period from December 24,2001 at 1:00 P.M. until December 25, 2001 at 1:00 P.M. The normal rotation shall resume in 2002 with Plaintiff having Segment A in even- numbered years and Defendant having Segment A in odd-numbered years. 5. Videotape of December 15, 2000. Within seven (7) days, Defendant shall forward to Plaintiffs counsel a copy of the videotape she made on December 15, 2000 of Plaintiff. 6. Jnne 27,2000 Order. Until further hearing, the custodial periods set forth in the June 27, 2000 Order shall not be modified by either party unless both parties agree in advance in writing through their respective counsel. The party requesting the modification must provide the other party seven (7) days written notice of any f' I ' , , request for modification. Unless said modification is agreed to by both parties, said modification will not be in effect and the terms of the June 27, 2000 Order shall prevail. Third parties are allowed to transport to Plaintiffs home in the event he has a medical emergency. 7. Attorney Fees. Because of her willful violation of the Order of June 27, 2000, Defendant shall be directed to pay Plaintiff s reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses which are required for the preparation and presentation of this petition and attendance at the conference and any hearings that may be required. 8. Any other relief this Court deems equitable. BY THE COURT J. -,-,. . "," , - ,- -,-" .' ',;);~.I' -, -;~{-'" '.~-. -',,," . . . . Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 Counsel for Plaintiff ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff v. MARIBETH J.R. BUCHER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY NO. 00-3140 NOTICE AND ORDER TO APPEAR Legal proceedings have been brought against you alleging you have wilfully disobeyed an order of court for custody. If you wish to defend against the claim set forth in the following pages, you may but are not required to file in writing with the court your defenses or objections. Whether or not you file in writing with the court your defenses or objections, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before , the conciliator, at on the _ day of~, 2001, at _' 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. FOR THE COURT, By: Custody Conciliator IF YOU DO NOT APPEAR IN PERSON, THE COURT MAY ISSUE A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST. If the court fmds that you have wilfully failed to comply with its order for custody, you may be found in contempt of court and committed to jail, fined or both. The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the American 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 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, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 c .~c..~ "-y -c --~" - -"-,.--- I ~ , 1 ' . , Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 Counsel for Plaintiff ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY MARIBETH J.R. BUCHER, Defendant : NO.00-3140 PETITION FOR CONTEMPT, ENFORCEMENT AND SPECIAL RELIEF 1. Petitioner is Robert W. Bucher, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as "Father"), who currently resides at 20 Wheat1and Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055 and 2410 West Bayberry Drive, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17112 (pending sale of residence) . 2. Respondent is Maribeth J.R. Bucher, now Maribeth Lucente, (hereinafter referred to as "Mother"), who currently resides at 23 Skyline Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 3. The parties are the parents of four (4) children, namely: Maribeth Jo Bucher (age 17), Samantha L. Bucher (age 14), Robert W. Bucher II (age 11) and Joseph R. Bucher (age 8). 4. The parties are divorced and both parties have remarried. - - u. '-.'f_ ",' ".-1.-;.--':_'" ~'__ .' j_ -I' _ I:'h:~ '-_" ,".",-,,- , . ,',- 5. Pursuant to the parties' Marital Settlement Agreement dated November 2, 1998, custody was to be as follows: The parties agree that they shall share legal custody of their four children: Maribeth Jo Bucher, born November 22, 1983, Samantha L. Bucher, born February 3, 1986, Robert W. Bucher ill, born August 3, 1989 and Joseph R. Bucher, born February 12, 1992. Wife shall have primary physical custody of the parties' minor children. Husband shall have liberal partial physical custody and visitation rights. The parties acknowledge their mutual concern that Husband and Wife each playa significant role in the lives of the children. 6. Despite this Order and because of Mother's continual interference with Father's relationship with the children, including his inability to schedule custodial periods, Father filed a Complaint for Custody on May 22, 2000, wherein he sought joint legal and physical custody of the children, as well as a defined schedule for partial custody of the children. The children had not spent an overnight with their Father for almost six (6) months at the time of the filing. 7. Since Mother was leaving for a month long trip with two of the children to Florida commencing on or about June 24, 2000, the conciliation conference was expedited and held on June 19,2000 so as to secure some vacation time for Father during the Summer of2000 with the children. The conciliation resulted in entry of an Order dated June 27, 2000 which is marked as Exhibit "A" and attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 8. From the onset, Mother did not comply with the Order as dictated at the conciliation. Pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the Order, Father's 2000 summer vacation with the children was for the time periods of June 21, 2000, June 22, 2000 and August 13, 2000 through August 27, 2000. Mother did not comply with the time period of June 21 st and June 22nd since Mother only allowed 2 , ~ , , " , , " , "" , h" ,-" '. , >; "-,. I " .-~,~'-- , -.>" , "''' " , Father a few hours on the 21". An emergency conciliation was attempted before Mother left for Florida with Attorney Greevy, but Mother's counsel indicated she could not appear. 9. This vacation time was the only significant time Father had with the children all summer in light of Mother's trip to Florida and the children's camps. This scheduling was done because Mother was supposed to be in Florida from June 24th until July 22nd. However, the week of her return, the parties' son was enrolled in a full time soccer camp which prohibited Father's contact with the child due to the fact that Father was to be at the shore that week. It was decided that daughter, Samantha, who was not effected by any camps, could accompany Father for the week. However, Mother, without notice and despite the alleged critical need testified by her at the conciliation for the son to attend soccer camp, unilaterally extended her stay in Florida until Augnst 7,2000. This thwarted Father's week with Samantha and Joseph's attendance at the "mandatory" soccer camp. Mother never returned from Florida with the children until Augnst 7, 2000. 10. Father had no contact with the children, Samantha and Joseph, upon return from Florida until his vacation week. 11. Father had consistent and amicable conversations with the other two children, Maribeth and Robert, during the summer while Mother was in Florida and they attended camps in the Poconos and Maine. 12. Due to the need to pick up Robert at camp, the first week of Father's vacation time commenced on August 11th. It was to continue until August 27th. During this time, the children 3 I . spent time in Maine and this went relatively well in spite of Mother' s numerous phone calls. Mother provided the children with a cell phone so that she could have direct access to them. She made repeated phone calls to the children which interrupted Father's time with the children. Mother and children spoke approximately three times on the car trip to Maine; approximately seven times on Saturday; approximately three times on Sunday; and after seven calls on Wednesday, until Father said no more calls. These times are on calls made from Father's phone and do not include the numerous calls made from and to the children's cell phone. 13. However, without Father's consent and in violation of the June 27, 2000 Order, Mother then registered the parties' son for a soccer tournament in Philadelphia for the weekend of August 19th and 20'h, in the middle of Father's vacation time with the children. Mother advised Father that the children must return from his vacation with them to attend this tournament. 14. Since it was Father's custodial period, Father was going take the children to Philadelphia for the tournament but Mother refused. Mother demanded that, because she made the reservations, she must take the children even though it was Father's period of custody. 15. Rather than place the children again in an awkward position, Father relented and returned the children to Mother so that they could attend this tournament. 16. Father later learned that Mother did not take all ofthe children to the tournament. Mother allowed the parties' two daughters (who are 16 and 14 years old) to remain home alone from Saturday until Sunday evening. 4 , 17. Not only did Mother interfere with Father's custody time pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the June 27, 2000 Order, but Mother also violated Paragraph 7 which provides that: The parties shall have a mutual first right of refusal for any period of custody for which they will not be available for a period of two hours or more. 18. Father was so frustrated by Mother's action that he drove to Philadelphia without the children to watch the tournament. 19. Mother did offer Father the opportunity to drive the children home and have a late suppeT with the children on Sunday, August 20th. Due to his work schedule for the next day and Mother's interpretation of the Order, Father would have had to waken the children up early on Monday morning to return them to Mother. Despite Mother's failure to return the parties' daughters to Father on Saturday when she left them alone when she went to the tournament, she demanded that Father return the children to her during his vacation time ifhe was away from the children fOT more than two hours. 20. Again, rather than place the children in an awkward position and increase the tension, Father did not challenge Mother regarding this issue. 21. It is further noted that upon the children's return to primary custody of their Mother from return from camp, etc., they became increasingly belligerent to Father and started expressing reluctance to have time with him since it interfered with their activities. 5 ._, ,,'~C; -, 1,,' , ,-,l . ~ I. -.,. '"., , 22. Upon returning the children on Sunday, August 20,2000, Father told Mother that he would call her to schedule a time to pick up the children for the next day and the balance of his vacation time. 23. Mother did not respond to any of Father's numerous and repeated attempts to contact her (approximately 15 times) on either Monday, August 21" or Tuesday, August 22"d to regain custody for his week of summer vacation, which should have continued through August 27th. 24. When Father finally reached Mother on Tuesday, August 22nd, Mother advised that they are "busy" and she had plans for the children for every evening even though this was Father's designated custodial period. Specifically, she advised that she had planned to take the children to Hershey Park Thursday evening, the next evening Father was not on call as a doctor. Mother called Father selfish because he wanted to have the children during his Court ordered summer visitation time. 25. Mother has continually informed the children of the various communications and issues raised in their parents' litigation. Because of this, the children believe that Father is doing something wrong when he desires to exercise his visitation rights. Mother swears, berates, threatens and verbally abuses Father in the presence of the children. 26. Again, in an effort to resolve this without Court intervention, Father's counsel contacted Mother's counsel via letter and telephone on Wednesday, August 23, 2000 so that Father could regain custody of the children for the balance of his Court ordered visitation. 6 r_'_ ~" ~, - ',-" , ,- - ,- .- ~, - ;,c,-,-- __:-"j' --.~ ,'::,1.,..;-, ~ 1._ '" ,--; . - , 27. On Wednesday, August 23,2000, it was finally confirmed that Father would pick the children up the next day, Thursday at approximately 6:00 P.M. 28. Late Wednesday evening at 11 :30 P.M., the child, Samantha, called Father and told him that they took a vote and they wanted to go to Hershey Park at 4:00 P.M. until closing with Mother. When Father voiced his displeasure, the child advised that the tickets were cheaper in the evening at the park. Father provided various alternatives which would still allow the children to go to Hershey Park. Samantha advised that she would talk to Mother. Despite calling numerous times on Thursday, Father was unable to reach Mother until 4:30 P.M. just as Mother and the children were leaving for Hershey Park. They did not return until 11:45 P.M. 29. Father called Mother again on August 25, 2000 to arrange for his time with the children only to be advised by Mother that she and the children were going school shopping. In this conversation as in many others, Mother likened the Court Order to a worthless piece of toilet paper where she can use to "wipe her _." She disparages Father's counsel and the conciliator indicating that "Greevy has no power or jurisdiction over me." 30. Father advised Mother that she was in contempt and that if she did not comp~ he v/ would have to go back to court. Mother said that this would simply result in him spending money, no one would put her in jail and she would spend "his money" if she was fined. 7 .,-^ . -;,,-, ,1- . .,"",- " '-.",J, _, -.1 '. __,. ,_ 31. Father withheld filing a Petition for Contempt last August because Mother had presented an alternate proposal which she felt would fit with the lifestyle of the children. A copy is attached as Exhibit "B". 32. In an attempt to de-escalate the situation, Father attempted to resolve the problem another way (without court intervention) by ostensibly allowing Mother "to control" the custody schedule with the hope that she would loosen her reigns and the situation would be normalized. He tried to work within the parameters of Exhibit "B". Mother was then threatening to relocate the children to Florida and Father was hoping to avoid further confrontation. This did not work. 33. Father again requested counseling to assist but this was rebuffed by Mother. 34. During the Fall, Father attempted to get the children at times allowed by Mother. Father is a physician and his schedule is erratic. He tried to see the children in evenings and during the day but the children never stayed overnight. 