The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00-03477 ~. , , , '" "'" "~,I """ , DEe ~01 -'" DANIELkE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff vs, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-3477 DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY Hess, J. - ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this J Z ~ day of December, 2001, upon consideration of the attache_d Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1, This Court's Order of January 9, 2001, shall remain in full force and effect with the following additions: A The parties shall strictly adhere to the legal custody provisions of the Order of January 9, 2001, and shall consult with each other with regard to those decisions which could reasonably be expected to be of concern to either parent In the event that the parties cannot agree, the parties agree to participate in mediation sharing the cost equally. The mediator, unless otherwise agreed, shall be Arnold T, Shienvold, Ph.D, B, In the event that one or both of the Children would not be attending daycare or preschool as planned, the custodial parent will notify the non- custodial parent of such change in plans. BY THE COURT, /~<~ ~ -La) Kevi A Hess, J, Dis!: Mary E, Dissinger, Esquire, 28 N, 32" Street, Camp Hili, PA 17011 Carol J, Lindsay, Esquire, 26 W, High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT :... ~s ~ " ' J' , \ DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff .. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 00-3477 CIVIL DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this Cjt:IJ day of January, 2001, following hearing and careful consideration of the testimony adduced, it is ordered and directed that the parties hereto shall share legal custody oftheir children, Kareston E. Markley born May 8, 1998, and Madison Rose Markley born October 26, 1999, Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all major nonemergency decisions affecting the children's general well being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion, Each parent shall be.entitled to all records and information pertaining to the children including, but not limited to, school and medical records. To the extent one parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent Primary physical custody of said children shall be in their mother, Danielle Markley, subject to rights of custody in the father as follows: a. On alternating weekends, as heretofore, from Friday after work lmtil they are returned to day care the following Tuesday. b, On alternating weeks, on Mondays (heretofore Tuesdays) from after work until he returns them to day care the following Wednesday morning, DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 2.\0'5\01 (:::Q.."> ........, ~ -) c. At Christmas time, by alternating from year to year the period from noon on December 24'h to noon on December 25'\ and noon on December 25th to noon on December 26th, d. For at least one week in the summer to accommodate vacation, with a like period in the mother, upon sixty days' notice, e, On alternating maj or holidays as the party shall agree. Nothing in this order shall prohibit the parties from varying or altering the terms hereof by agreement. BY THE COURT, Mary Etter Dissinger, Esquire For the Plaintiff AJi Carol!. Lindsay, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm TRUE COpy FR.OM RECORD In Te.timony whereof, I here unt~ set my hand d t seal of sa. Court at Carlisle, Pa, ~ rho .......9........ iJ LJa..J...., 47..1. . . ...t. . rothoootary ~ : : ~" .~ . . . .. :+. :+.:f.:f. . . . .. :+. :f. :t::f. :f. . . :f.:f.:Ii"':f. :+.:+.;1; . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY . STATE OF PENNA. DANIELLE MARKLEY, .. PLAINTIFF N 2000-3477 O. VERSUS DARNELL MARKLEY, DEFENDANT . DECREE IN DIVORCE . .. . . .. .. . .. 10 . rn~ AND NOW, ,200:1 , IT IS ORDERED AND DANIELLE MARKLEY DECREED THAT , PLAINTIFF, AND DARNELL MARKLEY , DEFENDANT, ARE DIVORCED FROM THE BONDS OF MATRIMONY, " " " " . " . . " " " . " " " " " . " " " " . " . " . " . " " . " . " " " " " . . . . :f.:+.:f.:+.;tO:f.'f. " " . THE COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION OF THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION FOR WHICH A FINAL ORDER HAS NOT YET BEEN ENTERED; " . THERE ARE NO OUTSTANDING ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT . . REMAIN UNRESOLVED. . . . " H' BY THE COURT: Ii " " " . " " . . " " . . :f.;tO:+.:f. :+. :f.~:Ii:+' :+.:+.;to :+. .. :t::+. :Ii~:+':f."'''':+' ;to n" . " . " " " . . . . " . " " " " " " . " " . " " . " " " " " " . " . " " . " " " . " . " . " " " " " " " " " J, &':203 6;2'0) " ,'I ,I :1 !'j '> , , ..........."l""'"1<:'"', """~ '-... . .- .,,! . . &~ ~ ~~. 4- J2"",<,~~ '7;~. #<~ ~ ?dy ~ ," <,"'''',' .,!WIi!Il!~ -"""""- - '" ~~!"'''''''-''' '--~"r ,,"',. ~~ , , ' , ' DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 2000-3477 DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant IN CUSTODY PRAECIPE TO TRANSMIT RECORD To the Prothonotary: Transmit the record, together with the following information, to the Court for entry of a divorce decree: 1. Ground for divorce: 3301(c) of the Divorce Code. Irretrievable breakdown under ~ 2. Date and manner of service of the Complaint: served upon Defendant's attorney, Carol J. Lindsay, who accepted service on June 22, 2000. Her Acceptance of Service was filed on June 30, 2000. 3. Date of execution of the Affidavit of Consent required by ~ 3301(c) of the Divorce Code: ~Cl" :J~ ,2003, by Plaintiff Danielle Markley; ~, 2003, by Defendant Darnell Markley. 4. Related claims pending: none. 5. Date Plaintiff's Waiver of Notice in ~ 3301(c) Divorce filed with the Prothonotary: jnqV ~) ,2003. Date Defendant's Waiver of Notice in ~ 3301(c) Divorce filed with the Prothonotary: ~, 2003. Respectfully submitted, DISSINGER AND DISSINGER Date: 5/;)?/03 '.--771 ~ Ma~07Et~singer Attorney for Plaintiff 28 N. Thirty-second Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 717-975-2840 cc: Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire 1I~1II1~~liffl1&1i~iiWI~__~~!i~I1i_'dl' ]..=.- I .il ~.' ~lI!ii!!fHMIl .-."\'; () 0 c: ~ '?' W -Ow ::rJ: !;2rn :0.. ::::J 22') .-< ?f14] 05',-, 1'\;l ""In ~~ ..... ~:g :::::'1...0 ~8 .bo --f' . ::c: 'J: I"j <::).:!) - .".~ c: - 15 2 =< W --1 ~~ ...., -' , / , . ,11 ~.~ """-- M DANIELLE MARKLEY PLAINTIFF V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DARNELL MARKLEY 2000-3477 CIVIL ACTION LAW DEFENDANT 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 appear befonMelissa P. Greevy, Esq. , the conciliator, at 214 Senate Avenue, Suite 105, Camp Hill, PA 17011 on the 12th day of July ,2000, atlO:30AM 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: /s/ 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 HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP, Cumberland County fiar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 : _<~ IT - ~ ~'--.~"-' " - ~ --," , - , ~ .~- .- :~:_ ~-, c- CO ..JUP 1 :j fij"'l' Q. cl .. U.:-1 ~ C\ I~ i, -'"'~'. . - - ", ......".-. '. . LJI\!IOC(iL.h\U l",uuNrY PENNSYLVPNIA d>'l5aJ t1d-~~~4 ~ b/5-ct) 71~~ ~ df/. &15,[;/t} ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ , "7" -~'"""~~.;~r= ,~ ,""- l rnl~f~J!'lI!~!l.IlIf'l-1!II~-"II~'~!\llIlI!lilI,....,~~-""", ~, ~-, I --'.~t:.:Ji DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff : IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : NO. 00 - 31./77 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : DIVORCE/CUSTODY G~I'(~ DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before the Custody Conference Officer on the day of , 2000, at .m. at , for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such Conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues to be heard by the Court and to enter into a Temporary Order. Children need not be present at the Conference unless their presence is requested by the Custody Conference Officer. Failure to appear at the Conference may provide grounds for entry or a temporary or permanent Order. For the Court: DATE: Custody Conference Officer 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 TWO LffiERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 170B (717) 249-3166 1-800-990-9108 ( , 'I; Hil}] DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff vs. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. hJ' 3'171 ~ -r..u.-- DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : DIVORCE/CUSTODY NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take prompt action. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a decree of divorce or annulment may be entered against you by the Court. A judgment may also be entered against you for any other claim or relief or property or other rights important to you, including custody or visitation of your children. When the ground for the divorce is indignities or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, you may request marriage counseling. A list of marriage counselors is available in the Office of the Prothonotary, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM FOR ALIMONY, DMSION OF PROPERTY, LAWYER'S FEES OR EXPENSES BEFORE A DNORCE OR ANNULMENT IS GRANTED, YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY OF THEM. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FlND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION TWO LffiERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 1-800-990-9108 2 , , -~. ~~, ilOfL DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff vs. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ; NO. hJ~ 3't7? ~ I.u.- DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : DIVORCE/CUSTODY COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 3301(c) or (d) OF THE DIVORCE CODE COUNT 1 AND NOW comes Plaintiff, DANIELLE MARKLEY, by her attomey, Diane S. Baker, Esquire, and files this Complaint, based upon the following: L Plaintiff, DANIELLE MARKLEY, is an adult individual residing, as of June 3, 2000, at 6024 Hummingbird Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 2. Defendant, DARNELL MARKLEY, is an adult individual residing at 165 Kerrsville Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013. 3. Plaintiff has been a bona fide resident of this Commonwealth for at least six months immediately previous to the filing of this Complaint. 4. Plaintiff and Defendant were married on November 1, 1997, m Loysville, Pennsylvania. 5. There have been no prior actions of divorce or for annulment between the parties. 3 J ~ , l. L)-: 6. Defendant is not presently a member of the Armed Forces on active duty. Plaintiff is not presently a member of the Armed Forces on active duty. 7. Plaintiff has been advised of the availability of marriage counseling and that she may have the right to request the Court to require the parties to participate in such counseling. Being so advised, Plaintiff does not request that the Court require the parties to participate in counseling prior to a Divorce Decree being issued by the Court. 8. Plaintiff avers that the ground on which the action is based is that the marriage is irretrievably broken. 9. Plaintiff requests the Court to enter a Decree of Divorce. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court to enter a Decree: (a) Dissolving the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant; (b) Such further relief as the Court may determine equitable and just. COUNT NUMBER 2 - CLAIM FOR EOUlTABLE DISTRIBUTION 10. Paragraphs 1 through 9 above are herein incorporated by reference. 11. The Plaintiff and Defendant are owners of various items of personal property, furniture and household furnishings acquired during the marriage which are subject to equitable distribution by the Court. 12. The Plaintiff and Defendant are owners of various motor vehicles acquired during the marriage which are subject to equitable distribution by the Court. 4 , c ~-~, " i L_ 13. The Plaintiff and Defendant singly or jointly have interests in various bank accounts acquired during the marriage which are subject to equitable distribution by the Court. 14. Plaintiff and Defendant own or have an interest in real estate which is subj ect to equitable distribution by the Court. 15. The Plaintiff and the Defendant have acquired during the marriage other marital property which is subject to equitable distribution by the Court. COUNT II CUSTODY 16. Paragraphs 1 through 15 are incorporated herein by reference. 17. Plaintiff seeks to confirm primary custody of KARESTON EVE MARKLEY, bom May 8, 1998 and MADISON ROSE MARKLEY, born October 26, 1999. Plaintiff is the natural mother of the children and Defendant is the natural father of the children. The children were born of the marriage of the parties. The children are currently in the custody of Plaintiff. 18. Since birth, the children have resided with the following persons and at the following addresses: Plaintiff, Defendant Kareston, Madison 165 Kerrsville Road birth to June 3, 2000 Carlisle, P A 17013 Plaintiff, Kareston, Madison 6024 Hummingbird Dr. June 3, 2000 - present Mechamdcsburg,PA 17055 5 If'; " ,I, mt 19. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or a witness, or in another capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody of the children in this or another court. Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the children pending in a court of this Commonwealth. Plaintiff does not know of a person not party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the children or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the children. 20. Each parent whose parental rights to the children have not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the children have been named as parties to this action. 21. The best interest and permanent welfare of the children will be served by granting the relief requested for the following reasons: a. Plaintiff provides a safe home and a stable and loving environment for the children. b. Plaintiff has been the primary caretaker of the children since birth. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests Your Honorable Court to grant her primary legal and physical custody of the minor children, with Defendant having visitation at such times as are mutually agreeable. b(I!00 i e S. Baker, Esquire Supreme Court ill #53200 27 South Arlene Street Post Office Box 6443 Harrisburg, PA 17112-0443 (717) 671-9600 DATE: 6 " , ,-~ '" l'>m-,-, DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : NO. DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : DIVORCE/CUSTODY VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. iJaWHu it!~ DANIELLE MARKLEY 7 . SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER II & LINDSAY ATIORNEVS'ATeLAW 26 W. High SITeet Carlisle, PA 'I '-,~"--" .', - - ~'::;';"-'~:: ':T: r~ ._t~C ,~ - " ,'- DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM VS. DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant IN DIVORCE AFFIDAVIT OF CONSENT 1, A Complaint in Divorce under S;3301 (c) of the Divorce Code was filed on Ii June 9, 2000. ]'1 I, II II 2. The marriage of plaintiff and defendant is irretrievably broken and ninety days have elapsed from the date of filing and service of the Complaint 3. I consent to the entry of a final Decree in Divorce after service of notice of intention to request entry of the Decree, I verify that the statements made in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, Danielie Dee Markley, Date: 'i / ;:r~!o3 II ~ ;";'-;,, ., '~, ; '!ilil~rrH" ~'c...',,~ ~ a......l~..,""-.< ", .c."', ,." _" "' "f j"; "ii.i,.""",_,,",," ~ . ;"""''''",i ! I , (') 0 ~ c: w ;;;: 3: --l "Om "'" :r:::n mrn -:: rl1,_ Z::rJ N -01." t5~, -' :pl? r;c,; > ;~!~ K' ~~. :1> C:~ ::r z:(~) - >e ~ 2: ,:.) :;! en -< ,,]. ' T , 'I:' , , I'; -'-. " .', '-<-~, I I I DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff vs, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant IN DIVORCE AFFIDAVIT OF CONSENT 1. A Complaint in Divorce under !l3301 (c) of the Divorce Code was filed on June 9, 2000. 2, The marriage of plaintiff and defendant is irretrievably broken and ninety days have elapsed from the date of filing and service of the Complaint. 3. I consent to the entry of a final Decree in Divorce after service of notice of intention to request entry of the Decree. I verify that the statements made in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are , made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to Ii authorities. II I I II II Date: s' /1 7/ f!3 SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY i' ATIORNEYS-AT-LAW I Z6 W. High Street Carlisle. PA I I II J.-u -~, <- ..<Ili~~lliLMl mJ -r""-<<' - ~ . " <,'.j,' , ,,-';;,'J ,"h ]_ ;~"';';""j (') 0 () ~ W ""r1 :% ::~:JJ -COco ".. mrn -< "-11r- Z:r,1 N -am zSc ~36 (I) ~- -.I -<"';. \<C )> :~""i - :JJ ;?:--- :x ~~o Z' .' ~8 ",'!Sm -7 ,i",) :;;1 :~ '0 0'\ :< SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS-Ar-LAW 26 W, High Street Carlisle, P A I 'J i "I, ' j~ ,I , ' DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO, 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM : IN DIVORCE VS, DARNELL J, MARKLEY, Defendant WAIVER OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REQUEST ENTRY OF A DIVORCE DECREE UNDER !i3301/c) OF THE DIVORCE CODE 1, I consent to the entry of a final Decree of Divorce without notice. I 2. I understand that I may lose rights concerning alimony, division of ' !i property, lawyer's fees or expenses if I do not claim them before a divorce is granted, 3. I understand that I will not be divorced until a Divorce Decree is entered II by the Court and that a copy of the Decree will be sent to me immediately after it is ,I filed with the Prothonotary, I I II 1 I verify that the statements made in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 'i , II ~~ !111!a^Ado,// Danielle Dee Markl~ Date: 5' /'dVO?' :1 ~:, , ~iiilnfld ~.... -. . 'l' ~ ;-. ..,1 .-1."'.:' ~ '.1 () 0 0 C w -0 :s:: X --l -oFo "'" -r m" -< fn~ Z,-q N -O~ Z~" _J ~g . (j').o-:~ -<..: :~:B I~~ ",. ::x ,'::> "Po ~~ .:':; n C 0-1 Z '-'> :i> ~ -.I :~ SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS'AT'UW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA -- DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM VS, DARNELL J, MARKLEY, Defendant IN DIVORCE WAIVER OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REQUEST ENTRY OF A DIVORCE DECREE UNDER . 113301(c) OF THE DIVORCE CODE 1. I consent to the entry of a final Decree of Divorce without notice, 2. I understand that I may lose rights concerning alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses if I do not claim them before a divorce is granted, 3. I understand that I will not be divorced until a Divorce Decree is entered by the Court and that a copy of the Decree will be sent to me immediately after it is filed with the Prothonotary. I verify that the statements made in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, Date: .5'/1'1/1/'3 I ' d II "'.,. i'l'W "Iii' ~ ~.'~'"' c J ~ , ..I '-"':li...:-' ~llJJiJlil&' - -- " f? 0 0 w -., ;;: 3: -; '\ "m :t>o .,' 11, ::n mrn -< ; r-- Z::z;;; N ~'19' "-... mS -r ..t. -<~~'" :=jo ~{:;' ".. :e=H ~c 3: {'~~- ~.o - cs;m --0 - :l>c: ~I 3 .;,.) )>, 5:1 .... -r ..< ... ~ , , . " IWl!liMj DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : NO. 2000-3477 CML TERM DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant : CML ACTION - DIVORCE/CUSTODY ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I, CAROL LlNDSA Y, ESQUIRE, cOWlsel for the Defendant in the above- .. captioned matter, upon authorization of the Defendant, accept service of the Complaint in . I ,'h." Divorce/Custody and Custody Order, filed on JWle 15, 2000, this 2:0 day of 3'".1." ,20j)JC ~a C~ SAy,ES~ '1iIIiIi!liI~ -'. '&lI~~~""""'-""~"-.w~~~11il~JjjilrdtG(,.I, , .--- ~"-~~,,=~ ~.,,- ~'~~- __l',~ .~"'~-~ ~. I 0 0 0 C 0 '-T\ ... 2' <- -~ -on: c::: ',-, men ::e .--" Z::c (..0 ,J\~ 7j.C 0 . ~..~ ~..:- ~CJ ~-- ,) -Q ;~~B :Eel ..>> bO r.a C) 01 J:>c -,.1 ~ :::> 35 -c:: (;::) -<:: vs. JUL 2 0 200~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO, 2000-3477 " " , DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY INTERIM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this IIJ --t:IJ day of t2<<~ ' 2000, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Repo it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A hearing is scheduled for the / q-c6 day of ~A, , 2000 at 9; 3 c) o'clock &::. M. in Court Room Number ~ of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Both parties, through counsel, will provide each other and the court with a list of exhibits and witnesses ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing along with a statement as to their expected testimony. Additionally, both parties will submit their proposal for a resolution of the matter. 2. Pending further order of this Court or an agreement of the parties, the Father, Darnell Markley, and the Mother, Danielle Markley, shall have shared legal custody of their minor daughters, Kareston Eve Markley, born May 8, 1998, and Madison Rose Markley, born October 26, 1999, Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all major non-emergency decisions affecting the children's general well being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion, Pursuant to the terms of this paragraph each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the children including, but not limited to, school and medical records. To the extent one parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent 3. The parties shall have physical custody of their daughters according to the following schedule: A, Commencing July 12, 2000, the Father shall be entitled to pick up his children from day care after work for afternoon visits and return the children to Mother at the designated pick-up point of Getty, by 5:00 PM on alternate Wednesdays and Thursdays. On alternate Tuesdays and Fridays, Father shall be entitled to pick up the children at day care and return them to Mother at the designated exchange point by 4:15 PM. B. Commencing July 14, 2000, Mother shall have the children from 4:15 PM on Friday for the weekend until the following Tuesday morning when she takes them to day care on July 18th. . ~ f Docket No. 2000-3477 C. Commencing July 18, 2000, on alternate Tuesdays, Father shall be entitled to have custody of the children from after work overnight until he returns them to the day care provider the following Wednesday morning, July 19, 2000. Mother shall have custody on Wednesday and Thursday, D. Father shall have weekend custody on alternating weekends to commence on July 21, 2000, after he gets off work, for the period from Friday after work until he takes them to day care the following Tuesday morning, July 25, 2000. Then the cycle shall repeat itself as has been described, 4. Father shall notify Mother if he is not able to be present for any of these custodial times as agreed upon. 5. In the event that the health concerns of the current day care provider causes the parents to need to locate another day care provider, the parties agree that they will cooperate in interviewing and selecting a day care provider and will look toward a convenient geographic location for the parties, preferably in Mechanicsburg; or alternatively, will make a shared transportation arrangement such that each party is equally responsible in the transportation of the children. BY THE COURT, ~ J. Distribution: Diane S, Baker, Esquire, (Counsel for Plaintiff) 27. ,Arlene Street, PO Box 6443, Harrisburg, PA 17112- 0443 Carol J, Lindsay. Esquire, (Counsel for Defend t) 11 E. High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 L!~ -rry j.J cg-/l'(JO ,~rs = , J,-' ""b ~ O!r ./ " tJUl 2 7 2000tP DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000-3477 DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Kareston Eve Markley Madison Rose Markley May 8, 1998 October 26, 1999 Mother Mother 2. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on July 12, 2000, with the following individuals in attendance: The mother, Danielle Markley, and her counsel, Diane S. Baker, Esquire; the father, Darnell Markley, and his counsel, Carol Lindsey, Esquire. 3, The parties were not able to reach agreement other than for an Interim Order for Custody, pending the outcome of a hearing. 4, Mother left the marital home with the two children on June 3, 2000, providing no notice to Father. Father reports that Mother initially denied him any contact with the children. Father's present contacts with the children are limited to alternate weekends, which was only achieved after negotiation of the parties' counsel. Subsequently, an additional alternate Monday overnight was agreed upon pending this Conference, Father has the option of working 6:30 AM to 3:00 PM or 5:00 AM to 1 :00 PM. Father is taking the position that he has been a very active part of the lives of the children and took an even more active role with the older daughter when Mother faced physical restrictions associated with difficulties Mother had during the second pregnancy. Father is requesting shared legal and shared physical custody in the pattern of three days with Dad and four days with Mom, four days with Dad and three with Mom. 5, Mother will not agree to any shared arrangement, saying that she believes this would be too disruptive for the children's schedule. Neither of the two babies is presently nursing. Mother's work hours are 7:00 AM to 3:15 PM. Both parties . , ,,' -,- .. ,'-",' $0" ., "".t' Docket No. 2000-3477 work Monday through Friday. 6. The parties have requested that the matter be scheduled for hearing before a Judge. Father was willing to cooperate with a Custody Evaluation, however, was not willing to participate in paying for it financially. Mother would prefer to have a Custody Evaluation, however, claims that she cannot afford the expense, The option of Custody Mediation was offered to the parties which they have agreed to consider. The attached Interim Order is recommended to the Court to be entered pending the outcome of the hearing requested by both parties, 7. The parties are advised that if they would like to return to Custody Conciliation following having worked with the Interim Order for a period of time, they may ask their counsel to reschedule a Conciliation Conference, 1~ 12"/ ~fJ1j1J Date ~~ Melissa eel Greevy, Esquire Custody Conciliator ,J,U , ^ _~ ,_ - 0''''-' 'of Merissa Peer Greevy Attorney and Counselor at Law 214 Senate Avenue, Suite 105 Carnp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011-2336 Telephone: (717) 763-8995 July 26, 2000 Richard Pierce Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas One Courthouse Square Carlisle, P A 17013 Dear Rick: Enclosed is the Custody Conciliation Conference Summary for Danielle Markle v. Darnell Markley, Docket No. 2000-3477. It was inadvertently excluded from the last packet of materials sent on July 19, 2000. \Jj MPG/jav , '.ol!i-"""I<L-' DANIELLE MARKLEY PLAINTIFF V. DARNELL MARKLEY DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 00-3477 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 23rd day of August ,2000, upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa P. Greevy, Esq. , the conciliator, at 214 Seuate Aveuue, Suite 105, Camp Hill, PA 17011 on the 18th day of September ,2000, at 11:00 a.m. for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to defme and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. FOR THE COURT, By: Isl Melissa P. Greevy, Esq. \ Custody Conciliator F 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 TInS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE 1HE OFFICE SET FOR1H BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP, Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 :::[ C,'-' .........