HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-03473
TERESA (MARCHUT) STROHM,
Plaintiff
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
TIFF ANIE KILLINGER and
WILLIAM L. WESTMORELAND, SR.
Defendants
: NO. 00-3473 CIVIL TERM
: IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW this 30 day of July, 2001, it is hereby ORDERED and DIRECTED that
our prior Order in this matter, dated December 5, 2000, is hereby VACATED. It is further
ORDERED and DIRECTED that:
1. Tiffanie Killinger (hereinafter referred to as "Mother") shall have primary physical
custody of William Lee Westmoreland, Jr., born February 1, 1990, (hereinafter
referred to as "Child").
2. . William L. Westmoreland, Sr., (hereinafter referred to as "Father") shall have periods
of partial physical custody, as the parties may agree, including Grandmother allowing
visits with the child while he is in her custody.
3. Teresa S. (Marchut) Strohm (hereinafter referred to as "Grandmother") shall have
periods of partial physical custody on the following scheduled:
a.) During the school year, unless Grandmother already has a period of partial
custody as hereinafter described during any month, Grandmother shall be entitled
to have an extended weekend of partial custody with the child on any weekend
when the child has a three or four day weekend due to a holiday, in-service day,
or other day(s) off from school;
b.) During the Thanksgiving school vacation period, the child shall be with Mother
for Thanksgiving 2001 and all odd numbered years thereafter and shall be with
Grandmother for Thanksgiving 2002 and all even numbered years thereafter;
c.) During the Christmas school vacation period, the parties shall share the school
vacation break by dividing the school holiday between the period from the last
day of school before the vacation break until December 28th and the period from
December 28th until the evening before the child must return to school, with
Mother having the first period set forth above for Christmas 2001, and Christmas
2002, as well as all even numbered years thereafter during which time
Grandmother shall have the second period set forth above. For Christmas 2003
and all odd numbered years thereafter, Grandmother shall have the first periods
set forth above and Mother shall have the second period.
d.) During the Easter or spring break period when the child is off from school the
child shall be with Mother for the Easter or spring break in 2002 and all even
numbered years and with Grandmother in 2003 and all odd numbered years;
e.) During the summer vacation period, Grandmother shall be entitled to two (2)
three (3) week periods of partial custody with the child with those specific periods
to be agreed upon between the parties by no later than April 1 st of each year; and
f.) At such other times as the parties may agree.
4. Mother and Grandmother shall share transportation responsibilities for
Grandmother's periods of partial custody by meeting at a halfway point between the
-
.~-
parties' residences at a location to be agreed upon by the parties and counsel. It is
understood that if Grandmother initiates her transportation from Shippensburg,
Pennsylvania, that the half way point shall between Shippensburg and Mother's
residence. Father shall participate and assist in transportation as he is able.
5. Unless otherwise agreed upon above, the specific exchange times for the periods of
partial custody set forth above shall be agreed upon by the parties.
6. Mother shall provide Grandmother and Father with a copy of the child's school
calendar by no later than August 1 st of each summer.
(
cc:
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
Attorney for Teresa (Marchut) Strohm, Plaintiff
.~
?~
V <\ 'lj
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
Attorney for Tiffanie Killinger, Defendant
William L. Westmoreland, Sr., Defendant, pro se
'.-:;:/rr\l
1"1 30 \T,_, 3:
r, I\,~'C,_ .' ,-, !'"",,,}
.....VH,~':=-: ';-' :..::.u 1....-;JuI11 I
i.'c:"~f~0 '(l.:://'.\,\J.A.
''"'-'<
.-" "
(, . ,;""..," ,~~,
1,_
,. 0
AUG 7 ~~
.
TERESA MARCHUT,
Plaintiff
vs.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 00-3473
TIFFANIE KILLINGER and
WILLIAM l. WESTMORELAND, SR.,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY
INTERIM ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ,otfl daYOf~.f ,2000, upon consideration of the
attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, d it appearing that the parties are in need
of a hearing, the following Interim Order is in place pending further Order of the Court:
1. Pending further Order of this Court, the child, William Lee Westmoreland, Jr.,
born February 1, 1990, shall remain in the primary physical custody of the maternal
grandmother, Teresa Marchut.
2. From August 11, 2000 until- August 18, 2000, Mother shall have partial physical
custody to be exercised in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. Father shall have partial physical custody for the weekend of August 19-20,
2000, and August 25-27,2000. Commencing with the weekend of August 25-27,2000,
Father shall continue to have alternate weekend periods of partial custody with the minor child,
alternating with the maternal grandmother, Plaintiff Teresa Marchut.
4. In the event that Mother would like to exercise partial custodial rights to the
minor child, she may make arrangements with either the maternal grandmother or the Father
by Tuesday of the week preceding the weekend, to exercise periods of partial custody with the
child in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
5.
Q'18FEliBI'I as !!tel'Fl tv. llit: lI,illUI \;hlld.
, ["'lvi,,,, 511all bo appointed te 5aR/1l '''' _ ~
...
6. A hearing is scheduled in Courtroom Number :l, of the Cumberland County
Courthouse on the ():),1oI4 day o~ ,2000, at ~. c..i'0 o'clock IJ M, at which
time testimony will be taken. For the purposes of the hearing, the Mother, Tiffanie A. Killinger,
shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for
the parties and the parties pro se, shall file with the court and opposing counsel/party and a
memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list of witnesses who are
expected to testify at the hearing, and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. ~
Lilteyv;~c, tilt, gI:J8r~i~R 2" 'itfim ,"h~1I pr,:\<::,::.nt thp r^'lrt '}'Jitl:l a FRemQFaR~tlfR at-Mil,S feFtR t!;:ls '\P/
-
! .
"
-
NO. 00-3473
-~ " ",' ,"",<"'. -;,
- '.',,,,, --<; ,,',
-::
fJO:.iLiuII fu, II,,,, ,ninul child. These memoranda shall be filed at least ten days prior to the
hearing date.
Dis!: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, 155 S. Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013
Brad Griffie, Esquire, 200 N. Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013
William L. Westmoreland, Sr., 26 N. Pitt Street, Carlisle, PA 17013
J. r<\~
. ~'\ 0
t~. \ O~~Q
~K
"
J ·
1'!1'
CI~r T\..,;F ODQ-I ~...Il IN\.) \t\n i
,\._ 1'\ 'I......
OO!l\lG \0 P\'\ 1:24
OUMbl;Jli-1"..
i i ~ENNS'{\..VANll-\
jo$",
CUl'/1BEf1LA\!D COUl\1'fY
PENNSYLVA\'1\A
""'
_...__..., .<__ d. <.' .',
""'1ilAJll ,=
~ ", _,:',"",", _'0'" .. ,',""' , _" ,-JC,-"'--.""'- "",j .rrr~I!II~W~..
, ~, Jllil"~
..'"
J~""""",^'t","
AUG 7 200V
j
TERESA MARCHUT,
Plaintiff
vs.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 00-3473
TIFFANIE KILLINGER and
WILLIAM l. WESTMORELAND, SR.,
Defendants
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 child who is the subject of this litigation
is as follows:
NAME
DATE OF BIRTH
CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF
William Lee Westmoreland
February 1, 1990
Maternal Grandmother, Teresa
Marchut
2. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on July 25, 2000, with the following
individuals in attendance: The father, William Westmoreland, Sr., who appeared pro se;
Tiffanie Killinger, and her counsel, Karl Rominger, Esquire; Teresa Marchut, the maternal
grandmother, and her counsel, Brad Griffie, Esquire.
3. The parties were not able to reach an agreement with regard to the custody of
the minor child. However, they were able to reach some agreements with regard to an Interim
Order until such time as a hearing can be scheduled before the Court. Counsel for maternal
grandmother agreed that maternal grandmother has no standing as a grandparent; however,
argues that she does have standing for custody because she has stood in loco parentis for a
period of ten years. Moreover, Maternal grandmother states that the minor child has been in
her care for approximately ten years with the express consent of her daughter, the Plaintiff in
this matte. During that period of time, Mother has enjoyed periods of partial custody, in
particular, in the summertime. Maternal grandmother has also cooperated with the biological
father who has enjoyed periods of partial custody every other weekend, some periods during
the week, and for family events with the Father's extended family. Maternal grandmother
contends that there was never a plan to return the child to the primary custody of his biological
Mother. She reports he is in a stable home and does not want to uproot him from that home
at this time. Maternal grandmother is also presently going through a divorce.
4. Tiffanie Killinger, the biological mother of this child, has taken the position that
~ --
.-
'''!" "0,"" j"',.-, "'k;.
_ "'" u"""':',
~
~ . ,
NO. 00-3473
there had been a plan since last Fall, in 1999, that Lee would be returned to her primary care
at the conclusion of the 1999-2000 school year. Lee has spent approximately six weeks with
his mother this summer on vacation time and recently returned from Disney World. Mother
resides in West Virginia. She is engaged to be married in January of 2001 and has a five-
year-old child with the man to whom she is presently engaged. Mother has known her fiance'
for approximately nine years.
5. Father resides in Carlisle and sees the child through a cooperative but not
formalized arrangement with the maternal grandmother. This has been going on for
approximately two and a half years. Father's position regarding where his child should reside
is that the child should have the choice of where he wants to live.
6. The Custody Conciliator is unwilling to recommend to the Court to upset the
child's present living arrangements and recommends an interim order in the form attached
pending further Order of this Court. Both counsel agreed that the Court should appoint a
guardian ad litem to represent the child.
~UJ7.r'
~,,~,S:'
Custody Conciliator
Date
,'olil"
~~ ~~ ,
-""(lli
- ,
~ .
TERESA MARCHUT,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
vs.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
TIFF ANlEKILLINGER and
WILLIAM L.
WESTMORELAND, SR.,
Defendants
: 00<)'173
: NO. CIVIL TERM
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~ day of Jl )~
, 2000, upon presentation
and consideration of the within Petition, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED
that the Plaintiff, Teresa Marchut, shall have primary physical and legal custody of the
child, William Lee Westmoreland, Jr., until further Order of Court or agreement of the
parties. Either Defendant may file a Petition for Modification of this Order, upon proper
notice, for the Court to determine the appropriate periods of visitation or partial physical
custody with the child pending a comprehensive hearing in this JlllIttel.( 'l
BY THE COURT, ,//'
J.
/
~. ,
1",,,,
~~.
f~i'WI.~~'Ml
q~""",
FILED-{)FFICE
OF THe: DD0T~rn!\I()'I"\DY
'. I " ) , ;l_';_ "_', " /"111
00 JUN -8 MJlD: 25
CUlvI31;f.1LAj'IO COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
f!lm!lll
JtIl!J" 1>.... )1(l\\1fi
~, .
~~..
'.....,"-,. ~'i '
~~,- . '"~""--"'---,I'",~"'~';,",
J .
~iWi'~mJffltl'-1'!!\RJffMJ!ii!!"~~
~1f.~:~~U.1~~ .0
~~,,,,~IfiL _"_
~
~
'1'
l
'"~ ,I]),~
'"
"""~ilil2iJ~:-;
- .
TERESAMARCHUT,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
TIFF ANIE KILLINGER and
WILLIAM L.
WESTMORELAND, SR.,
Defendants
oor3~7J
: NO. CIVIL TERM
IN CUSTODY
PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF
AND NOW, comes Petitioner, Teresa Marchut, by and through her counsel of
record, Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire, and petitions the Court as follows:
1. Petitioner is the above named Plaintiff and an adult individual currently residing at 1
Earl Street, Boiling Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Respondent Tiffanie Killinger, is the above named Defendant and an adult individual
currently residing at 605 Russell Street, Charleston, West Virginia.
3. Respondent William L. Westmoreland, Sr., is the above named Defendant and an adult
individual currently residing at North Pitt Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
4. The Respondents are the natural parents of one child, namely, William Lee
Westmoreland, Jr., born February 1, 1990.