35. Mother then moved her boyfriend to Pennsylvania in late September, and he resided with Mother and the children. Father hoped Mother's new interest would refocus her hostility to gain positive energy and the relationship between the households would normalize. 8 ..'-"- -,""- ~._" ";,." ~- - -~, ,_~ L:.;~.,~- _.,,--~, " ,"~'" I~:_ "t,,;,,,,,__,._,,_ ",,:,_,_, "<_. 36. Mother has continued to be hostile and alienating, imposing restrictions on the children, Father's activities with the children and doing nothing to even foster contact, let alone a possible relationship between Father and the children. 37. Father, pursuant to the Order and even pursuant to Mother's alternate proposal was to have Thanksgiving in 2000. Father had no time with the children for Thanksgiving. Father was told by Mother that the children would not go unless Father's new wife did not accompany them to his parents' home. 38. During early September, Mother fired her prior counsel which removed any possibility of negotiation or conversation between counseL 39. In December, contact was made by Mother's new attorney, Susan Kay Candiello, Esquire, whose position was that Mother "wanted" Father to have more contact with the children and that counseling should occur. 40. Counsel for Father and Father jumped at the prospect and organized dates to effectuate the schedule. 41. While Father has had some minor periods of time, it continues to be with hardship including Mother "videotaping" a pickup, counsel for Mother being at Mother's home on Friday 9 ~ : , evening without notice to Father or his counsel to allegedly "negotiate" between Mother and the children for Father's time 42. Despite acquiescence for counseling with Guidance Associates, Mother has failed to schedule appointments for the children. 43. The latest conflict arose regarding the Christmas holiday. Like the incident this past summer, Mother placed Father's time with the children as the last priority. Father recognizes the importance ofthe children's extra-curricular activities but his relationship with the children should not suffer because of same. 44. Father, recognizing that the children have adopted Mother's attitude regarding their visitation with him, has tried to be accommodating to defray any conflict. For example, Father was to have the weekend of December 15,2000 until December 17,2000, from Friday at 5:00 P.M. until Sunday at 5:00 P.M. Mother would not agree to these times. Her reasons were as follows: a. She and the children planned to decorate the Christmas tree Friday night (which they did not do); despite Mother and her new husband being unemployed and at home all day, every day. b. The children do not want to stay overnight two nights in a row with Father; and 10 ,-'"<-' , ~ " , '-' ""-. " . , ,~-_ - _~-_r. ,_, I, ',_-, - ,,;.__."i~=~' ''''''_J'~_' <, ,', -':L "" -" - ~ c. The children have various activities to attend on Saturday although Father advised that he would ensure that the children would attend said activities. d. Mother has advised that she and the children do not want them to have contact with his new wife. 45. When Father, through his counsel, sought to enforce the provisions of the June 27, 2000 Order for his weekend commencing December 15,2000, Father received a page from whom he thought it was his son on December 14th. When he returned the call, he was greeted by Mother stating that she had enough of this "s _" and that she assembled all the children there with her and she was going to record a message from them to him. Father advised Mother that he was not going to discuss these issues with her, especially with the children present, and hung up. Father was paged eight times thereafter. He did not return these calls. 46. When Father arrived to pick the children up on December 15, 2000, Mother's counsel was present. Father waited over twenty minutes before anyone even came out of the house. Enclosed please find a copy of the letter dated December 19,2000 from Mother's counsel regarding the evening of December 15, 2000 and Father's counsel response to same dated December 20,2000 are marked as Exhibit "C", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. Father did not commence his visitation until Saturday. Mother's stated purpose for the delay was so that the children could decorate the Christmas tree. This did not occur. 11 ',"," ~ h -,.'",,' ..0.. --~ , . - ,-,' - - _0_ ,__~_,r-;; ,<. ,.'''<. _ '.'" 0 :1 _,~_ , _ "'r- _~__-".c__. ,~ ,'- < 47. The exchange on December 15,2000 was videotaped by Mother. This was done without prior notice nor consent of Father, even though counsel for both parties were in communication almost every day the week prior to the exchange. Despite requests, Mother has not forwarded a copy of same to Father's counseL 48. Although the Order provided Father with custody from Christmas Eve at 1 :00 P.M. until Christmas Day at 1:00 P.M. (Segment A) and Mother's alternative proposal gave Christmas Eve until 8:00 P.M. and Christmas after, Father, knowing that the children have rallied to Mother's position and would oppose his plans, again tried to keep the peace and accommodate Mother by allowing her custody on both Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. In exchange, Father requested that he have the children on Friday, December 22,2000 until Sunday, December 24,2000 at 9:00 A.M., Father's regularly scheduled weekend and provided that he also have the children for a few hours Christmas afternoon and this same segment for Christmas 2001. 49. Mother would not agree to this. She again wanted to limit Father's visitation from Friday at 5:00 P.M. until Saturday evening at 8:00 P.M. Again, she provided a myriad of excuses - the children had activities, the children did not want to stay overnight, they had other plans, etc. Rather than continue this fight for his rightful time with the children and risk further alienation of the children, Father again conceded but requested that Mother immediately contact Jamie Orris of Guidance Associates so that counseling may immediately commence. Father only had the children from 3:30 P.M. to 5:20 P.M. on Christmas Day. 12 ,.'~' ' 0"" ~.,- '., < ,~ "I.," ,.[. 50. Mother has made one call to Ms. Orris and has not responded to repeated calls from Ms. Orris for in excess of one month. 51. By involving the children in the adult discussions and the decision making process regarding their custody, Father aveTS that MotheT is diminishing Father's relationship with the children. It is Father's time with the children that is reduced or canceled as a result of the children's activities and other alleged activities with Mother. Mother does not sacrifice her time with the children. As primary custodian, Father avers that Mother has failed in her obligation to encourage and promote Father's relationship with the children. 52. Father avers that Mother will thwart his efforts whenever he attempts to assert his parental rights pursuant to the June 27, 2000 Order, as evidenced by this year. 53. Mother's inflexibility and hostility towards Father is witnessed almost daily by the children. Mother's outward expression of non-support of Father's role of a parent is not in the children's best interests and is alienating them from Father. The children tell Father that their Mother and they discuss frequently his alleged failings as a father. 54. Mother's recent deliberate violations of the present Order for Custody are not in the children's best interest and is seriously impacting Father's Telationship with the children. Mother's actions serve to alienate the children from their Father resulting in severe damage. 13 " _ m~'~ '"~ "",",-, __~J '0,-"- H">""'-'O,"O'"" "J'.~ -,:-f,'" ~,_~_ "-'"',-, 55. As based on review of communications from Mother's counsel, Mother has no intention of abiding by the current Order. 56. Mother's failure to schedule counseling indicates her intention not to comply with Paragraph 8 ofthe existing Order. 57. Mother will not even comply with the proposed order she advanced as attached as Exhibit "B". 58. Father believes that unless there is further Court intervention, Mother will continue to violate the June 27, 2000 Order by not allowing him his custodial periods and by unilaterally scheduling activities for the children during his time. 59. Mother knowingly and willfully violated the Order date June 27, 2000. Mother has confirmed her disregard for this Order when she advised Father that the Order "was tantamount to toilet paper." 60. As a result of Mother's violation of this Order, Father lost virtually his summer vacation with the children and did not spend any time with the children on either Christmas Eve or little on Christmas Day. 14 ~ . , . ~ ., """'. .'-..-,-<', _.~ Ht_ ~,,'^ - ."., .."" '-J;': ",,'_,b",,",,'-~"i., 61. Mother also tries to circumvent decision making with the children schools, etc. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court find Defendant in contempt and the Plaintiff be awarded the following: 1. Make-up Time. Plaintiff shall be awarded make-up time for his lost periods. 2. Consultation. Defendant is prohibited from scheduling any activities for the children during Plaintiffs periods of custody. If there are previously scheduled activities, Plaintiff, after consultation with the children, shall make the determination as to which activities the children shall attend. 3. Counseling. Defendant shall immediately schedule herself and the children for appointments with Jamie Orris of Guidance Associates. Defendant shall cooperate with the recommendations of Ms. Orris. 4. Christmas 2001. Since Defendant had custody of the children for the entire Christmas 2000 holiday, the Order dated June 27, 2000 is amended so that Plaintiff shall have Segment A of Christmas 2001. This consists of the period from December 24,2001 at 1:00 P.M. until December 25,2001 at 1:00 P.M. The normal rotation shall resume in 2002 with Plaintiff having Segment A in even-numbered years and Defendant having Segment A in odd-numbered years. 5. Videotape of December 15, 2000. Within seven (7) days, Defendant shall forward to Plaintiffs counsel a copy of the videotape she made on December 15, 2000 of Plaintiff. 6. June 27, 2000 Order. Until further hearing, the custodial periods set forth in the June 27, 2000 Order shall not be modified by either party unless both parties agree in advance in writing through their respective counsel. The party requesting the modification must provide the other party seven (7) days written notice of any request for modification. Unless said modification is agreed to by both parties, said modification will not be in effect and the terms of the June 27, 2000 Order shall prevail. Third parties are allowed to transport to Plaintiffs home in the event he has a medical emergency. 7. Attorney Fees. Because of her willful violation of the Order of June 27, 2000, Defendant shall be directed to pay Plaintiff s reasonable attorney fees, costs and 15 " '" , '-' -. ~ \,;,,(~~, J"._'_ _ --'-'.--- -." expenses which are required for the preparation and presentation of this petition and attendance at the conference and any hearings that may be required. 8. Any other relief this Court deems equitable. DATE: January 8, 2001 ar ara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court I.D. 32317 Attorney for Plaintiff 16 ~ "','j'"V.; , (f/)A'" "i!l\"" ;'<,,,,.;" ~ \211 Father shall have partial physical custody of the Children. . :~~~~r~~~~:li~~(~" 4. The Mother shall have custody of the Children from July 24, 2000, through July 30, 2000, for the purpose of vacation. Each party will provide the other parent an address and phone number where they can be reached during the period of vacation custody. 5. The Father shall have summer vacation with the Children June 21, 2000, and June 22,2000; and August 13, 2000, through August 27,2000. Father shall call Mother before 4:00 p.m. to set the time that he shall pick up the children each day. 6. Father shall have periods of partial custody to begin on September 8, 2000, two weekends per month, from Fridays at 6:00 p.m. until Sundays at 9:00 p.m.. Father shall also have week nights, twice during the week, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. on the week prior to Mother's weekends. Father agrees to give Mother notice by the third week of each month which weekends and week nights he will be available for the exercise of his partial custody for at least the following month. 7. The parties shall have a mutual first right of refusal for any period of custody for which they will not be available for a period of two hours or more. 8. The parties have agreed that the Father may participate in family therapy with the Children due to present difficulties in the relationship and apparent estrangement that exists between Father and the Children. Parties will seek to use a therapist that is covered under Father's health insurance plan. 9. Mother and Father shall directly communicate with each other whenever possible in accordance with the terms set forth in this Order and they shall not use the Children as a means to communicate to each other as to the modification of this agreement or discuss with them the custody evaluation. Neither parent shall do anything which may estrange the Children from either party or injure the opinion of the Children as to the other party or which may hamper the free and natural development of the Children's love and affection for the other party. 10. Holidays shall be shared as follows: a. Christmas shall be broken into two segments: Segment A shall be from December ,i ri I I i'l "I to li '0 , ~ , ,. i ~ ii ~ !! , I ~ , i,. '>P, ,,~,.; '~s a S.,,,, :"",>,>:,1;,,' ",';''' 24 at 1 :00 p.m. until December 25 at 1 :00 p.m.. Segment B shall be from December 25 at 1 :OOp.m. until December 26 at 1 :00 p.m.. Father shall have Segment A in the year 2000, Mother shall have Segment B. b. Thanksgivinc: Father shall have the children for the for Thanksgiving in the year 2000 to commence on the Wednesday evening before the Holiday at 6 PM and to conclude on Friday at 9:00 p.m. c. New Year's Day and New Year's Eve: Mother shall have the Children for New Year's Eve at 10:00 a.m. until the morning of New Year's Day at 10:00 a.m. Father shall have the Children from New Year's Day 10:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m on January 2,2001. d. Except as otherwise indicated above, the parties shall share the period from December 26, 2000, until the Children reenter school in the year 2001 as equally as feasible. e. With the exception of the schedule for the Christmas, New Year's and Thanksgiving Holidays, this Order is entered as an agreement of the parties at the Conciliation Conference. The parties did agree that the Conciliator would make a recommended order with regard to the provisions of the Holiday plan pending the outcome of the custody evaluation by Dr. Shienvold. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. 11. Parties were advised that neither may relocate without further order of Court. BY THE COURT, }s/ ()f'J J -A.1300t/ J. Distribution to: Counsel for Plaintiff. Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, 549 Bridge St.. New Cumberland,!:,~ 17070-1931 Counsel for Defendant, Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire. James, Smith, Durkin and Connelly, 134 Sipe Avenue. Hummelstown, PA 17036 ., '''>'-~''''j'' ~,'.' -"''',' ~,> " /t;';,~,:~::,--:': "'-, '_:_ ~~.~_-:: . _ . J , . m:-~_ ~~ 1. The Mother , Maribeth J. R. Bucher and Father, Robert W. Bucher Jr. shall have shared legal custody of Maribeth Jo Bucher bom November 22, 1983, Samantha Leigh Bucher bom February 3, 1986, Robert Walter Bucher III bom August 3, 1989 arid Joseph Richards Bucher bom February 12, 1992. Each shall have an equal right to be exercised jointly with the other parent to make all major decisions affecting the children's general well-being, Including but not limited to decisions regarding their health and education. All parties shall share records and information about school and medical records. Parties must mutually agree on all matters pertains to school. ' 2. Mother shall have primary physical custody of the children and father will have partial physical custody of the children. 3. Summer vacations will be mutually agreed upon by both parties and taking into consideration the desires of the children. 4. Father shall have periods of partial custody. Two weekends a month. Fridays from 6:00 untr1 Sunday at 8:00. On these weekends, father is responsible for all homework, projects, etc; At such times as it becomes necessary for the mother or the father to help the other on their custodial weekends, the noncustodial parent shall endeavor to help the other i.e.; soccer, basketball, baseball, toumaments etc; when given advanced notice and is at all possible. Two nights during the week to be mutually agreed upon by mother and father 6:00 or earlier until 8:00 on school nights. If these nights need to be changed, both parties will try to give advance notice as far in advance as possible. Father must plan far in advance his weekends with the child(ren). Father must be consistent. not last minute and demanding. Father must give notice by second or third week of the previous month for the following month. 5. Both parties will have mutual right of first refusal for any period of custody which they will not be available for two hours or more. 6. Both parties shall exercise common sense and their best efforts to foster love and affection between the children and the other parent. Neither of the parties shall in any way disparate or criticize the other parent nor allow any other person to do so, to or in the presence of the children. 7. Holidays- Thanksgiving Father in 2000. To be alternated. Times to be mutually agreed upon. Christmas Christmas Eve tr11 8:00P.M. Father Christmas Day Children are to wake up in their own home (as per their request! on Christmas morning . Time for pick up will be mutually agreed upon by both parties. The rest of the vacation to be shared. . ~. ~" 8. New Years- Eve 2000 Mother. New Years Day, to be mutually agreed IlpOn. This can alternate yearly. This agreement shall not be altered except by written document signed by each party hereto. signe-4- Robert W- Bucher Jr. date signed Maribeth J. R. Bucher date -" ,_. .. _'~;:0 ',<.f::i"Z-;'~-:-::::"~";:-:-'~'~;-;-:-"""~-:'7;;T;~~~.~'-:'<''':'-;:'''"'''';':'',""~'.'l_.~,",":"'~":,!,~ ~,"~!""".J...;..... ;:\l':f;~~~(~"{,'r:"!",,,,",'J;";..,,.'"'''' "',,;,(;1t';;~;~~;'i':~":;"';!i'\iI\~\';:"""'''''''''':'';:,' ..,. "~ ,"' \ . .,:.", m......,., \:;~ GATES &- ASSOCIATES, P.C. LAW OFFICES OF @W.;".. '..~ " LOWELL A. GATES Also Admitted to Massachusetts Bar MARK E. HALBAUNER Also Admitted to NWH JSTSey Bar SUSAN KAY CANOIELLO CRAIG A. HATCH CORY J. SNOOK 1013 MUMMA ROAD. SUITE 100' LEMOYNE. PENNSYLVANIA 17043 (717) 731-9600' FAX: (717) 731-9627 BRANCH OFFICE: 3 WEST MONUMENT SQUARE, SUITE 304 lEWISTOWN. PA 17044 (717) 248-8909 WEB SITE: www.GalesLawFirm.com December 19, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE #717-774-7059 AND U.S. MAll.. Barbara Sumple-SulJivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland P A 17070-1931 RE: R.obert W. Bucher, Jr. VS. Maribeth J.R.. Bucher Cumberland County Docket No. 00-3140 Custody / Visitation Dear Barbara: I wanted to provide some additional information about Friday evening, the results and a proposal for Christmas visitation. I originally went to the home of Ms. BucherILucente at my client's request to speak with the children regarding visitation with their father, their attitudes, respect for their father, etc, Mr. Bucher arrived while I was still speaking with them and answering questions. When the children first began to share their concerns, etc. with their father, Dr. Bucher would have simply driven off, if! had not interceded. My sole and only reason for becoming involved was to be certain visitation occurred between father and children that weekend. We were successful, Dr. Bucher picked up the boys Saturday, after their practice for their church program. We had agreed he was to get Samantha around noon, he arrived between 2:00 - 2:30 p.m. Samantha had made a previous commitment to babysit, Dr. Bucher returned Samantha to allow her to babysit Saturday evemng. It is my understanding the boys and Dr. Bucher had a wonderful visit. Dr. Bucher was to drop off the boys for church services and pick them up after services. For some reason, he did not pick them up until 1:00 p.m. when he got Samantha and Maribeth. Ms. BucherILucente waited at the church and paged him, although he did not answer. She finally took the boys home with her. I believe this was simply a misunderstanding and not a deliberate action by either of our clients. -~ 6iI:t., ''C!fj ";;6':.".~/;:~t::-: . '};~~;::;;-;-{:,~:~~~;~}if' : .~~.-.,-" , - '\'~f~I('~~~~~~';f' . -V" , , I .. ~,...~ ".-', .,- ';;.,:.~ .. , J Dr. Bucher stated he had no food in his home, but he was going to take the children shopping to purchase food they liked. The children stated he never purchased any food and the only food in the home was old Halloween candy. Perhaps this could be remedied by the next visit? Dr. Bucher also took the boys to see a circumcision on Saturday afternoon. I am not certain this was a positive experience for children of this age? I believe we need to explore and agree upon what types of medical experiences are appropriate for the children. Dr. Bucher ha8 requested the children on Friday, December 22, they will all be ready and go with him, overnight. The boys each have two games on Saturday, December 23, Dr. Bucher may take the children to these games. The children have requested to be retUrned to their home Saturday night. Dr. Bucher has requested DecembeT 27 through 29,2000, to be with his family. Bo has just received a notice of mandatory soccer practice December 27 and 28, 2000, from 8:00 to 10:00 a.m. I have the name of the soccer coach. I am going to call Mr. Nikolici and try to find out ifBo can be excused from these practices. I am being told by Bo, he could get kicked off the team, ifhe is not there. Perhaps we can get him excused. I will certainly provide you with additional information as soon as I have it. I don't have to tell you both of our clients and these children have long standing problems with their relationships. Dr. Bucher never provided notice of the times he wanted the children for the holidays, per the present custody order. I strongly believe, if we work together to get visitation which is not being jammed down anyone's throat, but which is a compromise and we are able to have some positive interactions occur, everyone will benefit. We need to work on counseling and establishing some regular visitation with everyone. It may be that the exact custody order is not followed. However, as I shared with you, Dr. Bucher, Ms. BucherlLucente and the children, need to start somewhere and work up from there. Your making non-negotiable demands, wiII only meet with futile resistance, no one wiII have any visitation or chance to slowly rebuild relationships. We sincerely hope, you and Dr. Bucher will see the wisdom in working togetheT, perhaps more slowly, but constantly forward, to a better end with improved relationships. Thank you for your time and assistance with these matters. Please call me if you have any questions or require any additional information. Very truly yours, c=9~ Susan Kay ~~~e~~ cc: Maribeth BucheTlLucente -',>",>,.". I < i_ L,. -.-J ~~7 .' , I.' .. o () . , , , LAw OFFICES BARBARA. SUMPLE-SULLIV AN ~49 BRIDGE STREET NEW CUMBER1.A..'ID. PENNSYLVANIA 17070-1931 PHONE (717) 774.1443 FAX (717) 774.70~9 December 20,2000 Susan Kay Candiello, Esquire Gates & Associates, P.C. 1013 Mumma Road, Suite 100 Lemoyne, P A 17043 via fax and regular mail Re: Bucher v. Bucher Dear Susan: I am in receipt of your fax dated December 19th explaining your presence at your client's home when Dr. Bucher was scheduled to pick up his children. While Dr. Bucher and I do, to some extent, appreciate your efforts in attempting to secure the children for his period of custody, the entire escapade of video camera and. shuttle diplomacy served ouly to further inflame this situation. I understand that you are recently involved in this matter and that you do not believe that ultimannns are effective, however, please note that this has been a struggle for over a year. Since Dr. Bucher remarried, he has been repeatedly and consistently denied custody. This occurred despite the fact that the children's relationship with his new wife prior to the marriage was fine. Please note that once the denial of custodial periods began, we first requested counseling repeatedly to avoid any court proceeding and got nowhere. Failing this, we then went to the conciliation where an order was entered. I must add that this order was entered by agreement of the parties. However, from the date of entry, Mrs. Lucente would not follow same. We had tried to schedule an emergency conciliation with Ms. Greevy even before your client left for Florida, but she would not be available due to some earlier flight schedule. Even with an order in place, your client has indicated it is worth nothing and Dr. Bucher could not get the children as planned. We prepared a contempt petition to try to secure compliance with the order and refrained from filing because of the children's requests. We then pursued a period of trying to allow your client to control the schedule with the hopes that she would loosen her reigns and things could be more normalized. This did not work. We requested counseling again which away rebuffed. Quite frankly, when you called last week and advised that your client wanted Dr. Bucher to have more time, I must say I was shocked but viewed it as a blessing. As you know, we jumped at the suggestion and planned accordingly. We felt for the first time that the existing order could be implemented under your review. However, upon arrival of the date, new resistance for unsubstantiated causes (putting up a Christmas tree, etc.) were raised. Here we are again - another road block, another inflamed period for the children and Dr. Bucher. I understand the tree was not even up by Sunday. However, you are correct that, at least, he saw the children and he had a great time with them all. '-'~'rL .....-.,...1.'iJJF! ,- . .___._.",'';'~~"''':::"",.!<",~,~,~;?,"f;.~''-t~",'~h-~~~~~-::''''''-:';.~ . . , .--, o , . , " , , Susan Kay Candiello, Esquire Gates & Associates, P.C. December 20, 2000 Page 2 The issue is where to go next. We would like to implement the existing order. Regarding the next weekend, again by your proposal, Dr. Bucher is limited in his time by the alleged request of "the children". This is truly not appropriate. Also, even when he attempts to bend on the order and requests other time, there is another conflict. I have kids and understand sports schedules but this must be balanced with the valued experience of contact between the child and his paternal family. Please also note, at the conciliation, the same issue of a conflict for soccer camp arose during the summer. Mrs. Lucente swore that the child had to attend the camp or he would be off the team. Dr. Bucher gave up the time which was available due to your client's extended vacation to Florida. Then, as it turns out, she never sends the child to camp and takes the child to Florida. Further, Samantha, was not available to spend the week with l!isfather during his vacation. This type of past conduct is what has additionally caused distrust and problems in this matter. Please call when you have personally spoken with the coach and we could revisit the issue of the holiday. I note that you chastize Dr. Bucher for lack of notice under the existing order. Please note that you cannot pick and choose the provisions of the order which you want to enforce. I will be happy to provide the notice and will give you his work schedule for the next few months as was done earlier and consistently in this year. However, I am asking for your confirmation that your client will comply with the order, including the periods specified and the right of first refusal provisions. This is the only way I know for this matter to move forward without further upheaval and disputes. It is the fair and right thing to do. Then the children will know to coordinate plans on their dad's time through their dad. It will also minimize the need for direct communication between our clients since no informal coordination has been successful. I understand that Jamie Orris is playing telephone tag with your client. It is imperative that these times become scheduled. Scheduling of the counseling is critical. Your efforts is confirming the children's availability for custody would be greatly appreciated. I will await your advice on the Christmas scheduling. Also, I am formally requesting that the video tape shot by your client last Friday be turned over to you for safekeeping and I receive a copy of same. Please advise if you will require a subpoena or formal discovery request to accomplish this preservation and copying. Thank you. Barbara Sumple-Sullivan BSS/ld cc: Dr. Robert W. Bucher, Jr. ..'" ,_.. '~"",." ,-<,;,,-,'-1. _~. - .~ .~~'" ,>~ -- -- .~."'..- ~. < H " ',-_'~ .. ",",,-, ,_;;.:-1..-..';' -,; , ~ l;-~ '~h-.L ~"~ '~~_1 . . . '0 I ,.. , , ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY MARIBETH lR. BUCHER, Defendant : NO.00-3140 VERIFICATION I, Robert W. Bucher, Jr., hereby certifY that the facts set forth in the foregoing PETITION FOR CONTEMPT, ENFORCEMENT AND SPECIAL RELIEF are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. - ,-. , ~- - -..-.< - .. .-, 1-- ~". _-I "-I " ,-, , " ", " , .., I III " . Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 Counsel for Plaiutiff ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY MARlBETH J.R. BUCHER, Defendant : NO.00-3140 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, BARBARA SUMPLE-SULLIV AN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that on this date, I served a true and correct copy of the Petition for Contempt, Enforcement and Special Relief, in the above-captioned matter upon the following individual(s), by United States first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Susan Kay Candiello, Esquire 5021 East Trindle Road, Suit 00 Mechanicsburg, P A 17 5 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court J.D. 32317 Attorney for Plaintiff DATE: January 9,2001 l...... "'-'."jj ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR PLAINTIFF v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA MARIBETH J.R. BUCHER DEFENDANT 00-3140 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY AMENDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 24tb day of January, 2000, the original Order of Court is amended as follows: It is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear befonMelissa P. Greevy, Esq. , the conciliator, at 214 Senate Avenue, Snite 105, Camp Hill, PA 17011 on the 21st day of February ,2001, at1:00 a.m. for a Pye 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: Isl The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites 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 TillS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATIORNEY 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 ~, ~,"'" "I""-~~'~ . ~" ~ -,,,,"-. -,,,.,-, ,..-,,-~, "",- ',""",p'-~- .~,.,.".,,-, ",., . "' ." , "'~- --"1 --''iL'tY' ~-,,~'i' FiLED-OFFiCE OF THE PROTHONOTARY 01 JMJ 24 PN 3: 3L, CUMBEFiUND GOUNN PENNSYLVANIA /';;;'3.t:J/ tiel t~ Jn~/ Z 4<0/.~-cS:/~ /'d2CY ~ /11~ ,t a(j' (d~ / ()J CI {~p' /UaJJi t: aif ~~ -- ~~~.......",~~ _'r""" ~""'_~"~j~I"""'l-"'''''-'''''''''',;''''-~1I-1ff~~I'fA~~'1fU~~~'''''''~ . . ' ~!;R_'lDIi!!!!l\Ill~I~'_"i1"i'i'!~'''''''-jl'-'W1\',,--__,_ ,;lI!)_I1_ , -~ . ",~, , ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : NO. 00-3140 MARIBETH J.R. BUCHER, DEFENDANT : CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY NOTICE 10 PLEAD TO: Robert W. BlIcher, Jr., Plaintiff c/o Barbara Sumple-SuIljvan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland PA 17070 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the Answer to Petition for Contempt, Enforcement and Special Relief, and New Matter, which was filed with the Prothonotary of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on February 20, 2001, within twenty (20) days from service thereof or a judgment may be entered against you. LAW FIRM OF SUSAN KAY CANDIELLO, P.C. Dated: February~, 2001 Susan Kay Cand' Counsel fOT Deft PA LD. # 64998 5021 East Trindle Road Suite 100 Mechanicsburg PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. . 00-3140 MARIBETH J.R. BUCHER, DEFENDANT CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY 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 action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HA VEA LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator Fourth Floor Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. NO. 00-3140 MARIBETH J.R. BUCHER, DEFENDANT CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ANSWER TO PETITION FOR CONTEl\ID. ENFORCEMENT AND SP~CIAL RELIEF, ANI! ~W MA'fJ'.ER 1. Petitioner is Robert W. Bucher, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as "Father"), who currently resides at 20 Wheatland Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055 and 241 0 West Bayberry Drive, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, 17112 (pending the sale of residence). 2. Respondent is Maribeth J. R. Bucher, now Maribeth Lucente, (hereinafter referred to as "Mother"), who currently resides at 23 Skyline Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055. 3. The parties are the parents of four (4) children: Maribeth Jo Bucher, 17 years; Samantha L. Bucher, 15 years; Robert W. Bucher, II, 11 years; and Joseph R. Bucher, 9 years. 4. Both Mother and Father are divorced and have remarried. 5. Pursuant to the parties' Marriage Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to share Legal Custody of their four (4) children. The parties further agreed Mother would have Primary Physical Custody of their four (4) children, with Father having Partial Physical Custody. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted Father did file a Complaint for Custody on May 22, 2000. It i8 denied that Father had not had his children overnight for six (6) ~', . '.'"JI , . months at the time of the filing. By way of further explanation, the two (2) daughters traveled with their Father to Pittsburgh and the two (2) boys were with their Father overnight March 11 and 12, 2000, the opening day of baseball in April, 2000, and they were with their Father overnight in May, 2000. During this same six (6) months identified by Father, he never provided more than a few hours notice for any request for any of his children and frequently there were weeks Father made no effort to have any contact with his children. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted Father did not have the children for the times he demanded visitation in June, 2000. By way of further explanation, Father never followed the custody order requiring he give Mother notice of when he wanted visitation with the children. Notice was to be given by the third week of the month prior to the month he wanted visitation. Mother had already scheduled camp for Maribeth, Robert and Joseph, prior to the request by FatheT for any visitation. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. Mother did remain in Florida until August 7, 2000; however, Mother provided Father with notice her aunt, with whom she was very close, had three (3) major surgical operations within six (6) weeks. Again, as stated in paragraph 8, Father had never provided his request for the children in a timely manner as directed in the custody order. Further, Father telephoned the children only two (2) times during their entire stay in Florida. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. Father did not have any contact with the children; however, Father had a telephone number for Samantha in Florida. Samantha telephoned her Father from Florida several times. He returned only one (1) telephone call. <_,J ~ I ,",--,' 'tj Additionally, when Mother and Samantha returned from Florida, Father never telephoned Samantha or any of the other children until his scheduled vacation. 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. Maribeth stated to her Mother her telephone conversations with her Father were arguments. Robert stated he requested his step-mother not come to camp. 12. Admitted in part and denied in part. The children went on vacation with their Father beginning August 10 and not August 13, per Father's request, with which Mother complied. Mother did not initiate any telephone calls to the children, nor direct them to telephone her. The children telephoned their Mother of their own free will. Mother gave the children a telephone to enable them to have a telephone without needing to use Father's telephone, as a result of Father's complaining of the cost of the children telephoning their Mother on his telephone. 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. Mother did schedule the boys in a tournament; however, Father had knowledge of this tournament before leaving on his vacation. Father was invited to take the boys to the tournament, but he made the decision not to take them to the tournament Father came the second day of the tournament and had made prior arrangements to take the boys home with him ovemight. Upon his arrival, Father changed his plans and simply took all the children out to dinner. 14. Denied. Please refer to response to paragraph 13 above. 15. Denied. Please refer to response to paragraph 13 above. 16. Denied. Father knew prior to the tournament the two daughters would be staying at home during the time of the tournament. ~ , J , 17. Denied. Father knew the parties' daughters were not going to the tournament before the tournament Father never offered to keep his daughters and indicated he would be coming to the tournament to see the parties' sons play. Father then made the decision to come for the second day of the tournament and not both days. 18. Denied. Father stated to Mother he was "too busy, he had plans" to take the children to the tournament and then he came the second day of the tournament. 19. Admitted in part and denied in part. Father did drive the boys home from the tournament and have dinner with them. Father had the ability to have all the children with him Sunday evening for dinner and overnight. Father made the decision with the parties' daughters that they would not be at his home overnight. Father made the decision to bring the boys back to their Mother due to his work schedule. Father would have had to get up at 6:00 a.m. to have the boys home befOTe he left and he simply did not want to do that. 20. Denied. Father made decisions independently and with the children, without any input from Mother. 21. Admitted. By way of further explanation, Father failed to provide any prior notice of his requests to the children for his visitation with them. Father failed to accommodate and/or recognize the importance of the children's activities to them. Mother made the decision to not act as a go between for Father with the children and told the Father and children to make the arrangements between each other. As a result of Father's open disregard for the children's feelings, schedules and activities, the children did become "increasingly belligerent to Father and started expressing reluctance to have time with him". 22. Admitted. ",,'-1 23. Admitted in part and denied in part. Father's vacation period with the children did extend through August 27, 2000. It is denied Mother did not communicate with Father during this period. Father telephoned Mother one (1) time on August 21,2000, but no arrangements were made to get the children for visitation. Father telephoned Mother two (2) times on August 22, 2000, but failed to arrange times for any visitation with the children. 24. Admitted in part and denied in part. Father knew prior to Tuesday, August 22, 2000, the children were going to Hershey Park. Father had already contacted his daughter, Samantha, and arranged to meet with the children at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, August 25, 2000. Father did not call or arrive at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, August 25, 2000. The children, not knowing what to do, made other plans. When Father called late in the day on August 25, 2000, demanding the children be ready to be picked up, they refused to go with him. Father then made arrangements to take the children to the gun show on August 26, 2000. Father called back to say he could not take them. On August 26, Father called at 3:00 p.m. to ask if the children wanted to watch him fix a pipe. The children said no. 25. Denied. 26. Mother lacks sufficient knowledge to determine the truth of this statement. Mother had no knowledge of this correspondence from her counsel. 27. Denied. Father never confirmed any such visitation. 28. Admitted in part and denied in part. Samantha did telephone her Father to tell him the children wanted to go to Hershey Park. The alternatives which Father offered were not realistic alternatives. Father did not call again until Thursday, August 24, 2000 at 4:30 p.m. as the children were leaving to go to Hershey Park. 29. Denied. Friday, August, 25, 2000, Mother and the children went school shopping during the day while Father was working. Father did call later in the day to "demand" the children at that time. Mother NEVER made any statements about the custody order, Melissa Greevy or Father's counsel. 30. Denied. Mother stated to Father he was in contempt of the custody order due to his failure to provide any notice of the times he wanted visitation with the children. 31. Mother is without sufficient knowledge to fonn an opinion as to part of this statement, and part is admitted and part is denied. Mother has no knowledge as to Father's acts regarding any Petition for Contempt. Mother did present a proposed custody arrangement to Father which he laughed at and which was never discussed again. 32. Denied. Mother never threatened to move to Florida. Mother's new husband took an early retirement from his position with the Veterans' Administration, and moved to Pennsylvania to enable the children to continue to be near their Father. Father never followed the custody agreement proposed by Mother and referenced in paragraph 31, nor did Father ever take the time to meet with or communicate with Mother to attempt to establi8h any visitation schedule. 33. Denied. Father never discussed or made any arrangements for counseling. 34. Denied in part and admitted in part. Mother agrees Father does have a schedule subject to change. Father did have visitation with the children on various occasions during the Fall (during hunting 8eason with some additional overnight visits in November and December, 2000). Mother allowed Father the visits he requested which did not interrere with any other scheduled events. If the children had any other activities, Mother invited Father to attend and/or I take the children to their activity. Father never provided any prior notice of the time he wanted the children. He would simply telephone, requesting the children at that time. 35. Denied. Mother did not move her ''new boyfriend". Mr. Lucente, Mother's fiance at the time, left his employment position with the V A, came to Pennsylvania on Octoer 2, 2000, and Mr. Lucente and Mother were married on October 28, 2000. 36. Denied. Mother has repeatedly told the children they should go with their Father when he requests visits. It is Mother's belief the problem is in Father's relationship with his children. 37_ Denied. Father made the decision not to have the children for Thanksgiving. Father said he would not take Maribeth since his wife was going, and then he simply said he might as well leave the other children. 38. Admitted in part and denied in part. Mother did terminllte her previous counsel, but this had no effect on Mother's ability or desire to negotiate or communicate. 39. Agreed in part and denied in part. Mother did obtain new counsel, Susan Kay Candiello, in December, 2000. Susan Kay Candiello told Father's counsel, Mother wanted Father to have visitation and a relationship with his children and believed counseling was necessary for both her children and their Father. 4Q. Mother has no knowledge of the information contained in this statement. By way of further explanation, Mother was never provided with any dates for counseling. 