__. (j''' !,' F .,,_1,,'_' rr--r -_.Ii'....' ';"t,." -~',c- c_'" r.l(f:: ~" , ""nj"Rv ",.';1"11 I 00 t!UG 28 PN :]: 09 r'II'''." VUil'iU""f~'i /[,'."" ,_ Pi1-V1y6\;Li,'i/:OUNiY - , VII v,'-\,NIA 'fr;Jg-oO W. ~ ~ ?;; "aIff 'td/?'a:J ~ ~ ~4~ ~d~Ot1 ~ M~ ~ 4~ ~~'~4~ ~o/-1-~~ 7b ~~~tUa#~~~4~~ ~,fl!i!__r~mf~l~~n'!~~!~.~_'~_!~ >~ "' w DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 2000-3477 DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, 2000, upon consideration of the attached complaint, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa P. Greevv, Esquire the conciliator, at on the , the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the . ,conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. FOR THE COURT, By: Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals 'having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must by made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend scheduled conference or hearing. . il!l:itJ,' YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 717-249-3166 DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 2000-3477 DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant IN CUSTODY PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY 1. Plaintiff is Danielle Markley, Mother of the children, residing at 508 Louisa Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, IPennsyl vania. , I 2. Defendant is Darnell residing at 165 Kerrsville Pennsylvania. Markley, Father Road, Carlisle, of the children, Cumberland County, " ,I 3. Custody of the , IMadison Rose Markley, I I minor children, Kareston E. was awarded as follows: Markley and A. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on July 12, 2000 before Attorney Melissa Greevy. A temporary custody arrangement was agreed upon at that conference, but no Conciliator's report or Order has yet been received by Petitioner's Counsel. B. Primary physical custody was granted to Mother, with periods of temporary physical custody granted to Father through a complicated schedule by which the children are transported back and forth between parents throughout the week. (See copy of schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "A".) C. Under the current schedule on days exchanges are made, the Father picks up the children at the babysitters in Carlisle at approximately 2:00 p.m. Mother picks the Ii children up from the Father at a parking lot in Carlisle at either 4:15 or 5:00 p.m., depending on the day of the week. (See attached Exhibit "A"). After picking the children up, Mother drives back to her home in Mechanicsburg. 4. Mother seeks to modify the current custody arrangement because: A. Mother works in Harrisburg and lives in Mechanicsburg. Father works in Mechanicsburg and lives in Plainfield. The babysitter is located in Carlisle. The current schedule of transporting back and forth through the week is very disruptive to the children. B. The children's nap and feeding time are disrupted by the schedule. Currently the babysitter has to wake the children from their nap-time at 2:00 p.m. in order to exchange with Father. c. Kareston, the older child, is experiencing behavior problems. She is grouchy because of her nap-time being interrupted. D. The children's bed-time has been disrupted by the new schedule. Before the custody schedule, they used to regularly go to bed between 8:00-8:30 p.m. Now, Kareston is not going to bed until at least 9:00 p.m. and Madison is not going to bed until 9:30-10:00 p.m. It is Mother's belief that this is due to the disruptive schedule and disruption of their nap-time. E. The Custody Arrangement is interfering with the children's eating habits. On one occasion, Kareston ate Fritos while in the Father's custody. On this night she would not eat dinner at the Mother's house. F. Rather than spending quality time during their waking hours with parents, children are spending an extended period of time on the road. G. Extended travel time increases the risk of the children being injured in a car accident. Much of the travel is on Route 81 and this will be even more dangerous once bad weather sets in. I I II " H. The schedule is affecting the children's health. Prior to the schedule being in place, the children were very healthy, with very few visits to the Doctor. In the short time the schedule has been in place, Kareston has been sick twice and Madison, once. " i!i WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Petitioner requests the Court to modify custody of the children as follows: 1. It is proposed that Mother have primary physical custody with Father having periods of temporary physical custody as follows: A. Father will have alternate weekends, picking the children up from the babysitter's at 4:00 p.m. on Friday. Mother will pick the children up at Father's house on Sunday evening at 6:30 p.m. B. On weeks when Father does not have weekend custody of the children, he will have custody from 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, when he will pick them up from the babysitter, until Friday morning when he drops the children off at the babysitter's. II -1iIIw1" C. The children will not be watched at the Father's parent's house because they have cats as pets. Kareston is allergic to the cats, and Madison may also be. Also, one cat had attacked Mother and Kareston six weeks after Kareston' s birth. The cats in the home, therefore, are a danger to the children. D. Mother shall have permission to find a babysitter located near her home in Mechanicsburg, so the children's morning and afternoon routine will involve less travel and disruption. Having daycare in the Mechanicsburg area will also assist the children when they begin pre-school and school in the next several years. E. Each parent should be entitled to two (2) weeks of non-consecutive, uninterrupted, vacation with the children each year. F. Parent's will alternate holidays which started with Father having custody of the children July 4, 2000. Respectfully Submitted: DISSINGER & DISSINGER By: fltw!r;I:~ /ki Matthew D. Strohm Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court I.D. #76724 28 North Thirty-second Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 717-975-2840 .~=. ' I I ! ltul ~ ,(J) , , . I i 'C: 'LL :J .c I- '.! i, ! , , , . Qj, :J: , I- ' ~ I"~ ,-"- "-. :; 0 ~o -n.,: 10 -C' Ci " 0, d ~i -3. : N ~ ::J J i c f ; c55! , _u._. _.___ . ~ I I I ..........I~ .~.........'.'..- ;-, -".';'_;;-"_-:',..' 1 " ,.'"".:-:,,- -.' N ~ ~ ~ o ~ ! i N7~ -, "" ,I C'0 ~ L!)c- ,.--- ~t.._ - :l " r-\ \: " \. _.b~ CO r,,~ ~-- I ' "-""';""':-',,,,.---. ''''','-''.-- .-'--,:. -.-,--. 'x,'-' p. A i I I I, 1..",.;,:::,,";:'"" I"".' j.;., '. II'~ 1-'" ;~ m C)J CO N I'- N <.0 N 'il 'I I L!) iN 1_' ".s..."", 'T!ltMI~i"',<_ ----- (. ,----0 \.~._-,,- I '\'flt- I,:" .-:\;, -\-- -' .',. ~_' i -, , i' r--.i' ~! ::....__ 1_; i r-- !.- i ___i..t'-.i --Ii' ----- '.'. ( \- ~ rli" '-,~}I! --r-r '. c.........::...'..'.'~.p 7..N ~~~ .-! mP'. '.~' y c.b ., ,"i' I I~ C'0 ~ ~~ EXHIBIT ~ i ':r-p' '\0~ "N'~ r s ~ o C0 ~ ~ I....--- "An ~" , ,__ Ii -jl' " "l!all'!!mmJ""" \~ , I , T ~~I ,. J+1 ~41 I ~ N .ji \i1 -..~ --. i \ ~ \j) v$' ~'lJ i F \/1; -:j- -... --- N . J. ~ ~g rl~ :f8 ~ O\;j => () ~-\A -...".;..-..... r - - 'r ~ \") . ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 8 o~ t::!r N bJ ey- n \DVi . . ~ - ~ \'IJ \0 ~ , \ P ~.~ \.f) p ~- ~ --' ~ =t-. ;::D - ~ ~ >-~ "/+I -z. .J - (fI C> ':) 0- --y~ ~ E h (l ~ - l>o \'-.;) N , , v<J " ~ --=:) hi C' f'\ "'z }O r(l~ l' --=> :::> G n 0 ~ V1 <C - 0- . ~ I I DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 2000-3477 DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant IN CUSTODY VERIFICATION I, Danielle Markley, verify that the statements made in the I Petition to Modify Custody are true and correct. I understand that I false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 i Pa.C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Matthew D. Strohm, Esquire, hereby certify that on the date set forth below I served a true and correct copy of the Petition to Modify Custody upon the attorney for Defendant, Darnell Markley, by First Class United States mail addressed as follows: i Date: fit? Jon I f Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire Flower, Flower & Lindsay 11 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 J~ Am Matthew D. Strohm, Esquire , -~'" DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Plaintiff VS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000 - 3477 CIVIL ACTION LAW DANIELLE D. MARKLEY, Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND now, this 6?,,-tA day of September, 2000, upon consideration of the request of counsel fo.rthe defendan~the hearing scheduled for October 19, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. is continued to thef ffi day of )..y,,(y~ ,2000, at q; 30 o'clock Q. m. in Courtroom No.4 of the Courthouse at Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The pre-trial statements referenced in our Order of August 16, 2000, shall be provided by counsel to the Court and served upon one another ten (10) days prior to the rescheduled hearing by the Court. By the Court, By: ./lJL evin Hess << r~ q/~ l) ~,},)( ~~ - .~ '. '~".''iiltl!Olijil1lO!lM;!llf~'~'Hi~~1iI>l,"m'!Itl<WWh::;!A~olll!~,jb'I'' "."",'i,N',,k"~: ,+L'",""j&'~:iilWl~lJKt'l' ---, r,:: ,~<: 01'" <:rr.- ') H J ....'-...' t., "" ," 0'.2." ;\n .;J _c CUr' i"\I"'" iIi", COU~,lTY 'in......l \W ,j''''..... PC,,' I"'{I IIANIA 1.~.P.1\\!0 \..'" I, i~~L~= ~"~~li! __11II''''- UIMiM~'-- SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle. P A DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff/Respondent vs. DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant/Petitioner ----., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO, 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM : IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this I~ day of ~ ,2001, upon consideration of the within Petition to Enforce Court Order, a conference is scheduled in chambers for I q-tA q;(fZ) day of December, 2001. II o'clock CL . m. on the By the Court, Ad. ~ f\~~ L- I?.: \3-01 J. ""''''''''""~'"- ~~. .. ']\i\RY '.)i- G\ DEe \ 3 Ft-.: p ;,8 CUrv~b~~.l~'I\.~/~';"::') \}]UNTY f)j:'iNi\.(C'.\IL'I !,;hl\ !'~ _ \ ~'-' ;r,1 ,,, . ~ 111 , ~" ~~~.) """"~_~"'''"~''':':..m . ~~.~_.~ .. ~) '..c" SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS-AT'LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff/Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO, 2000.3477 CIVIL TERM vs, DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant/Petitioner IN CUSTODY PETIT/ON TO ENFORCE COURT ORDER 1. The parties hereto are parents of two children: Kareston E. Markley, born May 8,1998; and Madison R. Markley, born October 26,1999. 2. On January 9, 2001, after a hearing, this Honorable Court entered an Order which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 3. In Paragraph (d) of the Court's Order of January 9, 2001, the Court ordered that Petitioner should receive custody of the children "For at least one week in the summer to accommodate vacation, with a like period in the mother, upon sixty days' notice." 4. In 2001, Petitioner did not take any vacation, but rather scheduled it for the week between Christmas and New Year's. That week is the only vacation week he has in 2001, and he has, for at least the last seven years, scheduled a vacation H II SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS.AT-LAW 26 W. High Street CarlisleJ P A . ',",_'_J_n' o,___~ (-., Both Christmas and New Year's Day are holidays scheduled pursuant to the Court's Order. 5. Respondent refuses to honor Petitioner's vacation between Christmas and New Year's even though she had a week of vacation last year during the same :" period, between December 24, 2000 and December 31, 2000, with the exception of !,,! Ii' 1'1 I,: Christmas Day at 4:00 p.m. until December 26th at 4:00 p.m. which Petitioner "I ", " received. 6. The parties were schedule for a conciliation conference with Melissa Greevy on a Petition for Contempt which Petitioner had previously filed. At that :', II' conciliation conference they were unable to reach resolution. , 'I 7. The holidays are fast approaching and Petitioner is willing for this Court to make a decision after a conference with counsel in chambers. I WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court to permit him to have his week's vacation with the children between December 26' 2001 and January 1, 2002. SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C, Attorneys for Plaintiff By: arol J. Lindsay, squire 4693 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Ii SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATTORNEYS'AT'LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A , "< ~- w-- _~ VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, hereby verify that the statements made herein are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. S 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~~ Date: /,1-b"'O i il I SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEVS'AT'LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A ~JI;l!otfj DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff/Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO, 2000.3477 CIVIL TERM vs, DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant/Petitioner : IN CUSTODY ,I' '\ !I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ,i AND now, this )'-#t day o~~ ' 2001, I, " il Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire, of the law firm of SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, ':1 Ii Attorneys, hereby certify that I served the within Petition to Enforce Court Order this day by depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Mary A. Etter Dissinger, Esquire DISSINGER & DISSINGER 28 North 32nd Street CarnpHill,PA 17011 SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C, Attorneys for Plaintiff By: . Lindsa ,Esquire 4693 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 II , , , , "-~ Jlil.."" ill DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 00-3477 CIVIL DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this 9t:h day of January, 2001, following hearing and careful consideration of the testimony adduced, it is ordered and directed that the parties hereto shall share legal custody of their children, Kareston E. Markley born May 8, 1998, and Madison Rose Markley born October 26, 1999, Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all major nonemergency decisions affecting the children's general well being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion. Each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the children including, but not limited to, school and medical records, To the extent one parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and infonnation of reasonable use to the other parent. Primary physical custody of said children shall be in their mother, Danielle Markley, subject to rights of custody in the father as follows: a, On alternating weekends, as heretofore, from Friday after work until they are returned to day care the following Tuesday, b. On alternating weeks, on Mondays (heretofore Tuesdays) from after work until he returns them to day care the following Wednesday morning, EXHIBIT u j "A'l ~~ ",,--' "~"'"",', .- -. c. At Christmas time, by alternating from year to year the period from noon on December 24th to noon on December 25th, and noon on December 25th to noon on December 26th. d. For at least one week in the summer to accommodate vacation, with a like period in the mother, upon sixty days' notice. e. On alternating major holidays as the party shall agree. Nothing in this order shall prohibit the parties from varying or altering the terms hereof by agreement. BY THE COURT, Mary Etter Dissinger, Esquire For the Plaintiff AAL Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm TRUE COpy FROM RECORD d In Te.iimor.y whereof, I hore unto set my han nd S~I of sa' Court at Carlisle, Pa. ................. a L:;:J:D.JJ....., ~..l. . . ...t. . rothOl1(ltary ." ~~'" ""~~ill~lih<lll,,,;oJr.il),"iliIi~l~,j,,~j1;>Ol<'~'''' <~>. ~"~ ~~'Oill nr"' - -- -- 'I! Ii II 0 C'J C 0 ::?'" .~ , I iJ "'."':~ C:J m(co, 1-., "'7'r" n 2' ~_~n t~ ,~~~~ I ! --~ :j'l -.-J ,:~;; ':,} :;::C_' C) ,1.; ;3::: ::: O<-~'f '-._; ~~ ~~~~ --,,;,. , ~~J .' ;::-) r---" :;;:: j ~~ ::..) 57! po :.J n -< DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 2000-3477 DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant IN CUSTODY ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S PETITION TO ENFORCE COURT ORDER AND COUNTER PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, by and through her attorneys, Dissinger and Dissinger and respectfully represents the following: 1. ADMITTED. 2. ADMITTED. 3. ADMITTED. 4. DENIED. By way of further answer, the Court Order of January 9, 2001 provides that each party shall have one week vacation with the children upon sixty (60) days notice. Defendant failed to exercise that vacation time over the summer and, as such, it is Plaintiff's position that the vacation time for Defendant has been forfeited. 5. DENIED. As stated previously, Defendant did not exercise his vacation visitation in the summer and, as such, has forfeited that time. By way of further answer, Plaintiff had taken three (3) sick/personal days over the Christmas holiday in 2000 so that she II I " '-'- did not lose that paid benefit. The current Order was not in effect at that time and she took those days over her regularly scheduled custodial period, which simply meant the children were at home with their mother rather than at the babysitters'. Those days in no way infringed on Defendant/Father's time. 6. ADM I TTED. 7. ADMITTED in part, and DENIED in part. It is admitted that the holidays are fast approaching, however, Plaintiff is without sufficient information to determine the truth or veracity of the remaining allegations, and therefore same are denied. 8 . i ;1 i 9. I I 10. 11. COUNTER PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF Defendant is proposing to exercise his summer vacation week visitation over Plaintiff's regular custodial weekend in December. The parties' children are ages two (2) and three and a half (3 t,;) . If Defendant is permitted to exercise his vacation week visitation from December 26, 2001 until January 1, 2001, the children will be deprived from being with their Mother for three (3) consecutive weekends. The children have never been away from either parent for three (3) consecutive weekends. 12. It is Plaintiff's position that the children are too young to be away from their mother for the period of time requested by Defendant. 13. Defendant's proposed vacation schedule would allow the children to be with their mother for only four (4) nights out of the seventeen (17) nights from December 21, 2001 until January 6, 2001. 14. Plaintiff has offered several alternatives to Defendant so that she and the children are not separated from either parent for such a great period of time. 15. Defendant has refused to entertain any proposal other than his initial vacation request. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order directing the parties to exercise their respective weeks of vacation visitation, as much as possible, over a period which encompasses the majority of that parent's regular custodial time (i.e., during a week that is normally that parent's weekend for visitation. ) Respectfully Submitted: DISSINGER AND DISSINGER By: "/;f~ a~/: Mary A. Etter Dissinge~ Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court I.D. #27736 28 North Thirty-second Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-2840 VERIFICATION !, I, Danielle Markley, verify that the statements made in the foregoing petition are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Jc d;."Uh,,"'~"'hj . . . . PANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 2000-3477 DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE " 'Ii 'Ii I I, Mary A. Etter Dissinger, hereby certify that on the " date set forth below I served a true and correct copy of the il Petition to Modify Custody upon the attorney for Defendant, ,\ Darnell Markley, by First Class United States mail addressed , I! iiS follows: I Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire Saidis, Shuff, Flower & Lindsay 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: / ,?- i/ 2./0 ( ~a~~ Ma~. Etter Dissing II ,'~ ~!'~"'""""'~~~.';'l!I~.J1I.'IW"IJ!i$"';C~,",,!<\wr;~",,"iiW~~~illll'llt'..^,.",- , . . ""'iIl_ ro" ~~ ('1 ~-~ ,- ani z (~'-J -" ~5=-; )0>(": z --, -< " --..... ~ _u ~:-:J ,':""j (..,_.. :t-"' co ::::> .f;" )5~~ ""t'::: :< ,--^I DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ,vs. CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 2000-3477 DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant IN CUSTODY BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF I. QUESTION PRESENTED: Can the trial court order an award of shared physical and shared legal custody where the parties have demonstrated an inability to communicate and cooperate in matters involving there children? Suggested Answer: No I I. ARGUMENT ~Shared custody" is defined as an order awarding shared legal or shared physical custody, or both, of a child in such a way as to assure the child of frequent and continuing contact with and physical access to both parents. 23 Pa.C.S.A. ~5302. ~The philosophic premise of shared custody is the awarding to both parents of responsibility for decisions and care of the child." In re Wesley, 445 A.2d 1243, 1246 (Pa. Super. 1982). The Court in Wesley promulgated a set of guidelines for trial courts to use in determining whether a shared custody arrangement is appropriate. The Court did not specify whether the guidelines apply to legal or physical custody. However, 1 Ii given the language the Court used in defining shared custody and the fact that the case involved both legal and physical custody, it appears that the standards were intended to apply both physical and legal custody. The Court stated that "[a]n alternative to the traditional custody arrangement is 'shared' or 'joint' custody wherein legal custody is shared while physical i icustody is alternated " Id. at 1247. In a footnote, the Wesley Court explained that shared custody need not encompass both legal and physical custody. Id. Rather, shared custody may refer to only shared legal custody or only shared physical custody. Thus, where the Court did not ,indicate otherwise, it is only logical to infer that any reference to the term "shared custody" meant shared physical custody, shared legal custody and both. This conclusion is ;supported by the subsequent case law which applied the " ';Wesley factors to cases involving legal custody, physical custody or both. See DeNillo v. DeNillo, 535 A.2d 200 (pa. Super. 1987); Wiseman v. Wall, 718 A.2d 844 (Pa. Super. 1998); Hill v. Hill, 619 A.2d 1086 (Pa. Super. 1993). Wesley held that the court must consider the following factors when contemplating an award of shared custody: 1) parental fitness, 2) continued desire on behalf of both parents for active involvement in the child's life, 3) the 2 child's recognition of both parents as a source of love and security, and 4) a minimal degree of cooperation between the parents must be possible. Wesley, supra. For a shared custody arrangement to work, both parents must be able to communicate and cooperate in promoting the child's best :interests. Id. at 1249. ~[T]he parents [must] be able to isolate their personal conflicts from their roles as parents ,and . the children must be spared whatever resentments and rancor the parents may harbor." Id. This directive, ~ set forth in Wesley, was applied in Wiseman v. Wall. Supra, 718 A.2d at 848. In Wiseman, prior to a full hearing, the trial court entered an interim order for shared legal custody and shared physical custody. After a full hearing, the trial court affirmed the order of shared custody. The Superior Court found that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing an interim order (and later affirming that order) which assumed that shared custody was in the best interests of the child without considering the factors applicable to an award of shared custody. Id. at 847, 848. Specifically, the Superior Court was concerned with the ability of the parties to jointly participate in child rearing. The record clearly showed evidence that the parties were unable to communicate and cooperate in raising 3 - the child in question, however, the trial court ignored the parents' difficulty in communicating. Id. at 847. Without distinguishing between shared legal custody and shared physical custody, the Superior Court vacated the trial court's Order for shared custody and awarded ~partial 'custody to the father and primary custody to the mother."' Id. at 851. The award of primary custody to the mother was, in large part, based on the mother's role as primary caretaker of the child.2 The Superior Court again found an abuse of discretion in the trial court in DeNillo v. DeNillo. Supra. In DeNillo, the trial court awarded shared physical custody of the child on an equal ba'sis on alternating weeks. DeNillo at 200. On appeal, the appellant cited Wesley for the proposition that shared custody should not be granted when the parties cannot communicate. Id. at 202. The record revealed that both parties testified to their inability to , i, The Superior Court noted that it would usually remand for 'further hearing, however, the Court was satisfied that the record was sufficiently developed and that the Court could substitute its judgment for that of the hearing judge. 2 The Superior Court did not indicate whether ~primary custody" meant primary physical custody and sole legal custody or whether it meant primary physical custody and shared legal custody. Because the Court vacated the entire trial court order, it can only be concluded that a trial court must examine the Wesley factors before awarding both shared legal custody and shared physical custody. 4 communicate. Id. at 203. Recognizing this evidence, the Superior Court held that the trial court's conclusion that shared custody was in the best interests of the child was not based upon competent evidence and was an abuse of discretion. Id. The case at bar also requires application of the Wesley factor regarding lack of ability to communicate between the parents. Both parties and several witnesses have demonstrated that the parties cannot communicate or cooperate in matters involving the children. In this situation, the law does not support an award of shared custody. III. CONCLUSION This Honorable Court should issue an Order granting ,I shared legal custody to the parties and primary physical II II '1Icustody to the Mother with appropriate periods of partial I, custody to the Father. Because the parties cannot demonstrate even a minimal amount of cooperation for the sake of raising their children, a shared physical custody arrangement is not feasible, nor is it permitted under the applicable law. The record clearly shows that the parties are unable to communicate with regard to their children. This is evidenced by: (1) Father's refusal to consider Motber's request for Christmas vacation until after the 5 - I-~, custody hearing, (2) Father's refusal to discuss with Mother how they would address the Christmas holiday until after the hearing, and (3) Father's refusal to discuss daycare with Mother until after the hearing (and note, Father's attorney's statement at the time of the hearing that, ~Father now was willing to consider a change in daycare") . Because the Mother in this case has been the primary caretaker of the children, primary physical custody should be awarded to the Mother and the Father should be awarded partial physical custody. Despite the significant difficulties in communication, Mother still believes both ! , parents should share joint legal custody, even if it means '!! litheir future differences on major decisions may, ultimately, 'I ,'need to be submitted to conciliation or hearing for I' I' 1 t' , reso u lon. I' ,!, I' , ' , , I! , I 1 , Dated: i, I Respectfully Submitted, DISSINGER AND DISSINGER Mary A. Etter Dissinger, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 28 North Thirty-second Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-2840 Supreme Court ID # 27736 6 DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 2000-3477 DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary A. Etter Dissinger, Esquire, hereby certify ithat on the date set forth below I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the attorney for Darnell Markley, Defendant, by First Class United States mail addressed as follows: Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire Saidis, Shuff, Flower & Lindsay 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: Mary A. Etter Dissinger, Esquire "~i _Co ....