5. Petitioner is the maternal grandmother of the child.
6. Since December 19, 1990, Petitioner has had primary physical custody of the child
pursuant to Respondent Killinger's written confirmation, a copy of said document
being attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "N'.
...l
.--
~.
.'~'ll-~~(
-, ,
7. . Since December 1990, Respondent Killinger has had somewhat routine, but at times
infrequent contact with the child.
8. Respondent William L. Westmoreland, Sr., resides in Carlisle, has routine contact with
the child and has expressed his opposition to any attempts by Respondent Killinger to
remove the child from this jurisdiction.
9. The child has been raised in the Carlisle area under the care, custody and control of the
Petitioner, who has stood in loco parentis to the child for more than nine and one-half
years.
10. Contemporaneously with filing this Petition for Special Relief, a Complaint for
Custody has been filed by Petitioner to secure an Order providing her with primary
physical custody of the child.
11. Petitioner and Respondent Killinger were preparing for a period when the child would
visit with Respondent Killinger during the period of the summer vacation months in
the year 2000.
12. In preparation for the child's visit with Respondent Killinger, comments were made by
Respondent Killinger that suggested to Petitioner that Respondent Killinger may retain
custody of the child and refuse to return the child following the visit.
13. In anticipation of resolving this matter without litigation, Petitioner had prepared a
comprehensive Custody Agreement, which has been forwarded to Respondent
Killinger.
14. To Petitioner's knowledge, Respondent Killinger has failed and refused to sign the
Agreement and now has more forcefully indicated that she is going to take custody of
the child and move the child to her home state of West Virginia.
^'" ~"
,- ,
,,"-'.- -' ",..,
-',"
15. If Respondent Killinger is permitted to move the child to another jurisdiction, it will
create legal complications in ultimately resolving the issue of custody of the child in
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, which Court has had jurisdiction over the issue of
custody since the child's birth.
16. An attempt by Respondent Killinger to retain custody of the child will be a disruption
of the status quo that has been in existence for more than nine and one-half years and
would be a total disruption to the child's life.
17. Respondent Killinger's attempts to secure custody of the child and remove the child
from the jurisdiction is based solely upon the fact that there has recently been a
Support Order entered against her requiring her to pay support to Petitioner.
18. It is anticipated by Plaintiff that Respondent Killinger may attempt to physically secure
the child and move the child out of the jurisdiction in the period between June 7, 2000
and June 11,2000.
19. As Petitioner believes Respondent Killinger may, in fact, either be in transit from her
home in West Virginia or may have already arrived in the Carlisle area, Petitioner has
no means of informing Respondent Killinger, at this time, of the fact that the within
Petition is being filed.
20. Petitioner will cooperate to establish appropriate periods of visitation and partial
physical custody with both Respondents.
21. It is not Petitioner's intention to in any way inhibit contact between the child and the
Respondents, but rather to secure a Custody Order that can be put in place to avoid
confusion, problems and future litigation over the issue of custody of the child.
~
",
0",_ :c..,.
'~ It'1rw-,
. .
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests Your Honorable Court to enter an Order
providing her with legal and physical custody of the child pending further Order of Court
or agreement of the parties.
Respectfully submitted,
GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
. e, Esquire
ey for etitioner
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5551
(800) 347-5552
.'"" , ~~
','
- .:,.
,,-;'
-- -,- ..- - ~-:ili!!h'
. .
I verifY that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.e.S.
Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATE: to / -+-)xm
r- ':fa u llQ.. g. frr^ -eJ " t-
Teresa Marchut
. - ~ "-~
.~
, ,
---.--
r Ji-(~Qn;f'.. K:ill"'LY~ y
3/ vZ rl.erm; sS,-c..'
-+6
J-e. re 5 C\.. ()16..rch u+ -fu i-1Cl \J -e +-e~f
at w / (1/ Ct...tvi !-e e w.eSM(Jre.1 Q.0.d :Sf( , lMH!
o:t=- r1u+rf,~ CC-'c1/?I).
c.. u.S+O d j
+ lcr--4 ~~
5i.00r~1 ~ ~Scrt ~/
6...e (Of -.e f/) --e -f-t1 1'5 (Cf/--Il
dL1..j 0+:- IJ.e C"--ed"Y?r Ilzd -
ti~~ ([ (Pc.0\.O CT'^--
NQV..1!.'l. SEAL
Deb~ A. ?a(;)~tJ. Notary P~.;:)iic
I _ C:-:aiTItErSb"J~g. ~fanj.(i:n 1~~;j:rrJ !
"y Ccm~'I<"on ',";(". "1-" " -0<."'1 I
,.., !I1'NI' I r....lol..'"'~' '..i'. '-!, :.....t.. I
Exhibit "A"
, ,
~ ~!ll ..
.1
"""" ,- -
.
",' . ~ 0,,"'" ,"_,
", ~JiR.l.~
~'--j -"
- U'
i-'-
_7._'
~~
,-,,~,-- ",,",'~'.
^,"- .. -.
'.
.
.,
0 0 0
c 0 ..."
:5;,. '- ~-'1
-OCr) C : Ji fJJ
n1r'!'-r ;Z
:2 I """'n1
~~~: :~~;C;)
CO ~:?,(:-,
!;=c ;!::tlP '"'--'"'1"1
~n :JI:: ~;:?25
~c; \.f? 6rn
,,;..;' '--:: );J
:2 t.rl
=< :0
'D -<
Il!
.
"<
-",~
<"
,
TERESA MARCHUT,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
TIFF ANIE KILLINGER and
WILLIAM L. WESTMORELAND, SR.,
Defendants
: NO. 2000-3473 CIVIL TERM
: IN CUSTODY
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 22nd day of June, 2000, comes Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire, Attorney for
Plaintiff, and states that he mailed a certified and true copy of a Petition for Special Relief and
related Order of Court to the Defendant, Tiffanie Killinger, at P.O. Box 20128, Charleston, West
Virginia, by certified mail, restricted delivery, return receipt requested. A copy of said receipt is
attached hereto indicating service was made on June 17,2000.
quire
ey r Defendant
GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
(717) 243-5551
(800) 347-5552
Sworn and subscribed to
befor~ me this tJ!!! day
of , IA fL{. , 2000.
=;I~
NotaIial Seal .
Karisa,J. Leluiian. Notary Public
Carlisle Bora. Oumbellend County
My. Commission ~plres Aug. 25. 2003
,
~. mw~R:
'jjj
m
..
~
i!!
."
,
I :also wish to receive the follow~
ing services (for an extra fe~):
o Complete items 1. and/or 2 for additional services.
Complete items 3:4a,.and 4b.
'pPrint-.y:04toame and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this
card to you. "_
o Attach this form to the fronl of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not
, permit. '
o Write "Return Receipt ReQuasted~ on the mailpjece below the article number.
o The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered Clnd the date
delivered.
m
=
c
o
I 3T/r;;~7tOiL"t I /l1ff-r
~ 'P,O. 8Jx 20Ifr
~ ckrav1ejfvn )AlV $-s60J-
i: 5. Rec~y: (Print Name)
~ ~_I_'~__ ,__J../..,-__
~ 6.
o
'" .
..-'-'
~ ,pi
1. ~ldd~essee's Address
2. ~Aestricted Delivery
l-
2-6:7
4b. Service Type
o Registered
o Express Mail
o Retum Recei
rYc:ertified
Bl~sured ..
. e DCOD
_.~~..L--,---
B. Addre
(eeis
uested and
rn Receipt
T
Z 339 062 257
US Postal Service
'Receipt for Certified Mail
No insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International Mail See reverse
S III n
2. -?t:;
qt--
'j,; ,- ", '- '-.. ~~......
~ ~ f:f-<::O
-----
~
"
'l:
m
Ul,
a
OJ
~
E
~
...
a:
'"
c
'jjj
"
.e
~ '
o
'"
....
c
..
J:
...
-;~ ~. ~ - ^'
'-"
~ "',, -~,~-
""
I'"
iIIili.~~~iIM~~""-
~,'~ ~,_~, '0 _ ,~"" , "~
,'< ,"<-,
'.~ " ~"
"
"'-;,-
,
~
......-
T
\
f:
fP,<
.""
..'fD
...;.'
if; ("
=--<>
r-"6
ip
1
"-
0".
::0
.ct;;
i\i
-.
'fI
r\J
,
!
~
"
,'''""C.
,
.
/
-r6
---c
---.-- il r - ~
J I -r.... ,-,-Vi I t:.
1-e. re S c,- lY1c...rchu+
c.. u..S+O d lj
I .0
T Lu""'4 ~ $1..(""
uf
t:
I-/'~ ,-1.-
(l(Jj7T< (CooL; j?1) oo
W: (1/6-iVl !-ee
5i-U 0 r'l <:t. "5u-b Sc r1 h-e.::/
.'
,.-
!r '('/-
r,. I? ~ .~/9 ...!/
-,-,,-c.. . .......
,
/i/. '\
v\.,f../o.-,-, ,
,
'--.)
,....
!
,
I
lL411,~.
" '~
, "
iIJ --e .. /Pi IS
(0 ((
r-:-7i
. -' ,
, 17"'c;;}
o (" j) -e (:"--€;'V' L"'f:? r i '-
c[ ~7(G0 vY\.-.
i
I ~.;G~.~!.~.L SEAL
1 :-e::7! A. ?"';J:)~:-:. \'C~:i' ~~~:Jiic
l ,"':"'- -... -~"'''''' :.--..,.,., I'_~- -,
j. .....,41.:...:t1 ~"''''''J' '':'1'''',;: .. ~-;:',I _
I Mv C;::m~I'S!r-~i1 ~:!:~S :.:.:~. : ~, ~ ec::
, '
Exhibit "A"
Fe iI(/~j~ r
-fv
r - 0... oj ..;
Y l .....
q/ t/y
'....J '-
""\ !
!L:?,....~,-_. i
r - r I ll.~ ........':>'1'" - i
- ,_. i
I
~ tY'fGrG..,(
/ I I -R (,1-1:'"
',..p .. .... \ ....- .
tAJ _ 5-j-f"t1C!n::. [G...r1..u <...J \.. ' "I { :
XlIIBrr
.!J1'J7-!m'1 '~
,.....-
11-21-2000 06:27PM FROM GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
TO
',-j,' ,.,,"':,
2406462 P.03
~'~
I .-
TERESA MARCHUT,
I Plaintiff
. v.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
TIFF ANIEKlLLINOER and WILLIAM L. : NO. 00-3473 CIVIL TERM
WEStMORELAND, SR.,
. Defendants : IN CUSTODY
. ,
PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PI.AINTIFF,
TERESA MARCHtrT
,
1. IPLA'tNTIFF'S POSITION ON CVSTODY
,PlaintiJjf, Teresa Marchut, has had custody of her grandson, William Lee Westmoreland,
, '
Jr., since late 1990. This was accomplished when the child's mother, Tiffanie Killinger, was
I '!
unableito prOVide for his care and ultimately executed a note indicating that she gave temporary
physical custody of the child to her mother, Teresa Marchut (the child's maternal granwnother).
,
,
,
,Porniqre than ten years the child has been raised in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,
by P14intiff. i The. child has consistent and involved contact with his father, William L.
Westmoreland; Sr. Although Ms. Marchut is separated from her husband, who assisted in
! .
raising the child as the child's grandfather, the child continues to have contact with Ms,
!
Marchht's husband, The child has attended school in Cumberland County for his entire life. He
does ~ell in school. All of his medical needs of any nature have been met by Ms. Marchut and
all of his mew;cal care providers are in Cumberland County. When the child was in need of any
, . .
type of cO\)Ils~ling, Ms. Marchut secured that counseling. Ms. Marchut has seen to the child's
I .:
religio~s upbr~ging, his physical needs and his emotional and psychological needs.