41. Denied. Both Mother and Mother's counsel stated to both Father and Father's counsel, Mother's counsel was meeting with the parties' children to encourage and explain to them the importance of participating in visitation with their Father_ The original purpose and , "J _< i presence of Mother's counsel was never to "negotiate". After it appeared the children were not going to go with their Father for visitation, Mother's counsel did offer to assist to arrange the tenns for visitation to enable some visitation to occur that weekend between Father and his children. Father was a8ked if he wanted Mother'8 counsel's assistance and he stated he did want the assistance. 42. Denied. Mother has had a counseling session with Jamie Orris and has a counseling session scheduled for Februray 19,2001 for the eldest daughter, Maribeth. 43. Denied. Father's visitation for Christmas, 2000, was negotiated and agreed upon, accommodating only the children's most important activities. Forty-five (45) minutes before the children were to leave for a long family visit with Father's family, Father cancelled the visitation. Father made up this time at a later date. 44. Denied in part and admitted in part. Father never gave timely prior notice of his request to have the children for the weekend of December 15 through 17, 2000. Father continuously names Mother as the individual who prevents him from having visitation with his children. This is not true. Further, Father functions under the assumption, regardless of when he demands to have the children and what prior notice he mayor may not have given, he should have his children, regardless of anything else. Father refuses to listen to his children or treat them with any respect. We do not mean to suggest the children should have control of a situation. Nevertheless, if the children are never treated with respect, if their requests are always ridiculed, and/or if their activities and interests are always belittled and treated as unimportant, they will never have any respect for this individual nor will they want to be in hi8 presence and that is what we see happening in the response of the children to their Father. When Mother ~, '<"", intercedes on the side of her children, Father accuses Mother as being the initiator of the entire problem. a. What right does Father and/or his counsel have to dictate when and under what circumstances the family plans an activity? Does Father's counsel really believe making untrue, snide, degrading remarks about Mother and her new husband will promote better communication between Mother and Father? Mother does work at the YMCA and Mr. Lucente has been retired for five (5) months from his position, where he was employed for 25 years. This retirement was done to enable him to move to Pennsylvania and get married. Not that it is Father's or Father's counsel's business, but Mr. Lucente is looking for new employment. b. The children have repeatedly shared with their Father they want to begin with only one (I) overnight at his home. Father repeatedly states he wants two (2) or more overnights refusing to respond to or even recognize the children's request. c. Father has always been given the opportunity to take the children to their activities, but frequently refused to do so. d. Mother has never stated she does not want the children to have any contact with Father's new wife. The children are the ones making this statement. 45. Denied. The custody order of June 27, 2000 does not provide for Father to have the children on December 15, 2000. When Mother spoke to Father on December 14, 2000, Mother . . '- ' ~""'~', only stated "The children wish to speak with you and I am going to record this." Father said "bull" and hung up, refusing to answer any further pages from any of his children. 46. Admitted in part and denied in part. Mother's counsel was present when Father arrived on December 15, 2000. Mother had requested her counsel be present, based upon the children's stated refusal to go with their Father for visitation that weekend. Father had requested that weekend only one (1) week in advance. The purpose of Mother's counsel being present was to take action to promote visitation of the children with Father. On December 15,2000, the children and their Father reached an agreement between themselves, considering their previously planned activities, for visitation. Mother had no involvement in their agreement. The Christmas tree was not the primary concern of anyone. The primary concerns were soccer practices, practice8 for church Christmas programs, a previously agreed to babysitting agreement the daughters had made, attendance at church, and the obvious anger between the children and their Father. Considering all of these things, arrangements for Father to have visitation with all of his children at varying times during the weekend were reached. Father did not carry through several of the components of the agreement which he made with the children. Father did not obtain any food in his home for the children as he promised them. Father changed several of the times agreed upon to be with his children over that weekend. 47. Admitted. Mother videotaped a brief portion of the time the children and her counsel were speaking with Father. Thi8 was not a significant or noteworthy video recording, but rather the actions by both Mother and Father appeared to be more to aggravate and challenge the other party. Mother has taped over this videotape so it no longer exists. 48. Admitted. , I ,,.,, .~ 49. Denied. The parties had agreed earlier in 2000, the children would be with Mother Christmas Eve and Day because of the children's requests to be with Mother at these times. Father did have the children on Christmas Day from 3:45 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. Father was in New Jersey Christmas Eve. Father requested the children December 27 through 29, 2000 and cancelled visitation less than an hour before he was to get the children, who had rearranged various activities to accommodate Father. Next Father requested January 12 through 14,2001 then changed thi8 request to January 13 through 15, then changed the request again to January 12 through 15. Ultimately Father took the children January 13 and brought them back January 14. 50. Denied. Mother has telephoned Jamie Orris three (3) times. Ms. Orris has telephoned Mother three (3) times. Mother has had one (1) counseling session with Ms. Orris and a counseling session is scheduled for Maribeth on February 19,2001. 51. Denied. The children are involved in the same or similar types and amount of activities as they were during the marriage with Father's approval at that time. Father's employment, erratic schedule, and his own individual interests have always, and still do, interfere more significantly with Father's time with the children than their own activities and schedules. Additionally, Father has always been invited to take the children to their activities and participate with them as a parent. Father has never altered his plans and/or his schedule fot his children and they are well aware of this. Father never has food in his home for the children. On 8everal occasions when Father had custody of the children, he left them alone to attend a social event. We believe Father has failed in his duty and obligation to engage in a loving, sharing and supportive parental relationship with his children. We do not believe it is Mother's duty to promote Father's relationship with his children. It is his duty. ~'" 52. Denied. Mother does not thwart anything. It is obvious, even from the words Father uses ("assert his parental rights" ) that Father has a problem. No one, not even the children, respond to another party who views themselves as superior, asserting their "rights" against them. 53. Denied. The children have always been and are now even more distrustful and angry with their Father. Mother's actions and words do not foster or create these feelings. Father's actions and words foster the children's attitudes and actions toward their Father. Father does not take any positive actions to demonstrate to the children love, support and the child's value to him. 54. Denied. Father seeks to "blame" Mother for his poor relationships with his children. Mother does not engage in activities with the children to undermine Father's relationship with the children. Father's interactions toward and with his children undermine his relationship with his children. Father has had available to him regular and significant amounts of time to be with his children, if he chose to utilize this time. The children are able to see their Father's actions and statements for what they are. Their relationship with their Father is the result. 55. Denied. Mother has provided Father with substantial and numerous opportunities to have visitation with the children with the exception they are not always under the tenns Father dictates. Father has not abided by the cU8tody order. 56. Denied. Mother has initiated and begun counseling. 57. Denied. Mother's proposed custody agreement was never accepted. Why should she follow an agreement which wa8 never agreed to? 58. Denied. Father has taken these actions and made these false assertions in his attempt to regain power and control over Mother and over the children. 59. Denied. Mother never made such a statement and has demonstrated her willingness to support the heart of the custody order, that of allowing Father to have regular visitation with the children, despite Father's continuing refusal to follow the custody order. Further, Father has continually "lost" calendars with the children's activities schedules, notices of school events and conferences, and various other activities in which his children participate. Father does not attend these activities, clearly demonstrating to his children they are not important to him, except when it is convenient to him. 60. Denied. Father had visitation during the summer, which he chose to use. Father did not provide notice of his schedule for visitation to Mother. Further, Father had the opportunity to have more visitation than he chose to take in the summer. Father did not provide prior notice for Christmas visitation, tried to get out of following a prior agreement he made with the children at their request about Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, and did not use the visitation time made available to him. ~EW MATTER 61. The averments of the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 60 are incorporated herein by reference. 62. Mother has provided Father with the times and dates of the children's school conferences, yet Father has never attended any conferences with the exception of the Spanish conferences because Father speaks Spanish and wanted to demonstrate his language abilities. 63. January 31, 2001, was the first soccer tournament for son, Robert, in Lancaster. Father showed up, without prior notice, late, as the family was about to leave to go to Robert's ",c' tournament The children wanted Mother to go with them, since it was their first time at this location. Mother offered to take the children and allow Father to bring them home and get them dinner. Father demonstrated both verbally and with his actions, and in front of the children, his displeasure at having to cooperate with this plan. Father went to the tournament after much difficulty in deciding upon arrangements. 64. Father has "teased" Maribeth with the offer of an automobile of her own, since she obtained her license in 2000. Father offers to allow Maribeth to drive the automobile and frequently makes statements suggesting, if Maribeth would be more "friendly and cooperative" with Father's requests she could have the lIutomobile. When Father gets angry with Maribeth, he will state she will never get this automobile. 65. January 27 and 28, 2001: Father requested and had the children for visitation. Father and Maribeth had a fight Father returned both Maribeth and Samantha to Mother's home. Father and Samantha had an agreement he would get Samantha for the Super Bowl party, but Father never called or came to get Samantha. Samantha paged her Father two (2) times. First he did not answer her pages, then he simply said he was not going to get her. Father brought the girls home the evening of the January 27 because his wife was going to the Super Bowl party and he did not want to take the girls. The boys slept overnight with Father. The evening of January 27, 2001, Father locked the boys out of the car until they agreed to "hug" their step-sister. 66. Father never has any food in his home when he brings the children there to visit. 67. Febrnary 3, 2001, Samantha had her birthday party with her friends, Mother, step-father and brothers. Father never telephoned Samantha on her birthday. Father requested and Mother gave Father the children on Febmary 4, 2001. Father took the boys to the Sportsman ""';; . . Show at the Farm Show Complex. Mother took the girls to the Sportsman Show to enable Father to have all the children for diuner. 68. Father has great difficulty managing and disciplining the children. Father frequently telephones Mother asking her assistance in taking care of the children. Father telephoned Mother when he had just the two (2) boys at the Sportsman Show to ask for help in disciplining the boys. Father always brings the girls home when he has any difficulty with them, blaming Mother for the girls' behavior. 69. Father issues demands upon the children and Mother without notice and expects everyone will put aside whatever t1}ey are doing and comply with his demands immediately. Father uses the fact he is a doctor as an excuse to not be able to provide prior notice to the children and Mother. 70. Father's actions, verbally, behaviorally, and materially, demonstrate a decided preference for the boys. Between the boys, Father demonstrates a decided preference for his namesake, Robert Father will accommodate the boys more than the girls. Father plans more activities with the boys. Father gives the boys more material items. As an example, Father never telephoned Samantha on her birthday and gave Samantha a Thirty Dollar ($30.00) gift certificate for her birthday. Father called and even came to the Mother's residence for Joseph's birthday, giving Joseph over $100.00 worth of gifts for his birthday. 71. All the children are aware of Father's different treatment of them and are uncomfortable and angry about it. 72. The children have stated on numerous occasions their Father makes them feel like property which he believes he can do with as he wants, at any time. - - .' I ~, ~, d<";;)'~ 73. The children have stated they do not like their step-mother and her children. Father has never taken any positive actions to encourage these relationships. Father ouly "forces" the children to interact with their step-mother and her children and blames Mother for the children's actions and feelings. 74. Father has demonstrated decided preference for his wife's children. Father has been clearing out his home, the children's former residence, to make room for the step-children and in doing so demonstrates complete disregard for the children's possessions and feelings. 