~, . oat 0 3 200rJ/J DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff vs, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO, 2000-3477 DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY INTERIM ORDER OF COURT ~ AND NOW, this -; day of OchI,Lo. ,2000, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1, The Order to schedule a Hearing for October 19, 2000, at 9:30 a,m, before Judge Hess shall remain in effect 2. Pending further Order of this Court and agreement of the parties, the Order of August 19, 2000, is modified as follows: The period of partial custody for Father's midweek visit shall be changed to 2:30 PM until 5:15 PM, 3, It is acknowledged between the parties that they are experiencing difficulties in their relationship which is having an adverse impact on their ability to coparent their minor Children, Therefore, the parties have agreed to begin psychological counseling to assist the parties in the improvement of their communication skills and to help them be able to make decisions regarding the best interests of their minor Children. The parties shall extend their complete cooperation unto their chosen therapist Any failure to do so shall constitute a direct violation of this Order of Court, BY THE COURT, o }p \() * Dis!: Carol J, Lindsay, Esquire, 11 E, High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Mary A, Dissinger, Esquire, 28 N, 32nd Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011 ~~ '-..r. I',?, _.~~!l!lIIl'l. ~~~~,_~" ".~ ,~,~ , - , OF {~~!_~~!~~~:8~i:~~(;'f:: . ');I\'i:JT,(\F1Y Or n cI JeT -c, '''I' , fr 4: I ~ v CU!',.'.,, \')'-~'-'I--;'j ;\,', Ii; -- -,_ fiE' ,"-'" \'U lUW,ITy NNSYl\!ANlA . , "~~f!J'l:i'lIB~1~~IIf.m;~tml'f"<IlIl'!;I!,ijnMlU;-~'iIW!5!1!\"w.mm~""",,~ _ ".....,.!II_, ,..., ,1;, _'. - '" .~ .. OCT 0 3 20011b DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 2000-3477 DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1, The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Kareston Eve Markley Madison Rose Markley May 8, 1998 October 26, 1999 Mother Mother 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on September 18, 2000, upon the petition of Father for modification of the prior Order. The following individuals were in attendance: Darnell Markley, the Father, and his counsel, Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire; Danielle Markley, the Mother, and her counsel, Mary A. Dissinger, Esquire. 3. The parties were able to reach some agreements to modify in the Interim Order. However, they were not able to resolve the issue of whether they should be involved in a primary/partial custodial arrangement or a shared custodial arrangement. The Order subsequent to the Conference of July 12, 2000, has been modified by agreement to change Father's pick up time for the midway visits to 2:30 PM and extend them until 5: 15 PM. Additionally, the parties have agreed to involve themselves in conjoint counseling with an eye toward improving their ability to co parent these two very young Children. 4. Mother's position is that Father's period of partial custody should be limited to the following: Friday PM until Tuesday early morning on alternate weeks and alternating weeks Thursday after work until Friday morning. Mother identifies herself as the primary caregiver. Mother places an extremely high value on structure and routine with regard to the Children's naptime, mealtime and bedtime. While she states that she does not want to cut the Father out of the girls' lives, it is clearly her opinion that her home shall be the primary residence for the girls. 5. Father very much wants to be involved in his Children's lives on a frequent and continuing basis and proposed a shared custodial arrangement which provides the Children with four days with Father and three days with Mother one week, alternated with three days " , " '"'..,;0"" ~ ,- " NO. 2000-3477 with Father and four days with Mother the following week. He suggests this would be less disruptive to the Children's schedule, given their young ages, while allowing them not to go for a period of more than four days without seeing the other parent. 6. A hearing has been scheduled for October 19, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. before the HOOO";;;;;~ ~ )1128 ~ Date / " Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire Custody Conciliator DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 2000-3477 DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant IN CUSTODY PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT AND NOW comes Mary A. Etter Dissinger, Esquire, counsel for Danielle Markley, Plaintiff, and provides the court with the following information in accordance with its directive for filing a pre-trial statement: 1. WITNESSES AND THEIR EXPElCTED TESTIMONY A. Danielle Markley - Will testify as follows: 1. As to background information regarding the parties and the children. 2. Facts establishing she has been the parent primarily responsible for the children's health care since their birth. 3. When Kareston was six (6) weeks old, she was breast feeding, and that was known to the Defendant's mother. During that time, Plaintiff she was bitten and scratched by a cat, and was told by defendant's mother that the cat had its shots, which in fact was not true and Plaintiff had to take antibiotics because the child was still breast feeding. II """" 4. The oldest child, Kareston, is allergic to cats, and facts surrounding Plaintiff's attempt to make the child's home environment as allergy free as possible. . 5. Facts relative to the child's health before cats were eliminated from her home environment, and her health after cats were eliminated from her home environment. 6. Kareston is exposed to cats while in Defendant's care, and he is aware of Kareston's allergy; her condition after exposure to cats while in Defendant's care. i I , i i 7. Facts pertaining to Kareston's problems with constipation, her physical problems resulting from constipation, Defendant's failure to heed Plaintiffs request that he be more attentive to the child's diet, his responses to Plaintiff's request for him to adjust Kareston's eating habits while in his care. 8. The parties' inability to agree upon when the youngest child, Madison, now one (1) year old, should begin eating table food, and quit eating baby food and drinking from a bottle. 9. Plaintiff has, in the past, been in charge of getting daycare or babysitters. 10. Plaintiff's efforts to change daycare providers and Defendant's refusal to discuss changes. 11. Plaintiff's belief it would be in the best interest of the children to change daycare providers, because it would eliminate drive-time for the children and provide more peer socialization. 12. Why Plaintiff should continue as the parent responsible for daycare and health care, and be primary physical custodian of the young children. 13. Husband's hygiene. 14. Church attendance by the parties, and its importance to the parties. 15. Defendant's attention/inattention to children and their needs prior to separation. 16. Behavior and voice of Defendant toward children when they do have his attention. 17. Difficulties between the parties in communicating. lB. Differences about when and whether the children should be together or separated (specifically Halloween, and birth of the second child.) 19. Arrangements for counseling, following a custody conference, so that the parties can learn to communicate more effectively, and circumstances surrounding counseling and the results to-date. 20. Prior custody schedules. 21. Current custody schedules. 22. Newspaper article received by Plaintiff immediately after custody conciliation conference. 23. Difficulties regarding vacation scheduling between the parties, and Defendant's unwillingness to discuss with Plaintiff her need to make vacation plans in advance with her employer. 24. Since date of separation, Kareston has begun using the words, ~bad mommy" and ~shut-up," which were not part of her vocabulary before date of separation. 25. Plaintiff's desire to keep the current primary care physician for the children regardless of what changes there may be in the custody situation. 26. Circumstances surrounding custody exchanges and Defendant's conduct toward Plaintiff at those times when there are no witnesses, and his conduct toward Plaintiff when there are witnesses. Ii ,Ii I~" 27. Defendant's need to control relationships, including forbidding his mother to speak with Plaintiff at a custody exchange, Defendant's instructions to Plaintiff on when and how she could utilize the dishwasher, and how his attitude and demeanor impact the Plaintiff and the children, and how Plaintiff believes his attitude and demeanor will impact the children prospectively. 28. Defendant's words and tone of voice in communicating with Plaintiff and with the children. 29. Manner and frequency with which Defendant interacted with the children before separation. 30. Behavior of the children before they have a visit with Defendant, and behavior of the children after they have a visit with Defendant. 31. How Kareston and Madison act if awakened from naps. 32. That the children fall asleep during feedings after some visits with Defendant, but not when Children have been with Plaintiff. B. Clyde Metz - Will testify as follows: 1. Inappropriate language of Defendant. il 1'[ Ii I ,I I'! u 2. Church attendance and its importance to the parties. 3. Inappropriate conversations and jokes told by Defendant in mixed company. 4. The manner in which Defendant speaks to children and others, and his attitude toward the children and others. 5. Incident regarding witness's attempt to take a photograph of Kareston in the presence of Defendant and the behavior of the child when Defendant was not in the room for a photograph. 6. Defendant's statements to Kareston, "I'll give you something to cry about." 7. Defendant's inability to know how to dress or conduct hims~lf for certain events. 8. His observations as to parental responsibilities assumed by Defendant. 9. Conduct of Defendant in Defendant's home prior to separation. C. Barbara Metz - Will testify as follows: 1. To the tone and volume of Defendant's voice with Plaintiff and other adults and with the children that are the subject of this suit. ~ .I.' ~ 2. Defendant's inappropriate jOkes and stories in mixed company and how that reflects upon his judgment as a parent. 3. Observations of Defendant's conduct or inactivity on occasions when witness was in the home of the parties and the children prior to their separation. 4. Defendant yelling at children in lieu of being instructive and nurturing. 5. Domineering, arrogant, demeaning attitude of Defendant toward Plaintiff and toward the children. 6. Defendant's instructions to Plaintiff as to when and how to use the dishwasher, and his refusal to allow her to use the heat cycle for dishes, including infant feeding dishes. 7. Defendant's inability be a caregiver or a parental figure. 8. How the Defendant communicates with witness and Plaintiff and with the children of the parties. 9. Behavior of the children before they go on a visit with Father, and behavior of the children after they have been on a visit with Father. Specifically, Kareston is loud, rough-necked, throws toys, pushes her sister, and is aggressive in nature, and does not listen to herM0ther after visits with the > '~,~-~ Father which is a direct contradiction to her behavior prior to going on visits with Father. 10. . What witness observed in the parties home before separation as to Defendant's interaction or lack of interaction with the children. 11. How Kareston reacts to being awakened from a nap if she has not completed her nap, and awoken on her own. 12. Witness's concerns for Kareston and Madison being awakened from naps routinely, and the impact of the child's behavior on each other and other individuals, specifically Mother, and the impact not getting sufficient nap-time may have on the children's health. 13. Witness's observations that Kareston and Madison have fallen asleep during feedings if they do not have their naps, or long enough naps, and that this occurs after periods in Defendant's custody. 14. Witness's observations as to Kareston's allergy to cats, and witness's suspicions that Madison may be allergic to cats, as well, and the basis for those suspicions. 15. Plaintiff's attempts to eliminate the allergy for the benefit of her children. 16. Her observations and knowledge of Kareston's II .- ,-l" .,~, constipation problem and efforts by the parties or lack of efforts by the parties to resolve the difficulties for Kareston. 17. Defendant's lacka~aisical attitude to housework and maintenance. 18. Defendant's conduct toward Plaintiff and the firstborn at the time of the firstborn, Kareston's birth. 19. Defendant's conduct during the week of the birth of Madison, the second born child. 20. Witness's interaction with the parties during the weeks the children were born. 21. Defendant's demeanor and attitude toward Plaintiff and toward the witness, and toward the children. 22. Conduct of Defendant's family while in the home of the parties prior to separation. 23. Witness's observations as to separation of the children on the day Madison was brought home from the hospital and its consequences. 24. The importance of religion to the parties and the action or inaction with regard to religious events or affairs. D. Tina Keeseman - Will testify to the following: ~- H 1. Her observations of the interaction and conduct of the parties when she has been in the parties' home prior to separation, and their conduct toward each other and toward the children. 2. Witness's observations of the children and their behavior when they are with Plaintiff outside of the home environment. 3. Plaintiff's communications with witness about the children. E. Cindy Strini - Will testify to the following: 1. Witness's observations of Plaintiff in her present home with the children. 2. Observations of what transpired at two (2) custody exchanges between Plaintiff and Defendant. 3. How the children conducted themselves when she babysat for Plaintiff on two (2) occasions. 4. Her observations of the children with the Plaintiff outside of the home environment. F. Dr. David Wenner of Shepherds town Family Practice - Will testify to the following: 1. As to Kareston's constipation problem and the allergies, and what needs to be done with regard to Kareston's constipation matter. The ,'I., Doctor will also testify as to who has been the parent primarily responsible for medical treatment of the children. G. Janice Horne - Will testify to the following: 1. About the late appearance of Defendant for his first counseling session, and the appropriateness of continued counseling, and whether either party should seek independent counseling. 2. EXHIBITS Statement) (All copies are attached to this Pre-Trial A. Copies of envelope and contents of anonymous clipping sent to Plaintiff the day of or after the custody conciliation conference. B. Copies of notice from Defendant to Plaintiff of his intent to take vacation over the birthday of one of the children. 3. PROPOSAL FOR RESOLUTION: A. Primary physical custody to Plaintiff. B. Alternating weekends for Defendant from Friday at 4:30 p.m. until Monday at 7:30 a.m. (times based on a probable daycare schedule.) C. Alternating Wednesday or Thursday evening at 4:30 p.m. until Thursday or Friday morning at 7:30 a.m. ." 11 I " ,,~, D. Alternate holidays: New Year's Day, Easter, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving. E. Christmas (December 24th through December 26th) and Easter (Saturday before Easter to Monday after Easter should be shared holidays with the first half of each holiday starting between 4:00-5:00 p.m. the evening before the holiday until 4:00-5:00 p.m. the evening of the holiday, and the second half starting between 4:00-5:00 p.m. the evening of the holiday until 4:00-5:00 p.m. the following evening. The parties shall alternate the blocks on Christmas and Easter such that one (1) year one party has the first half of the holiday, and the next year that party has the second half of the holiday. F. Mother will have custody on Mother's Day, and Father will have custody on Father's Day. G. Holidays supercede alternating weekends. H. Vacations: Thi:rty (30) day notice of a scheduled vacatiGn, vacation not to scheduled over the children's birthdays or holidays mentioned herein, nor over Mother's Day or Father's Day. If the vacation is away from home, the party having custody o,f the children must provide to the other parent, in advance Gf departure, the out-of-town street address, name of the hotel, and the telephone number where they can be reached. Each party will have three (3) non-consecutive weeks vacation per year with the children. - 'w...i: To the vacation of one parent causes the other parent to miss any or their standard custodial periods, the missed periods shall be made up at times selected by the parent who has lost their Custodial periods as a result of the other parent's vacation. I. As the children become involved in activities, both " !i i parties will be responsible for the children's attendance. (I.e., Church, choir, dance, sports, etc.) Neither party shall involve the children in any activity without the prior consent of the other parent. J. The parties shall enroll the children in either Wonder Years or Mulberry Child Care and Preschool which are convenient to both parent's places of employment. K. Both parties are to immediately notify the other of any serious illness or any kind of injury of the children. L. Neither party shall, nor shall they permit anyone to, disparage or malign the other parent, or their respective families while the children are in their care or custody. Dated: , I :: i :Iii .1" :ii Ii: I I "I ii L /f(.2'r //TV ! ~" Respectfully Submitted, DISSINGER AND DISSINGER '-u_~~ ~ L2A. ~7 . MaryA. Etter Dissinger, Esquire Attorney For Plaintiff 28 North Thirty-second Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-2840 4.0 vv"* o rJ~G ~ -'~'.. . ~ i.1 ~~(.::: . "'1' t.~=-' !'~ ~ \ " "7) \~~- . - .' "J "...:fLoD .. O _USA. ............"',.-~. ~ ~ -, .,.-,...-.-.,,-- . ~-"'"-"""..,......:'.' - ~~...." . "' .. "-'- ........ > .,-.....-..'" ",.._-,-,,-,..~--~..,...~ ~ #' . . "'., .........-...-..,..-..>... " . ,,' ....'''-...,.............,. . "-~ ' ~:~:::.:.~~~~::::~~~::,::.:~,:.~ ~...:":' '. ~~ ~ J/ ~~\ <~~ '*, ~\.!\ ~ 'I/! ~<v~ J.~\o ~:J~ <;) ~VJ 0~ ~. J ~ . 1.0'0 '0-~\ f{}0\< ~ ~l- Den. ~lL.-.. ~Cr.~ t;'c, 1;' L6Ll'i ~<: L~.ru.. ~t.h~njcsb'-f'j ,71\- t lu<;;U !",HI,.,IIl.,,,I,i,Il,,,,,l,f.llll.,f/ll,H,Il,,,!,,I,IIl,H . . lr children have come' into 'this because of the two of YOlI. Per- {DU two made lousy choices a's'. ' om you decided to be the other .. . If so, that is your problem and your fault. . . , ,UNo'matter what you 'think of the other par- ty" - or what your fam- ily thinks of the other party - these children,. are one half of each of YOll. ~.Remember that - because every time you tell your child what an ; ~idiot' his father is, or : ",' whai''':'fooi''hISip6lli- ... , . .., :er ls;"or how bad .the absent parent is, or what terrible things . that person has done, you are telling the . child that half of him is bad. "That is an unforgivable thing t9 do to a child. That is not love. That is pos- session. If YOll do that to your children, you will destroy,them as s~rely as if you had, cut them into pieces;:,b~ause. 'that is what',you are doing to theii..~~o~ tions. ' , ":',-:, .,,' "I sincerely hope that yeu do not do that to y,:,ur children. Think more about .your children. and less abolltyour_ .selv,es. And make yours a selfless kind of. love. n~t foolish or selfish,-or your c~_lldren WIll suffer.'" ' EXHIBIT i i "Aft ----------;.,;... .:-. .TI---.----.--1J...:~-.~. '---j -( " I .~ . """"-'" ~.. -,- -. - - .. . -~......-.... .. ..-...... .. /0 - $~OO 'j}al(le//~ .... . .. T tJ~/Ij;C3 /aA/~ j11~ ?J;eKl/ac?ah;m 0/11 /Ii?. d':U/'e/1 :110m /(J -;6-a.? I 1-0 //-/-uo r WIll /J/(Jk , r M I MClJl ~ jJe~eY(~ /!4.~?';<5. I. CUI d ,&~Y;;I14 #k~ o/!1. Ae II /l7orr;//'{!h oj: :7A4e / s/ aT II SA//#;,JS'. 'I ?I II ! I dwl/ 1i :; i,l . "Ii' . . . '..; '. . '11" I' Ii " !i- Ii . ij II Ii II II EXHIBIT b 1l :J liB" ... ~l~ DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 2000-3477 DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karen L. Koenigsberg, Esquire, hereby certify that on the date set forth below I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the attorney for Darnell Markley, Defendant, by First Class United States mail addressed as follows: Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire Saidis, Shuff, Flower & Lindsay 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date, la;io u ~, '- ,,~ I markley stipulation for interim custody ~ , " I" , " t l_!X', ""%',,f ijb June 22, 2000 FILE COpy DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff vs. DARNELL J. MARKLEY, AND NOW, this Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT day of ,2000, upon consideration of the with Stipulation for Interim Custody, the terms of said Stipulation are hereby made an Order of Court. By the Court, J. 'I; f, - II markley stipulation for interim custody ljb June 22, 2000 .II DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY V5. DARNELL J. MARKLEY, STIPULA TlON FOR INTERIM CUSTODY 1. The parties hereto are parents of two children: Kareston E. Markley, born May 8, 1998; and Madison R. Markley, born October 26, 1999. 2. Danielle Dee Markley, hereinafter Mother, has filed a Complaint for Custody and a conciliation is scheduled for July 12, 2000, 3. Pending the conciliation, the parties will share legal custody of the children, and Mother shall have primary physical custody of the children subject to periods of partial custody in Darnell J. Markley, hereinafter Father, on alternating weekends commencing June 23, 2000 after his work day until Monday, June 26, 2000 when he shall deliver the children to their daycare provider in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Additionally, Father shall have custody of the children on the Monday following Mother's weekend after his work until Tuesday morning when he shall deliver the children to the daycare provider in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Pick up of the children shall take place at the daycare provider in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 4, On the fourth of July, 2000, a Tuesday, Father may maintain custody of the children until 7:00 p.m., when he shall deliver child to Mother's residence. ~ ' ~i I ; ,'i markley stipulation for interim custody tjb June 22, 2000 .-" 5. The terms of this Stipulation may be entered as an Order of Court. Witness: ~..~/~;~#~, , , 'ii.Cil r c;,~a Danielle Dee Markley, Mother ~""- '-I- I, 'II' _ ~ > . -'f---I > f, ". c -, . '~ DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs, 00-3477 CIVIL DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this qt:IJ day of January, 2001, following hearing and careful consideration of the testimony adduced, it is ordered and directed that the parties hereto shall share legal custody of their children, Kareston E. Markley born May 8, 1998, and Madison Rose Markley born October 26, 1999. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all major nonemergency decisions affecting the children's general well being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion. Each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the children including, but not limited to, school and medical records. To the extent one parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent. Primary physical custody of said children shall be in their mother, Danielle Markley, subject to rights of custody in the father as follows: a. On alternating weekends, as heretofore, from Friday after work until they are returned to day care the following Tuesday. b, On alternating weeks, on Mondays (heretofore Tuesdays) from after work until he returns them to day care the following Wednesday morning, <' ". i , 'I ,'I 1 .! 'i I :,,1 I:,! ':'1 I :, 1'1 'I , ~ i !:-I I :"! 'I I I:'! i 'I ',I ::,1 !~;: I'! i'l H :'.1 , >'1 , i , I ';i 1;'1 !:, ii 1 1 1 ii I 1 I _'I ,:i :'1 ;,1 "'I ;:,i " ,I i'l II :-! I'] 'IJ :1 ,! I' ,I ~ '-- ~'.iOo~iilj.t-.IiilIIIiiMI;<~~I_rul~jj;"'4II~~1!!1~J)j.--"- '^' >" :";<'~;;;;:,~1.-. iJ,'i-y ., t, (it ,J" -Q , . iD: ,J; ~ L;i C'j'i'''' \ JbL:.:"-,i'l '. /"-'-',' ".]'n ",.':::' ...t" '._'\.,;U!~i ( t't:ilJNS\'/\!i\I'J"\ . -, '-;1, ~ ",- ,~" - ~= ,,-, ':-. -~_. ',~";>:J~"""" ." --~ Jl ",-, 'j: I 1"'-" h. .~ -" ""''''''',-: I: . c, At Christmas time, by alternating from year to year the period from noon on December 24th to noon on December 25th, and noon on December 25th to noon on December 26th. d. For at least one week in the summer to accommodate vacation, with a like period in the mother, upon sixty days' notice. e. On alternating major holidays as the party shall agree. Nothing in this order shall prohibit the parties from varying or altering the terms hereof by agreement. BY THE COURT, Mary Etter Dissinger, Esquire For the Plaintiff All :rlm L~~ OJ-q-ol p.K~ Carol 1. Lindsay, Esquire For the Defendant "1""1 0'. ',-( o DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V, CIVIL ACTION - LAW 00-3477 CIVIL TERM DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant IN CUSTODY IN RE: TESTIMONY OF DARNELL J. MARKLEY Proceedings held before the HONORABLE KEVIN A. HESS, J., Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on Friday, December 8, 2000, in Courtroom Number Four. APPEARANCES: Mary Dissinger, Esquire For the Plaintiff Carol Lindsay, Esquire For the Defendant o FOR THE DEFENDANT Darnell J. Markley " INDEX TO WITNESSES ,j o ,'.'- ,'. .1I i' ,"',", =!l:!.: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 3 42 54 54 2 ,- 1.",- - "~b o o 1 2 Markley. 3 Whereupon, MS. LINDSAY: Your Honor, I'll call Darnell 4 DARNELL J. MARKLEY 5 having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 6 DIRECT EXAMINATION 7 BY MS. LINDSAY, 8 Q Mr, Markley, would you give your name and 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 your address for the record? A Darnell J, Markley, 165 Kerrsville Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Q Darnell, what's your birth date? A Q A Q A Q 3/26/67. And did you graduate from high school? Yes, I did. In what year? 1985. During high school and subsequent thereto, 19 did you work? 20 A Yes. My last two years of high school I 21 worked at a place called Tractor Supply Company here in 22 Carlisle. 