I i
"
'~l
11-21-2000 06:28PM FROM GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
TO
o~ _'~_," -
2406462 P.04
-~
/
~
[The mother, Tiffanie KjJ1inger's, involvement with the child has been extremely limited,
!
by her choice. · Her periods of time with the child have been limited to a few weeks each summer
and cohtact over Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays when she is in Pennsylvania. Not until
the spring of 2000, when Ms. Marchut finally, after ten years, filed to secure child support from
Ms. Killlinger, did Ms. Killinger express the desire to have custody of her son.
,It is Ms, Marchut's position that, obviously, she should continue as the primary physical
custodjan of tile child with the child having appropriate periods of partial physical custody with
, .
,
his father, William L. Westmoreland, Sr., on an every other weekend arrangement as wen as
other times d~ring the week and during the holidays, as may be appropriate. The mother,
Tiffanle Killinger; should have several weeks of physical custody during the summer vacations
months as well as contact with the child over holidays, particularly when she is in Pennsylvania.
Appropriate accommodations for contact with Ms. Marchut and Ms. Westmoreland should be
provided over pther holidays as well.
11. LIST OF WITNESSES
a. '
b.
c. ,
d.
TeFesa Marchut: Ms. Marchut wJ1l testifY to her involvement in raising aIid caring
for William Lee Westmoreland, Jr., ("Lee"), for the past ten years and every aspect.of
his'life that this involves.
Mark Scheneman: Father Scheneman is Ms. Marchut's priest. He will testify as to
Ms'. Marchut's involvement of herself and Lee in the church and her general profile
as a surrogate parent for Lee.
wiiUam L. Westmoreland, Sr.: Mr. Westmoreland is Lee's father and will be called
as a witiless or as on cross to assist in processing his testimony and position in the
qase.
na'vidZawisa: Mr. Zawisa is Ms. Marchut's male companion, with Whom she
resides. He wi11 testify to Ms. Marchut's care of the child and the child's positive
interaction with Mr. Zawisa's children.
il'
,~
...
- .,-"
-,,;,
..--.:.,
11-21-2000 06:28PM FROM GRIFFIE & RSSOCIRTES
TO
2406462 P.0S
,.
J
e; C(J~n:ieAllport: Ms. Allport is a close friend of Ms. Marchut and is aware of her care
of the Lee and Ms. Marchut's devotion to Lee's needs:
\
Respectfully submitted,
',"
!
Bradley 1. Griffie, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
200 North Hanover Street
CarlisI"" PAl 70 13
(717) 243.5~~ I
(800) 347-5552
,
., . i.
. ,
,
. I
TOTRL P.0S
~ -,
.'
.- ~
~~~, ,'~'i,.
." .
TERESA MARCHUT
PLAINTIFF
V.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
TIFF ANIE KILLINGER & WILLIAM L.
WESTMORELAND, SR.
DEFENDANT
2000-3473 CIVIL ACTION LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 12th day of June ,2000, upon consideration of the attached Complaint,
it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appearbefonJ\1elissa P. Greevy, Esq. . the conciliator,
at 214 Senate Avenue, Suite 105, Camp Hill, PA 17011 on the 26th day of July , 2000, at 9:15 AM
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
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 THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HA VB AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET
FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone (717) 249-3166
~ " ~ '-' - .. "
il
,:
:1
'i
'I
11
i ~
q
:1
il
.'~
'i
I
:;
,-" '" ~,-" ,,'.' ,-, -- ~,~ ~,--,,-".
-,"
",' >-,,-
--" ~',,- ~ ~ ,-~' , ".,~,' -, "'~
)Tt\~'(
,'!, Ji
f1'J 111'1 .
..)1 '- ,If" l "", t.', -.
,~... !.J HI"l 0: r:'Q
,,~
CUI""'.'"
VII....V""'fI' t.l,\;r, /-,....
,,'::-' , , '\I.J ,JUUN7Y
I ENNSYL\ANIA
t/st1::J
!P 16.m
IP /.s.otJ
&d-~~~4~
cn4~2P~
~~ z;4~
, "
-~, ~'",- ' ^"
_'""nO
1IlIf.., _"
_,~ "-'r,"~~ ",_l-~,!j;mII!ll!~:wliI~""'I!J.~h'~_c-;~~."""",~~""""",n.
,'C"'7 ~ ~-(- ?,--,_
" -;,
,
-"~-
~
(J~.
TERESA MARCHUT,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
TIFF ANIE KILLINGER and
WILLIAM L.
WESTMORELAND, SR.,
Defendants
: c3
: NO.OV>3'/1 CIVIL TERM
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of 2000, upon
consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that the parties and their
respective counsel appear before the conciliator,
at
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,
on the day of 2000, at o'clock .m., for a Pre-Hearing Custody
Conference. At such conference an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute, or
if this carmot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the Court
and to enter into a temporary Order. Either party may bring the children who are the
subject of this custody action to the conference, but the children's attendance is not
mandatory. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a
temporary or permanent Order.
BY THE COURT:
By:
Custody Conciliator
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE
THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL
HELP.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
2 Liberty Avenue
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717) 240-3166
"'....... ,~. ,w'Iit\,i!Ii:2W:
TERESA MARCHUT,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
TIFF ANIE KILLINGER and
WILLIAM L.
WESTMORELAND, SR,
Defendants
: 3 <113
: NO. {fIJ' CIVIL TERM
IN CUSTODY
COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY
1. Plaintiff is Teresa Marchut, an adult individual currently residing at 1 Earl Street,
Boiling Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant is Tiffanie Killinger, an adult individual currently residing at 605 Russell
Street, Charleston, West Virginia.
3. Defendant, William L. Westmoreland, Sr., is an adult individual currently residing at
North Pitt Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
4. Defendants are the natural parents of one child, namely, William Lee Westmoreland,
Jr., born February 1, 1990.
5. Plaintiff is the maternal grandmother of the child.
6. The child was born out of wedlock.
For the past five years, the child has resided with the following persons at the
following addresses:
NAME
ADDRESS
DATE
Teresa Marchut
David Zawisa
1 Earl Street
Boiling Springs, P A
Aug. 1999 -
Present
Teresa Marchut
328 West Penn Street
Carlisle, P A
Feb. 1998 -
Aug. 1999
. -~ -
"'",
O~!;j",F
Teresa Marchut
Carl Marchut
63 North West Street
Carlisle, P A
Prior to June 1995 -
Feb. 1998
7. The relationship of the Plaintiff to the child is that of mate mal grandmother. Plaintiff
is married and resides as aforesaid with the child and her male companion.
8. The relationship of Defendant Killinger to the child is that of natural mother. She
resides with her minor child, DaKarai Petty, and her male companion, Marshall Petty.
9. The relationship of Defendant Westmoreland to the child is that of natural father. His
specific living circumstances are unknown to Plaintiff. The individuals with whom she
resides is not known.
10. Defendant William L. Westmoreland's living circumstances are unknown to Plaintiff.
The individuals with whom he resides is not known.
11. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or witness, or in any other capacity in other
litigation, concerning custody of the child.
12. Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the child pending in
any Court of this Commonwealth.
13. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting Plaintiff
primary legal and physical custody of the child for the following reasons:
( a) Plaintiff has been the primary caretaker of the child since December 19, 1990
when Defendant Tiffanie Killinger gave permission to the Plaintiff to have
"temporary" custody of the child; a copy of the statement prepared by Ms.
Killinger, which was notarized, is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit "A".
lili.iI -"
--,
.
~ -, ~
~:i'"c",
(b) For more than nine. and one-half years the child has resided with the Plaintiff,
has attended school in the Carlisle area, has his physician in the Carlisle area,
has his dentist in the Carlisle area, has his friends in the Carlisle area, has his
church in the Carlisle area, all of his extended family with the exception of his
mother, reside in the Carlisle area, and has all relevant aspects of his life of any
nature in the Carlisle area;
( c) The child has had limited and infrequent contact with Defendant Killinger.
12. Plaintiff does not know of any person not a party to the proceedings who claims to
have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests your Honorable Court to set a time and place for
a hearing at which Plaintiff requests the Court grant her primary physical and legal custody
of the child.
Respectfully submitted,
GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
e, Es
ey for Plaintiff
00 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5551
(800) 347-5552
I verifY that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.e.S.
Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATE: (pl:;- pmo
~'1~HJY) S.~~
Teresa Marchut
. "
- . -~
''';';!r1'
, .
"
-C j)-t"(a.n;e. f(:f[IIL.j€t
3/((-€- F<./:?rrn;ss/c,-
-+6
f-ere S~ fr1t...rchu+ --Iv h.Q.v-e -N?try6(GZrf
d Wn{/~'Y! L-ee w.eskcrre-lQ.[l.d 3rt, CJ-htn
r;+: ()uf7f,- CC.'L7/?I).
c2. l.LS+o d j
t Lcr'"'...f ~~
5i-00rvl ~ ~SCr7 ~I
/ />/"- fr. . (L' (0/(
f0--e T J. 't' I" I -e 'i""V/ (S c-;--::
ctLl.1I 0+:- Z)-e e'€d~r 1(70 -
(' 0
jL~WL Ct (P{0VJcrA-
~,",~1.0l. SeAl..
0eC:'J A r:1l':):::i. Not.;,ry P~~:)j;C
I ,"':.,....' ...;.,.,~... :.-..... :r'lI."~"-
'. "",:aI.I:;e'~"'~"J' ::';'1'''''''_ ~~~;:I,1
I" ,..m.......;:-;~... --....;r.-"" "'''''''; ":''' .0<,....;.
,"tf.y \.,o\" 11,1...:.r...III:,..,J......_ II.... . c.!, :....~:..
,
Exhibit "A"
a"<- M'
r~
'<>~
""C
""
v' lr\.
('"
,',~ ., ~.. -' ~"
,.,~"~~ -
Ii. ~ ~
,'~ > ", .0,
~"""".'
~~,liMlli-'~'--=-""""
~-<
o __>^
=. 0..
.^
'';' ~
,<-
,~,
~ -- ~","",~ ,-~-
,-,"'
-->'~ '~"'"~" .~ ~~~
o
~
~~.:o...
n':1QJ
21.<1
ZE~
en .J, '.
;:s =~
< c.;
p
ZO
j;:0
c
:2
--I
-<
"
~
. l'\ ':i
'8 2 e
\
<::)
o
C-.
c:
;;i:
I
Co
~
-",
'!?
r::-
\.0
~. '.....
o
'1
:;:1
[11;]
;~~9
~~9Q
(j :tJ
_-::--~ 1')
.,..,."--
om
:::1
N
::u
-<
~
..
-c.
?Ie
~ ~
t=
~
. '
_ _ L
',.,';,."
-'""' ('",]
TERESA MARCHUT,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
TIFFANIE KILLINGER and
WILLIAM L. WESTMORELAND, SR..
DEFENDANTS : 00-3473 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW. this <:;11- day of December, 2000, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) All prior custody orders are vacated and replaced with this order
(2) Physical custody of William Lee Westmoreland. Jr., born February 1. 1990,
IS AWARDED to his mother, Tiffanie Killinger, as of the 27th day of December, 2000.
BY~,
/
./
Karl Rominger, Esquire
For Tiffanie Killinger
EdgarB.BaYI~J.~~ \
t.~-1I~
J 2-7-00
/<){s
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
For Teresa Marchut
William L. Westmoreland, Sr., Pro se
26 N. Pitt Street
Carlisle. PA 17013
:saa
11
, ~
~,<-
~_:,!DIl"-
'",--
-",,," .~,""~".
~-^
.'~"'~"~
~ .,..,~_~ 0' _
F\LED-...(;,H.;CE
0\; T,J; ?'D"iO>Y)ii'RY
OGtJEC-G Pri \: 2,0
ClliJ,bt:\'\Li',\'-\D COUNf't
PENNSYLVANIA
!lJIIIJ~-lIl?i~'
--
~~~I!'