75. On February 13,2001, Father spoke with Mother stating he was clearing out the children's rooms and was going to "throw all their _" out. If there was anything they wanted, they should get it the weekend of February 17 and 18,2001. 76. Father previously stated he would be working the weekend of February 17 and 18, 2001, and could not see the children. Father demonstrates inconsistency in every aspect of his relationships with his children. 77. Father has a violent temper and has demonstrated violent actions toward his children and Mother. 78. April, 2000: Father came to the boys' soccer game, demanding to have the children, at that time, without any prior notice. Father began screaming at Mother putting his face right into her's. Mother put her hand up to keep Father away. Father grabbed Mother's hand, bending her right index finger, almost completely tearing the ligament and chipping the bone. Mother went to the Emergency Room, despite Father's statements there was nothing wrong with her. Mother had her hand in a splint for over a week and will have a permanent decrease in function for her right index finger. .j" c_ " '.1 . . 79. Father has thrown garbage cans at his children, taken other threatening postures toward the children, and physically handled the children. In return, Maribeth has taken physical postures toward her Father. 80. Father's relationships with his children arise out of his statements, actions and behaviors with the children, past and present, not from Mother's directives to the children about their Father, where Father would like to place the blame. WIfflREFORE, Defendant, MARIBETH J.R. BUCHER, respectfully requests this Honorable Court find the Plaintiff, ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., has been and continues to be in contempt of the custody order and order the following: 1. Father to provide a minimum offorty-eight (48) hours notice to Mother for a request to be with the children for four (4) hours or less: 2. Father to provide his request for any overnight or extended visitation one (I) month preceding the requested visitation period; 3. The children shall ouly be required to be with their Father one (I) overnight at a time, until the Father and the children have improved their relationship through the various programs and activities Father and the children have attended and participated in, individually and jointly, and until the children are comfortable and desirous of remaining with their Father for a longer period of time. 4. Father will agree to personally take the child(ren) to any activity which occurs during the time he has scheduled a period of visitation and remain with the child(ren) at the activity. If Father is unable or does not want to take the child(ren) to art activity, Mother is to be provided . . with a minimum offorty-eight (48) hours notice to enable her to make arrangements to take the child(ren) to the activity; 5. Father will provide appropriate food, shelter and supervision for the children during his periods of visitation; 6. Father will attend special parenting classes, with an agency and/or individual who has appropriate experience and skill and is recognized as being knowledgeable in the area of parenting; 7. Father will attend regular counseling sessions, including, at the counselor's discretion, attending sessions with the children, as the counselor determines to be appropriate; 8. Father will attend anger management classes to learu a1teruative methods to vent and control his anger with his children. Respectfully submitted, LAW FIRM OF SUSAN KAY CANDIELLO, P.C. Dated: February -1...k, 2001 usan Kay Can 'e Counselfor De e PA J.D. # 6499 5021 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 , j;i, ," VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the facts averred in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: ~ 5 ,200f ~~~~~fu~ ~""""l'"-<"".~~~""Il~~lilDiiHIlIiIitlillIftIIll!l:iillil~~"~~~O\'ilIOI!i_~~ - ~{,- '.::_ _' ~",l'"""'~f'."~ ".,.."-~<I"-"', I~--" "',',,,",/'=Fo_'" "I ~~~-_ ,~. ,'.i". ",,~ .<c- "".. +1 o~,'" - """C_ ~/. ~, I. _o_"'~.~" >~ < ,~_........._' '" ~, ~ " ," _~_.? "~, n W~ " "'- "" ~ ~.~._~.,..,""", (") C) 0 S -q ""~ ..." , r1"'j ~: "';1 ::q ~': '~':;r 1'-,) -- " " C'-I C:) r') -< . r' C } () .- ~- ~~) . 7 . ':l] C) ~., '- .. ) ) .. 1 :;.:,. .j ',- -, j-J , -, -< .> -- ~i -, ' ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : NO. 00-3140 MARlBETH J.R. BUCHER, DEFENDANT . . CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Susan Kay Candiello, Esquire, of the Law Firm of Susan Kay Candiello, P.C., hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Answer to Petition for Contempt, Enforcement and Special Relief, and New Matter, by first-class United States mail, to the following: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cmnberland PA 17070 Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire 214 Senate Avenue Suite 602 Camp Hill PA 17011 Respectfully submitted, LAW FIRM OF SUSAN KAY CANDIELLO, P.C. Dated: FebruaryR,2001 Susan Kay C Counsellor D PAI.D.#64 5021 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg P A 17050 (717) 796-1930 ~-"---"~~~~~@W-;"_-F~';H:'d_,"-t~oiJ"~M;'dl...'i!if~~~ n~""'~ .,~ I " ~ ....:..!([tmlll!l!aWll~ . ~'" (") c-:- <' 'Uj-o"t n"'-;:,:,,::-' ~'~.. c;:c-~ ;2 7..: --I -< 0,- "1;).. ~- c' -." ,..,.., ;::~J :".) Go) -c N :.n C:J )' ><-,,' ,',- : ,.1 :~,- ~_ , _~,d _ -,,". -.,_::;,,,,,,,, -~,_~, ., _"_ , . <,"-' Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, P A 17070 (717) 774-1445 Counsel for Plaintiff ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CNIL ACTION - CUSTODY MARIBETH J.R. BUCHER, Defendant : NO.00-3l40 REPLY OF PETITIONER TO NEW MATTER TO RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR CONTEMPT, ENFORCEMENT AND SPECIAL RELIEF 61. Petitioner incorporates by reference his allegations as contained in paragraphs 1 through 60 to his petition for Contempt, Enforcement and Special Relief. 62. Admitted in Part, Den,ied in Part, It is admitted that Petitioner has attended school conferences of which he is advised and which his schedule, as a practicing OB/GYN physician, will permit. Father attended back to school night for the daughters and scheduled his own private conferences with four high school teachers. Mother made no high school conferences. Regarding the boys, Father attended back to school for Robert. He had no notice of back to school night for Joseph. It is also admitted that he has attended the Spanish conferences although it is irrelevant that he could speak Spanish since the conference was in English. It is denied that Mother has consistently provided Father with the times and dates for the children's school conference. It is further averred that Father has been in direct contact with the children's schools over the last year regarding the children's grades and attendance due to the lack of communication from Mother. , I .' ..'. 'J i ~. , .~ < , ): , "" , '-"r. 63. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part, It is denied that January 31, 200 I was the first tournament of son, Robert, in Lancaster to his knowledge. It is also denied that Father showed up late or without warning. The night ofJanuary 31, 2001, was an agreed to date for Father's time. Notice was given by counsel by letter dated December 22, 2000. It is averred that this was Father's week day period of custody, and this period of custody was confIrmed by Mother's counsel. Attached as Exhibit "A" is a copy of the fax dated January 31, 2001 wherein Father's weekday visitation for January 31, 2001 was confirmed. Even when a date for custody is confIrmed by Mother's counsel, there is no guarantee that Mother will allow Father to have the children. Father did not know of a scheduled tournament until the afternoon ofJanuary 31, 2001, but agreed to take the children. Father arrived with sufficient time to get Robert to the tournament and expected to drive his entire family to the tournament. When he arrived, Mother did not allow him to take the children but wanted him to drive llfier her in his separate car while she took the children. Prior to Mother's denial of Father's period of custody on January 31 st and his knowledge of the tournament, Father had spoken to his other son and discussed their plans for the evening. The child was eager to have dinner with Father. Father planned this dinner in recognition of the children's report cards, This did not occur because of Mother. When faced with questioning by Mother, the children backed off their desire to be with Father so as to avoid 2 -' I~ - "" : ," "^ - ,;. ~r,-: i 0"_,,,--,,, c-".", .,. ...:1 problems with Mother. Instead of allowing Father his period of custody as provided by the Order and agreement, Mother's proposal to Father was to allow him to follow Mother and the children to Lancaster to watch the game and she would allow Father the opportunity to have the children drive back from Lancaster with him. It is admitted that there was another negotiation concerning this exchange, which should not have occurred due to the fact that this was his confirmed period of custody. If Mother would abide by the terms of the Order and her agreements with counsel, all unpleasantries on exchange could and would be avoided. 64. Denied. It is denied that Father has "teased" Maribeth with the offer of an automobile of her own since she obtained her license in 2000. Father had always intended giving access of one of his vehicles to his eldest daughter, Maribeth, if she functioned in a mature and responsible fashion and demonstrated respect to him. Father has been clear in these expectations for this daughter which would and will result in the assignment of a vehicle to her upon her compliance with same. When the child continues to act immature and disrespectful, she will receive no use of any car. Evidence of her disrespectful behaviors include failing to drive her siblings to the grocery store at the request of her father, being disrespectful to him in her speech and actions, taking property from his home and making disrespectful comments about his wife and about the approaching birth of his child. 3 -:.J-,-- . ,,'~;- ~-;;",~",;,",L, , '~,- !.:, < . . 65. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Father requested his period of custody for this weekend. It is further averred this was time provided to him by the Court Order. It further admitted that he had the children this weekend. During this weekend while at Father's home, his daughters inventoried the contents of Father' s house that were of interest to their Mother, Then, when the girls were leaving, they took one of Father's wall watercolor prints with them by hiding it in an old ski jacket which was still remaining at Father's home. The daughter, Maribeth, also had possession of the key to a black Mustang, one of Dr. Bucher's cars. The girls went out of their way to hurt Father with mean spirited conmlents during the visitation, Both girls were disrespectful to their father. At their request, he returned them home. There was no overnight for the girls that weekend. Father had no desire to take the child to the Super Bowl party after the removal of the picture and their request to return home for the overnight. The initial page from the daughter, Samantha, on the following day, did not even occur until 6:30 p,m., during the Super Bowl activities. He maintained custody of the boys and took them to the pre-planned events. This visit went well and the boys enjoyed the festivities. It is denied that he locked the boys out of the car until they agreed "to hug" their stepsister. The boys and their stepsister get along well and the act was spontaneous. The children were not locked out of the vehicle. The boys told this to their Mother. They did this because they wanted to avoid hurting her or making her angry. 4 ;<1 ,J., i .;,oJ " ^ , < .'"', ,~ After theses occurrences on the weekend of January 26, 27, and 28, 2001, Father (through counsel) requested confirmation of counseling so that therapeutic intervention can commence. 66. Denied. Father amply provides for all needs of the children while in his care, including providing nutritious food. 67. Denied. Paragraph 67 is denied. As required by the Order dated June 27,2000, Father provided Mother notice on December 22, 2000 that he intended to exercise his right of custody the weekend ofFehruary 2-4, 2001. On January 4,2001, Mother advised Father that she had already made plans for Samantha's birthday on February 3, 2001 and denied Father's request for that weekend, Mother's denial came without any authority through the Court Order. The June 27, 2000 Order not does provide that Mother with the authority to refuse Father his periods of custody once proper notice is provided. The Order specifically provides in Paragraph 6: Father shall have periods of partial custody to begin on September 8, 2000, two weekends per month, from Fridays at 6:00 P.M. until Sundays at 9:00 P.M. Father shall also have week nights, twice during the week, from 6:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. on the week prior to Mother's weekends. Father agrees to give Mother notice by the third week of each Month which weekends and week nights he will be available for the exercise of his partial custody for at least the following month. Even though Father recognized that he provided proper notice to Mother and followed the Order, he recognized that, as in the past, if he did not acquiesce to Mother's demands, 5 I ",-, -1-- .-,~J_~ -'--~-'~<'.' ,'.:'j >,-J Mother would retaliate through the children by painting him as the "bad guy", thereby further deteriorating his relationship with his children. Because Father is not aware of the specifics of Samantha's birthday, the averment of who she actually spent her day with is denied. It is, however, specifically averred that Father spoke with her on her birthday. It is admitted that Father had the boys on February 4,2001 at the Sportsman Show and that Mother drove the girls to meet Father there. 68. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Father has difficulty in managing the girls on some occasions. It is admitted that Father has brought the girls home early when the girls demand same and behave in a disrespectful manner to Father. It is admitted that Father avers that Mother has influenced the children in such a way to negatively impact his relationship with them. It is denied that Father has trouble with the boys' conduct. It is averred that he and the boys have a great time and that during most times, even visits with he and the girls go well also. It is denied that Father had problems disciplining the boys at the Sportsman Show. It is averred that, at the Sportsman Show, Father even purchased a gift for Mother's new husband on behalf of the boys and that is why they phoned Mother. During the conversation, he indicated the boys were rambunctious because they were overtired. He never requested assistance to control or discipline them. 69. Denied, As stated above, Father has provided Mother with the notice required pursuant to the June 27, 2000 Order, The provisions in this Order where constructed in recognition of 6 ~, ,-- ,J ~.. .