23 24 graduation? 25 Q And did you subsequently work for them after A I worked for them two years after 3 " - ,. (~ <^ "'"llt_ o o graduation. Q where are you presently employed? A At Overnight Transportation Company. Q And since what day -- since what year have you been employed there? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A Right now the shift I'm on is from 5 a,m. to 13 1:30 in the afternoon, p.m. 15 January? 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 14 24 25 A October of '87. Q What's your job there? A I am considered a dock lead man. Q Now, I want to ask you about your work schedule, and the flexibility of your work schedule, Presently what are your job hours? Q And will you be rebidding on that shift come A Q A It all depends what happens here today. Okay. But you can rebid? I can rebid to any shift that I would like. I have enough seniority. Q You're high up? A Yes. Q In addition to that, would you please describe to the Court what Overnight Transportation's policy is with regard to people who have needs related to their families? 4 "'~- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I __~ - - ~~ ,I -'. o o A They are very family oriented. They will work with you in any way possible. Q For instance, Darnell, have you made an inquiry whether the Court gave you custody of your children half the time, that you could work five hours a day on the days that you have custody, and make up the time -- the additional three hours on the days that you don't have custody? A Yes, I have. Q And can you do that? A Yes, I can. Q They will work with you on that? A Yes, they will. Q So if you were to have the four day on, three day off, three day on, four day off schedule that you're talking about, you could have your children in daycare for as little as five days a week on those days; is that right? A Yes. Q A Occasionally is there mandatory overtime? On occasions, yes, Q Okay. And what kind of frequency? month? Tell the Court how often. Once a A Maybe three to four times a year, depending on the fluctuating of the freight. It does. 5 - " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ~ - '" I, ~,' 1iaoiJ~1if o o Q And if that happens, who would be available to take care of your children? A If I would have the custody of the children, I would probably call Danielle and ask her if she would like an opportunity to watch them while I went in to work, since she is maybe two miles away. Or my parents or anybody such as that, friends of ours. Q But generally they could probably stay at daycare a longer period of time also? A Yes. Q You have no objection to moving the daycare provider to Mechanicsburg? A None, Q Do you have any objection to a daycare center as opposed to a home where the children are watched? A The daycare centers, I'm not a big fan of I prefer private, but either one. them. Q Okay. Did you follow up on any of those 19 daycare centers your wife mentioned to you? 20 A Yes, I did, I went and visited all three. 21 I have the paperwork. I went in, took the tour of 22 everything, and asked my questions and everything like 23 that. 24 Q Were you more satisfied with one than 25 another? 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Nancy had brought a picture of her to me to look at. It - 17 18 19 20 21 22 '."*',,",- o o 1 A Yeah. There was some that really didn't 2 thrill me. There was one or two. I would say Mulberry 3 was okay. Best Friends was all right. 4 Q And did you also get the names of some 5 daycare centers in the Carlisle area? Did you do that? A Yes, I have some for Carlisle and Mechanicsburg. Some private ones in Mechanicsburg. I have a list over there a friend of mine printed up. She works down here in Carlisle for finding daycare for people. Q Okay. And in any case, your present sitter is available until September? A Exactly, yes. Q All right. When did you meet Danielle? A A friend of ours, Nancy Wise, had introduced us, probably in '96. October of '96 is when we first was her old driver's license, and I gave her a picture of me. It was my racing card, when I would race, and she took it. Q And so did you start to date? A Q Yes. Did there come a time when you began to live 23 together? 24 25 A Q Yes, When was that? 7 1 2 around there. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 , , :I'~i' _. " ~~l..,,' o o A I would say in January, February. In Q A Of what year? '97. Q And then you were married on November 1st of is that right? A Yes. Q Danielle was pregnant at the time? '97; A Yes, she was. 10 Q And she stated that you separated on March 11 3rd, 2000; is that right? Or excuse me, June 3rd, 2000; is 12 that right? 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 right? A Q Yes. Kareston was born on May 8th, 1998; is that A Q Yes. Danielle took some time off of work. I guess so did you? A Urn-hum. Yes, I did. Q I'm going to ask you a little bit about 21 that. Your mother-in-law stated that you didn't begin the 22 lamaze classes prior to Kareston's birth, but that you 23 completed -- you did the last part of it. About how many 24 -- what percentage of the classes would you say you did? 25 A I would say I probably went to fifty percent 8 ..",,- , ,. ,. ~I~ . -~ ~ o o 1 of them. 2 Q Okay. And you were there at the delivery 3 of your child? 4 A Yes, I was. 5 Q And during the lamaze classes, did there 6 come a time when your mother-in-law made a statement 7 regarding her intentions with regard to you and Danielle 8 after the baby was born? 9 A Yes, there was. There was a session one 10 night where we all got in one big circle, all the women and 11 the husbands and everybody, and Barb had stood up, and she 12 started to cry. She got emotional, and she said I know 13 it's going to be very tough on me, but for the first week, 14 I'm going to leave these two kids alone. Let them get to 15 know their child. 16 Q Okay, 17 A And she said, I'm going to stay out of it 18 for the first week. I don't even want to call. Let them 19 two get to know their child. 20 Q Okay. And did the person who was running 21 the lamaze class provide you a warning at that time? 22 A Yes. It was on the last evening. She had 23 come up to me. Every night she would come up to me during 24 the breaks because Danielle and Barb would go out and have 25 a cigarette. I would be there, and she would come up and 9 ~ ~ ,_ 0" ',_ '. . _I 0 . -", 0', , , o 1 talk to me, catch me up to speed. 2 She was a very pleasant lady, and she had 3 told me, she said, I don't want to get into anything, but 4 she said, I feel you will have trouble with your 5 mother-in-law in raising this child. And I never brought 6 that up to my wife's attention because I knew it was only 7 going to start trouble, 8 Q You never mentioned that to her before this 9 time? 10 A No. I left it go. 11 Q When was the first time you knew your 12 mother-in-law was going to be there at home with the baby? 13 A We had come home on a Sunday, and that 14 Monday morning Danie11e was in the living room. The nurse 15 had come from Holy Spirit in the morning. She was a 16 pleasant lady. She came and went over everything with us. 17 She was really nice. 18 And probably about an hour later Danielle 19 was in talking on the phone to her mother, and Danielle 20 looked at me and she said, hey, mom wants to know if it 21 would be all right if she comes up today, and I just kind 22 of looked at her, and I asked her, you know, jokingly -- I 23 said, has it been a week already? And right then and 24 there, you know, I got the looks, and I left it go. 25 Q So her mom came for the balance of the week? 10 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "~ 0-. o o 1 2 3 4 A Q that right? A Yes. Danie1le took about 12 weeks off of work; is Yes. 5 Q And during that time -- and for how many of 6 those weeks did she breastfeed? A I would probably say close to 8 to 10. As the child got older, she was having real problems producing breast milk. I mean it was getting to be a hassle. We tried pumps and stuff like that the whole way through, and she just wasn't getting enough. toll on her. It was really taking it's Q During this period of time, did you have any role with the new baby? A Yeah, I would do the laundry, the nipples. During the evening when we were in bed, if Kareston would get up Danielle would get up with her, because I was still going to work, and I would come home, see if she needed anything. I would try to make some suppers. I'm no gourmet, but I did what I could. Q Did you have anything to do with preparing the bottles after the breastfeeding stopped? A Yes. Q A What did you do? For Kareston we heated our bottles in the 11 . 1 microwave. 2 3 4 I_~ ' I _ ~~,~.., o o Q A Q Okay. For Madison we did the pan of hot water. How about sterilizing the bottles? 5 A Yeah, I would wash them and do the nipples. 6 Whenever I would walk by the window sill if there was seven 7 or more nipples on the window sill, you knew it was time to 8 do them. 9 10 11 12 13 14 Kareston. Q A Q A How about changing diapers? Yes, changing diapers, everything like that, How about bathing? Bathing, Danielle did most of that for Q For how long? 15 A Up until she was basically pregnant with 16 Madison. Probably about three months into it. 17 Q And then what did you do? 18 A I had taken over the bathing of Kareston. 19 Q Now, did you only do these things when your 20 wife asked you to do them or were any of them routines that 21 you did all of the time? 22 A The nipples and changing the diapers, 23 basically all that, the laundry, was routine. 24 Q Did you also fill in doing the grocery 25 shopping and other things while she was at home? 12 1 2 ., 'I~ "Ai I o o A Yes, I did. Q Darnell, I would just like you to tell the 3 Court, before you got married and before you had children, 4 did you have a kind of active life outside of your house? 5 6 7 8 racing. 9 10 the track? 11 A Yes. Q What was your hobby? A My hobby at the time was probably auto Q Okay. And how many days a week were you at A During racing season I would probably go 12 anywhere between 40 to 60 times a year. 13 14 away from home? 15 Q And did sometimes you go out of state or A Yeah, I'd go to Dover. I've been to Yes. 16 Dover; Charlotte, North Carolina; North Wilkesboro, 17 Martinsville. 18 19 20 Q Were you a driver? A Only here in the local area. Q Okay. After you got married, and 21 particularly after the birth of your children, what change 22 did you make in your attraction with your -- 23 24 didn't go. A Oh, basically it was nill and void. I Probably in the last year and a half I might 25 have went 10 times. 13 1 '.0 ~_. M o o Q Okay. And, in fact, one of those times was 2 June -- the weekend 3 4 5 6 A Q A Q Yes. -- ending June 30th? Yes. All right. So did you pretty much stay 7 home and around the house during the time the babies were 8 little? 9 10 11 A Q Yes. Tell me about daycare. The daycare provider started to work what? Twelve weeks after 12 Kareston was born? 13 A Yes, 14 Q And what was your and your wife's 15 arrangement with regard to daycare? 16 A She would take Kareston and drop her off in 17 the morning, and I would pick her up in the afternoon 18 around 2:30, 3:00, or 2. 19 20 21 22 23 24 afternoon? 25 Q A Q A Q Whenever you got off work? Yes, whenever I got off work, Why did she take her in in the morning? Because she started later than I did. Okay. And then you got her earlier in the A Yes, I got off before she did. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 "' I .........." o o Q And when you brought her horne, tell the Court what you did. A I would bring her horne, and when she was an infant I would give her a bottle. As she got older, I would start feeding her, vegetables and meat, the baby food, you know, stage one, stage two. Danielle would get home probably anywhere between 4 to 4:15, and while I was feeding her, she always tried -- she wanted to give the dessert because that was the very few times she got a chance to feed Kareston throughout the week. Q A Q A Q Who gave the baby breakfast? The baby-sitter did. Okay. And lunch? The baby-sitter. So you would feed her this little dinner, 16 and then morn would follow up with dessert; is that right? 17 18 A Q Yes. Okay. Then after that what would typically 19 happen? This is before the second one is born, what would 20 typically happen? 21 A Danie11e would probably make -- she would 22 make supper, and I would take Kareston in the room and play 23 with her and do whatever I could with her. 24 Q Okay. She said you watch TV all of the 25 time; is that true? 15 ~ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "' "'1"" .,"_ , 1\j. o o 1 2 A Q Not all the time, no. Whenever -- no. And in the good weather did you take her 3 outdoors? A Yes. We spent a good bit of the time outdoors. Q Then after you all had dinner, how did the evening routine go? A That was pretty much Danielle -- when Kareston was still an infant and getting bottles, Danielle would call that her mommy time. That was her time to spend with Kareston. She would give her a bottle about 7, 7:15, 7:30, and try to have her in bed by 8, 8:30. Q All right. So you both got a couple of hours a day with your daughter. Is that fair to say? A Yes, Q Danielle got pregnant again, and it was a complicated pregnancy; is that correct? A Yes. Q What was the effect on you of that complicated pregnancy? A Probably about the third month she was pregnant I started taking over giving Kareston a bath regularly, every day. Every other day. I did the laundry, all that. Dishes, I would try to help out as much as I could. If she wasn't, you know, around, I would 16 -. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~" " -~ ',. "-, ,. .< ".~ "~': o o come home, and they'd be there, I did them. Q Maddy was born, and did Daniel1e stay home with her another 12 weeks? A Yes, she did. Q And you got off a week, did you? A Yes, I did. Q Explain to me, Kareston then was only at home with you and Danielle for about one week, am I right? A No. Q When did Kareston go back to the baby-sitter 11 after Maddy was born? 12 A If I remember correctly, she went back right 13 after Madison was born. I think the only week she stayed 14 home with Danielle and Madison was the 12th week. That's 15 when she stayed home. 16 Q You mean she went immediately to the sitter 17 right after? 18 19 A Q Yes. Okay, Why didn't she stay home with 20 Danielle? Do you have any idea? 21 A It would have been too much on Danielle. 22 To watch Madison and Kareston by herself, just coming home 23 from the hospital, yeah, we decided, you know, my father 24 would pick her up, drop her off at Wendy's. I would come 25 home and pick her up and bring her home. 17 ,'. . ' ~.. '~ o o 1 2 Did Danielle think it was too much for her? Yes. Q A 3 Q Okay, Now, the focus of Danie1le's 4 attention after Maddy was born was where? 5 6 7 8 Basically to Maddy. Okay. She would take care of Maddy, And so what happened to you and Kareston A Q A Q 9 after Maddy was born? 10 11 12 13 Basically Kareston and I actually became A closer. Q Okay. And what did that mean in practical Did it mean spending more time or what did it terms? 14 mean? 15 A Yes. Like when Danielle would bring 16 Kareston and Maddy home, Kareston and I would go outside 17 and play or Maddy would go in and she would give Maddy her bottle. She would feed her, start supper, and Kareston 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 never, never, wanted to be inside. When it was sunny out, it was nice, outside, daddy. Outside. Let's go outside. You swing me. Q Does that mean that you never fed Maddy a bottle or changed her diaper or gave her a bath? A No. Maddy -- basically Danielle did most At times I would, you know, change the diaper. of that. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - o o I had given her a bottle now and then when it was just her and I. Q Now, 12 weeks after Maddy's born Danielle returns to work again; is that right? A Q A Q Urn-hum. Yes. And was there a new sitter at this time? Yes, Shirley. Okay. And what was the change in -- was there any change in the pick up and delivery at this time? A Yes. Danielle, since she had the family vehicle, she would drop the children off in the morning, and she would also pick them up on her way home from work. Q Why didn't you pick them up on your way home like you used to? A Because my truck couldn't hold both child seats. Q Was that something you both agreed to or? A I was under the agreement, yes, we Yes. were, and when she could not pick them up, I had made arrangements to get my mother's vehicle, and I had done it, you know, two or three times. Q Now, what time would that typically get you home? A When I would come home by myself without 25 picking the children up? 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 A I would go in the house. If it was a bath 7 night, I would get the tub scrubbed. I know the tub had 8 to be scrubbed for the baths. I would take the laundry 9 down, wash it, get in the dryer. If the nipples needed 10 washed or any of the kids stuff, I would wash that. I 11 would try to get everything ready. 12 At times I would try to make supper for her, 13 if it was up to her standards. We did some tacos, steaks 14 on the grill, sausage, fried potatoes, and stuff like that. 15 Q Then when your wife got home with two 16 children at this point, was this the time that you would 17 take Kareston off to do something so that she could give 18 the baby a bottle; is that right? 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "~' 1< o o Q Yes. A I would get home probably anywhere right around 3:00, because I always worked 9 hours a day. Q What did you do between 3:00 and the time your wife got home with the two children? A Yes. Q And what about putting Kareston to bed then? A She did that. Q She still did that? A Yes. Danielle - - that was one of her things. That was what she considered mommy time, Q Now, I want to ask you about Saturdays. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 , ~ o o What happened on Saturdays in your house? A Saturdays, most likely on my extra -- on my day off, I would go to work on Saturdays. I would get up and try to get in there about 4:00 in the morning, between 4 and 5, and on them Saturdays Danielle would take the kids down to her mother and father's for them to spend time with their grandparents. She would probably leave the house between 8 to 9:00. Q Darnell, why did you work on Saturdays instead of being home with your kids on Saturdays? A To try to keep us ahead of the game on the bills, stuff like that. Like one weekend our microwave went out. microwave. I went in and worked and paid for the Fuel oil. Car insurance. All of that 15 stuff, to keep us ahead of the game. 16 Q Did daycare costs go up after you had the 17 second child? 18 19 A Q Yes, they did. So in any case, if you were at home, would 20 she still go to visit her mother on Saturday? 21 22 23 24 25 A Yes. Q Were you invited along? A No. H was her time. She would run to BJ's, let her parents watch the kids. She would go to BJ's, do some other errands, stuff like that. I would try 21 , ':IK,'.. co o 1 to get caught up around the house, 2 3 4 Q A Did you feel welcome at her folks house? On certain occasions, yes. If it was after work or something like that, it was like a dress code. If 5 I stopped a.fter to help her dad like put the air 6 conditioner in, to do things like that, I would have to 7 watch what my shoes and stuff like that was, 8 Q Okay. Is working on the dock kind of dirty 9 work? A Q Yes, it is, And is it true that you would take a bath -- a shower before you went to bed at night? A Yes, I would. Q Would you tell the Court, would you change 10 11 12 13 14 15 your clothes when you came home? 16 A As soon as I came home I changed my clothes. 17 I was out of my work clothes. I had shorts or sweats and 18 a t-shirt on. 19 20 21 22 o So if you were lying on the sofa it wasn't in your old work clothes? A No, it wasn't. o There's been some testimony regarding 23 Danie11e and her mom taking the children to the doctor's? 24 25 P>- O Urn-hum. They always did that together? 22 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ,~,,,- J.I'. ~il; o o 1 A Yes, they did. 2 Q Did you ever think it was odd that it was 3 just the two of them? 4 A Yes, it kind of made me wonder about things 5 at times. Q Were you ever asked to take them to the doctor's? A Only the one time was I ever asked to take Kareston to the doctor's. Q Did you? A Yes. Q Who came with you? A Her mother. Q Did her mother wait in the waiting room while you took the child into the doctor? A No, she came back into the room with us. Q Did the doctor ask you questions? A The doctor asked us about four or five 19 questions. I think out of the four or five questions I 20 answered one. Her mother answered the other four. 21 Q Okay. Darnell, did you ever get the feeling 22 that you didn't pass mustard with her folks? 23 A I felt -- yes. 24 25 Q A How about with Danielle? Yes, with Danielle. She seemed like more 23 _L_ .<." " ~ o o 1 superior, very demanding. Her one statement to me was one 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 time that I had tried to come down to your level. 3 Q Did this evidence itself in a little event 4 having to do with coming home from the hospital, and whose 5 car was to be driven to take the new baby home? 6 A Yeah, it was down at the hospital. It was 7 right after Kareston was born. Her father came up to me, 8 and he said, hey, he said, if you don't mind, I'll take 9 Danielle and Kareston home in my car. Q A Q A Q A Reliant '87. Q A What kind of car does he have? I think it's a '95 Lincoln. Urn-hum. And I said no. What were you driving? I was driving my mother's car, a Plymouth Okay. And I said no. I said Danielle and Kareston will come home with me. 25 perspective. A Q Was that a decision that was easily taken? No, I don't think it was. It's kind of 22 like I was stepping on their toes being the father. 23 Q Okay. Now, I would like you to tell the 24 Court what happened on June 3rd, 2000, from your 24 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i' _"' . ,. d~" -1 ,., - . c o 1 A I would say she moved out. That was the 2 day she had moved out. That was the Saturday. Q A Where were you? I was in Dover, Delaware. Q What happened that day when you got back? A I came back. It would have been the 5th. Monday afternoon. I had just gotten back. I pulled up in the driveway, walked in the house, and I knew something I just had a bad feeling. open the door, I knew it. Q What did you see, A An empty house. As soon as I turned the key to Darnell? Clothes on the floor. It was just barren. Q Okay. Were the kids rooms stripped pretty much? A Stripped, emptied. In my oldest daughter's room, the weekend before my dad and I just put up a shelf. When I walked in there, that shelf was torn out of the wall and just still hanging there, you know. You could see where they had pulled it out. They didn't take all of the screws out. They just tried to take it down. Q Two bedrooms like that? A Kareston's was like that. Madison's wasn't bad because we didn't get a chance to put a shelf in that room yet. 25 1 2 " " " ,,~,! o o Q A No furnishings? No furnishings, no. 3 Q Everything taken off the walls? 4 A Everything off the walls. All the wedding 5 gifts were gone. The dryer that her mom and dad had bought 6 us as a gift, that was gone. Everything. The clothes 7 that my mother had bought, everything, all of that was 8 gone. 9 10 11 12 Q A Q A You didn't find a note there? I did not find no note, no message, nothing. Did you make any telephone calls? The first place I called was her mother at 13 work. 14 Q And were you able to get an answer from her 15 mother at work? 16 A No, not the first day, no. I called 17 then I called her parent's house, and Danie11e had 18 answered. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Okay. What did you say to her? A I just was stunned and asked her what was going on. Q Did you ask to see the children? A Yes. That was the next thing. I asked her what was going on, and the next thing out of my mouth was when can I see the girls? 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ,~ ,~~ _.~, ~'~ o o Q A Q A Q What were you told? I can't see the girls. Was there an explanation given? No, Just that you could not? A Right, Q Well, what did you do after that and in the intervening days? A I went to interview probably four to six lawyers and attorneys. I tried my very best to make contact with Danie11e and her mother to see when I could see the children, you know. Q What happened on those repeated telephone contacts? A Basically they would not let me see the children until I signed a custody release form. Q Did they give you such a form? A No, that's just what they had said. Q Were you offered the opportunity to come see the children at the mother's house? A Yes, they had offered me to come to her 22 parent's house to see the children. 23 24 25 Q A Q Did you take them up on that? No. When was the next time -- when was the first 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . "I. o o time you got to see the children? A The first time I got to see the children was basically two weeks after she had moved out. I went down to her uncle's place where she was staying, and she made hotdogs and french fries, and I got to go down there and see the kids. It was Father's Day. Q And it took some extra time until that stipulation was prepared; is that correct? A Yes, until I had actually hired you, and you had made some phone calls, and I believe the following weekend, because I had asked her while I was down there that Saturday if I could have the kids the following weekend for pictures for church, and she said no, I would have to change it. Q Now, a stipulation was entered as a court order, and a copy of that is attached to our pretrial statement. How much time did that give you with the 18 children? 19 20 21 22 23 24 A Q A Q A Q Basically every other weekend. Is that the best we could do at that time? Yes, it was, We went to a conciliation conference? Yes. And what was the best we could do at the 25 conciliation conference? 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 or 5:00. 16 17 18 ~, I -0 ^ I" ","",' o o A The best we could do is what we have now. I would have them Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday nights on one weekend. Tuesday Q Hold on, Let's just make sure the Court understands this. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday after work? A Yes, after work. I would get them, at the time of this stipulation, at 2:00 in the afternoon. 