1WMlI1Il
"'.
~,
",t',' < ,"",,; -,-
':.,..- -',' '.'-_,'o';'Fh, - ',' ,', i:I!i-'"
TERESA MARCHUT,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
TIFFANIE KILLINGER and
WILLIAM L. WESTMORELAND, SR.,
DEFENDANTS : 00-3473 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: CUSTODY
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Bayley, J., December 5, 2000:--
William Lee Westmoreland, Jr., (Lee), age 10, was born on February 1,1990.
His mother is Tiffanie Killinger and his father is William Lee Westmoreland, Sr. The
parents were never married nor did they live together. The mother was nineteen years
old when Lee was born. She and Lee lived in Carlisle. She was immature and had
difficulty properly caring for him. In the latter part of 1990 or near the beginning of
1991, the mother, by agreement, gave the maternal grandmother, Teresa Marchut,
temporary physical custody of Lee. The mother then moved to Harrisburg but
continued to have significant contact with Lee. In 1992, Marchut brought Lee to the
mother and told her that she could not continue to take care of him. For the next four
months, Lee lived with his mother. The mother then moved to West Virginia, at which
time she returned Lee to his grandmother.
The mother, who is now age twenty-nine, lives in a three-bedroom home in Charleston,
West Virginia. She has obtained a degree in criminal justice. She works forty-hours a week
,-
,"'.','0_ >_
-'." ;>:-'A',O, -_;_, - '<<0 ~'." '. ,..
Oil""
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
for the Kanawha County School District, training people to operate a Head Start program for
children. She has lived with Marshall Petty, age 27, for eight years. Together, they have a
son Dakarai, age five, who was born on February 26, 1995. Petty is single and has no other
children. He is a teacher's assistant for the Kanawha School District where he has worked for
three and a half years. The home he and the mother live in is owned by Petty's mother who is
an assistant superintendent of the Kanawha School District. The mother and Petty are
engaged but have not set a wedding date.
Since moving to West Virginia, the mother has stayed in contact with Lee. She talks
with him by phone several times a week. Until Lee was four years old, he would spend about
three weeks each summer with his mother in West Virginia. For the last six years, Lee has
been spending four to six weeks each summer with his mother in West Virginia. The mother
attends church regularly with Dakarai and involves Lee with her church when he is staying with
her. She visits with Lee in Cumberland County four to five days during each Christmas period,
except in 1998, when Lee spent the Christmas holidays with her in West Virginia. The mother
comes to this area several other times each year and always sees Lee on those visits. Before
coming to Cumberland County for this hearing on November 22, 2000, the mother, since her
six weeks with Lee this summer, has seen him once in October.
Teresa Marchut, who has been in loco parentis of Lee since the beginning of 1991,
seeks physical custody. Her in loco parentis status establishes her standing. McConel v.
Sohn, (2000 WL 1693788, Pac Super.). The mother also seeks physical custody. The mother
has secured an education and has a good job. She wants to be reunited with Lee in a family
-2-
, ,';c.____ '-0"--'" __, ',_~ -, _ ___, ',,__ ',-,- ~".._ ,-",' ,,:,;~. ;"'c"
"'".
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
that includes his half-brother Oakarai. She acknowledges that Marchut has done a good job
with Lee. However, she believes she has worked hard to stabilize her life and can provide a
good home for Lee. The mother testified that she has, over the years, asked Marchut several
times to let Lee live with her, and has been turned down each time. Marchut testified that the
mother asked her for physical custody of Lee during the summer of 2000, which Marchut
denied. She testified that the mother only once previously asked for Lee to live with her. That
was in 1998, when Marchut separated from her husband. Marchut testified that she did tell
the mother that she would allow Lee to live with her because Marchut did not think she could
continue to take care of him. However, she later changed her mind. The mother testified that
she did not seek custody of Lee before Marchut commenced this suit because she thought
she did not have any legal rights since Lee had lived with his grandparents for a long period.'
Marchut testified that she has never prevented the mother from visiting with Lee. She
testified that there have been some occasions during the last ten years when the mother said
she would be coming to Cumberland County to visit Lee, Lee would be excited about it, but
the mother would not show up.
, Prior to Lee going with his mother for six weeks this summer, Marchut became
concerned that the mother would not return him. She filed this complaint for custody on
June 8, 2000. Concurrently, she filed a petition for special relief to maintain the status
quo until her complaint could be litigated. The first order ever entered regarding Lee
was on June 8, 2000, providing Marchut with primary physical custody pending a
comprehensive hearing on her complaint for custody. Following a conciliation
conference, a temporary order was entered on August 10, 2000, providing the mother
with partial physical custody for additional periods in August, and the father with periods
of partial custody on alternate weekends. A hearing was conducted on November 22,
2000.
-3-
"
-, '
-- <'''''-'0-: ,.";';,
----~,,~, ,"" ,,,"~;--".::,~-- ~";. . C"__,,,,-
It.,':.
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
Teresa Marchut, age 46, is employed as a school bus driver. She lives with David
Zawisa, age 39, in a three-bedroom home in Boiling Springs, Cumberland County. Marchut is
married to Karl Marchut. They separated on February 3, 1998. A divorce is in progress.
Zawisa, who is married and also has a divorce in progress, works for the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation. He and his wife have three children. Zachary, age 14, lives
with him and Marchut. Zachary recently lived with his mother, but he was having emotional
difficulties which resulted in his receiving some inpatient treatment at The Meadows near State
College. He is now being followed for depression and attention deficit disorder. Nicholas, age
12, and Jacqueline, age 4, live with their mother and visit with the father every other weekend.
Recently, Nicholas had a serious physical altercation with Marchut. Notwithstanding, Marchut
testified that her relationship with Nicholas is improving. She further testified that Lee gets
along reasonably well with the Zawisa children.
Lee's father, William Lee Westmoreland, Sr., lives and works in Carlisle. He is not
married and has another son, Devon, age 4, who he sees on alternate weekends from Friday
evening to Sunday evening. For the last few years, Lee has been seeing his father on the
same weekends as Devon. The father has family in Carlisle and Coatesville, Pennsylvania, all
of whom Lee knows. The father testified that as Lee has gotten older, they have become
closer. The father has no contact with Lee's mother. He testified that Marchut has done well
in raising Lee. However, he testified that if Lee wants to live with his mother, that should be
Lee's choice even though it would likely result in his having less contact if that occurred.
From kindergarten to third grade, Lee attended the Bethel Christian Academy. He then
-4-
~
--" ~l;
, __ ~v " ,,_,;,-,__- ,'ii" ,'i'c~'c~'<
'''c,'..'",_ ".'
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
went to public school and is now in the fifth grade in the Iron Forge Elementary School in the
South Middleton School District. He is an average student who gets along well with his peers.
L.:
Marchut has been actively involved in his education. The mother has never been involved in
his education or educational activities. If Lee becomes a sixth grade student in the South
I'
i:;
Middleton School District he will attend a middle school. Lee has been in a YMCA basketball
program for three years. He just finished playing football. He wants to play soccer next year.
I'.
-,i
He has played baseball for three years. Marchut has another daughter Seidle, age 27, who is
i
::!
married with two children, ages 5 and 2. They live in Carlisle. Lee often sees them. Lee still
has a relationship with his maternal grandfather Karl Marchut, who he sees on occasion. They
like to fish together. Marchut goes to church regularly and Lee participates in the church youth
programs. When Marchut separated from her husband, she obtained some counseling for
Lee which ended when the counselor concluded, about six months ago, that Lee had adjusted
well to his then current circumstances.
Lee's father is black and his mother is caucasian. Marshall Petty is black. Marchut
testified that Lee makes friends easily and has not encountered any significant problems as a
result of his race. The mother and father testified that there have been no problems with Lee
regarding race. Marchut testified that when Lee returned from his six-week visit with his
mother this past summer, he told her that he wanted to live with his mother. Marchut testified
that now Lee only says he wants to live with his mother when Marchut disciplines him.
Marchut believes that Lee should continue to live in her home because "This is his life -
everything is here but his mother."
-5-
-~
,. 0 '.
_ _. " <0.;,-' , '" c __:' " ~
. _ '''''~' -"''''-,w,'. ". '_-'kO'_: "-,,,.. ~
"
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
Lee is a healthy, outgoing boy whose maturity appears consistent with his chronological
age. He is perceptive and easy to talk to. He recognizes his mother as his mother and
Marchut as his grandmother. He stated that he gets along with the Zawisa children, "Pretty
good, but sometimes not too good with Zachary." He was asked whether he was happy living
with his grandmother. He said, "Not really, I want to live with my mom." He said that he knew
that his mother loved him a lot. He said that he started wanting to live with her near the end of
!:
I'i
spring 2000. He was asked why he wanted to move to his mother's home. He said, "I don't
I"~
know, I just like it better down there I miss her and stuff." When it was noted that if he moved
i,-
I"
I
I'!
!:~
I:'
I
to his mother's home he would probably not see his father as much, he said, "Yeah, but I just
like it down there."
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In Ellerbe v. Hooks, 490 Pac 363 (1980), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopted
the standard of review in a custody contest between a parent and a third party set forth in In
Re Hernandez, 249 Pac Super. 274 (1977), as follows:
[P]arents have a "prima facie right to custody," which "may be
forfeited if convincing reasons appear that the best interests of the
child will be served by awarding custody to someone else." . . .
[T]he Superior Court, through Judge Spaeth, articulated the
following approach:
'When the judge is hearing a dispute between the parents,
or a parent, and a third party, . . . [t]he question still is, what
is in the child's best interest? However, the parties do not
start out even; the parents have a 'prima facie right to
custody,' which will be forfeited only if 'convincing reasons'
appear that the child's best interest will be served by an
award to the third party. Thus, even before the proceedings
-6-
~~~
"',
,---
,~
, _', ~, ._.', _',' ,. ,., ","_""M "c' ._, _, ~
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
start, the evidentiary scale is tipped, and tipped hard, to the
parents' side. . . .
We agree that this approach is appropriate. Clearly these
principles do not preclude an award of custody to the non-parent.
Rather they simply instruct the hearing judge that the non-parent
bears the burden of production and the burden of persuasion and
that the non-parent's burden is heavy.
Thus where circumstances do not clearly indicate the
appropriateness of awarding custody to a non-parent, we believe
the less intrusive and hence the proper course is to award custody
to the parent or parents.
,-"
I
I.
In Rowles v. Rowles, 542 Pac 443 (1995), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
examined the appropriate standard of proof in custody disputes between a parent and a
non-parent. In an Opinion Announcing the Judgment, three Justices sought to
abandon the presumption in favor ofthe parent in such cases. They stated:
"By clearly eliminating the presumption per se, and mandating that
custody be determined by a preponderance of evidence, weighing
parenthood as a strong factor for consideration, custody proceedings
would be disentangled from the burden of applying a presumption that
merely beclouds the ultimate concern in these cases: the determination of
what affiliation will best serve the child's interests, including physical,
emotional, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being. . .." [w]e now
abandon the presumption that a parent has a prima facie right to custody
as against third parties. . . . Thus, there is no single overriding factor;
rather, courts should consider every fact relevant to the physical,
emotional, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being of a child.
Parenthood, though not paramount, will always be a factor of significant
weight. . .. "[t]he parent-child relationship should be considered to be of
importance in determining which custody arrangement is in the child's
best interest," "special weight" and "deference" should be accorded the
parent-child relationship, and the relationship should not be disturbed
'without some showing of harm' or unless circumstances "clearly indicate
-7-
" _,;;"C<- . 'lO--.. ">-J ,,=,,c -- -:.." ~ E' '
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
the appropriateness of awarding custody to a non-parent." We adhere to
these principles, for, in general, parents have a deep, abiding commitment
to the well-being of their children. (Citations omitted.)