~ . " "" , . I ",. t, '"" . -", Father's employment as a physician and the uncertain schedule that accompanies this profession. Even though the Order does not authorize same, Mother has denied Father his ~:- periods of custody if they do not suit her as reflected in the aforementioned paragraphs. Although Mother's counsel confirmed on January 31, 2001 that Father was to have the children for the weekend of February 22,24 and 25,2001 to celebrate his birthday, Mother nonetheless allowed the children to schedule other activities during this custodial time - such as attending a birthday party and allowing one child's friend to stay over after said party. By allowing the scheduling of these activities, Mother places Father again to be in the position to deny or interfere with the children's activities. During the parties' discussions regarding the activities for this weekend, Mother advised Father that these children deserve a normal life free "from his interference." Father's time with the children is not interference but is important in the children's healthy development into well-functioning adults. Mother's sentiment is being transmitted to and adopted by the children, especially the girls. 70. Denied. Paragraph 70 is denied. Father loves all of his children equally. He is able to have a more normal relationship with the younger children who are less effected by Mother's actions of alienation. Mother's statements regarding disregard of the daughter's birthday is entirely denied. He treated his daughter economically as favorably as the sons in choosing magnitude of gifts, It is specifically averred he spoke with his daughter on her birthday. It is averred that this type of position by Mother is the cause of issues between Father and the daughters. 7 '.-- , ,-,. ' , ~- >' ,- J ,[:, - '-~", ~ ~' -,-,',' ,j 71. Denied. Father does not have specific knowledge of this averment and same is denied. It is averred that Mother has attempted to set the children against Father by fabrication of such issues, including unequal treatment. 72, Admitted with the clarification that the children now echo their Mother's stated statements. 73. Denied. While with Father, the boys and, many times Samantha, have had a normal and positive interaction with their stepmother and her children. It is denied that Father has not taken steps to encourage this relationship. 74. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is denied that Father has demonstrated a decided preference for his wife's children, It is admitted that Father has been clearing out his home. These parties have divorced years ago and Father's actions are to create a suitable environment for his entire extended family. Father has acted to accommodate his children by this delay. 75. Admitted in part. Denied in part. Admitted Father has waited three (3) years to clear his home from the clutter left by Mother. Mother left and relocated from the home and took the children's items with her. His actions in clearing out the remaining clutter are appropriate. He told her the house would be cleaned out. He does not specifically recollect any specific deadline date. 8 ,< ~.J ".... --~--~ ,j . I, , ',,~, " , " ,,:,';1 76. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Father did not choose this weekend for his custodial period since he believed that he would be working that weekend. It is denied that nature of Father's schedule is evidence of his inconsistency in his relationship with the children. 77. Denied. It is denied that Father has exhibited violence toward the children and Mother. 78. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that an altercation occurred, the exact date is unknown by Father and, is thus denied, because of Mother's failure to again allow him to have custody of the children. Mother followed Father as he exited the field and forced him back against his truck. He raised his hand asking her to leave him alone and to be quiet. Mother smacked Father in the face as he motioned for her to be quiet. She then attempted to slap him again and he knocked her hand away in self-defense. Father had no knowledge of causing any injury to Mother until Mother called that night in a threatening manner. Fatherreported his injuries to the police. Father knows of no permanent decrease in function for Mother's index finger, 79. Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that Maribeth, the daughter, has taken physical postures toward Father. It is denied that Father "threw garbage cans" at the children. There was one occurrence while Father was loading garbage cans on the truck that 9 , "I , '" ,~.G"-,J; I~ '." "",.;-".;t;,,C;'~;"~ <' '"' Maribeth stood defiantly in the way and Father put the can on the tailgate around her, pushing her out of the way. Father denies physically harming or handling the children. 80. Denied. Not only has Mother inappropriately discussed the custody litigation and the remaining issues regarding the divorce litigation with the children, she has, by her actions, demonstrated to the children that Father's role in their lives is unimportant. Mother's actions and words have provided the children with the message that it is acceptable to be disrespectful and hurtful to Father, as well as being disrespectful against his new wife and children, undermining any hope of family unity or normalcy. Mother has continuously failed to cooperate in scheduling counseling with the children. Father avers that Mother's actions are not in the children's best interests. Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests this honorable Court to deny Defendant's request to find Plaintiff in contempt and other modification requested relief in that Defendant's request for a finding for contempt is raised inappropriately considering the nature of the pleading filed and in that Defendant does not comply with Pa. R. of Civil Procedure 1915,12 (b). Respectfully submitted, DATE: March 12,2001 I f Barbara Sump Ie-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court I,D. 32317 Attorney for Plaintiff 10 12:36p SKC Law . 717-796-1933 . p.2 / / / I.AW OFI'IGE OF -.. SUSAN KAY CANDIELLO, B.S.N., M.S.N., J.D. NURSE/ATTORNEY 502:. E~l TIt!:.!!.)L!:' ROAD, SlllTt 100. MECHA."'lICSl.\UIt{), PENNSYLVANIA 170SD (717) 796-19:10 ~AX (7t 7) 796-1933 wwv....:ikci~'milylaw.cL)I)) wW'W.:o;kce 1dl:r 1;.; W.~'."'lln l3,ub,trll Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 January 31, 200] VIA FACSIMILE ond RRGlJLAR MArl. RE: Bucher(Lucellte) vs 6ucher Visitation Dellr Barbara: Mrs. L"cente n"s reviewed the dates Dr. Bucl,er ha~ I'eque~ted for vl~ilation Wilh the children, whieh YOll propo~ed in your lelter d"ted Janum-y 25, 2001. rhe following ale the dates the children will bc "vailable. Plcnse remind Dr. Bucher, his "bility to have the ehildrcn includes his agreement to take the cil.ildrento any activity which they have pre-viously scheduled on the dales which Dr. Bucher h'l" them for visitation. Janul1ry 31, ZOOl O.K. February 6, 200l O.K. l'ebrullry 14. 200l No l'ehrut'ry 22,2001 O.K. February 28, 2001 O.t<. We responded to n previous requcsr for the weekend of February 2,3,4, 2001, indicating Dr. Buche.r could not have the children thar weekend because it is Maril;eth's birthday weekend and there are plans and patties already scheduled. l'urthel, Dr. Bucher had all d,e children, Saturday, January 20, 20Ul and he had the children this pm,t weekend, January 26. 27, amd 2~. 2001. Dr. Bucher may have the children the weekend of February 23, 24, 25, 2001 to celebrate his birthdtly. Please be aware the children are steadfast in their request not to spend two (2) nights with their father, Dr. Bucher c<>nlinues t\l not have food in the home for them and v(Lrious olher circumstances which are n\lt in the children's best interest. We have not yet received Dr. Bucher's response to our inquilie8 ,twut the marital property agreement. We look f(lT\vare to hi. respom<e and moving tow;ud ,I resolution of those issues. ,,-y ~, 12:36p SKC Law . 717-796-1933 . 10.3 Bucher (Lucente) vs Bucher Page 2 1/31/01 If Y(lU have any questions or would .like to discuss our requests and suggestions, please contact me. Sincerely,.-- _~.._ _'_'"'''' /'.. ". c-'"\.~~'I~gt'\.J_.... ..-.--....---.. Susan Ka ('.an iello . ..j cc: Maribeth Lucente ".j; , '., . '.' -~ ~_ 'I: ,', I,-_,~'~" .-'~ "..;' .;--.'-'/"~ Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, P A 17070 (717) 774-1445 Counsel for Plaintiff ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY MARIBETH J.R. BUCHER, Defendant : NO.OO-3140 VERIFICATION I, ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., hereby certify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Reply of Petitioner to New Matter to Respondent in Response to Petition for Contempt, Enforcement and Special Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to penalties of 18 Pa. c.S.A. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: March IA ,2001 r " -,' ,'~' -, '~ ~"^ " ,{: -: ""; '-"-" ~'''-~ , 0'[';, '""" ~ ~ , ,- ,.i., " Barbara Sump1e-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, P A 17070 (717) 774-1445 Counsel for Plaintiff ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR" Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY MARIBETH J.R. BUCHER, Defendant : NO.00-3140 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, BARBARA SUMPLE-SULLIV AN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certifY that on this date, I served a true and correct copy of the Reply of Petitioner to New Matter to Respondent in Response to Petition for Contempt, Enforcement and Special Relief, in the above-captioned matter upon the following individual(s), by United States first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Susan Kay Candiello, Esquire 5021 East Trindle Road, Sui 0 Mechanicsburg, P A 50 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, P A 17070-1931 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court J.D. 32317 Attorney for Plaintiff DATE: March 12,2001 j I ~'- _I 1ii\J}; vs. APR 0 92001tfJ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-3140 J ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff MARIBETH J. R. LUCENTE, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT Edgar B. Bayley, J. AND NOW, this , , day of April, 2001, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. Leaal Custody. The Mother, Maribeth Lucente, and the Father, Robert W. Bucher, Jr., shall have shared legal custody of the minor Children, Maribeth Jo Bucher, born November 22, 1983; Samantha L. Bucher, born February 3, 1986; Robert W. Bucher, III, born August 13, 1989; and Joseph R. Bucher, born February 12, 1992. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all major non-emergency decisions affecting the Children's general well-being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion. Pursuant to the terms of Pa. C. S.95309, each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the Children including, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious or school records, the residence address of the Children and of the other parent. To the extent one parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent. 2. Physical Custody. Mother shall have primary physical custody. Father shall have partial physical custody. These periods of partial custody shall occur two weekends per month from Fridays at 6:00 p.m. until Sundays at 9:00 p.m. Father shall additionally have one night each week from 6:00 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. During the summer school break, the week day visit may be extended over night to 9:00 a.m. Father shall give notice to Mother by the third week of each month for as many months as possible in advance which weekends and week nights he will be available for the exercise of his partial custody. Father shall provide such notice to Mother regarding his schedule for at least the entire following month. Mother shall provide to Father written copies of sports and extracurricular activities schedules for each of the Children promptly as they become available to her. In the event that there are social activities which the Children would like to participate in during Father's custodial weekend, the decisions regarding the Children's participation in said activities shall be made between the Child and Father. .--1 ",. . No. 00-3140 3. Vacation: Father shall be entitled to eighteen days of vacation time which shall be combined with his custodial weekends. This vacation time may be used through out the year 4. Custodial Exchanges: The parties shall us a neutral exchange point for custodial exchanges which shall be Sheetz located at the corner of Routes 114 and 11 in Silver Spring Township. There shall be a fifteen minute window allowed for exchange times. 5. The parties shall have a mutual first right of refusal for any period of custody which they will not be available for a period of two hours or more. 6. The parties have agreed that Father shall participate in family therapy with the Children due to present difficulties in their relationship and the apparent estrangement which exists between the Father and some of the Children. These therapeutic services are sufficiently important that, if necessary, these appointments may be scheduled in such a fashion that the Children may be required to miss some hours of school. However, the Father shall endeavor to arrange appointments with the therapist, depending on her availability, which shall minimize the Children's absence from school. Mother shall cooperate with the scheduling of the Children's appointments with Jamie Orris of Guidance Associates and shall cooperate with the recommendations of Ms. Orris. 7. Neither party shall schedule activities for the Children during the other parent's periods of custody. If there are previously scheduled activities, the parties, after consultation with the Children, shall make the determination as to which the activities the Children shall attend during that individual parent's custodial period. It shall be the responsibility of Father to set up and arrange whatever transportation is necessary to allow the Children to continue in their participation of sports and other social activities which shall occur during his period of custody. 8. Pending further Order of Court, the custodial periods of this Order shall not be modified by either party unless both parties agree in advance, in writing. The parties are encouraged to use e-mail to communicate with each other regarding such modifications. While in the presence of the Children, the parties shall not involve themselves in negotiations to modify custodial plans. 