21 22 23 24 25 right? Q Okay. And you would have them back to a meeting point in time for Danielle to pick them up after her work; is that right? A Q A Yes. And what time was that typically? Two days it was 4:15, Two days it was 5:15 Q A Q And then alternating weekends? Alternating weekends. And in the other week when you didn't have 19 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday for a few hours after 20 work, what did you have on the other week? A Q A Q I just had Tuesday night. Was that an overnight? Yes. So you had 6 overnights out of 14; is that 29 1 2 3 4 5 that? 6 7 8 9 10 11 =~ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 L. ~ o o A Q A Q Five. No. Five overnights. Five overnights, Excuse me. Right, We couldn't get anything more than A Q A Q No. She didn't want to do that? She did not agree. We had a second custody conference; is that right? A Yes, we did. Q And what was the change made in that temporary order for the second one? A The change -- the second one, the change was made that I would pick the children up at 2:30 and have them back to the meeting place at 5:15. Q How effective was that change? I mean what did that effectively do to your agreement? I'll strike that. That's a bad way to ask a question. How do you compare that timing, after that second custody conciliation conference, and what it was before? A Just that half hour a day for the kids to take their naps and to be wakened up, Other than that, the times in the day stayed the same. Q Okay. Did you get to talk to your children 30 "'->,.. I",~~-, ,"1'- -Ii,; I o o 1 on the phone? A No. Q Do you try to call and talk to them? A I have called her to talk to her. She has never offered me if I would like to talk to the children. Q Do they ever call you when they're in their mom's custody? A No. )1 i I' I, I 2 .. I; 3 4 5 6 I i! I 1 I, I I' I' II 7 8 i t, 9 Do the kids ever call her while they're in Q 10 your custody? 11 12 A If Kareston's ever said, you know, I Yes. would like to call mommy, Fine. No problem. You can 13 give her a call. 14 Q Do you have any insight on this haircut 15 issue? 16 A I have no idea on that. I have never 17 gotten their hair cuts, never did it myself. 18 Q Darnell, you live in a house out in the 19 country; is it? 20 21 22 A Yes. Q How long have you lived in that house? A I bought that house from my parents in June 23 of '96, I believe it was. 24 Q And how long before that did you live in it 25 yourself? 31 " . 'L~ ~ " . _ ~_~ _ '~' , fl " fi ~: [! o o 1 A Oh, I lived in that house since I was born. , lei 2 Q There's been talk about a request to take (: " " ri ri i-'; !:I i;i k I~I ,: I" 1-' Iii I-j i~ " 1'1 :! :1 j:! 1:1 1:1 , ] 1:1 (I j,i i\! ;:1 i,! 3 your daughter to a birthday party at the Sports Emporium? 4 A Yes. 5 Q That was during the period of time that 6 otherwise would have been Danielle's? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Would you please tell the Court what the 9 relationship between the birthday girl was and your 10 daughter, Kareston? 11 A Courtney to Kareston's like an older sister, 12 Every time Courtney steps in the room, Kareston, her eyes 13 light up. Courtney will play with Kareston, carry her i:i i:i I, ,'> !.1 14 around, do the airplane, everything. Very -- just like, 15 you know, a cousin, anything like that. 16 Q I'm sorry. The girl's name is what? 17 A Courtney, 18 Q Courtney. Did Courtney go to Kareston's 19 birthday party? 20 A Yes. Well, no. They couldn't make it 21 right at the birthday party, but they came later on that 22 night and brought their present, and they were invited to 23 Madison's birthday party when I had her. 24 Q Okay, 25 A So yeah. 32 r- C-J .,1 ~ "-,,"'," o o 1 Q Was the invitation to Kareston's party made 2 by Daniel1e or by you? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A Q Repeat your question. Was the invitation to Kareston's birthday party -- A Q It was made by Danielle. Okay. So she invited this child to her daughter's party; is that right? A Yes. Q Did you get to take her to the birthday party? A Q A No. Why not? Her mother did not allow it. I would have 15 her -- I had asked to have her between five to seven, was 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the birthday party, She said there would have been nothing there for Kareston to do, There was cake. There was ice cream. Kris's sister, Cindy, had her two little girls there too. She could have played with them. Any time Kareston's with me, it's not like the girl has nothing to do. We would have had a good time. Q I'm going to ask you about this decision that there was nothing for her to do. It was not an appropriate place for a two year old to be. Did Danielle have strong feelings about these kinds of issues in the 33 ~-- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .,-; o e 1 course of your marriage? 2 3 A Q Yes. Okay. Can you give the Court an idea of 4 some of the other things that she thought had to be one way 5 or another? A Basically everything when it came to the children. She picked the names out. She picked the doctor, the family doctor. Because I had said to her, I said, if you want to pick the family doctor, I said, my family dentist is right here in Carlisle. I said, Dr. Jenkins, we can use him. dentist. No. They will go to my 13 Q But things like food and when you get a 14 bottle and when you drink? 15 A That was all arranged by her. The 16 17 18 19 20 schedule, everything. Q Did those decisions always make sense to you? A Sometimes they did, and sometimes no. would question them, and I was told she was the mother, I 21 So instead of arguing and fighting with her, I left her go. 22 Q Okay. So you often went along with them 23 anyhow? 24 25 A Q Yes. Did Danielle smoke while she was pregnant 34 . , o o 1 with the children? 2 3 4 A Q A Yes. Does she smoke now? Yes. 5 Q Can you ever tell whether she's been smoking 6 around the children? 7 8 9 10 A Q A Q Yes. How can you tell? The kids smell like smoke. I'm going to ask you about these cats. Did 11 you object to getting rid of the two Cats that were in your 12 house on your wife's demand? 13 A I did not object to getting rid of either 14 one of the cats. I objected -- the only thing I objected 15 to was us getting a second cat, because she had asked to 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 keep the second cat, and I told her, it's your baby. know, Petie I didn't want to keep Petie, but ... You Q A Q Who asked to keep the second cat? Danie1le did. Okay. I'm going to ask you about this constipation. Was your daughter ever constipated prior to your separation? A Yes. Q Okay. And do you know whether there's any constipation in infants that runs in your family at all? 35 - ."., J",' 1,_.,. , . '(': o o 1 A Yes. My sister and I both were. 2 Q Now, do you know what to do for 3 constipation? 4 A Yes. The fruits, the prunes. I feed her 5 all of that stuff, grapes. When Danielle and I were still 6 together we put her on the pot, and we would give her her 7 magazine, which was a home depot sales paper, and that was 8 her's. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q And she could read? A Yeah, she looked through it. Q And do you have to be told to give her these kinds of foods? A No, I don't. Q A Q A Do you cook for your kids? Yes. What do you cook? Like I said before, sausage and fried potatoes. I've made macaroni and cheese, hot dogs, ham steak. Kareston really likes french cut beans, green beans. Q Do you feed vegetables to them? A Yes. Q Do you feed fruits to them? A Q Yes, Darnell, how well behaved are your children? 36 ., <-' I,; 1" o o 1 A My children are well behaved, They're 2 children, They're kids. They're going to get into 3 things. They're going to do stuff, 4 Q When you have to discipline them when they 5 do something they're not supposed to, how do you do it? 6 A I'd either sit down and tell them about it. 7 Now and then I've given them a pat on the butt or I put 8 Kareston in her room and told her to sit back there, and 9 after every time I corrected them I'd sit them down, 10 basically Kareston, because she's the oldest. I'd sit 11 them down and explain to them why they did get corrected. 12 Q Okay. Are you shouting at them? I heard 13 testimony about that. 14 15 16 A No, I do not shout at my children. I do not yell at my children. Q Would you ever raise your voice? 17 A I would raise my voice to get their 18 attention. Like if she was out near the stove, and she was 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to put her hand on the burner, yeah, out of common reaction you'd yell to get their attention. Q Danielle testified that she never bit her daughter, but do you know otherwise? A Q A Yes. Would you explain what happened? I was out in the kitchen getting supper 37 o o 1 ready one night. She was in there breast feeding Maddy. 2 Kareston kept playing with her, kept playing with her, 3 trying to bite her, trying to bite her. 4 I heard Kareston crying. I walked in 5 through the archway and I looked at Danielle and I said 6 7 8 9 10 11 Q I want to ask you about the testimony of a 12 couple of witnesses here. Tina Keesaman said that she was 13 over there once with her 9 year old son? 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what happened to Kareston? She kept biting me, kept biting me, and I told her if she bit me one more time, mommy was going to bite her back, and she did. I looked at Danie11e, and I said do you think she learned her lesson, you know. A Q A Q Urn-hum. And you played checkers with her son? Urn-hum. Is that true? A Yes. Q Tell the Court what happened that time. A She had came over with Derek, and her and Danielle were playing with Kareston because she was pregnant with Madison, and all Derek had was Kareston's toys. Now, the boy's 9 years old, Playing with a one or two year old's toys didn't excite him. So I said, come on. I took him back in the room. I got the checkers. 38 c o 1 We came out. Him and I played about three or four games of 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 checkers. When Danielle and Tina were sitting at the table, I put Kareston in her little car, and I would start back at the bathroom, down the hallway, and I would run her up through the hallway and let her fly into the couch and she'd hit the couch and bounce around and sit there and laugh. They had a blast with that. They would build forts in there. Q Now, was this at the same time Tina 11 Keesaman's son was there? 12 13 14 15 16 A Q A Q A Yes, yes. So were you with both of them then? Yes. What were the moms doing? They were sitting at our table talking, and 17 Danielle said watch him do this, and I would run Kareston 18 out through the hallway, and she would sit there, and they 19 would laugh at her because she was just a riot. 20 Q Do you play with your children? 21 A Yes, I do. 22 Q Would you tell the Court what kinds of play 23 you and your children do? 24 25 A Oh, on the floor. I try to teach them to catch, you know, a ball. I have a little stuffed 39 .1 , ~' o o 1 football. Kareston's getting better at catching it. 2 Horsey back rides. They jump off the couch and on top of 3 me, and we wrestle around. 4 Q How often do you do this kind of stuff? 5 A Practically every day that I have them. 6 Then me and Maddy would sit there, and her favorite thing 7 is the peekaboo books. She comes over and sits down on 8 your lap and she'll open up the peekaboo books and find the 9 hidden things. 10 Q Do you read to them? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Are you having any trouble since separation 13 in actually physically taking care of them? 14 A No, 15 Q Do you think you could take care of them all 16 of the time if you needed to? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Falling asleep at the table, is that 19 anything you recognized? 20 A They have done it before when Daniel1e and I 21 were together. If their pattern was thrown off, Kareston 22 used to fall asleep in the high chair when we were feeding 23 her. She would just dose off. 24 Q There was testimony given that you didn't do 25 anything unless she specifically asked you to do it. Is 40 ~- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ ~,I " I,' c o that true, Darnell? A No, it's not. Q Did you voluntarily do a lot of things? A Yes, Like I said, the laundry, Danielle would get up in the morning, and she would leave a note there for me, and I would do the stuff like that for her. I would try to take care of everything outside of the house when I got the chance to go out, Q I'm going to ask you, a lot of testimony was provided about your tone of voice in talking to Danielle. Could you please describe how she speaks to you? She degrades me. She seems superior. Her A way -- Q A Q A Q A It was both. Q Does she do that in front of the children? Oh, yes. Was that prior to separation or after? Yes. Yes which? Yes, it was prior to separation and after. There was some testimony that you were a half hour late for the first counseling visit, Is that true? A Q Yes, I was. Twenty minutes, a half hour. What happened? 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ci j - . o A They had road construction on 11 and 15, and when I was coming up I got messed up on the wrong exit, got turned around, pulled into a Sheetz, got a phone book, called Tressler's Lutheran as soon as I could, I told the secretary I was going to be late. I told her where I was. She did the best she could to help me get back on the right track. I got on the right track. I was down there twenty 8 minutes, twenty-five minutes later. Q Do you think that exchanging the children at a daycare center in Mechanicsburg, for instance, would have any beneficial effect on your and Danielle's relationship? A I think it would help us, yes. I believe it would help us. Q Do you think you could communicate about the important things regarding your children? For instance, if they needed surgery or if they needed tutoring, that kind of thing? A Yes. MS. LINDSAY: Cross examination. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MS. DISSINGER: Q Now, you said that she refused to let you see the children, and then you said she told you you could see them at her parent's house. I'm confused. Which one 25 was it? 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 o o away, A She wouldn't let me see the children right The only thing she would let me is -- it took some time, probably about a week to a week and a half, two weeks until I could come down to her parent's house. At first, no. I was not permitted to see the children. I was not permitted to even talk to the children. tell me where she was staying. Q How long after separation was it until she She wouldn't even told you that you could see the children at her place or at her parent's? A Probably about 10 to 11 days. Q I'm not saying how long was it until you actually did see them. How long was it from the time she left until she told you you could see them under those circumstances? A I would say probably 8 to 10 days. Q Okay. And when was Father's Day? A It would have been the Sunday -- it probably would have been two weeks the Sunday after. Q Two weeks after she left? A Yes. Q And in that time you saw four to six 23 attorneys? 24 25 A Q Yes. When did you tell Danielle that you 43 .'l,. ,.1 -" c o 1 2 3 preferred Mulberry? A I never told her I prefer Mulberry, her I went to see each one. I told 4 Q Why did you not want to discuss with her 5 where the children could go after they leave Shirley's? 6 A I told her that I would discuss anything she 7 wanted to with the children after our court hearing, until 8 we got a set function of where these children are going to 9 be. 10 Q Do you think that the Court's going to make 11 such a dramatic change in custody that you two won't have 12 to discuss daycare? 13 A I have no idea what the Court's going to 14 decide. I've never been through this. 15 Q Do you think that the Court is going to 16 solve your communication problems? 17 A I'm hoping her and I can do that. 18 Q Is that why you didn't want to talk to her 19 about daycare until after today? 20 A I never could talk to Danielle. Every time 21 I tried to call Danielle or talk to Danielle, I'm busy 22 right now, and she would just -- she couldn't even say 23 good-bye on the phone. 24 Q So when do you think you're going to talk 25 about daycare? 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - ,'d....;~' ~ ~-~ o o A I would like to talk about daycare any time it's available to her. I called her up and left a message on her machine one time asking her if she would like to meet somewhere so we could go and talk about this, her and I. Nobody else, No attorneys, just her and I. Q Well, given the dynamics at the custody conferences, is it any surprise to you she didn't want to meet with you alone? A I don't know. Q Did you ever give her a list of daycare providers? A I have a list over there until we have No. 13 our decision here, then we can move forward. Then we know 14 how things are going to be. 15 Q So there wasn't any point in moving forward 16 until you got to here; is that right? 17 THE COURT: I'm not sure this bantering 18 back and forth is at all productive for me. 19 BY MS. DISSINGER: 20 Q When did you first meet Shirley Fickes, your 21 present baby-sitter? 22 A Shirley Fickle. 23 Q Fickle, I'm sorry. A That's okay. When I picked the children up 24 25 one day. 45 e o 1 Q And when you had your first baby-sitter, 2 Wendy Haney, did you first meet her when you went and 3 picked the children up? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Now, you said you did laundry in the home, 6 You did your laundry, right? 7 A No, I did Danielle's, 8 Q You also said you changed your clothes when 9 you got home from work? 10 11 A Q Yes. Didn't you just take off your outer layer of 12 clothing? 13 A I would take off my work jeans, my socks, my 14 t-shirt, and I would go back and put a pair of shorts on, 15 another t-shirt, and another pair of socks. 16 Q Did anyone ever tell you you could not go to 17 the doctor's and participate in these well baby check-ups 18 or take the kids to the doctor when they were sick? 19 A I would ask her if she was all right, Do 20 you need anything? No. Me and mom are going to take 21 care of it. We'll be fine. 22 Q Nobody told you you weren't allowed to go 23 then, did they? 24 A They didn't tell me I wasn't allowed to go, 25 but it was always her mother and her. 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 her words to me was I would be better off by myself. 16 Q And what did you say to that? ",h o o Q And you just chose not to be a part of it? I didn't choose. I told her, I asked her, A Are you going to be all right? Do you want me to go? and mom will go. We'll be fine. Me Q When Danielle left the house, did she take anything that didn't belong to her before you two got married or anything that didn't belong to the children? A Yeah, there was some things I noticed that were missing that I had no idea why she took them. Q Anything important? A Nothing major that I could tell. Q Okay. Did you tell her she could leave any time, but she wasn't taking the children? A No. I told her - - she would come home, and 17 A I said, Danie1le, if you're unhappy here, 18 you can leave. I'm not going to hold you here against 19 your will. Me and the girls will be fine. 20 Q But you never told her, but you're not 21 taking the girls? 22 23 24 A No, I never said she couldn't take the girls. I never held them girls above her. Q Now, you and Danielle, with assistance of 25 counsel, were able to reach a first agreement? 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1'-"1 -~ o o A Urn-hum. Q And then you were able to reach a second agreement, which substantially enlarged your visitation or your custodial periods, didn't you? You went from every other weekend to every other weekend, and then significant time through the week, didn't you? A Repeat that again. You threw me off. You said from the first conciliation hearing to the second conciliation hearing? Q Yeah. A No. They all stayed the same. The only thing that changed from the first to the second was the time I picked them up. Q The first thing you were able to arrange was simply every other weekend, right? A Q Oh, yes, correct. And then with assistance of counsel, again, 18 you were able to work out a more expanded period? 19 20 A Q Yes. And now you're here today asking for even 21 more, right? 22 A Yes. I'm asking for -- 23 Q So what's going to make you happy so we're 24 not coming back to court all of the time? 25 MS. LINDSAY: Objection, Your Honor. 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ,J. J' I!i!lffi. o e THE COURT: Please, please. Knowing this case and the age of these children, and if I run for a third term, I will see a lot of these folks. BY MS. DISSINGER: Q Now, if I understood your testimony, you don't talk to the kids on the phone; is that right? A That's correct. Q Have you ever asked to talk to them? A No. She's usually hung up on me before I could get a chance to ask, Q What are you talking about when she hangs up? What are you talking about when she hangs up? A Usually we're talking about the holiday schedules, what we're feeding the children, and she would get upset and just hang up. Q Does she say good-bye before she hangs up? A No. Q A Never? Once or twice, yes, but usually it's like a 20 click, you know. 21 Q Why is this Sports Emporium birthday party 22 such a big deal to both of you? 23 A Why? 24 Q Yeah. 25 A I felt it would have been very good for 49 . '. .1-- -'-'~< o o 1 Kareston to go. It was cake, ice cream, spending time 2 with Courtney. She would have spent some time there with 3 me. It was from 5 to 7. It was not late at night or 4 anything like that. 5 Danielle's words was, you know, they could 6 call and ask my permission for my children to go, and then 7 the next day she had told me that she had talked to her 8 attorney about it, and her attorney told her that she 9 didn't spend enough time with the children as it is now, 10 and I don't know which counselor she had at the time. 11 Q So you wanted to take the child on her 12 custodial period, and take the child to a birthday party 13 that you thought was important she go to? 14 A I asked her permission. I said I know it's 15 your night. Do you mind if I take Kareston to Courtney's 16 birthday party on Thursday night. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q And so you weren't happy about the answer you got? A I wasn't -- the answer didn't bother me. It was her attitude towards it. Q Now, you said that you were talking about the feeding schedule, and she picked the names, and she picked the family doctors, and whenever you had a suggestion, she said, because she was the mother. She 25 never really used those words to you, did she? 50 ~" 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I, --"C' o o 1 A Yes. 2 Q Did she say other words, and you just 3 interpreted it as meaning I'm the mother? 4 A No, she basically told me one time I'm the 5 mother, and I will decide for the children. Like the 6 names, where they'll go to the doctor's, and stuff like that. Q She actually said to you, I'm the mother, I'm deciding the names? A Yes, that's what she would say to me. Q Those specific words? A Yes. I am the mother, and I would look at her like, Danielle, we're having these children together. Q She said the same thing to you about picking 15 doctors? I'm the mother. I'm picking the doctor? 16 A I wouldn't say basically like that, but that 17 was her attitude, yes. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Do you smoke cigars? A On occasions, yes, Q And do you smoke around the kids? A No. Q Do you smoke in the house? A No. Q Do you smoke in your vehicle? A No. 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .J. ._, 'I, o o Q Were you going to make arrangements to get rid of those cats? A Was I? Q A Yeah. No. That was Danielle -- between Danielle and my mother. Q So that wasn't your job? A What do you mean it wasn't my job? Q It wasn't your responsibility to get rid of the cats? A I wanted to get rid of the cats, and they took up and said that they both would do it, and I said somebody has to get rid of these cats. Q Okay. Was today the first time Danielle knew that your sister and you had a family history of 16 constipation? 17 A I guess it's the first time we really talked 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about it. Q Are there any other health issues that you guys haven't talked about that maybe you should? A I don't know of anything offhand right now, Q Have you ever said to Kareston, I'll give you something to cry about? A Q Yes, on occasions. Why? 52 .~ I I.; ! ~- o <:) 1 A To keep her from crying or -- you know, it 2 was a common statement that was made. I just made it. Did 3 I give her something to cry about? 4 Q Did you ever say to your children -- one of 5 your children, I brought you into this world. I'll take 6 you out? 7 8 A Q No. And when you talk to Danielle, what tone of 9 voice do you use? 10 A If I'm talking to Danielle, and it's just 11 her and me, we would talk like this. We will discuss 12 things, 13 14 15 16 Q She's had basically the same complaints that you have, that neither one of you talks nicely to the other. Is that the case? A I would say so, yes. 17 Q So there are times when you don't talk nice 18 to her either? 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A There's times when she has given me an attitude or talked to me in a tone of voice, and I would give her a tone of voice and she knew I was serious about things. Q And toward the end of your marriage that tone of voice was the prevailing tone, wasn't it? A No. 53 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ dl, ~ <".i I. " . .' o o 1 MS. DISSINGER: I have no other questions. 2 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 3 BY MS. LINDSAY: Q Darnell, do you recollect whether Danielle used the term my children when referencing Madison and Kareston? A Yes. Q With what kind of frequency, do you think? A Quite often, yes. She would always say these are my girls, my children. She would just -- and any time she would refer to them, it was her children. MS. LINDSAY: No other questions. RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MS. DISSINGER: Q Mr. Markley, don't you call them my children too? A I call them our children. No. MS. DISSINGER: Okay. Thank you. BY THE COURT: Q Mr. Markley, I want to get a handle on your employment schedule and how it relates to this four on, three off concept. I thought you worked Monday through Friday, and sometimes Saturday? A Yes. Q Okay. And if the Court were to award split 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 o o custody on the four on, three off, does that mean you would then have a change in your employment schedule or there will just be some days when you'd work and some days when you wouldn't? A There would be a change in hours when I could start and when I could leave. Q Walk me through that. What do you mean by that? A Like if I would have the children that they would be with me at night, it would depend on where we would have the daycare. I could start later, drop them off at the daycare. If there's a certain pick-up time, I could leave early and pick them up on the days that I had the children. When I did not have the children, I could make up the time that I lost on the days that I did have the children. Q So basically when you say four on, three off, that's just your particular pattern of equal time? A Yes. Q A Q Okay. Yeah. All right. I thought there was some 23 relationship between those numbers and your work schedule? 24 A No, just to be equal. 25 Q Now I understand. Okay. 55 - I, o o 1 MS. LINDSAY: Your Honor, if it's 2 instructed, we can ask Mr. Markley why he thinks that 3 pattern is better than week on, week off or whatever, but 4 given the age of the children -- 5 THE COURT: If I had to guess it would be 6 that it ensures more frequent contact with both parents. 7 8 MR. LINDSAY: Yes. THE COURT: Yeah, sure. Thank you. You 9 can step down. 10 MR. MARKLEY: Thank you. 11 (Whereupon, the testimony of Darnell Markley 12 concluded.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 I c ~ y CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the proceedings are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the above cause, and that this is a correct transcript of same. ',II; JmtJulp II. ~ Michele A. Eline Official Court Reporter The foregoing record of the proceedings on the hearing of the within matter is hereby approved and directed to be filed. m,,-,~ It{ 2001 Date --:<L. /1ll Kevin"A. Hess, J. Ni/"th Judicial District 57 '" \>" , , "~,J;;., ._J, ~ -, ",- "J, .'