Three Justices concurred in the result in Rowles stating that they did not share
the belief that the presumption that a parent has a prima facie right to custody as
against third parties should be abolished. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania noted in
J.A.L. v. E.P.H., 453 Pac Super. 78 (1996), that the plurality opinion in Rowles is not
binding upon the Superior Court or the trial courts. The Superior Court stated that
"[m]oreover, even if the position espoused by the lead opinion in Rowles becomes law,
the more flexible standard employed in that case would still grant some special
protection to the parent in custody disputes with non-parents." In B.A. and A.A. v.
E.E., 741 A.2d 1227 (2000), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has recently noted:
In Rowles v. Rowles, 542 Pac 443, 668 A.2d 126 (1995) a plurality
of this court would have abandoned the presumption that parents have a
right to custody of their children as against third parties. In its place, the
plurality suggested "weighing parenthood as a strong factor for
consideration." 668 A.2d at 128. In suggesting this change in
terminology from "presumption" to "weighing parenthood as a strong
factor," however, the plurality observed: In Ellerbe [v. Hooks, 490 Pac 363,
416 A.2d 512 (Pa. 1980)], both opinions, representing all seven justices,
agreed on several principles: "the parent-child relationship should be
considered to be of importance in determining which custody arrangement
is in the child's best interest," "special weight" and "deference" should be
accorded the parent-child relationship, and the relationship should not be
disturbed "without some showing of harm" or unless circumstances
"clearly indicate the appropriateness of awarding custody to a non-
parent." Id., 490 Pac at 366,369,370,373,416 A.2d at 513,514,516-17.
We adhere to these principles, for, in general, parents have a deep,
abiding commitment to the well-being of their children. 668 A.2d at 128
(emphasis added). Because the Rowles opinion did not command a
majority of the court, the presumption that parents have a right to the
-8-
'0'-. "C.._ '"^, ' ~,' h' <_ "', ,c ";";" _" ~ ~', ".
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
custOdy of their children as against third parties remains in effect.
Whether the parents' interest in their children is referred to as a
presumption or as a factor to be weighed, however, the main idea is
that parents are to receive special consideration: as the court put it
in Ellerbe, special weight and deference should be accorded the
parent-child relationship. (Emphasis added.)
I:
!~
f;
l'
i.
DISCUSSION
In Burnett v. Verstreate, 742 A.2d 700 (Pa. Super. 1999), Kassandra, born on
April 5, 1989, lived with her father and mother until early 1992, when the parents
separated and she remained with the father. On May 14, 1996, the father was awarded
legal and primary physical custody, and the mother was awarded partial custody. Due
to the father's work schedule, and later physical disability, the paternal grandparents
acted as temporary caretakers of Kassandra until November, 1996, when the father
resumed his role as primary caretaker. In December, 1996, the mother commenced a
suit for custody and the paternal grandparents petitioned for visitation. The court
denied the grandparents' petition for visitation. In April, 1997, while the father was
again recuperating from an operation, Kassandra was placed in the care of the
grandparents. On January 5, 1998, the grandparents filed a complaint for custody
against the mother and father. On May 6, 1998, the mother was awarded legal and
physical custody of Kassandra, and the grandparents were awarded partial physical
custody. The grandparents filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The
Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the award of primary physical custody to the
mother with whom Kassandra, then age 9, had not lived for a little over six years.
-9-
,
",-d ,'c.,'_ -,
'"'~'r
-; -'",,,'~;,,;;:~~,,,,.j' 'C,,''-'>;. ',"'.' ----, _"M ",~;< --..; :,:,,1.:
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
The Court stated:
Between the award of custody to the father in May 1996 (and before) and
the change of the award in July 1998, the de facto caretakers were. . .
the paternal grandparents. Their care of the child was all that could be
wished, however, that alone cannot be the determining factor in this case.
If such were the case, no parent who is out of custody, regardless of the
reformation and improvement in lifestyle or parenting ability, could obtain
the return of custody. The record supports the trial court's belief in the
mother's redemption and also mandates she be given the opportunity to
exercise her right as a parent, particularly since the child evinces a strong
desire to live with her.
Appellants claim the trial court presumed the best interest of the
child required placing her with appellee unless appellants proved appellee
unfit. They argue the trial court required a showing of appellee's unfitness
in order to grant custody to appellee because the court's Opinion
emphasized appellee's progress in life since the last custody
determination. The facts of this case and the findings of the trial court do
not compel reliance on the presumption favoring the natural parent or the
test of fitness being the make weight to trigger the presumption.
It is clear that in matters of custody and visitation, the ultimate
consideration of the court is a determination of what is in the best interests
of the child. Bupp v. Bupp, 718 A.2d 1278, 1281 (Pa.Super.1998).
Although a third party carries a heavy burden to prove that he or she can
best provide for the child, it is not necessary to show that the parent is
unfit. In re David L.e., 376 Pa.Super. 615,546 A.2d 694 (1988). In this
case, the trial court addressed appellee's relationship with the child, her
contact with the child's school and her ability to provide a stable home.
The trail court did not, however, allude to a standard whereby appellants
were required to prove appellee's unfitness as a parent, but rather, the
trial court properly discussed the substantial amount of testimony
regarding appellee's lifestyle and her present capacity to be the person
best able to fulfill Kassandra's needs. The trial court recognized implicitly
that in situations such as this, while perfection may not be attained, there
is an optimum time wherein a child must be reunited with the biological
parent due to the progress obtained by that parent in his or her capacity to
care for the child, and the age, maturing and natural yearning of the child
to be reunited with the parent. Ifthe opportunity is not taken, the long
term prognosis for reuniting parent and child decreases into nonelessness
on the part of both. That failure to achieve unity can be a haunting burden
of the lives of both parent and child for as long as they live.
-10-
,',
-- __,__" 'F, ~., '-"",,, _~,' ;;'''';;'--i.'_',.";.,fl-\._.'" -~',',,',,;: ,"..;;--'-,-", . '__ "", y_,_
l
"
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
In the case sub judice, the mother has made a remarkable reformation. Her
efforts have taken her far from an immature teenager who was alone with her child, not
properly caring for him. This progress is evidenced by the fact that she has obtained a
degree in criminal justice, has a good job training people to operate a Head Start
program for children, has been in an eight-year relationship with Marshall Petty, has
established her parenting ability by participating in raising their son, Dakarai, who will
soon be six years old, has taken good care of Lee when he has been with her, and has
established a stable home with roots in her community. She has stayed in constant
contact with Lee who loves her very much. She has seen him often and for extended
periods. Lee recognizes her as his mother and wants to live with her. In Swope v.
Swope, 689 A.2d 264 (Pa. Super. 1997), the Superior Court stated:
The preference of a child in a custody case, although not
controlling, is a factor to be carefully considered, as long as it is based on
good reasons. The child's maturity and intelligence must be considered,
and the weight to be given to the child's preference can best be
determined by the judge before whom the child appears. (Citations
omitted.)
Lee will be eleven in February. Although he is still relatively young, we feel his desire to
live with his mother arises out of their mutual love and a natural tendency to miss her.
Although there is currently conflict in Marchut's life, she has done a wonderful job
with Lee, and her efforts are commendable. Notwithstanding, we are well satisfied that
the mother has the present capability to provide for the physical, emotional, intellectual~
moral and spiritual well-being of Lee in a home that includes his half-brother Dakarai.
-11-
-..
i:
i
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
I;
,
(
We perceive no harm to Lee in changing custody to his mother, nor do any special
circumstances clearly indicate the appropriateness of awarding custody to his
I~i
I,"
I.
Ii
I
!
grandmother. As in Burnett v. Verstreate, supra, this is an opportune time for Lee to
be reunited with his mother. Lee's father supports his son's desire to live with her. The
io;
mother's entire family is in this area, so she is likely to return often. This will give Lee
(
an opportunity to continue the relationships he has with members of his family.
1,1
~ i
Continuity in school is a factor, although like any other single factor, it is not controlling.
Ii
Swope v. Swope, 689 A.2d 264 (Pa. Super. 1997). Lee is only in fifth grade.
I,
I:
"
I:
I
"
Changing schools after the Christmas break is less disruptive than at other times during
;'
L
a school year. We are required under the lawto give special weight and deference to
the relationship between Lee and his mother. This case has many similarities with
,
Burnett v. Verstreate, supra. We find that it is in the best interest of Lee for him to be
reunited with his mother.
For the foregoing reasons, the following order is entered.2
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this .>"'\,...,. day of December, 2000, IT IS ORDERED:
2 It is important for Lee that he has continuing contact with his grandmother and father.
No issue has been specifically raised as to their rights to periods of temporary physical
custody if we granted physical custody to the mother. . The parties have always been
able to reach agreement regarding the mother's contact with Lee when she was not in
physical custody. Hopefully, the reverse will be true. However, if the grandmother and
father are not satisfied with their continuing contact with Lee, we will address any such
issues on petition without again referring the case to conciliation.
-12-
.1
.,
,--- --",,, ';~ "'r. _,..~'_,~o~ '-,-f",-^',,_~'~-' ,-
'-""~'i;i
-,'
.
. .
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
(1) All prior custody orders are vacated and replaced with this order.
(2) Physical custody of William Lee Westmoreland, Jr., born February 1,1990,
IS AWARDED to his mother, Tiffanie Killinger, as of the 27th day of December, 2000.
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
For Teresa Marchut
By the Co!Jlt;~
/"
Karl Rominger, Esquire
For Tiffanie Killinger
William L. Westmoreland, Sr., Pro se
26 N. Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
:saa
-13-
" -
,'V'~.;,
TERESA STROHM (MARCHUT),
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: PENNSYL VANIA
vs.
TIFF ANIE KILLINGER and
WILLIAM L. WESTMORELAND, SR.,
Defendants,
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: NO. 00-3473 CIVIL TERM
: IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this !JfJ. day of 91~ ' 2001, upon presentation and
consideration of the within Petition for Special Relief, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND
DIRECTED that a hearing be held on~ ' the O?{p-tiv day of ~
2001, at /O:?Jo o'clock, 0. .m., in Courtroom number 2 of the Cumberland
County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Service to be made by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon counsel for
Respondent, Tiffanie Killinger, and directly to Respondent, William L. Westmoreland, Sr.
cc: Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Karl Rominger, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
William L. Westmoreland, Sr., pro se
Edgar B. Bayley, J dge ~
"l .
\
. *
,
w-
_1\Ilfll!'liT
""
.,"',
-,"
","J~,
~ "- .-
'-I,"
('
"f,t-HY
,~ J~ n
:: 1"" ~~ 5
J
C! JUI '!-"':',II ,'i'I)'"W
l.....:_ ,--". k., 1,_' '-- __'" 11
PE~J!\!:)Yj~h\\\!l:\
, _~, r ~
-
_e~~'
,
.'",
,~ "~ r
'-:;;':;"-'" "\'-'-~";-O""<S::i ",:
rjj't)r-'~ ;;', o;;';:~iliuaf ;tfii.~1';;Yf1f.;~;l[{-:":lYf""'.'
,",?"
" -~
_I f!~~i!!'~"'"'_~~~l!~_..",~~_,~",.I,
-,~,
~
, -'
-
-........_~,'-
TERESA STROHM (MARCHUT),
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
TIFF ANIE KILLINGER and
WILLIAM L. WESTMORELAND, SR.,
Defendants,
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: NO. 00-3473 CIVIL TERM
: IN CUSTODY
PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF
AND NOW comes Petitioner, Teresa Marchut (Strohm), by and through her
counsel of record, Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire, and petitions the Court as follows:
1. Your Petitioner is Teresa Marchut (Strohm), the above named Plaintiff and an adult
individual currently residing at 629 Gutshall Road, Boiling Springs, Pennsylvania.