9. Mother and Father shall directly communicate with each other whenever possible and according to this terms set forth in this Order. They shall not use the Children as a means to communicate to each other as to the modification of this agreement. Neither parent shall do anything which may estrange the Children from either party or injure the opinion of the Children as to the other party or which may hamper the free and natural development of the 0""- ., l ~. , No. 00-3140 Children's love and affection for the other party. 10. Holidays. A. Christmas. Christmas shall be divided into two segments. Segment A shall consist of December 24th through December 25th at 1 :00 p.m. Segment B shall consist of December 25th at 1 :00 p.m. until December 26th. In odd-numbered years, Mother shall have Segment A and Father shall have Segment B. In even-numbered years, Father shall have Segment A and Mother shall have Segment B. B. Other Holidays. The parties shall share other holiday times as equitably as possible. 11. The Order indicated in the preceding paragraphs reflects an agreement of the parties. Father has agreed to withdraw his claim for counsel fees in his Contempt Petition at this time with a caveat that should Mother, within the six months of the date of this Order, fail to comply with the Order, Father's right to seek counsel fees will be retroactive to the preparation of the Petition filed on January 9, 2001. However, this should not be construed as any limitation on sanctions which the Court may impose should Mother fail to comply with this Order within the next six months. Dis!: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire. 549 Bridge Street. New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 Sus~n K. Candiello. Esquire, 5021 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 \ t<<~~ Edgar B. Bayley, t E In lei lOOny .nd t e seal , d This ..,.,.... ...... ...~..... .............................,;~. .,n~~II"~;;U'.WIJ,U,U,"~UU.~~~_... prOtho~tary ~ L ,", , J~ !,LkJd ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 00-3140 MARl BETH J. R. LUCENTE, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Maribeth Jo Bucher Samantha L. Bucker Robert W. Bucher Joseph R. Bucher November 22, 1983 February 3, 1986 August 3, 1989 February 12, 1992 Mother Mother Mother Mother 2. A second Custody Conciliation Conference was held on March 14,2001, with the following individuals in attendance: the Father, Robert W. Bucher, Jr., and his counsel, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire; the Mother, Maribeth J. R. Lucente, and her counsel, Susan K. Candiello, Esquire. 3. The parties were seen by the Conciliator pursuant to Father's Petition for Contempt, Enforcement and Special Relief, pursuant to the Order of June 27,2000. Following Father's petition, Mother's counsel filed a Reply and New Matter also alleging contempt. The parties reached an agreement. Subsequent to the conference, counsel requested that the agreed upon order be held pending an agreement on vacation time. This was ultimately accomplished via telephone conference with the counsel and conciliator on April 6, 2001. In the telephone conference, counsel agreed upon issues of vacation and a neutral exchange point. Father's counsel also sought to have the option of over night for mid week visits. Mother's position was that this should not be in the Order. Counsel agreed the conciliator would make a recommendation regarding mid week over night visits during summer school break. That recommendation is included in the Order as attached. Date i/W/6/ I I ~ (A~~f3 Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire Custody Conciliator / / '<iL: APR 0 9 200~ ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-3140 MARl BETH J. R. BUCHER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this , , day of April, 2001, the Defendant in the above-referenced caption, having remarried, the caption is amended to set forth the Defendant's name as Maribeth Lucente. ,0" \I~~ Dis!: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, 549 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 Susan K. Candiello, Esquire, 5021 E. Trindle Road. Suite 100. Mechanicsburg. PA 17050 _""'... :ilIlI- " '-'lI~~;~~Hlll'll''',;j)',",-,-af'~\",'~'''~)"""H",,~,ltf,,,,~-jjj,.OI~_~~~-]"" ~~ >.. (") 2: cC ("oJ .,~' '":~,. ~~ N ~5<( u.: ~~; \ ")-~ ~2 " ':?~ "-j' ~- '.:1.'-1 o' ~:- 7 (./) .~~, :z: ~ ,.1-: ~ ~ Ct'::: ,:3 tU (0.. 0.. ..a. .r?-; i..L :;) C) ,"'~" U ,~ 1Ii!J....."'''''''~oa;., )"""'" _altllll'....;.~ ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., PLAINTIFF v~. MARIBETH LUCENTE, DEFENDANT w, ,I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-3140 CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 7t'Ldayof ~ , ,2001, the Defendant's name in -J':': the above caption being stated incorrectly, the caption is amended to set forth the Defendant's name as MARIBETH BUCHER LUCENTE. ~ ~ ~ '"' "~ _I~"~'~_' ,H_C". "~-"" ~" ,"', . > ,0 "_"~J""<""~"~ '<" _h ' "'_,.,, ",~" o~' ,flllO , !IJh'.lj'"A,-,, '" .' Up- . ":~'-"'" r!.,",,.. 0' , '."I/f~'i"''''C: I lid r , 'tV,Otv? Olf, ,j /Ii f" <.4'f1'8tj'). 'illlo.. PI::;. 1(,9" .'is "'\q'VSr/V OJ. ' Z!%..q i:'J,vly ,~,~~ ._ __, _^ ,..."_m~~~I~'1ffiIiN'_~"'Wl> ,~:m'il:!Q~ """,._~ft.:ti!F~~'W~1':i""'i"''''''e''''''1n,":''P'{Hl'S~I!<~~~~'~ "M~ ~ '" 1-- . I . ,:4,,'" ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. MARlBETH LUCENTE, DEFENDANT NO. 00-3140 CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY PRAECIPE TO CORRECT DEFENDANT'S NAME TO: THE PROTHONOTARY Defendant's name was stated incorrectly when Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire, the Custody Conciliator for this case, filed a Petition to correct the caption in the above case. (A copy of the Aprilll, 2001 Order of Court amending the caption is attached hereto and made a part thereof as Exhibit "A".) Please change the caption in the above-stated action, to the caption stated as follows: ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. MARlBETH BUCHER LUCENTE, DEFENDANT NO. 00-3140 CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY Respectfully submitted, LAW FIRM OF SUSAN KAY CANDIELLO, P.C. Dated: April -.Jo, 2001 Susan Kay Can . PA l.D. # 6499 5021 East Trind Suite 100 Mechanicsburg PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 -"- .~ "~ . ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-3140 MARl BETH J. R. BUCHER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this J / day of April, 2001, the Defendant in the above-referenced caption, having remarried, the caption is amended to set forth the Defendant's name as Maribeth Lucente. BY THE COURT, ~1 JJ JJ/l>o/ Edg . Bayley, J. Disl: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, 549 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 Susan K. Candiello, Esquire, 5021 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100, Mechanicsbur9. PA 17050 Exhibit "N' . _i ,- i ._,.~u_I__'_ , . ,~,~'".. ,-', ~L .1 h-d . vs. MAY 0 1 200lfll IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-3140 ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff MARl BETH J. R. LUCENTE, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT Edgar B. Bayley, J. ~ AND NOW, this ~ day of Aj'ril, 2001, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. Legal Custody. The Mother, Maribeth Lucente, and the Father, Robert W. Bucher, Jr., shall have shared legal custody of the minor Children, Maribeth Jo Bucher, born November 22, 1983; Samantha L. Bucher, born February 3, 1986; Robert W. Bucher, III, born August 3, 1989; and Joseph R. Bucher, born February 12,1992. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all major non"emergency decisions affecting the Children's general well-being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion. Pursuant to the terms of Pa. C. S.S5309, each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the Children including, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious or school records, the residence address of the Children and of the other parent. To the extent one parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent. 2. Physical Custody. Mother shall have primary physical custody. Father shall have partial physical custody. These periods of partial custody shall occur two weekends per month from Fridays at 6:00 p.m. until Sundays at 9:00 p.m. Father shall additionally have one night each week from 6:00 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. During the summer school break, the week day visit may be extended over night to 9:00 a.m. Father shall give notice to Mother by the third week of each month for as many months as possible in advance which weekends and week nights he will be available for the exercise of his partial custody. Father shall provide such notice to Mother regarding his schedule for at least the entire following month. Mother shall provide to Father written copies of sports and extracurricular activities schedules for each .of the Children promptly as they become available to her. In the event that there are social activities which the Children would like to participate in during Father's custodial weekend, the decisions regarding the Children's participation in said activities shall be made between the Child and Father. . ~ '~'..., > _, _ " ~ J, 1 '_'C " ,I" ,- c ';"=' , No. 00-3140 3. Vacation: Father shall be entitled to eighteen days of vacation time which shall be combined with his custodial weekends. This vacation time may be used through out the year 4. Custodial Exchanaes: The parties shall us a neutral exchange point for custodial exchanges which shall be Sheetz located at the corner of Routes 114 and 11 in Silver Spring Township. There shall be a fifteen minute window allowed for exchange times. 5. The parties shall have a mutual first right of refusal for any period of custody which they will not be available for a period of two hours or more. 6. The parties have agreed that Father shall participate in family therapy with the Children due to present difficulties in their relationship and the apparent estrangement which exists between the Father and some of the Children. These therapeutic services are sufficiently important that, if necessary, these appointments may be scheduled in such a fashion that the Children may be required to miss some hours of school. However, the Father shall endeavor to arrange appointments with the therapist, depending on her availability, which shall minimize the Children's absence from school. Mother shall cooperate with the scheduling of the Children's appointments with Jamie Orris of Guidance Associates. 7. Neither party shall schedule activities for the Children during the other parent's periods of custody. If there are previously scheduled activities, the parties, after consultation with the Children, shall make the determination as to which the activities the Children shall attend during that individual parent's custodial period. It shall be the responsibility of Father to set up and arrange whatever transportation is necessary to allow the Children to continue in their participation of sports and other social activities which shall occur during his period of custody. 8. Pending further Order of Court, the custodial periods of this Order shall not be modified by either party unless both parties agree in advance, in writing. The parties are encouraged to use e-mail to communicate with each other regarding such modifications. While in the presence of the Children, the parties shall not involve themselves in negotiations to modify custodial plans. 9. They shall not use the Children as a means to communicate to each other as to the modification of this agreement. Neither parent shall do anything which may estrange the Children from either party or injure the opinion of the Children as to the other party or which may hamper the free and natural development of the , ~, No. 00-3140 Children's love and affection for the other party. 10. Holidays. A. Christmas. Christmas shall be divided into two segments. Segment A shall consist of December 24th through December 25th at 1 :00 p.m. Segment B shall consist of December 25th at 1 :00 p.m. until December 26th. In odd-numbered years, Mother shall have Segment A and Father shall have Segment B. In even-numbered years, Father shall have Segment A and Mother shall have Segment B. B. Other Holidays. The parties shall share other holiday times as equitably as possible. 11. The Order indicated in the preceding paragraphs reflects an agreement of the parties. Father has agreed to withdraw his claim for counsel fees in his Contempt Petition at this time with a caveat that should Mother, within the six months of the April 11 , 2001 Order, fail to comply with the Order, Father's right to seek counsel fees will be retroactive to the preparation of the Petition filed on January 9, 2001. However, this should not be construed as any limitation on sanctions which the Court may impose should Mother fail to comply with this Order within the next six months. Dis!: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire. 549 Bridge Street, New Cumberland. PA 17070-1931 _ \ Susan K. Candiello, Esquire, 5021 E. Trindle Road. Suite 100, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Y 1__ ."-'.~-,- I';; ROBERT W. BUCHER, JR., Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-3140 MARl BETH J. R. LUCENTE, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Maribeth Jo Bucher Samantha L. Buhker Robert W. Bucher Joseph R. Bucher November 22, 1983 February 3, 1986 August 3, 1989 February 12,1992 Mother Mother Mother Mother 2. Telephone conference was held with counsel on April 25, 2001. Further modifications to the order were discussed and agreed upon. However, the issue of Father's overnight mid week periods of partial custody during the summer was not agreed upon. Neither counsel wanted a hearing. Counsel agreed that the conciliator would consult with Judge Bayley, present the parties' positions and an Order would be entered with Judge Bayley's decision, as prepared by the Conciliator. 3. Mother's position, as reported by her counsel, is that the children are resisting the present over nights during Father's present weekend time and that the present overnight periods of custody are not going well. She does not think further over nights should be at Father's option, but should be decided upon by the children with input from the children's counselor. Mother also reports that the children's comments lead her to believe that the present counseling with Father is not going well and that the children do not like how they are treated by the counselor. 4. Father's position, as reported by counsel, is that the overnights mid week are reasonable additional time for him during the summer because the children to not have to get to school following those overnights. Father reports the counseling is going well and that there are not problems with the current weekend overnights. . i' ~ .J '" "" ,,'.. . Dol. 11401 LAiJJU G Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire Custody Conciliator ,-1-, .I,> " ...: 1 -