~; ~: -:r:,'>!OT,b.FiY -. ~~f'I~~ ';" ':::' , , ~,'.l,., '., u: le;I'!': ..~.JJ -._1 .--.~ '1..' i.,: l.::.::: :,', Ii' :' '( ".j l)\J"!'{ Vvr':;L.)-_i :'.~! I, ",_J ",i~.JV. Orf\p 1,,\\/1 \ ll\\ !IA 1 Cl "l\v I L..'F.J ~,. I Q: o " _0' ~~ ~- '"",~" >"='!-"""'-"""~, ~",A:l,~r~~_.~~.M!JI_~~~p,:!r'iJrn~~l!~~~~'R9_J:,~lllll!lil.....J:~,_.. _" . ,_"", ~ ~;1. Tj~ .~ 0"' ..~ ~ ~P__;@<l!>lt<,,"i , DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. 00-3477 CIVIL ACTION LAW DARNELLJ.MARKLEY DEFENDANT IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Tuesday, October 30,2001 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa P. Greevy, Esq. , the conciliator, at 214 Seuate Aveuue, Suite 105, Camp Hill, PA 17011 on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 at 1:00 PM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: /s/ Melissa P. Greevy. Esq. Custody Conciliator ~fV\ v 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 ATIORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HA VB AN ATIORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 /O:;'I-cJ1 /tJ3/&/ /0 J/'O/ __.,,-.,-"1" III . ~ ,c, or' . .. - "",'J,:::~n~'\nV 01 ocr 3! il'ii {I. I Q '.1 ,. i... CUlil .. ';gEN:~SVt~/S:IYA'UNTY ~'/lj\'1 &J ~~~4~ ~~~~ ~4 ~ ~~~..4~ , ~1lIl,_, "___~~~_~_if'fl~rc!!fflIVW"~"-')j':~,~JIl,ll'~'f:~Ii~ !lfl?'"ll!lf<t:f!~ _ lll!lIIIl,~"", SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYSIATlLAW I 11 I' II I! 'i 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA " , , ' ' ~- - " ,,' - ,I, ,~,; , _ " \bl -'-' '-' DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff/Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION. LAW : NO. 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM : IN CUSTODY vs. DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant/Petitioner ORDER OF COURT AND now, this day of , 2001, upon consideration of the attached Motion, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before the conciliator, at , on the :1: day of , 2001, at o'clock _" m. for a H pre-hearing custody conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the Court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry ofa temporary or permanent order. For the Court, By: ii I I 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. Custody Conciliator Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 II SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY A1TORNEYS-ATeLAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle. PA ,,",,_, 10' ,_ -~ - ~"_ '. '~." ~ > , AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the Court. By the Court, Date: J. I J J" d i II SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 W. High Slreel Carlisle. PA iL '"." ~. ~ .-- -'''+'->''" - -j - DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff/Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO. 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY vs. DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant/Petitioner PETITION FOR CONTEMPT NOW COMES Darnell J. Markley, Defendant above, by and through his II counsel, SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY and petitions this Honorable Court as II follows: 1. On January 9, 2001, after a hearing, this Honorable Court entered an Order providing to the parties herein shared legal custody of their children, Kareston E. Markley, born May 8, 1998, and Madison Rose Markley, born October 26, 1999. 2. Shared legal custody is the shared "legal right to make major decisions effecting the best interests of the minor children, including but not limited to, medical, religious, and educational decisions". 23 Pa. C.SAS5302. 3. In recognition of Petitioner's shared legal custody, Respondent, on July 9, 2001, suggested that three-year-old Kareston be enrolled in a Township sponsored pre-school program two days a week from 9:00 a,m. to 11 :00 a.m. 4. On July 20, 2001, Petitioner responded that he believed the class proposed was not in Kareston's interest, given her age, her enrollment with a new daycare provider and the benefits that she was deriving from her daycare provider. 5. Despite Petitioner's objection to the pre-school program, Respondent enrolled the child in the program unilaterally. 'i II r I i I [ SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY AITORNEYS-AT.LAW 26 w. High Street Carlisle, PA ~, _,"" ,I WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court to hold Respondent, Danielle Dee Markley, in contempt of its Order of January 9, 2001. SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: squire II SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS.AT.LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA h '. '^' ,_, ^ ''''.0.1,,:.; ,~ " <' .. ' I~" VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, hereby verify that the statements made herein are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S, 94904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. k~ ' Darnell J. rkley Date:l,o ;g--6 J SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATrORNEYS-ATeLAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA - . -- ~ ".- ,. """'<' ^ _"k~ _ '"._~ ,.-. __d DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff/Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM vs. DARNELLJ.MARKLE~ Defendant/Petitioner : IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND now, this .;:J~~ day of CJGI:e hoR , 2001, I, Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire, of the law firm of SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & I LINDSAY, Attomeys, hereby certify that I served the within Petition for Contempt I this day by depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid, in II, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed to: I' I 1'1 I' I I I I, ii I, i, II Ii i' I I i Mary A. Etter Dissinger, Esquire DISSINGER & DISSINGER 28 North 32nd Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P,C. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: 01 Lindsay, Esquire ID 693 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 ;1 ,'~ '....~~.""-""...IiiiiIIIll~ - " "~ 1ll~IS!li;!$llll.!i.lw~Iil(!Ii"Mi'L .- "..a," "~" . '" ,,'p ,~ - 0 D 0 C ., ~~ C) ~~J .,:"? " -, r.l~ '" S~~ (j) J:~' 1-""::1 -<:;:.: kC -'U ~~tJ ~O :x ~O r;y Orn C Z ~ 35 =< ()) -< '" l I -~ ~""",",'";-~.;,,,,< , DEe 0 ~1 DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-3477 DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY Hess, J. - ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this I z., 1'1. day of December, 2001, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. This Court's Order of January 9, 2001, shall remain in full force and effect with the following additions: A. The parties shall strictly adhere to the legal custody provisions of the Order of January 9, 2001, and shall consult with each other with regard to those decisions which could reasonably be expected to be of concern to either parent. In the event that the parties cannot agree, the parties agree to participate in mediation sharing the cost equally. The mediator, unless otherwise agreed, shall be Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D. B. In the event that one or both of the Children would not be attending daycare or preschool as planned, the custodial parent will notify the non- custodial parent of such change in plans. BY THE COURT, Dist: Mary E. Dissinger, Esquire, 28 N. 32"Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011 I'~ jl'f)~ Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire, 26 W. High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 @ -/~-Cl J ~"X5 t!~ " , ~~F" ~~ " - ~- =. (1; " (,:'; i:, ,". CUt'/!h~i>r~':'~~~ '1 '(~I: ~~?UNT\/ . ...,A, ,"'''''; (L~qfy}i\ .. _"~ ,,__,If;,>;;'fill;r;:I~''!''''_''''"'''oWj;,~ffl'.iii''l'Om:lIil~!Ji ,J JIP: ~~~_.~, _,~_ ""~~~ !..J - ~,,- DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-3477 DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Kareston E. Markley Madison Rose Markley May 8, 1998 October 26, 1999 Mother and Father Mother and Father 2. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on November 27, 2001, with the following individuals in attendance: the Mother, Danielle Dee Markley, and her counsel, Mary Etter Dissinger, Esquire; the Father, Darnell J. Markley, and his counsel, Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire. 3. The parties were seen pursuant to Father's Petition for Contempt. Father alleges that Mother has made unilateral decisions with regard to enrolling one of the Children in preschool and choice of the Children's pediatrician. The parties reached an agreement in the form of an Order as attached with regard to the sharing of legal custody and dispute resolution methods. However, counsel for Mother raised an issue of concern with regard to Father's exercise of vacation time under the present Order of January 9, 2001. The parties were unable to reach an agreement on this matter at the Conciliation Conference and were offered an additional Custody Conciliation Conference to spend additional time addressing this issue. However, the Conciliator later learned that counsel for the Father intends on filing a special separate Petition for the Court to address this matter. /dfJ/07 Date &. Meliss Peel Greevy, Esquire Custody Conciliator -. .'" DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. 00-3477 CIVIL DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this 11' day of December, 2001, following conference with counsel in Chambers, the order of January 9, 2001, is modified to provide that in this year, 2001, the father shall have custody of Kareston E. Markley born May 8, 1998, and Madison Rose Markley born October 26, 1999, from December 26th at noon until December 30th at 6:00 p.m. The mother shall have custody of said children from December 30th through January 1,2002. BY THE COURT, 7'~ /lJ / A. Hess, J. Mary Etter Dissinger, Esquire . 1.\ \ For the Plaintiff (\ crp.U..D ~ Carol 1. Lindsay, Esquire L If? .:1.0 -0 I p"f(S For the Defendant :rlm r- ~<~,. "~~ .~"w".' "'~"..' .~ . "'~ ~" -',~~~" '-0 ~ "~-> ~" p '"'.~ Ill-~"',;. ~.-, . ',c_'-" .. '''' "'"''''r >_, "h - ''''"'''''''''''"'-' " ,,,',,,' /'"': ~ i: -;: .' .. , Ij ", ii, ell r", 11:,-, II I!.'.: 'I I II ~; Ii II " , ~~ Ii ~ ' ~~_. -, .~"" >,0 ~_.~ ~"1"'''~~~Wi'j'~.~,!\!,,~, ~ -. .,"-."!jlIII!IPR ~ . . --., ~,,' SAllIS SHUffi.~WER , &.~uSAY ~oIAW 26W. Blghstnet Catllsle, PA " ~ I ~_ '~i l~ _ markley pre-hear memo ljb November 29, 2000 fILE COpy DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000.3477 CIVIL TERM V5. DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT'S PRE-HEARING MEMORANDUM I. BACKGROUND I I I' I Darnell J. Markley, Defendant and Father. The parties are parents of two children: The parties in this case are Danielle Dee Markley, Plaintiff and Mother, and Kareston E. Markley, born May 8, 1998; and Madison Rose Markley, born October I 26, 1999. The parties were married on November 1, 1997 and separated on June 3, I I 2000 when, without notice to Father, Mother removed herself, the children, and I personalty from Father's home and went to live with her parents. Thereafter, for a I I period of approximately three weeks, Father was not permitted custody of the children outside of the presence of Mother and her family, On or about June 22, 2000, the parties agreed to a custody arrangement pending the conciliation. A copy of that arrangemerit is attached hereto as Exhibit "AU. The Stipulation for Interim Custody provided to Father the most time to which Mother would agree, A conciliation was held on August 16, 2000 during which an Interim Order was composed upon the agreement of the parties; The Order expanded Father's time with the children. The Interim Order was the greatest amount of time that Mother would permit absent a hearing before the Court. SAIDIS Sllll!'!t~ . &LIC'IvSAY .o-mRNI!W!WlI'oIAW 16W. BIgh_ CarlIsle, PA ", markley pre-hear memo ljb November 29, 2000 Subsequently to the entry of the August 16, 2000 Order, Mother filed another Petition for Modification of the Interim Order and a second conciliation was held which resulted in the Order of October 4, 2000, modifying the times for mid-week visitation for Father by 15 minutes. II. WITNESSES Father will present the testimony of the following witnesses: A. Darnell Markley, the father in this case. Darnell will testify regarding his relationship to his children, and his ability to care for them. B. Wendy Haney, the children's former babysitter. Ms. Haney will testify with regard to the children's relationship to each one of their parents and the ability of the parents to care for the children. C. Dan Myers. Dan Myers and his wife will testify with regard to their observations of the ability of Father to care for his children. D. Mark Thumma. Mark Thumma is Father's co-worker. He has had the opportunity to see Father with the children and can testify with regard to their relationship. E. Pat McKeehan. Pat McKeehan is' a neighbor who has observed the relationship of Father and the children and will testify thereto. III. PROPOSED RESOLUTION Father seeks shared legal and physicatcustody of the children. His proposal is that given the children's age, they should have frequent contact with both parents. SAIDIS Sllll!'!t !J..OWER . &LIC'IvSAY ....IUKI'Il:cwu.lAW 16 W. Blghstreet CarlIsle, PA markley pre-hear memo ljb November 29, 2000 He proposes a schedule where the children spend three days with Father followed by four days with Mother, and then four days with Father followed by three days with Mother. Respectfully submitted, SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: . , ~ ,. .--......-....--..,-,., i I Ii II Ii SAIDISi sllll!'!t~ i &LIC'IvSAY I """"""",.IAW I I II I' I I. I, 16W.Blghstreet Cadlsle, PA c_ "" " i _ .1 I, markley pre-hear memo ljb November 29. 2000 DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO. 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM vs. DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant IN CUSTODY AND now, this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2-1 day of ~~ ,2000, I, . Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire, of the law firm of SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, Attorneys, hereby certify that I served the within Defendant's Pre-hearing Statement this day by depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Mary A. Etter Dissinger, Esquire DISSINGER & DISSINGER 28 North 32nd Street campHiII,PA 17011 II i SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: rol J, Lindsay, 're # 693 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 -----,-,. -.. ---'-~ ~. . markley stipulation for interim custody ljb June 22. 2000 FILE COpy DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, . Plaintiff DARNELLJ. MARKLEY, AND NOW,this VS. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000. 3477 CIVIL TERM Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT day of . ,2000, By the Court, J. ~~ '. 't ,;;;' " --- - -- .-~_._.~--_.~-':"..: -::'---::'_'7-::-'::~-:-'- . , .' . .'--. . '_: - ~:"- ':::'~":;';-"::'-:::':':'-'- .... _o_~__ "_~. .,. .~:'::-<:..::;..~.~~~.~.;:~'~'~~~~~i:-~;~~:~~=.'~~ . - -~,.- ":"'"-~._:...~-..-:-._,:..;-.~-~.:~;,~-_. .....::;;~:;_.~~-=~~:~~~:. . - ....-. .. . . -. -.--.--... --- --' _.- ._~,-- -..-- ~- .'. '~ L "="'''':::'~''''-:--''''''-'----'-''~-'-'- ml\rld~Y stipulation for interim custody ijb June 22, 2000 DANIELLEDEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY vs. DARNELL J. MARKLEY, STIPULA TION FOR INTERIM CUSTODY 1. The parties hereto are parents of two children: Kareston E. Markley, bom May 8, 1998; and Madison R. Markley, born October 26, 1999. . 2. Danielle Dee Markley, hereinafter Mother, has filed a Complaint for Custody and a conciliation is scheduled for July 12. 2000. 3. Pending the conciliation, the parties will share legal custody of the children, and Mother shall have primary physical custody of the children subject to periods of partial custody in Darnell J. Markley, hereinafter Father, on alternating weekends commencing June 23, 2000 after his work day until Monday, June 26, 2000 when he shall deliver the children to their daycare provider in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Additionally, Father shall have custody of the children on the Monday following Mother's weekend after his work until Tuesday morning when he shall deliver ,<, . the children to the daycare provider in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Pick up of the children shall take place at the daycare provider in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 4. On the fourth of July, 2000, a Tuesday, Father may maintain custody of the children until 7:00 p.m., when he shall deliver child to Mother';residence. .. .. ... .H"_..____.-__.__..__n____ - -. ."."-~- ,,--;.-.~...,._.__. -".---,....".~.7;J.:.=.::-:..' --. -- '----,.",. " ma~ley stipulation for interim custody " ljb June 22, 2000 5. "The terms of this Stipulation may be entered as an Order of Court. Witness: ~~~~#~ r c,p'c>:"}0 / , Danielle Dee Markley, Mother .< . .. . # .. ~ ,,,' .'" - ,--_._--_.~ -. ~~...-- ....._,... -- . '. - - - - .~::~:~":~~~;~:.:"~'~'.~~;~>:.':::.:;~:-\-';~;~~0 :~~;~t-~~::~~ ;,:~'d_~-. "~"-----'--'-'---"- -..........,.,---- ~--~---- -- - - - -- -+ - --- - -. - - - -- +" - - -- -- .-- --~ -;', ..:-;:.:.:.':--i.?$2:b~'-:::.':;"- - i DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff vs. DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant TO: The Prothonotary Please withdraw my TO: The Prothonotary "" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 2000-3477 .IN CUSTODY & DIVORCE / i PRAECIPE ""'----"'-'--------""'" - J e/D. Markley. y' Baker for Plaintiff 27 South Arlene Street P. O. Box 6443 Harrisburg, PA 17112-0443 (717) 671-9600 PRAECIPE Please enter my appearance for Danielle D. Markley. il '-/A~(}~~ Mary A. Etter Dissinge Attorney for Plaintiff 28 North Thirty-second Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-2840 -'.- "'~ ........." ~ljl!ji:!lilllliil ""hiil~,\'M--I1O(--;l\iI,'JIO,,,,'Q;~!Ml.!ll!!&i:!l@L~~W~lIil "-~ ", -.,,," "~,,~ ,,-, ~~ '''"' " ,w_ .. ~ .-,~ "'~-~'" ~) :05) 1Yirr; if:::r, "'"(" 0><!-" ;S;< ;s:O ~() :s.[;! ~ ~~. ~""'~- -,F'; g [q "1:i 5:) r; - .J:- ;'-:j '1 :n ~- ti~i 15:ri' >r'< dM It --:: ::p -'ll.. - " Ii.:.rt ~..., ~, , , .....:! JAMES D. FLOWER JOHN E. SLIKE ROBERT C. SAlDIS GEOFFREY S. SHUFF JAMES D, FLOWER, jR. CAROLj. LINDSAY jOHNNA j. KOPECKY KARL M. LEDEBOHM JOSEPH L. mTCHlNGS THOMAS E. FLOWER LAWOFFICFS SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 26 WEST mGH STREET CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 TELEPHONE: (717) 243-6222 - FACSIMILE: (717) 243-6486 EMA1L: atlomey@ssfl-law.com WEST SHORE OFFICE: 2109 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL, P A 17011 TELEPHONE: (717)737-3405 FACSIMILE: (717)737-3407 REPLY TO CARLISLE December 15, 2000 The Honorable Kevin A, Hess CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT HOUSE One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Markley v. Markley No. 2000-3477 Dear Judge Hess, I write this letter with some chagrin, As my client points out, the proposal for shared custody contained in my letter of December 1 zth provides all weekends to mother. Clearly, that is not a result in my client's interest. I would propose, instead, that the parties alternate weeks of custody beginning with pick ups on Mondays from daycare, However, in each parent's week, the other would have Wednesday and Thursday with that parent picking up the child at daycare Wednesday after work and returning that child to daycare on Friday morning, In this manner, I believe there would be plenty of contact, not such long periods of no contact, and each parent would have weekends with the child, Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, CJUljb cc: Darnell Markley Mary A Dissinger, Esquire JAMES n FLOWER JOHN E. SLIKE ROBERT C SAlOIS GEOFFREY S, SHUFF JAMES D, FLOWER,jR, CAROLj, LINDSAY jOHNNA j. KOPECKY KARL M, LEDEBOHM JOSEPH L. mTCmNGS THOMAS E. FLOWER LAW OFFICES SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 26 WEST mGH STREET CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 TELEPHONE: (717) 243-6222 - FACSIMILE: (717) 243-6486 EMAIL: attomey@ssfl-Iaw.com wEST SHORE OFFICE: 2109 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL, P A 17011 TELEPHONE: (717)737-3405 FACSIMILE: (717)737-3407 REPLY TO CARLISLE December 12, 2000 The Honorable Kevin A. Hess CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT HOUSE One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Markley v. Markley No. 2000-3477 Dear Judge Hess, This letter is an attempt to address the issue you presented at the end of the Markley hearing last Friday, December 8, 2000, You asked counsel to research the issue of the role played by communication, or lack thereof, in a shared custody determination, The seminal case on this issue is In Re: Weslev J. K.. 229 Pa,Super 504, 445 A.2d, 1243 (1982). In this case, Judge Beck for the Superior Court reviewed case law on the issue of the circumstances under which a Court ought to grant shared physical custody of children. Since it was a case of first impression, the Court drew heavily on sister jurisdictions to develop a standard which has been the standard in the common~vealtliever since. Shared custody is appropriate when: 1, Both parents are capable of making rational child rearing decisions. 2, Both parents desire a continuing active involvement in the children's lives, 3. The children have formed a relationship with both parents, 4, There is a "minimal" degree of cooperation between the natural parents: Weslev J, K" 445 A.2d, at 1248-1249, With regard to the minimal degree of cooperation criteria, the Court notes, "This feature does not translate into a requirement that the parents have an amicable relationship, Although such a positive relationship is preferable, a successful joint custody arrangement requires only that the parents be able to isolate their personal h The Honorable Kevin A. Hess CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT HOUSE December 12, 2000 Page 2 conflicts from their roles as parents and that the children be spared whatever resentments and rancor the parents may harbor." Id at 1249 Judge Beck went on to recommend shared custody to trial courts whenever possible and states, "If shares custody proves unworkable because parents cannot agree and seek frequent Court intervention, then the trial court may have to consider withdrawing the shared custody status," Id, Over the years, In Re, Weslev J. K. has been revisited primarily in the context of the fourth criteria, that of communication, In one case, DeNillo v, DeNillo, 369 Pa,Super 363, 535 A.2d 200 (1987), a mother sought an end to a shared custody and primary custody in herself alleging poor communication as the reason. The Court noted, "Through either an inability or unwillingness to communicate and cooperate, young Sam has been enrolled in two different school districts since the beginning of the 1987-1988 school year." The trial court ordered primary custody with the mother and the appellate court agreed, In an interesting descent, however, Judge Beck revisited an area of apparent interest to her. She notes: I recognize that a parent may prefer sole custody, The parent may think it preferable for him or her to have the legal right to make all decisions relating to the child, but the Judge must ask if such an arrangement is best for the child, I also recognize that divorce is usually predicated on disharmony between the parties, and that such disharmony may extend to child rearing. Disharmony alone is not a bar to shared custody if shared custody is in the best interest of the child, The law requires only that the parties be capable of a minimal degree of cooperation, DeNillo v, DeNillo, 538 A.2d at 205, In Hill v, Hill, 422 Pa.Super 533,619 A.2d 1086 (1993), Judge Beck once again wrote the decision, Once again, the Wesl~ standard is enunciated. and with regard to the fourth prong of the Weslev test, the Judge notes: Furthermore, in order to support a decision of shared custody, the court must make a determination that the parties are capable of cooperating, even minimally. We point out that although the trail Judge in this case responded to the litigants sensitively and intelligently, he neglected to make an on the record finding as to whether the parents are able to cooperate, even minimally.., however, no more than a finding of minimal cooperation is required based on the pragmatic realization that no couple, divorced or intact, agrees on every important decision in the upbringing of their children, .1, , 'I ."'~_ ,,,_ "'I The Honorable Kevin A. Hess CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT HOUSE December 12, 2000 Page 3 Minimal cooperation and minimal communication is clearly the standard, although, of course, a higher degree of cooperation and communication would be preferable, Mr. Markley believes that those two factors should not at all be a concern in this case, Given the manner in which Mrs, Markley separated from him, and given the relatively brief period of time since that separation, these parties' communications with each other have been relatively peaceful. Throughout the hearing, both sides related some exchanges at the point of transfer to the children, but none of those exchanges involved raised voices, cursing, loud accusations or the other kinds of sadnesses to which we are used in custody cases, In fact, the parties are cooperating in a better than minimal fashion, Mother wants the daycare provider to be in Mechanicsburg, Father agrees, Mother provides Father some names of daycare centers, and Father visits them, Mother suggests changes in the diets of the older child to alleviate a constipation problem, and Father responds with a good result. What we have here are some people whose disappointment with one another is betrayed in their tone of voice, but not in their ability to care for their children. Finally, Father's proposal for shared custody should alleviate some of the tensions at the point of transfer, The following schedule could be accomplished with the transfer point being at the daycare provider in Mechanicsburg and communication regarding the children could be accomplished by notes and telephone calls in the interim, The schedule Father proposes is as follows: Week one: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday with Father; Friday, Saturday and Sunday with Mother. Week two: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, with Father; Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday with Mother. The days referenced are overnights so that at the end of the second week, Mother would drop children off on Monday morning at the daycare provider and would pick them up again on Friday after work, returning them to daycare the following Monday morning, ".' The Honorable Kevin A. Hess CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT HOUSE December 12, 2000 Page 4 l,-, ,.,.;;, ",. Thank you for the opportunity of providing case law on this narrow issue, If the Court requires any more expanded argument, please let me know. CJUljb cc: Darnell Markley Mary A Dissinger, Esquire Very truly yours, WER & LINDSAY, P,C, ~ :tow faulL ~,Yjjjatter what you ,'ifhhkof the other par- ~fO' ::'or what your fam- f'1IYthibkS of the other party - these children are one half of each of you. ~"Remember that - ;- beGa_l,tSe every time you ~eg your child what an M.-~0~.~9t', hi.s -t~ifi~r -is. or 5'fiat a 'fool' hIs moth- ~-----~:::==------~:_-.