2. Your Respondent, Tiffanie Killinger, is one of the above named Defendants and an
adult individual C\llTently residing at 605 Russell Street, Charleston, West Virginia.
3. Respondent, William L. Westmoreland, Sr., is one of the above named Defendants and
an adult individual currently residing at 244 Arch Street, Apartment 3, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania.
4. Petitioner is the maternal grandmother of William Lee Westmoreland, Jr., born
February 1990, and the Respondents are the natural parents of the said child.
5. The Court, following a hearing in this matter, entered an Opinion and Order on
December 5, 2001, a copy of said Opinion and Order being attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "N'.
6. The aforesaid Order provided physical custody of the child to Respondent, Tiffanie
Killinger as of December 27,2000.
llH 11'
~
['d5J;'"
7. On page 12 of the attached Opinion, in footnote number 2, the Court stated:
It is important for Lee that he has continuing contact with his
grandmother and father. No issue has been specifically raised as to
their rights to periods of temporary physical custody if we granted
physical custody to the mother. The parties have always been able to
reach agreement regarding the mother's contact with Lee when she
was not in physical custody. Hopefully, the reverse will be true.
However, if the grandmother and father are not satisfied with their
continuing contact with Lee, we will address any such issues on
petition without again referring the case to conciliation.
8. On December 29, 2000, counsel for Petitioner forwarded a comprehensive proposal
on periods of partial custody to Respondent, Tiffanie Killinger's, legal counsel.
9. When no response was forthcoming, counsel for Petitioner forwarded correspondence
dated January 22, 2001 to counsel for Respondent, Tiffanie Killinger, asking for a
response to the proposal.
10. When no response was forthcoming again, counsel for Petitioner forwarded
correspondence to counsel for Respondent, Tiffanie Killinger, on March 9, 2001
indicating if the matter was not resolved, Petitioner would have no alternative but to
requests a hearing before the Court.
11. On March 14, 2001, counsel for Respondent, Tiffanie Killinger, notified counsel for
Petitioner that he was going to be speaking with his client and would forward a
response to the comprehensive proposal.
12. By correspondence dated March 20,2001, a response was forwarded from counsel for
Respondent, Tiffanie Killinger, to counsel for Petitioner, but the response did not
resolve the partial physical custody matters.
13. By correspondence dated April 9, 2001, counsel for Petitioner forwarded a final
modified proposal that was alleged to be the final agreement reached between
Petitioner and Respondent, Tiffanie Killinger, relative to Petitioner's periods of partial
custody with the child.
14. When no response was forthcoming, follow-up correspondence was forwarded to
counsel for Respondent on May 10, 2001 and again on June 19, 2001
15. It is exceedingly evident that Respondent, Tiffanie Killinger, who has only responded
once to six letters over the past six months to her counsel to resolve this matter, is not
going to agree to appropriate accommodations for the child to visit with Petitioner, his
grandmother.
16. The refusal to reach agreement relative to Petitioner's periods of partial custody
require the ongoing intervention of counsel for Petitioner and the ongoing request and
negotiations by Petitioner when this matter should be resolved by written Agreement.
17. Pursuant to the Court's direction in its Opinion, Petitioner is filing the within Petition
in order to secure the Court's intervention so an appropriate partial custody Order can
be entered.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests your Honorable Court to schedule a hearing
specially to address the matter of Petitioner's periods of partial custody with her grandson.
Respectfully submitted,
GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
. ffie, Esquire
o i for Petitioner
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5551
(800) 347-5552
-~~
-
. "
.'
: - 'u' QillJil--~,,~',
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.e.S.
Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATE: &/J--:r;hco /
d.LV~ $. SL-L
TERESA STROHM
,
TERESA MARCHUT,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
TIFFANIE KILLINGER and
WILLIAM L. WESTMORELAND, SR.,
DEFENDANTS : 00-3473 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this SlL- day of December, 2000, IT IS ORDERED: .
(1) All prior custody orders are vacated and replaced with this order
:j
I!
i:
,i
ti
(2) Physical custody of William Lee Westmoreland, Jr., born February 1,1990,
IS AWARDED to his mother, Tiffanie Killinger, as of the 27th day of December, 2000.
By the COI;l ,
,_//-""
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
For Teresa Marchut
Karl Rominger, Esquire
For Tiffanie Killinger
Exhibit "A"
TPJJE CC?y F!l0;~A ~~E:'~Rt)
fn T'2st~s:::l."! \;'.-+sre:{ i h':;-c' ,,'~;'-(:: :,S'~ ::~y har:d
:SfFi ths 5€:i! of sc; Court -Jt Car;:s!s, P30
Thi ......'1....... ~ y 0 n;.D.e..c...n., 4}
o . to .
, P.othoootary
,
i
;
~
I
i
i
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
William L. Westmoreland, Sr., Pro se
26 N. Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
:saa
----"
- ~N i
TERESA MARCHUT,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
TIFFANIE KILLINGER and
WILLIAM L. WESTMORELAND, SR.,
DEFENDANTS : 00-3473 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: CUSTODY
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Bayley, J., December 5,2000:--
William Lee Westmoreland, Jr., (Lee), age 10, was born on February 1,1990.
His mother is Tiffanie Killinger and his father is William Lee Westmoreland, Sr. The
parents were never married nor did they live together. The mother was nineteen years
old when Lee was born. She and Lee lived in Carlisle. She was immature and had
difficulty properly caring for him. In the latter part of 1990 or near the beginning of
1991, the mother, by agreement, gave the maternal grandmother, Teresa Marchut,
temporary physical custody of Lee. The mother then moved to Harrisburg but
continued to have significant contact with Lee. In 1992, Marchut brought Lee to the
mother and told her that she could not continue to take care of him. For the next four
months, Lee lived with his mother. The mother then moved to West Virginia, at which
time she returned Lee to his grandmother.
The mother, who is now age twenty-nine, lives in a three-bedroom home in Charleston,
West Virginia. She has obtained a degree in criminal justice. She works forty-hours a week
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
for the Kanawha County School District, training people to operate a Head Start program for
children. She has lived with Marshall Petty, age 27, for eight years. Together, they have a
son Dakarai, age five, who was born on February 26, 1995. Petty is single and has no other
children. He is a teacher's assistant for the Kanawha School District where he has worked for
three and a half years. The home he and the mother live in is owned by Petty's mother who is
an assistant superintendent of the Kanawha School District. The mother and Petty are
engaged but have not set a wedding date.
Since moving to West Virginia, the mother has stayed in contact with Lee. She talks
1
I
r
J
I
i
J
:1
!
i
r
'1
1
with him by phone several times a week. Until Lee was four years old, he would spend about
three weeks each summer with his mother in West Virginia. For the last six years, Lee has
been spending four to six weeks each summer with his mother in West Virginia. The mother
attends church regularly with Dakarai and involves Lee with her church when he is staying with
her. She visits with Lee in Cumberland County four to five days during each Christmas period,
six weeks with Lee this summer, has seen him once in October.
~i
1
i1
II
'I
'I
:1
I
II
'I
~
except in 1998, when Lee spent the Christmas holidays with her in West Virginia. The mother
comes to this area several other times each year and always sees Lee on those visits. Before
coming to Cumberland County for this hearing on November 22, 2000, the mother, since her
Teresa Marchut, who has been in loco parentis of Lee since the beginning of 1991,
seeks physical custody. Her in loco parentis status establishes her standing. McDonel v.
Sohn, (2000 WL 1693788, Pa. Super.). The mother also seeks physical custody. The mother
has secured an education and has a good job. She wants to be reunited with Lee in a family
-2-
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
that includes his half-brother Dakarai. She acknowledges that Marchut has done a good job
with Lee.. However, she believes she has worked hard to stabilize her life and can provide a
good home for Lee. The mother testified that she has, over the years, asked Marchut several
times to let Lee live with her, and has been turned down each time. Marchut testified that the
mother asked her for physical custody of Lee during the summer of 2000, which Marchut
denied. She testified that the mother only once previously asked for Lee to live with her. That
was in 1998, when Marchut separated fromher husband. Marchut testified that she did tell
the mother that she would allow Lee to live with her because Marchut did not think she could
continue to take care of him. However, she later changed her mind. The mother testified that
she did not seek custody of Lee before Marchut commenced this suit because she thought
she did not have any legal rights since Lee had lived with his grandparents for a long period.'
Marchut testified that she has never prevented the mother from visiting with Lee. She
testified that there have been some occasions during the last ten years when the mother said
she would be coming to Cumberland County to visit Lee, Lee would be excited about it, but
the mother would not show up.
1 Prior to Lee going with his mother for six weeks this summer, Marchut became
concerned that the mother would not return him. She filed this complaint for custody on
June 8, 2000. Concurrently, she filed a petition for special relief to maintain the status
quo until her complaint could be litigated. The first order ever entered regarding Lee
was on June 8, 2000, providing Marchut with primary physical custody pending a
comprehensive hearing on her complaint for custody. Following a conciliation
conference, a temporary order was entered on August 10, 2000, providing the mother
with partial physical custody for additional periods in August, and the father with periods
of partial custody on alternate weekends. A hearing was conducted on November 22,
2000.
-3-
"n
..'.---
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
Teresa Marchut, age 46, is employed as a school bus driver. She lives with David
Zawisa, age 39, in a three-bedroom home in Boiling Springs, Cumberland County. Marchut is
married to Karl Marchut. They separated on February 3, 1998. A divorce is in progress.
Zawisa, who is married and also has a divorce in progress, works for the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation. He and his wife have three children. Zachary, age 14, lives
with him and Marchut. Zachary recently lived with his mother, but he was having emotional
difficulties which resulted in his receiving some inpatient treatment at The Meadows near State
College. He is now being followed for depression and attention deficit disorder. Nicholas, age
Lee's father, William Lee Westmoreland, Sr., lives and works in Carlisle. He is not
il
'I
I
-j
II
I
i
12, and Jacqueline, age 4, live with their mother and visit with the father every other weekend.
Recently, Nicholas had a serious physical altercation with Marchut. Notwithstanding, Marchut
testified that her relationship with Nicholas is improving. She further testified that Lee gets
along reasonably well with the Zawisa children.
married and has another son, Devon, age 4, who he sees on alternate weekends from Friday
evening to Sunday evening. For the last few years, Lee has been seeing his father on the
same weekends as Devon. The father has family in Carlisle and Coatesville, Pennsylvania, all
of whom Lee knows. The father testified that as Lee has gotten older, they have become
closer. The father has no contact with Lee's mother. He testified that Marchut has done well
in raising Lee. However, he testified that if Lee wants to live with his mother, that should be
Lee's choice even though it would likely result in his having less contact if that occurred.
From kindergarten to third grade, Lee attended the Bethel Christian Academy. He then
-4-
~ "",
. "-<:
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
went to public school and is now in the fifth grade in the Iron Forge Elementary School in the
South Middleton School District. He is an average student who gets along well with his peers.
Marchut has been actively involved in his education. The mother has never been involved in
his education or educational activities. If Lee becomes a sixth grade student in the South
Middleton School District he will attend a middle school. Lee has been in a YMCA basketball
program for three years. He just finished playing football. He wants to play soccer next year.
He has played baseball for three years. Marchut has another daughter Seidle, age 27, who is
married with two children, ages 5 and 2. They live in Carlisle. Lee often sees them. Lee still
has a relationship with his maternal grandfather Karl Marchut, who he sees on occasion. They
r
1,,1
II
f:!
I'
p
n
ii!
t~
i,i
\,
like to fish together. Marchut goes to church regularly and Lee participates in the church youth
programs. When Marchut separated from her husband, she obtained some counseling for
Lee which ended when the counselor concluded, about six months ago, that Lee had adjusted
r
fi
well to his then current circumstances.
Lee's father is black and his mother is caucasian. Marshall Petty is black. Marchut
testified that Lee makes friends easily and has not encountered any significant problems as a
result of his race. The mother and father testified that there have been no problems with Lee
regarding race. Marchut testified that when Lee returned from his six-week visit with his
mother this past summer, he told her that he wanted to live with his mother. Marchut testified
that now Lee only says he wants to live with his mother when Marchut disciplines him.
Marchut believes that Lee should continue to live in her home because "This is his life -
everything is here but his mother."
-5-
"
.~"', ..
.-
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
Lee is a healthy, outgoing boy whose maturity appears consistent with his chronological
age. He is perceptive and easy to talk to. He recognizes his mother as his mother and
Marchut as his grandmother. He stated that he gets along with the Zawisa children, "Pretty
good, but sometimes not too good with Zachary." He was asked whether he was happy living
with his grandmother. He said, "Not really, I want to live with my mom." He said that he knew
that his mother loved him a lot. He said that he started wanting to live with her near the end of
spring 2000. He_was asked why he wanted to move to his mother's home. He said, "I don't
know, I just like it better down there I miss her and stuff." When it was noted that if he moved
to his mother's home he would probably not see his father as much, he said, "Yeah, but I just
like it down there."
STANDARD OF REVIEW
,,-1
,
I':
Ij
ii:
I
In Ellerbe v. Hooks, 490 Pa. 363 (1980), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopted
j':j
1'1
,,'
!~
',-'
I:i
j,'
the standard of review in a custody contest between a parent and a third party set forth in In
"
".I
',j
.!
Re Hernandez, 249 Pac Super. 274 (1977), as follows:
[P]arents have a "prima facie right to custody," which "may be
forfeited if convincing reasons appear that the best interests of the
child will be served by awarding custody to someone else." . . .
[T]he Superior Court, through Judge Spaeth, articulated the
following approach:
II
Ii
ti
'When the judge is hearing a dispute between the parents,
or a parent, and a third party, . . . [t]he question still is, what
is in the child's best interest? However, the parties do not
start out even; the parents have a 'prima facie right to
custody,' which will be forfeited only if 'convincing reasons'
appear that the child's best interest will be served by an
award to the third party. Thus, even before the proceedings
"
~
"
.,
~I
!i
II
I'
I
,
I
!
I
,
-6-
.
~,' '~O
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
start, the evidentiary scale is tipped, and tipped hard, to the
parents' side. . . .
We agree that this approach is appropriate. Clearly these
principles do not preclude an award of custody to the non-parent.
Rather they simply instruct the hearing judge that the non-parent
bears the burden of production and the burden of persuasion and
that the non-parent's burden is heavy.
Thus where circumstances do not clearly indicate the
appropriateness of awarding custody to a non-parent, we believe
the less intrusive and hence the proper course is to award custody
to the parent or parents.
In Rowles v. Rowles, 542 Pac 443 (1995), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
examined the appropriate standard of proof in custody disputes between a parent and a
:i!
::1
~'
non-parent. In an Opinion Announcing the Judgment, three Justices sought to
;1:
abandon the presumption in favor of the parent in such cases. They stated:
"By clearly eliminating the presumption per se, and mandating that
custody be determined by a preponderance of evidence, weighing
parenthood as a strong factor for consideration, custody proceedings
would be disentangled from the burden of applying a presumption that
merely beclouds the ultimate concern in these cases: the determination of
what affiliation will best serve the child's interests, including physical,
emotional, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being. . . ." [w]e now
abandon the presumption that a parent has a prima facie right to custody
as against third parties. . . . Thus, there is no single overriding factor;
rather, courts should consider every fact relevant to the physical,
emotional, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being of a child.
Parenthood, though not paramount, will always be a factor of significant
weight. . .. "[t]he parent-child relationship should be considered to be of
importance in determining which custody arrangement is in the child's
best interest," "special weight" and "deference" should be accorded the
parent-child relationship, and the relationship should not be disturbed
'without some showing of harm' or unless circumstances "clearly indicate
"
ii;
!~,;
i'j
.f)
.
!
I:
!
-7-
, '
w.
- ""
....~ ,;
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
the appropriateness of awarding custody to a non-parent." We adhere to
these principles, for, in general, parents have a deep, abiding commitment
to the well-being of their children. (Citations omitted.)
Three Justices concurred in the result in Rowles stating that they did not share
the belief that the presumption that a parent has a prima facie right to custody as
against third parties should be abolished. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania noted in
J.A.L. v. E.P.H., 453 Pac Super. 78 (1996), that the plurality opinion in Rowles is not
binding upon the Superior Court or the trial courts. The Superior Court stated that
"[m]oreover, even if the position espoused by the lead opinion in Rowles becomes law,
the more flexible standard employed in that case would still grant some special
protection to the parent in custody disputes with non-parents." In B.A. and A.A. v.
E.E., 741 A.2d 1227 (2000), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has recently noted:
In Rowles v. Rowles, 542 Pac 443, 668 A.2d 126 (1995) a plurality
of this court would have abandoned the presumption that parents have a
right to custody oftheir children as against third parties. In its place, the
plurality suggested "weighing parenthood as a strong factor for
consideration." 668 A.2d at 128. In suggesting this change in
terminology from "presumption" to "weighing parenthood as a strong
factor," however, the plurality observed: In Ellerbe [v. Hooks, 490 Pac 363,
416 A.2d 512 (Pa. 1980)], both opinions, representing all seven justices,
agreed on several principles: "the parent-child relationship should be
considered to be of importance in determining which custody arrangement
is in the child's best interest," "special weight" and "deference" should be
accorded the parent-child relationship, and the relationship should not be
disturbed "without some showing of harm" or unless circumstances
"clearly indicate the appropriateness of awarding custody to a non-
parent." Id., 490 Pac at 366,369,370,373,416 A.2d at 513,514,516-17.
We adhere to these principles, for, in general, parents have a deep,
abiding commitment to the well-being of their children. 668 A.2d at 128
(emphasis added). Because the Rowles opinion did not command a
majority of the court, the presumption that parents have a right to the
-8-
-~ ~ci:;;
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
custody of their children as against third parties remains in effect.
Whether the parents' interest in their children is referred to as a
presumption or as a factor to be weighed, however, the main idea is
that parents are to receive special consideration: as the court put it
in Ellerbe, special weight and deference should be accorded the
parent-child relationship. (Emphasis added.)
DISCUSSION
In Burnett '!. \foistre<lte, 742 A.2d 700 (Pa. Super. 1999). Kassandra, born on
April 5, 1989, lived with her father and mother until early 1992, when the parents
separated and she remained with the father. On May 14, 1996, the father was awarded
legal and primary physical custody, and the mother was awarded partial custody. Due
to the father's work schedule, and later physical disability, the paternal grandparents
';~
acted as temporary caretakers of Kassandra until November, 1996, when the father
resumed his role as primary caretaker. In December, 1996, the mother commenced a
suit for custody and the paternal grandparents petitioned for visitation. The court
,
/,1
"
j;
denied the grandparents' petition for visitation. In April, 1997, while the father was
again recuperating from an operation, Kassandra was placed in the care of the
n
(
i:
[!
r
h
1':
grandparents. On January 5, 1998, the grandparents filed a complaint for custody
against the mother and father. On May 6, 1998, the mother was awarded legal and
physical custody of Kassandra, and the grandparents were awarded partial physical
custody. The grandparents filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The
Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the award of primary physical custody to the
mother with whom Kassandra, then age 9, had not lived for a little over six years.
-9-
["
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
The Court stated:
Between the award of custody to the father in May 1996 (and before) and
the change of the award in July 1998, the de facto caretakers were. . .
the paternal grandparents. Their care of the child was all that could be
wished, however, that alone cannot be the determining facto~ in this case.
If such were the case, no parent who is out of custody, regardless of the
reformation and improvement in lifestyle or parenting ability, could obtain
the return of custody. The record supports the trial court's belief in the
mother's redemption and also mandates she be given the opportunity to
exercise her right as a parent, particularly since the child evinces a strong
desire to live with her.
Appellants claim the trial court presumed the best interest of the
child required placing her with appellee unless appellants proved appellee
unfit. They argue the trial court required a showing of appellee's unfitness
in order to grant custody to appellee because the court's Opinion
emphasized appellee's progress in life since the last custody
determination. The facts of this case and the findings of the trial court do
not compel reliance on the presumption favoring the natural parent or the
test of fitness being the make weight to trigger the presumption.
It is clear that in matters of custody and visitation, the ultimate
consideration of the court is a determination of what is in the best interests
of the child. Bupp v. Bupp, 718 A.2d 1278, 1281 (Pa.Super.1998).
Although a third party carries a heavy burden to prove that he or she can
best provide for the child, it is not necessary to show that the parent is
unfit. In re David Le., 376 Pa.Super. 615, 546 A.2d 694 (1988). In this
case, the trial court addressed appellee's relationship with the child, her
contact with the child's school and her ability to prOVide a stable home.
The trail court did not, however, allude to a standard whereby appellants
were required to prove appellee's unfitness as a parent, but rather, the
trial court properly discussed the substantial amount of testimony
regarding appellee's lifestyle and her present capacity to be the person
best able to fulfill Kassandra's needs. The trial court recognized implicitly
that in situations such as this, while perfection may not be attained, there
is an optimum time wherein a child must be reunited with the biological
parent due to the progress obtained by that parent in his or her capacity to
care for the child, and the age, maturing and natural yearning of the child
to be reunited with the parent. If the opportunity is not taken, the long
term prognosis for reuniting parent and child decreases into nonelessness
on the part of both. That failure to achieve unity can be a haunting burden
of the lives of both parent and child for as long as they live.
-10-
~--.
"'::,-
00-3473 CIVil TERM
In the case sub judice, the mother has made a remarkable reformation. Her
efforts have taken her far from an immature teenager who was alone with her child, not
properly caring for him. This progress is evidenced by the fact that she has obtained a
degree in criminal justice, has a good job training people to operate a Head Start
program for children, has been in an eight-year relationship with Marshall Petty, has
established her parenting ability by participating in raising their son, Oakarai, who will
soon be six years old, has taken good care of lee when he has been with her, and has
established a stable home with roots in her community. She has stayed in constant
contact with lee who loves her very much. She has seen him often and for extended
periods. lee recognizes her as his mother and wants to live with her. In Swope v.
Swope, 689 A.2d 264 (Pa. Super. 1997), the Superior Court stated:
The preference of a child in a custody case, although not
controlling, is a factor to be carefully considered, as long as it ;s based on
good reasons. The child's maturity and intelligence must be considered,
and the weight to be given to the child's preference can best be
determined by the judge before whom the child appears. (Citations
omitted.)
lee will be eleven in February. Although he is still relatively young, we feel his desire to
live with his mother arises out of their mutual love and a natural tendency to miss her.
Although there is currently conflict in Marchut's life, she has done a wonderful job
with Lee, and her efforts are commendable. Notwithstanding, we are well satisfied that
the mother has the present capability to provide for the physical, emotional, intellectual,
moral and spiritual well-being of Lee in a home that includes his half-brother Oakarai.
-11-
~",
.- l'~
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
We perceive no harm to Lee in changing custody to his mother, nor do any special
circumstances clearly indicate the appropriateness of awarding custody to his
grandmother. As in Burnett v. Verstreate, supra, this is an opportune time for Lee to
be reunited with his mother. Lee's father supports his son's desire to live with her. The
mother's entire family is in this area, so she is likely to return often. This will give Lee
an opportunity to continue the relationships he has with members of his family.
n Continuity in school is a factor, although like any other single factor, it is not controlling.
Swope v. Swope, 689 A.2d 264 (Pa. Super. 1997). Lee is only in fifth grade.
Changing schools after the Christmas break is less disruptive than at other times during
i.