~f_ts, or how bad the absent parent IS, or wnat terrible things ;;J!1at person has done, you are telling the ~slirrd.tJjat half of him is bad, ~Tfiar,s an tmfOrgivable thing to do , ' " -(([,,-child, That is not love, That is pos- "Your children have corrie mt6~1S " '~ts~foir.ff you do tlmt to your children, world because of the two of you. Per- you wiH destroy them as surely as if haps you two made lousy choices as you had cut them into pieces, because to whom you decided to be the other that is what you are doing to their emo- " IrarenL If so, that is your prohlem and tions, ...." ~--- -" , ,~r sincerely ngpe thm you do not'cto '(!jat!o your children, Thinbnore about 'your children, and less about your- selves, And make yours a selfless kind "flove, not foolish or selfish, or your _."~ld!en ",illsuffer." ___._ _. ___ . ~ '}' )' . .'. "' .-. --rr-'---"--'_..1.-,,_._~.:. '--~."~~-'~"--' , II ' d I 10 - $~OO " .". /J ,".j '" .'" , f../afl ~e1/e - r ~~ /;",0 CJ !aA11fJ, j11~ ?J~ef l/tlc?t2 11m 01}.f{ /Ii?, aA; '#/'e/Z :?rom /() ~;zs -ct:J I 1-0 //~/~uo r w)II/!/(!,k , I 1AC/f? ~ jJec(/Je5~ lAe.? '~,~ II CU1d 1&7Y;;~9- #Ie/l7o/~Ae l! "',770r,/)//?{).... 01 c7A4e /s/- aJ- H SA//~{/-s'. 'I t7 I I t , il I. 0\ :i " " ",II " 'I' I " I, II II Ii It" I; II " II II I' iI II Ii dm/! PLAINTIff'S EXHIBIT ~ . I" ..~ I'. ," ", :"~: '.' [-; , ",.<."'~ '. j',<, I .,.,.' , / ,- ~ . .'... '-'. "C~ '_0-:, - .' .. .__ "". _~__ _I' ........,1 " 'iW~ '---/ "---"'.... ,-, ......,...' :. ( '. 1 C} _,~.-~..--,.,....;-- - -' 7""-'~~,- -_ - ::-----,".,: - . :"'"",,______'r----r~ -. --:: :-~~-- ~h4fJJELL I ~tl..IJMJjL~Wa. M/JV~ --m{)f5dALEJLI:;7JIAl(;~~!)Tld()E W {Tf( We F&r'-_,~_JiPPtE5 {lEA:K5--.1J;eItPtS - 6fiM1M1L~ , (I, ,J 'EJ;~ r k2~u~~ Nil m 70 ~o E/I:'b{_ __()N --r7JE_~I{YJtfL6J__'": 71Ie1 AR.~ BLALdltiG_----- ______Ji!rJLE__~~a2- EAlA , (:f'T3__lirJTf nl/VI 171 cr R /-fA{f<, !.AJ( fvtO ({C~L' -rYE-Y _HAlE ItPPo oJTIYtEAfi3 ~P1Ef-r wCE.K, : -+ritltlJk W , i I 1- ' "".11 ';" : , - ,- _ .. --, -'., -' 0:. <h';'~1 I)''X/o\) I,~ ~-" . - L.."~ ~ -~~~ ~_, J, .~ "~...,!& " IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA 1'; !: CIVIL ACTION - LAW .. ])AtJl~LU MA-R~ . Plaintiff .. File No. Z-Coo - 3yy I' vs. IN DIVORCE Dtt"KM\:::LL fVlft:RlZlE"/ Defen1ant : : : NOTICE TO RESUME PRIOR SURNAME Notice is hereby given that the Plaintiff/Defendant in the above matter. having been granted a Final Decree in Divorce on the 301'/-1 day of-YIAA'f Zc;:o3 . hereby elects to resume the prior surname of M C'f'Z . and gives this written notice pursuant to th provisions of 54 P.S. S 704. DATE: 0/q (03 resumed COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: : 55. COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND On the qTh day of \.j() ne . Jro3. before me. a Notary Public. personally appeared the above affiant known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within document and acknowledged that he/she executed the foregoing for the purpose therein contained. In Witness Whereof, I have here~nto set my hand and official seal. NOTARIAL SEAL JODY S. SMITH, NOTARY PUBLIC Carlisle Boro, cumberland County My Commission Expires Apnl4, 2005 0.0 cU-f S ,Jrrtc6~ , ' Notary Pvbl~c ;~~~WiiHjil";.;J....&.,"_IiiIl!il1WIillIilH~~4i."-';,b.,.<.;.lt.,,,,",,11;ci,~1"L~ili'!;*~JI~~b~~ ~".. - ,,' J.,~I"",',m... __="",0'.8, >,.~. '" . ~,~~ 'iliI-UMilIl\llirJ- ~__! ~ i'L '- VJ <:>q ~ ~ ~ E3 ..J~,J,~""""",, ~ -- ~......., .cjj c' C<.' Q (.... 2.: '~f' ~""'O\;'i ~':!: -, -, """ ~ /-;~-~. U>"-, ~ ~~~,: Je.... ~ ';t:~'-c<, "'.- -', Sl.... F~ 2 D '" " ;;.. ~ " '""" (::::;;~ ~ - ) ,.f:j'- .~~~ c. ~'" o ~n - r;? -" '{8 _:~~~- ~.~~v, ~S:lr' . ::::::\ 'J;; ::'<: ',)'\ o . o _ "~ " , ,"'. " '0 '.., " '"".;,1 J ,_" -- '".~ .,",. .. DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, PLAINTIFF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V, DARNELL J, MARKLEY, DEFENDANT 00-3477 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this -<J-/...... day of August, 2003, the petition for special relief, IS DENIED. This issues raised therein shall be considered at the custody conciliation conference already scheduled for August 20, 2003. Edgar B. Bayey, , " vC'arol J. Lindsay, Esquire For Plaintiff ....-f'iifciry A. Etter Dissinger, Esquire For Defendant /' L;\~ 'R\\ 5 08 -()'1-(B ~issa Greevy, Esquire Custody Conciliator :sal .. M ,~. JlF',~ o -.l rr'1' , ~i~~- Cfl. .. ::<:;:. ~c- ~~:: 2, --, -'-, --' - "-'''''II~ _'_.~,_ ~~R'''1WW:~'';J;I$PI'~~~1 ,. C. t/) V" ,- .;~:;; o -n --r, ~;:G' :l~ - E;'?; ;~~!~, "5 :~ --P. r;:- \,0 "'~~"-'7'",,, ".~''!" -","",'~' . - ~ SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY A'ITORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A ""~, L. '~~'fXi .-~--~""....--- AUG 0 6 Z003 ~~ "" DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff/Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM vs, DARNELL J, MARKLEY, Defendant/Petitioner : IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND now, this day of , 2003, upon consideration of the attached Petition, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before , the conciliator, at , on the day of, 2003, 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 cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the Court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. For the Court, By: 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 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 II " I: Ii " 1/ ,""'~- SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS.AT.LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A '"" - ],1 ~ L_~ .,_ ,.,,, .. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office, All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the Court, By the Court, Date: J, SAlDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS.AT.LAW 26 w. High Street Carlisle, PA - I L -,~-~~ ~,,~: DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff/Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO, 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM () 0 0 c: w " -u~~ ~ :~ ml"' :...) ~"iF1 Z:)) t c.,-r'""!l 0! ~'~::~ m ~~ ~ . ~:;_~:- !i 2)~ NOW comes DARNELL J, MARKLEY, by and through his ~oonset;: SaiJ;irs, ~:_~ ; ~ Shuff, Flower & Lindsay, and Petitions this Honorable Court as follows: -, co -< vs, DARNELL J, MARKLEY, Defendant/Petitioner IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF 1. The parties hereto are parents of two children, Kareston Eve Markley, born May 8, 1998, and Madison Rose Markley, born October 26, 1999, 2. The parties share custody of their children pursuant to a Court Order of January 9, 2001, A copy of the Court's Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", 3, According to the custodial scheme, Petitioner has custody of the children on alternating weekends from Friday after work until they are returned to daycare the following Tuesday, and in the alternating weeks, from Mondays after work until he returns them to daycare the following Wednesday morning, 4. During their marriage, the parties resided in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, but subsequent to separation and prior to the Court's Order of January 9, 2001, i Respondent relocated to Mechanicsburg, 5. Since Respondent's relocation, the children have been cared for by Joanie Miller, their babysitter since at least March, 2001, 6. The older daughter, Kareston, will be attending kindergarten commencing August, 2003; the younger daughter, Madison, will be starting pre-school at the same time, i Ii " -~" SAID IS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNl::YS'AT'LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA J!/lf' 7, Both Respondent and the children's babysitter reside in the Cumberland Valley School District. However, Respondent has enrolled the children in the Green Ridge Elementary School, while the children's babysitter is in the Hampden Elementary School area, 8, Respondent's enrollment of Kareston in Green Ridge Elementary School was without consultation with Petitioner who shares legal custody, Further, apparently Respondent intends to change the children's daycare provider at a time when they are both starting new schools. 9, The children's babysitter is willing to continue to care for them before and after school. The babysitter is located one mile from Petitioner's employment which facilitates pick up and delivery of the children, and three to four miles from Respondent's home, 10. Upon information and belief, there is no difference in the time required to transport the children from either sitter to their respective elementary schools. 11, Petitioner believes and therefore avers that it is in the children's best interest to remain in the continuous care of Joanie Miller, their daycare provider for at least the last two years, particularly at a time when they are both commencing new school experiences and that there is no compelling reason not to enroll the children in Hampden Elementary School near Joanie Miller's home. 12. On December 7, 2001, Petitioner filed a Petition for Contempt of Petitioner's legal custody rights when respondent unilaterally enrolled Kareston in a preschool program to which Petitioner objected. The matter was resolved in SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS'ATILAW 26 W. High Street Carlisl~. P A L-._>~ . I,j ~...., _H' '"~ conciliation and Order of Court issued on December 12, 2001, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 13, The December 12, 2001 Court Order stated "The parties shall strictlv adhere to the legal custody provisions of the Order of January 9, 2001, and shall consult each other with regard to those decisions which could reasonable be expected to be of concern to either parent. In the event the parties cannot agree, the parties agree to participate in mediation, sharing the cost equally. The mediator, unless otherwise agreed, shall be Arnold T, Shienvold, PhO," 14, Dr. Shienvold is not available until September 2003 to engage in mediation. 15. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that Respondent defies the Court's Order that Petitioner shares legal custody with her by making unilateral decisions regarding their daycare and schooling without consultation with him, WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court to order the parties to maintain Joanie Miller as the children's daycare provider and to enroll Kareston in the kindergarten class at Hampden elementary. SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ::m'lf&C "Otiff ^-",,- SAIDlS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A I, ~&.', VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, hereby verify that the statements made herein are true and correct. 1 understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, C.S. S 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, D''',- ~ ~ ifdf>-- SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS.AT"LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A ~ ,-I~~ " - ~" DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff/Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO, 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant/Petitioner : IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND now, this Lp-lb day of ;i,ol'S,{j./-d , 2003, I, Carol J, Lindsay, Esquire, of the law firm of SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, Attorneys, hereby certify that I served the within PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF this day by depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Mary A. Etter Dissinger, Esquire DISSINGER & DISSINGER 28 North 32nd Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY Attorneys for Plaintiff B~' . o{tlruJ YG Carol J, Lindsay, Es 'uire I D# 44693 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 ~, ~' I," L '- - DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff III IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, 00-3477 CIVIL DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this c;d1 day ofJ anuary, 200 I, following hearing and careful consideration of the testimony adduced, it is ordered and directed that the parties hereto shall share legal custody of their children, Kareston E. Markley born May 8, 1998, and Madison Rose Markley born October 26, 1999, Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercisedjointly with the other parent, to make all major nonemergency decisions affecting the children's general weIl being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion. Each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the children including, but not limited to, school and medical records, To the extent one parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and infornlation of reasonable use to the other parent. Primary physical custody of said children shall be in their mother, Danielle Markley, subject to rights of custody in the father as follows: a. On alternating weekends, as heretofore, from Friday after work until they are returned to day care the following Tuesday, b. On alternating weeks, on Moncbys (heretofore Tuesdavs) from after work until he returns them to day care the following Wdnesday morning, EXHIBIT I ;4<d ,L.......t """'. ""~'1 ~-~', ~ -~, \ J c. At Christmas time, by alternating from year to year the period from noon on December 24tl, to noon on December 25t\ and noon on December 25th to noon on December 26th d, For at least one week in the summer to accommodate vacation, with a like period in the mother, upon sixty days' notice, e, On alternating major holidays as the party shall agree. Nothing in this order shall prohibit the parties from varying or altering the terms hereof by agreement . BY THE COURT, Mary Etter Dissinger, Esquire For the Plaintiff A4- Caroll Lindsay, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm TRUE COpy FROM RECOIl.!D In Te.tirnony whereof, I here unto set my hand rod t stj'i of sa' Court at Carlisle, Pa, ....,..1,..,.. (j LJa..J...,,, . ~..1. , . ,..t. . rolhonotary ~ ,~-- -." DEC~l DANIELkE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, NO. 00-3477 DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY Hess, J. - ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this / :2. 11; day of December, 2001, upon consideration of the attachej:! Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1, This Court's Order of January 9, 2001, shall remain in full force and effect with the following additions: A The parties shall strictly adhere to the legal custody provisions of the Order of January 9, 2001, and shall consult with each other with regard to those decisions which could reasonably be expected to be of concern to either parent. In the event that the parties cannot agree, the parties agree to participate in mediation sharing the cost equally. The mediator, unless otherwise agreed, shall be Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph,D, B, In the event that one or both of the Children would not be attending daycare or preschool as planned, the custodial parent will notify the non- custodial parent of such change in plans. I3Y THE r()URT, /5/ '"in. d . ~, 0/0) Kevin A Hess, J, Dis!: Mary E, Dissinger, E,squire, 28 N, 32"' Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011 Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire, 26 W, High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 EXHIBIT , Q ( I J:) J I :,1 I , , fJ! N~acWj m~ de; J{>>dc'?%L q-v<&~ ~ 2-o} /(); 30 +a~~ tUi4-ekL , 1 , i ! I . . . SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATTORNEYS-AT'LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle. P A 'I ' ;. ,,-1-' ,_" ~---' .~- '~~ . AUG' 06 2003 DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff/Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO, 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM vs. DARNELL J, MARKLEY, DefendanVPetitioner IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND now, this day of , 2003, upon consideration of the attached Petition, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before , the conciliator, at , on the day of , 2003, 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 cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the Court, and to enter into a temporary order, Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. For the Court, By: 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 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 II SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA ,., I , AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 "",,~ ';! The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office, All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the Court, By the Court, J, Date: Ii " , :,1.:1: I ,,-~ , ~ ,_,: , . ~-- DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff/Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO, 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY vs, DARNELL J, MARKLEY, Defendant/Petitioner PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF NOW comes DARNELL J, MARKLEY, by and through his counsel, Saidis, Shuff, Flower & Lindsay, and Petitions this Honorable Court as follows: 1, The parties hereto are parents of two children, Kareston Eve Markley, born May 8, 1998, and Madison Rose Markley, born October 26, 1999. 2. The parties share custody of their children pursuant to a Court Order of January 9, 2001. A copy of the Court's Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", 3, According to the custodial scheme, Petitioner has custody of the children on alternating weekends from Friday after work until they are returned to daycare the following Tuesday, and in the alternating weeks, from Mondays after work until he returns them to daycare the following Wednesday morning. 4, During their marriage, the parties resided in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, but I subsequent to separation and prior to the Court's Order of January 9, 2001, Respondent relocated to Mechanicsburg, 5, Since Respondent's relocation, the children have been cared for by SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER Joanie Miller, their babysitter since at least March, 2001, & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle. P A 6. The older daughter, Kareston, will be attending kindergarten commencing August, 2003; the younger daughter, Madison, will be starting pre-school at the same time. II SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY A'ITORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle. PA j, ,.- J"i T "< II 7, Both Respondent and the children's babysitter reside in the Cumberland Valley School District. However, Respondent has enrolled the children in the Green Ridge Elementary School, while the children's babysitter is in the Hampden Elementary School area, 8, Respondent's enrollment of Kareston in Green Ridge Elementary School was without consultation with Petitioner who shares legal custody, Further, apparently Respondent intends to change the children's daycare provider at a time when they are both starting new schools, 9, The children's babysitter is willing to continue to care for them before and after school. The babysitter is located one mile from Petitioner's employment which facilitates pick up and delivery of the children, and three to four miles from Respondent's home, 10. Upon information and belief, there is no difference in the time required to transport the children from either sitter to their respective elementary schools. 11. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that it is in the children's best interest to remain in the continuous care of Joanie Miller, their daycare provider for at least the last two years, particularly at a time when they are both commencing new school experiences and that there is no compelling reason not to enroll the children in Hampden Elementary School near Joanie Miller's home, 12, On December 7, 2001, Petitioner filed a Petition for Contempt of Petitioner's legal custody rights when respondent unilaterally enrolled Kareston in a preschool program to which Petitioner objected. The matter was resolved in SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 W, High Street Carlisle, PA " 'J , '.,," ~, ' I "I. .^,,-.~' I I J" conciliation and Order of Court issued on December 12, 2001, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", 13. The December 12, 2001 Court Order stated "The parties shall strictlv adhere to the legal custody provisions of the Order of January 9, 2001, and shall consult each other with regard to those decisions which could reasonable be expected to be of concern to either parent. In the event the parties cannot agree, the parties agree to participate in mediation, sharing the cost equally, The mediator, unless otherwise agreed, shall be Arnold T, Shienvold, PhD," 14, Dr. Shienvold is not available until September 2003 to engage in mediation, 15, Petitioner believes and therefore avers that Respondent defies the Court's Order that Petitioner shares legal custody with her by making unilateral decisions regarding their daycare and schooling without consultation with him, WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court to order the parties to maintain Joanie Miller as the children's daycare provider and to enroll Kareston in the kindergarten class at Hampden elementary, By: re II SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A , _~ I < , ,;.' ~ ~, < .'-1' 'J,' - VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, hereby verify that the statements made herein are true and correct I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, C.S, S 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. D,te~~ ~ ~ II SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY AITORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA '."--". '", :1:: . 1 ..J 'I i , . : ~- DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff/Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO, 2000 - 3477 CIVIL TERM DARNELL J, MARKLEY, Defendant/Petitioner : IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND now, this U~b day of ./lA~..v.-O{ ,2003, I, Carol J, Lindsay, Esquire, of the law firm of SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, Attorneys, hereby certify that I served the within PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF this day by depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Mary A. Etter Dissinger, Esquire DISSINGER & DISSINGER 28 North 32nd Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY Attorneys for Plaintiff ~, M.tlvJ Carol J, Lindsay, Es uire 10# 44693 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 'I II I I !h ~..,,-!!!II , ,~ , ,,~ F'II p, '-'~""'C . ""J"r-\.)!-i"!'.,_L_ OF -', ,~ ,,' ., ", . ',' "y - i t"i~: r . :C-': '",U\/) i/Vl 0, '111": -f' ':,"",' il: "l2 v 1-'", 'q U ;_ _ CUt\,;s~~-:~/,;, :-)~!~~i'ny PENNSYL\(.;NIA ......~- --" '-"",,'.'-'"'' , _r_" .. ~144, 1_ , . ~. , ~,' "~ 1,1 "";. -- DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff "" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 00-3477 CIVIL DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this C(CIJ day of January, 2001, following hearing and careful consideration of the testimony adduced, it is ordered and directed that the parties hereto shall share legal custody of their children, Kareston E, Markley born May 8,1998, and Madison Rose Markley born October 26, 1999. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all major nOnemergency decisions affecting the children's general well being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion. Each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to tlle children including, but not limited to, school and medical records. To the extent one parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent Primary physical custody of said children shall be in their mother, Danielle Markley, subject to rights of custody in the father as follows: a. On alternating weekends, as heretofore, from Friday after work until they are returned to day care the following Tuesday. b. On alternating weeks, on Mondays (heretofore Tuesdays) from after work until he returns tllem to day care the following Wednesday morning, EXHIBIT I ;,4' ",.~ '"'' I -,,"",1 ~ ~ -"'" 1 c. At Christmas time, by alternating from year to year the period from noon on December 24th to noon on December 25tl" and noon on December 25th to noon on December 26th, d. For at least one week in the summer to accommodate vacation, with a like period in the mother, upon sixty days' notice. e, On alternating major holidays as the party shall agree, Nothing in this order shall prohibit the parties from varying or altering the terms hereof by agreement, . BY THE COURT, Mary Etter Dissinger, Esquire F or the Plaintiff A4. ) Carol 1. Lindsay, Esquire For the Defendant :r\m TRUE COpy FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof, I hBfe unto set my hand nd t srf' of sa' (ourl atCarlisle, Pa. 'Th' .......1....... a f,..~cuJ.''':/~...1. . . ...t. . rothoootary , "- --.., I' ",.".,,,J -.-,"> " - 1..._:,.> DEe ~1 DANIELI.;E DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO, 00-3477 DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY Hess, J. - ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this J 21 day of December, 2001, upon consideration of the attache!=l Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. This Court's Order of January 9, 2001, shall remain in full force and effect with the following additions: A. The parties shall strictly adhere to the legal custody provisions of the Order of January 9, 2001, and shall consult with each other with regard to those decisions which could reasonably be expected to be of concern to either parent. In the event that the parties cannot agree, the parties agree to partiCipate in mediation sharing the cost equally. The mediator, unless otherwise agreed, shall be Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph,D. 8. In the event that cine or both of the Children would not be attending daycare or preschool as planned, the custodial parent will notify the non- custodial parent of such change in plans. BY THE r()URT, Hess, J, Dist: Mary E, Dissinger, Esquire, 28 N, 32M Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011 Carol J, Lindsay, Esquire, 26 W, High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 ''^; exHIBIT r.":B' ., 'k_."i0;'c!,'i~,c'-~'~"-" ~___(" ., r TRUE COpy FROM REeCt':O In Testimony wher f, I here unto set my hand and t seal of sa' Court RCarlisle, Pa. j .......J.l. ,o~.....u.~,~~:,:. ~t ...., otary~ 5 - lY\ (C> 6.,. V) ~ <:> '" <:> ":?- M ,.,). " ~ '-, J ~ ;5: ~ " ~.~ "" _, Jar.,."'?,_, FiLED--Drl'ICE ~F"" ".- 'J I;~:,..: , r!1~)\~OTARY 03 .:~;,ir; - 5 ,et, t...~ j ;. C' Q ; ~ i I . ,J.... CLH/Ut;";'i..J.'~:" .. -;':i 1',ilY PENi\SYLVANiA . - ~~,~"" ...- ~~"'~.,.. _....,.~l'>:~!l!<Il>.~~lli~~ ~, . -, v_~ "~ toil>;"'ol DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY PLAINTIFF IN TIIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, 00-3477 CIVIL ACTION LAW DARNELL J, MARKLEY DEFENDANT IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday, Augusl 11, 2003 , upon consideration of the attached Complainl, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa P. Greevy, Esq. , the concilialor, at 301 Market Slreet, Lemoyne, PA 17043 on Wednesday, Augusl 20, 2003 at 10:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference, At such conference, an effort will be made 10 resolve lhe issues in dispule; or if this cannot be accomplished, 10 defme and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enler inlo a lemporary order. All children age five or older may also be presenl at the conference. Failure 10 appear al the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanenl order, The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR TIIE COURT, By: Isl Melissa P. Gree'ry, Esq. i. Cuslody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply wilh lhe Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990, For information aboul accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available 10 disabled individuals having business before the court, please conlact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before lhe court, You musl attend lhe scheduled conference or hearing, YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE TIlE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP, Cumberland County Bar Associalion 32 South Bedford Streel Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 II ;;"/01 .