"
a school year. We are required under the law to give special weight and deference to
i:';
!.:
the relationship between Lee and his mother. This case has many similarities with
Burnett v. Verstreate, supra. We find that it is in the best interest of Lee for him to be
reunited with his mother.
For the foregoing reasons, the following order is entered.2
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~'"'\.--. day of December, 2000, IT IS ORDERED:
2 It is important for Lee that he has continuing contact with his grandmother and father.
No issue has been specifically raised as to their rights to periods of temporary physical
custody if we granted physical custody to the mother. The parties have always been
able to reach agreement regarding the mother's contact with Lee when she was not in
physical custody. Hopefully, the reverse will be true. However, if the grandmother and
father are not satisfied with their continuing contact with Lee, we will address any such
issues on petition without again referring the case to conciliation.
-12-
00-3473 CIVIL TERM
(1) All prior custody orders are vacated and replaced with this order.
(2) Physical custody of William Lee Westmoreland, Jr., born February 1, 1990,
IS AWARDED to his mother, Tiffanie Killinger, as of the 27th day of December, 2000.
By the CO\.lrt,~
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
For Teresa Marchut
Karl Rominger, Esquire
For Tiffanie Killinger
William L. Westmoreland, Sr., Pro se
26 N. Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
:saa
-13-
"'<kd~, .~-
=w~-~-~ ':
~'" ,:~f,>:~:,J,~JJ.,,->;..,,,,,,.-;-_," y, ,'F,;?:;c;-J
illlI." -.~ "il>1_'-'; , ~ ~JIiii!llilil:"lhaMii1: \
",-~- Y,-,
,',"- '---::""
""
,^-~
"
, " " =. ,I.r~'~=--
.::-
C) c') .-')
"
:-::.-,..;
" , "
,
, I
, , "
, -~." , ,
,
,- ..,.-, -~
N ~~l >-;1
,- :.n
,,' .~JJ
-< I V -<
~ ,~ ~ ~
']
...~~-~ = ,
-
.-
.
."I7.'Kr;',
I
TERESA STROHM (MARCHUT)
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
TIFF ANIE KILLINGER and
WILLIAM L. WESTMORELAND, SR.,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: NO. 00-3473 CIVIL TERM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire hereby certifY that I did, the 13th day of July, 2001,
cause a certified and true copy of a Petition for Special Relief and Order of Court to be
served upon the Defendant, Tiffanie Killinger, by serving her attorney of record, Karl E.
Rominger, Esquire, and upon the Defendant, William L. Westmoreland, Sr., by first class
mail, postage prepaid, at the following addresses:
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
William L. Westmoreland, Sr.
P.O. Box 1123
Carlisle, PA 17013
DATE: 7/13 /01
,Jj[' i"c~'~ill.~d,h,W!i.'Wll!'lOO..;~~Ili~#1."Jllk"{\~@":~iJ<~,ilLd'J
;
""",,', ~;""f;)-aJ("';,,,,Ccl,U ~
:I1J1 ,1- ~ ~,
..
.'>,<^" ,.",~=----
i" ~"~l i '~.
',', ,,-
~~w
,. ,~
"
Oll!llll!!l'........
l.
(" -
Z
-~
-'Jilllilllil
.
C-:-,"'
1"0
t:...
~,O
~" ._"
TERESA (MARC HUT) STROHM,
Plaintiff
v.
TIFFANIE KILLINGER and
WILLIAM L. WESTMORELAND, SR.
Defendants
. .,
"
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLANDCOUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: NO. 00-3473 CIVIL TERM
: IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW this Z2-day of
~
, 2001, the attached Custody
Stipulation and Agreement is hereby made an Order of Court and all prior Orders in this matter
are vacated..
cc: Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
I
r
/
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant Killinger
~ 10.22-01
a..
William L. Westmoreland, Sr., Defendant, pro se
-''''--'.
"
OCT 1 9 2001
,
--'-~,,~ ---" , "
", ~ljIfi-~ -
~o,_~", ..,
, <~
mTIi!iIIIl!W,WLUU..,l&
.>
rn.,
,"-<~
"'~..
-""
."--',, i:nJ' -'~ltit""~,~JL~ n ,"':,n"r=:-il_'" 'D ': L
Or- r~ ~'!Lt-}?;~~~;:'ffC{;:
," Ii'CI'i')7ARY
0; OCT 22 P" .
rJ 2: fi6
CUMB> . . '
pH/fis~~A~~UNTY
,,,,,~~~,~..\!'il'l~~&~~WKI!(~~I~fif~iJfJil~tl."'~
,
,.',
. "
TERESA (MARCHUT) STROHM,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
TIFF ANtE KILLINGER and
WILLIAM L. WESTMORELAND, SR.
Defendants
: NO. 00-3473 CIVIL TERM
: IN CUSTODY
CUSTODY STIPULATION & AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, TIFFANIE KILLINGER, (hereinafter referred to as "Mother") is the
natural mother of WILLIAM 1. WESTMORELAND, JR., (hereinafter referred to as "child"), born
February I, 1990; and
WHEREAS, WILLIAM L. WESTMORELAND, SR., (hereinafter referred to as
"Father") is the natural father of the child; and
WHEREAS, TERESA S. STROHM, (hereinafter referred to as "Grandmother") is the
natural maternal grandmother of the child.
WHEREAS, the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,
continues to have jurisdiction over the issue of custody of the child.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual covenants, promises and agreements as
hereinafter set forth, the parties stipulate and agree as follows:
1. The Court's prior Order in this matter dated July 30, 2001, shall be vacated.
2 Grandmother, Mother and Father shall have shared legal custody of the child.
, ~ "It,
"
~
"
'~
. ..
3. Grandmother shall have primary physical custody of the child.
4. Mother shall have periods of custody with the child as follows:
a.) During the school year, unless Mother already has a period of partial custody as
hereinafter described during any specific month, Mother shall be entitled to an
extended weekend of partial custody with the child during any weekend when the
child has a three day weekend due to a holiday, in-service day, or other days off
from school.
b.) During the Thanksgiving school vacation period, the child shall be with Mother
for Thanksgiving 2001 and all odd numbered years thereafter and shall be with
Grandmother for Thanksgiving 2002 and all even numbered years thereafter;
c.) During the Christmas school vacation period, the parties shall share the school
vacation break by dividing the school holiday between the period from the last
day of school before the vacation break until December 28th and the period from
December 28th until the evening before the child must return to school, with
Grandmother having the first period set forth above for Christmas 2001, and all
odd numbered years thereafter, during which time Mother shall have the second
period set forth above. For Christmas 2002 and all even numbered years
thereafter, Mother shall have the first periods set forth above and Grandmother
shall have the second period.
d.) During the Easter or spring break period when the child is off from school the
,~<. ~
~ ',~
,
child shall be with Mother for the Easter or spring break in 2002 and all even
numbered years and with Grandmother in 2003 and all odd numbered years;
e.) During the summer vacation period, Mother shall be entitled to two (2) three (3)
week periods of partial custody with the child with those specific periods to be
agreed upon between the parties by no later than April 1 st of each year; and
f.) At such other times as the parties may agree.
5. Mother and Grandmother shall share transportation responsibilities for Mother's
periods of partial custody by meeting at a halfway point between the parties'
residences at a location to be agreed upon by the parties and counsel. Father shall
participate and assist in transportation as he is able.
6. Unless otherwise agreed upon above, the specific exchange times for the periods of
partial custody set forth above shall be agreed upon by the parties.
7. Arrangements for contact between the child and Father shall be established by
agreement between Grandmother and Father with the understanding that the contact
between Father and child will be reasonable and liberal.
8. Grandmother shall not initiate any support action to secure financial support from
Mother for the care of the child during any time in which the child is in
Grandmother's primary physical custody.
9. The parties shall keep each other advised in the event of serious illness or medical
"
~.
~~tH"
emergency concerning the child and shall further take any necessary steps to ensure
that the health and well-being of the child is protected. During such illness or
medical emergency, the parties shall have the right to visit the child as often as he or
she desires consistent with the property medical care of the child.
10. None of the parties shall do anything which may estrange the child from the other
parties, injure the opinion of the child as to the other parties, or which may hamper
the free and natural development of the child's love and affection for the other
parties.
11. Any modification or waIver of any of the provisions of this Agreement on a
permanent basis shall be effective only if made in writing, and only if executed with
the same formality as this Stipulation and Agreement.
12. The parties desire that this Stipulation and Agreement be made an Order of Court of
the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, and further acknowledge that the
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County does, in fact, have jurisdiction over
the issue of custody of the minor child.
13. The parties stipulate that in making this Agreement, there has been no fraud,
concealment, overreaching, coercion, or other unfair dealing on the part of the other
party.
14. The parties acknowledge that they have read and understand the provisions of this
Agreement. Each party acknowledges that the Agreement is fair and equitable and
,""~~
~,-
~' ,
;~' " ",,"", c'
that it is not the result of any duress or undue influence.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The parties hereto intending to be legally bound by the terms
hereof, set forth their hands and seals the day and year hereinafter mentioned.
WITNESSETH:
~,'tt~
~~
~;J~
/f(~;~
IDlrz/7ml ~l~ s. ~.~
I Date . TERESA S. STROHM
16-//;-O)'~~ K~
Date TI. NIB KILLINGER
1'0 -ICYo; .
Date
wdLt
'to
WILLIAM L. WESTMORELAND, SR.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
LlAlN\\t}wl~
\1" ~ day of OC{o ~e {
SS
COUNTY OF
On this
, 2001, before me, the undersigned
officer, personally appeared TERESA S. STROHM, known to me (or satisfactory proven) to be
the person whose name is subscribed to the within Agreement and acknowledged that she
executed the same for the purpose therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
~a
N ary Public
r Notarial Seal
Karisa J. Lehman, NolaI\' Public
Cariisle BOlO, Cumbe~ana County
My Commission Expires Aug. 25, 2003
STATEOF W.ed- 1/+
COUNTY OF K~
On this /& day of @ ~
SS
, 2001, before me, the undersigned
officer, personally appeared TIFFANIE KILLINGER, known to me (or satisfactory proven) to
be the person whose name is subscribed to the within Agreement and acknowledged that she
executed the same for the purpose therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
omalII.lUI.
NOTARY I'Ulll.lC
STATEOF'war....
YVOIIINE G. fOSl:O
6DlSOIl1lf.llDSI.
122 3Ro:AYl-n
so. CHAS.. WI 253D3
My Camm__IlIl:. 8. 2003
"
~ d:kw
~otary Public ;"
~~
-.-.
~. "~
"
.
.'
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYL VANIA
COUNTY OF L.l \., vv\ w \..c.<."vv\
SS
On this \ L -n:, day of
o c+v b-v
, 2001, before me, the undersigned
officer, personally appeared WILLIAM L. WESTMORELAND, SR., known to me (or
satisfactory proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within Agreement and
acknowledged that he executed the same for the purpose therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
Nota. I
Kar/sa J Leh na Seal
M Carlisle Bora ~"i, Notary Public
I Y CommiSSion Ex"! er/and County
Pires Aug. 25, 2003
iii'
url.-(~VIill>J,W;!~_i!.l1!-bili::!Ef4~filfm!f~!1<ldi.ii""*,~#IW!'~hwt''io!lmlJ!!'i~Y:Ui! :,1i_.MJ.h~ '~"Iii:i:f8jmllfi!l!s!jfl~ftillli~-
,
-,
'.
1.1
~, -
~- ,
,"
~,
.,"--",.'"..-
."
~Jl
..~.."""
~'-I_~
Q "J
0 -- '-','1
C.:: Cl
s-
-o(D " -r~
..... ,-
n;tr:, __'0'1
4'_.-'--) ~ ;-4
zc: CP ~~??l
f!<":>~
,<0 -0 ~~~C)
~Q ~ cy-n
~c.: -
J;>C -~
:;:...
~ ,-'"' :Q.
.-