(B 1f /a-o.3 l' /.J . t!J3 -~- ,'/)T\Qy rlllt~ f ht;;', ( ,".(. "J) ,;' ,",.;:, t:11'~M'-'(~-r--'-' ,.,' ' -', v.... ~~.t\_ " ;,.' . \, 'I.,~\' .,.J ......' ,_, '..J!r P , r PENNS'(LVANIA'" I w- ~ ~a.c.h;;g q-'~~ ~~~4~ ~ ~'#~'~ _1_lI'JlDfll!.J>...__,~ rill!!ilII''''~)ffi!j'tWl''_~"i',""".'t)l;~l!>1iil'_- _,.'_' "llll'llll!llllll'~HII~!'lIIlI!iItIU'll!"'I!__ '~ -- ~I A~003 DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 2000-3477 DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant/Respondent AND NOW, this hereby ordered and Markley, be allowed to the beginning of ,II Ii IN CUSTODY ORDER day of , 2003, it is directed that Plaintiff/Petitioner, Danielle to change the current daycare provider prior the school year. BY THE COURT: J. I, I ~~olI_!' AUG a 8 2003 DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff/Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 2000-3477 DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant/Respondent IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of , 2003, upon consideration of the attached complaint, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before ____ Melissa P. Greevv, Esquire, the conciliator, at 301 Market Street, Lemovne on the 20th day of Auaust ,2003, at 10:30 a.m., for a Custody Conciliation Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. FOR THE COURT, By: Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For info~mation about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business befo~e the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must by made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business befo~e the court. You must attend scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 4TH FLOOR 1 COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA 17013-3387 717-240-6200 Ii "~ .....'; I' lliil\iiIhllWilB",J DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff/Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 2000-3477 DARNELL M)l,.RKLEY, Defendant/Respondent IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF 1. Plaintiff is Danielle Markley, Mother of the children, residing at 1315 Concord Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant is Darnell Markley, Father of the children, residing at 165 Kerrsville Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Custody of the minor children, Kareston E. Markley and Madison Rose Markley, was awarded as follows: A. Joint legal custody was awarded to Mother and Father. B. By Order of Court dated January 9, 2001, primary physical custody was granted to Mother, with periods of temporary physical custody granted to Father. (See copy of Order attached hereto as Exhibit "A".) C. By Order of Court dated December 12, 2001 (a copy is attached hereto as Exhibit "B"), the parties were ordered to strictly adhere to the legal custody provisions of the January 9, 2001 Order and, in the event that the parties could not agree on decisions relating to legal custody, the parties were ordered to lJ ~' " 101 , ."""""",,-,1 arrange mediation with Dr. Shienvold in order to address the dispute. 4. The oldest child is five (5) years old and will be attending kindergarten this year. 5. Mother lives in the Cumberland Valley School District and within the boundaries of Green Ridge Elementary School. 6. Father lives in the Big Springs School District. 7. The current daycare provider, Joanie Miller, lives in the Cumberland Valley School District, but not within the boundaries of Green Ridge Elementary School. 8. Cumberland Valley School District policy requires the child to attend Green Ridge Elementary School. 9. Father objects to this and insists that the children attend the school where the current daycare provider resides. 10. If Mother tried to enroll the child in the school where the current daycare provider resides, she would not be permitted by virtue of Cumberland Valley School District policy. 11. Mother would like the child to attend the school where she resides and change the daycare provider. 12. Cumberland Valley School District would require her to petition the superintendent for special permission to enroll the child in a school where the child does not reside. 13. While the current daycare provider is only one-quarter of a mile from Mother's residence, her address does not fall within the boundaries for Green Ridge Elementary School and Green Ridge II Elementary School is unable to provide transportation to the current daycare provider. 14. Mother has proposed to Father that the daycare provider be changed to Small Frye's daycare, which is within the boundaries of Green Ridge Elementary and the child would be bused to daycare after school. This location is less than one-quarter mile from Mother's residence and less than one-quarter mile from Father's work. 15. Father has refused to consent to a change in the daycare provider. 16. Father's objection is not that it is not in the best interest of the children to change daycare providers, rather, the objection is that the new proposed daycare provider lives on the same street as Mother's parents. 17. As per the December 12, 2001 Order of Court, the parties have arranged for a mediation session with Dr. Shienvold. Unfortunately, said mediation could not be scheduled until after the school year has begun. 18. Mother cannot afford to take time off from work to transport the child to the current daycare provider after school. 19. Mother asks for special relief from the Court allowing her to change daycare providers prior to the beginning of the school year and files this petition so as not to infringe on the legal I. custody rights of Father. I: WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Petitioner respectfully requests that an Order be entered allowing her to change the current daycare provider prior to the beginning of the school year and, in the II alternative, schedule a conciliation conference with Melissa P. Greevy for August 20, 2003 at 10:30 am (Ms. Greevy is holding this date and time for this matter, should it be necessary) . . Respectfully Submitted: DISSINGER AND DISSINGER By: ~a~,-' Mary A. Etter Dissinger Attorney for Petitioner Supreme Court I.D. #27736 28 N. 32nd Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-2840 f~ VERIFICATION I, Danielle Markley, verify that the statements made in the petition for Special Relief are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. II .--~. intiffjPetitioner .- I ; J I __li>2C.i " DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, 00-3477 CIVIL DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this crdJ day of January, 2001, following hearing and careful consideration of the lestimony adduced, it is ordered and directed that lhe parties hereto shall share legal custody of their children, Kareston E. Markley born May 8, 1998, and Madison Rose Markley born October 26, 1999, Each parent shall have an equal right, 10 be exercised joinlly with the other parent, to make all major nonemergency decisions affecting the children's general well being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding lheir health, education and religion, Each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the children including, but not limited 10, school and medical records, To the extent one parent has possession of any such records or information, lhat parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent ,vithin such reasonable time as to make the records and information ofreasonable use to the other parent. Primary physical custody of said children shall be in their mother, Danielle Markley, subject to righls of custody in the father as follows: a. On alternating weekends, as heretofore, from Friday after work until lhey are returned to day cate the following Tuesday, b. On alternating weeks, on Mondays (heretofore Tuesdays) from after work until he returns them to day care the following Wednesday morning. " . D D S EXHIBIT itA" ......__'O~ .-.,~ Ii '^'M"",,,,,,j ->" ' - . -, c, At Chrislmas time, by alternating from year to year the period from noon on December 24th 10 noon on December 25th, and noon on December 25th to noon on December 26th d. For at least one week in lhe summer 10 accommodate vacation, with a like period in lhe mother, upon sixly days' notice, e, On alternating major holidays as t;l~ pr.'lY shall agree, Nothing in lhis order shall prohibit the parties from varying or altering the lerms hereof by agreement. BY THE COURT, Mary Etter Dissinger, Esquire For the Plainliff AJi Carol 1. Lindsay, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Te.timany whereof, I here unto sst my hand and i"e seal of 'Id Court at Carlisle, Pa. ....9....., ,dOl Of./IQ.,.J"'4J,Q.. ,. "'T rothonotary -, , ' ~ - ~-i 1 iJE'C ~01 DANIELkE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff vs, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO, 00-3477 DARNELL J. MARKLEY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY Hess, J. - ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this J 2. ~ day of December, 2001, upon consideration of the attache9 Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. This Court's Order of January 9, 2001, shall remain in full force and effect with the following additions: A. The parties shall strictly adhere to the legal custody provisions of the Order of January 9, 2001, and shall consult with each other with regard to those decisions which could reasonably be expected to be of concern to either parent. In the event that the parties cannot agree, the parties agree to participate in mediation sharing the cost equally, The mediator, unless otherwise agreed, shall be Arnold T, Shienvold, Ph.D. B. In the event that one or both of the Children would not be attending daycare or preschool as planned, the custodial parent will notify the non- custodial parent of such change in plans, BY THE COURT, 151~"";" l-L^J Kevi A. Hess, J. Dist: Mary E. Dissinger, Esquire, 28 N. 320' Slreel, Camp Hill, PA 17011 Carol J, Lindsay, Esquire, 26 W, Hi9h Streel, Carlisle, PA 17013 EXHIBIT TRUE COPy/ FROM RK...'!''i In Teslimony whereof, I hNe I",te ' ~;Jnd on~ t e seal o~said ourt narlis~e, Pa, Thl ....,.1..2...... " .".. .e.e..:..:,.. .....~' u. .. . .. .,ou ~ .... ___ prothonotary il liB" " " 3 I.~" ~ , ."'~ " -~~~'""~~,,,,,,,,"-,"i DANIELLE MARKLEY, Plaintiff/Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 2000-3477 DARNELL MARKLEY, Defendant/Respondent IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary A. Etter Dissinger, Esquire, hereby certify that on the date set forth below I served a true and correct copy of the Petition for Special Relief upon the attorney for Defendant, Darnell Markley, by First Class United States mail addressed as follows: Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire Flower, Flower & Lindsay 11 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: ~)3 . '--- ~Tra~.~. rffiL--- Mary A. Etter Dissinger, Es uire 'I ~~~iiJj:i!.1t!IY~fftt$i~!M1iM'clim1ilihf'~\':Ui!',~!Wt~)!"'l:Bi,",-Jil~iiil;:'~".$;i;r;li>;,1;k1!~1ill!!l:l'I~~]~'~1/;- >- LT.: t:S. L,uG-2 (') ~,,:,,~ w.'.::' '--L--1. (-) ~;.:: 8H~ r7:.:I:!.l f.::': l.L. o >- () t~c~ 0 ~ '<iE Q 0- :.2 . ::\J: \J) ;'j*~~~ :~\~ ~'1- ~ <.J ,~ 5 CI U) c" CO I (,2:: ~'.: C""~ (::1 "c:::P \i~ cJ <=> do:;::. -:::r C' ,- ~ ~ ~ -l~ "'~"'~~iil' .~, i JiUoil-.: /~ ~ .6 .AVl 9/d5 03 ~ Plaintiff AUG~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO, 00-3477 CIVIL TERM DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, v, CIVIL ACTION - LAW DARNELL J, MARKLEY, IN CUSTODY Defendant ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of August, 2003, it appearing that the parties are in need of a hearing, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. A hearing is scheduled in Courtroom Number _ of the Cumberland County Courthouse, on the day of , 2003, at o'clock _,M., at which time testimony will be taken. For the purposes of the hearing, the Mother, Danielle Dee Markley, shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony, Counsel for the parties or the parties pro se shall file with the Court and opposing counsel/party 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, These memoranda shall be filed at least ten days prior to the hearing date, BY THE COURT: v J. Dist: Mary A Etter Dissinger, Esquire, 28 N, 32"' Slreel, Camp Hill, PA 17011 Carol J, Lindsay, Esquire, 26 W, High Slreel, Carlisle, PA 17013 ~~ j i -.-,.1 ~ Plaintiff AUG 2 1 2003 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-3477 CIVIL TERM DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, v, CIVIL ACTION - LAW DARNELL J, MARKLEY, IN CUSTODY Defendant CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF Kareston E. Markley May 8, 1998 Madison Rose Markley October 26, 1999 Mother Mother 2. Mother filed a Petition for Special Relief on August 8, 2003 seeking an Order allowing her to change the current daycare provider for the parties' children, A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on August 20, 2003, Present for the conference were: the Mother, Danielle Dee Markley, and her counsel, Mary A Etter Dissinger, Esquire; the Father, Darnell J, Markley, and his counsel, Carol J, Lindsay, Esquire. 3. Mother's position on custody is as follows: Mother filed a Petition to obtain an Order allowing her to change the daycare provider for the children, She presently resides within the geographic boundary where the oldest child would attend Green Ridge Elementary School. However, the daycare provider that they have used for the past two (2) years resides in the geographic area of the Hampden Elementary School. Neither parent is able to provide the transportation after the morning Kindergarten session to the daycare provider. Additionally, Mother is unhappy with the daycare provider because she claims that the parties' five (5) year old daughter has told her that the daycare provider has required children who do not eat their lunch to eat their lunch for breakfast the following day and that this caused a child to vomit. Additionally, the Mother reports that she has observed the daycare provider ridicule a child who had a toileting accident. She was also disappointed that the daycare provider told the children that she would miss them and inquired whether they did not want to go to school with two other children, Mother viewed this as the daycare provider interfering with her role as parent. . ~ NO, 00-3477 CIVIL TERM 4, Father's position on custody is as follows: Father does not want to change the daycare provider because he is happy with her services and is unhappy with continued changing of caregivers for the parties' children, Father says that Mother has moved four (4) times in five (5) years and has had four (4) different daycare providers, He believes that at a time when Kareston is making adjustments to the beginning of Kindergarten, it is a bad time to also make a change in daycare provider. Father complains that Mother makes unilateral decisions without his input. Father has not visited with the proposed new provider, Father's preference is to allow the children to attend Hampden Elementary School which would be in the same geographic locale as the daycare provider and would allow the family to rely on the School District to provide transportation, Father resides in the Big Springs School District. However, he is not seeking to have the children enrolled in the school district of his residence, 5, Both parties acknowledge that there are control issues underlying the difficulties they have in making a decision in this case, They had agreed to use mediation services of Dr. Shienvold to address these type of issues, A meeting had been scheduled for August 18, 2003, However Mother canceled the appointment because she had another appointment scheduled that day, Unfortunately, Dr, Shienvold is not able to meet with these parties prior to the start of school on August 27, 2003, Accordingly, the parties are in need of a hearing which we estimate will require approximately two (2) hours of the Court's time, The prior Judge in the custody matter had been Judge Hess, However, Judge Bayley signed the most recent Order denying the Petition for S .al Relief on August 7,2003. ate elissa Peel Greevy, Esquire Custody Conciliator f/U/j3 :217444 0NS:: )>00)> S::Z;;o "Uc..,-< IN?> rZm ,0-1 . en-l "U)> -I m ;;0;;0 ....mO --Jm_ O-len .... en .... - Z (j) m ;0 m en o c: ;;0 m ! o z m CJCJ 5;0 rC -:rJ en..., r:I: !"O 'tiC l>en ~m "en 510 wc l> :rJ m 8g c;;: ~m l>:rJ os;: ~z Zo UiCJ ""0 :rJc ~z 0:< :rJ I, ;:': ~""",J AUG 2 1 ZOD3 DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO, 00-3477 CIVIL TERM v, CIVIL ACTION - LAW DARNELL J, MARKLEY, IN CUSTODY Defendant ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of August, 2003, it appearing that the parties are in need of a hearing, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1, A hearing is scheduled in Courtroom Number _ of the Cumberland County Courthouse, on the day of , 2003, at o'clock _,M" at which time testimony will be taken, For the purposes of the hearing, the Mother, Danielle Dee Markley, shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony, Counsel for the parties or the parties pro se shall file with the Court and opposing counsel/party 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, These memoranda shall be filed at least ten days prior to the hearing date. BY THE COURT: J. Dist: Mary A. Etter Dissinger, Esquire, 28 N. 320d Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011 Carol J, Lindsay, Esquire, 26 W. High Slreel, Carlisle, PA 17013 ,',' cu . 'M" _" ,'~ >J -.-" ~ '. .., - '--,-" '~. i"fu.i # DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO, 00-3477 CIVIL TERM v, CIVIL ACTION - LAW DARNELL J, MARKLEY, IN CUSTODY Defendant CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1, The pertinent information concerning the children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF Kareston E. Markley May 8, 1998 Madison Rose Markley October 26,1999 Mother Mother 2, Mother filed a Petition for Special Relief on August 8, 2003 seeking an Order allowing her to change the current daycare provider for the parties' children, A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on August 20, 2003, Present for the conference were: the Mother, Danielle Dee Markley, and her counsel, Mary A. Etter Dissinger, Esquire; the Father, Darnell J. Markley, and his counsel, Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire. 3, Mother's position on custody is as follows: Mother filed a Petition to obtain an Order allowing her to change the daycare provider for the children. She presently resides within the geographic boundary where the oldest child would attend Green Ridge Elementary School. However, the daycare provider that they have used for the past two (2) years resides in the geographic area of the Hampden Elementary School. Neither parent is able to provide the transportation after the morning Kindergarten session to the daycare provider, Additionally, Mother is unhappy with the daycare provider because she claims that the parties' five (5) year old daughter has told her that the daycare provider has required children who do not eat their lunch to eat their lunch for breakfast the following day and that this caused a child to vomit. Additionally, the Mother reports that she has observed the daycare provider ridicule a child who had a toileting accident. She was also disappointed that the daycare provider told the children that she would miss them and inquired whether they did not want to go to school with two other children, Mother viewed this as the daycare provider interfering with her role as parent. >>-_.~ ~ I ~~ ""~,I ~ , I NO, 00-3477 CIVIL TERM 4, Father's position on custody is as follows: Father does not want to change the daycare provider because he is happy with her services and is unhappy with continued changing of caregivers for the parties' children, Father says that Mother has moved four (4) times in five (5) years and has had four (4) different daycare providers, He believes that at a time when Kareston is making adjustments to the beginning of Kindergarten, it is a bad time to also make a change in daycare provider, Father complains that Mother makes unilateral decisions without his input. Father has not visited with the proposed new provider, Father's preference is to allow the children to attend Hampden Elementary School which would be in the same geographic locale as the daycare provider and would allow the family to rely on the School District to provide transportation, Father resides in the Big Springs School District. However, he is not seeking to have the children enrolled in the school district of his residence, 5, Both parties acknowledge that there are control issues underlying the difficulties they have in making a decision in this case, They had agreed to use mediation services of Dr, Shienvold to address these type of issues, A meeting had been scheduled for August 18, 2003, However Mother canceled the appointment because she had another appointment scheduled that day, Unfortunately, Dr. Shienvold is not able to meet with these parties prior to the start of school on August 27, 2003, Accordingly, the parties are in need of a hearing which we estimate will require approximately two (2) hours of the Court's time, The prior Judge in the custody matter had been Judge Hess, However, Judge Bayley signed the most recent Order denying the Petition for S 'al Relief on August 7, 2003, ate elissa Peel Greevy, Esquire Custody Conciliator 7/uM3 :217444 - " "'-"'.,<,- Plaintiff AUG 2 1 2003 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-3477 CIVIL TERM DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW DARNELL J, MARKLEY, IN CUSTODY Defendant ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of August, 2003, it appearing that the parties are in need of a hearing, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1, A hearing is scheduled in Courtroom Number _ of the Cumberland County Courthouse, on the day of , 2003, at o'clock _,M" at which time testimony will be taken, For the purposes of the hearing, the Mother, Danielle Dee Markley, shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony, Counsel for the parties or the parties pro se shall file with the Court and opposing counsel/party 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, These memoranda shall be filed at least ten days prior to the hearing date, BY THE COURT: J. Dist: Mary A, Etter Dissinger, Esquire. 28 N, 320d Slreel, Camp Hill, PA 17011 Caroi J, lindsay, Esquire, 26 W, High Slreel, Carlisie, PA 17013 , ~ ,-,.- "" __ '~, I '''' c "",~~, "_t.,,"" '0' io';__, " ~_ ~.j~1 j DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO, 00-3477 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW DARNELL J. MARKLEY, IN CUSTODY Defendant CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF Kareston E. Markley May 8, 1998 Madison Rose Markley October 26,1999 Mother Mother 2. Mother filed a Petition for Special Relief on August 8, 2003 seeking an Order allowing her to change the current daycare provider for the parties' children, A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on August 20, 2003, Present for the conference were: the Mother, Danielle Dee Markley, and her counsel, Mary A. Etter Dissinger, Esquire; the Father, Darnell J. Markley, and his counsel, Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire. 3, Mother's position on custody is as follows: Mother filed a Petition to obtain an Order allowing her to change the daycare provider for the children, She presently resides within the geographic boundary where the oldest child would attend Green Ridge Elementary School. However, the daycare provider that they have used for the past two (2) years resides in the geographic area of the Hampden Elementary School. Neither parent is able to provide the transportation after the morning Kindergarten session to the daycare provider. Additionally, Mother is unhappy with the daycare provider because she claims that the parties' five (5) year old daughter has told her that the daycare provider has required children who do not eat their lunch to eat their lunch for breakfast the following day and that this caused a child to vomit. Additionally, the Mother reports that she has observed the daycare provider ridicule a child who had a toileting accident. She was also disappointed that the daycare provider told the children that she would miss them and inquired whether they did not want to go to school with two other children. Mother viewed this as the daycare provider interfering with her role as parent. - ~'-;::'!f)': ()r-:>() )>C>>)> ;lJ~;lJ r, 0 Cii:cr r-t.. m G), - :c r 'UC/lZ )>-10 ;lJC/l ~m)> -Jm-< 0-1- ~ m '" C/l o C ;lJ m s1).~~':.f,@)}>~'.;:if0@!fS.'~':};;,:~~>;);rfg;'l:fC.:J;' ~ -:~';_!_':';,,:,, ",..,l.'..".'.',., ' .'1 ,'-'_1 . o ffi 00 ()() Oc c;:: ;~\~~ .mo ~z :"'DC ~o )>(J) ala .....m -10 -....l(/) :Dc go ~z "'~ 51::;! :D m j' , ,- Ii "Jj!it;'t3'A'1t!;~g;;;::ltl;i;~~?-tb0,~0:r2~~I~?":S;1~~?%1~1f;W;t~:;~:i'Atf;:f'1t~.1:~~ DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, PLAINTIFF v, DARNELL J, MARKLEY, DEFENDANT AND NOW, this ~ : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : 00-3477 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT day of August, 2003, a hearing as needed following the filing of the custody conciliation report attached hereto will be conducted in Courtroom Number 2, Cumberlfnd County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, at 11 :00 \ a,m" Monday, August 25, 2003.1 J / ~arol J, Lindsay, Esquire For Plaintiff Aary A. Etter Dissinger, Esquire For Defendant :sal ~" 7~ R}{s 08/20/2003 16:10 FAX 717 761 3015 JDS&W 141002 , . DANIELL!:: DEE MARKLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff NO. 00-3477 CIVIL TERM v, CIVIL ACTION - LAW DARNELL J. MARKLEY, IN CUSTODY Defendant 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 c.oncerning the children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF B1RTH CURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF Kareston E Markley M:'lY R, Hl!ifl Madison Rose Marklev October 26,1999 MothAr Mother 2. Mother filed a Petition for Special Relief on August 8, 2003 seeking an Order allowinq her to chanQe ttle current daycare provider for the parties' children. A CustodY Conciliation Conference was held on August 20, 2003. Present for the conference were: the Mother, Danielle Dee Markley, and her counsl}l, Mary A, Etter Dissinger, Esquire; the Father, Darnell J. Markley, and his counsel, Carol J Lindsay, Esquire. 3. Mother's position on custody is as follows: Mother filed a Petition to obtain an Order allowing her to ch~lnge the daycare provider for the children. She presently resides within ,the geographic houndary where the oldest child would attend Green Ridge Elementary School. However, the daycare provider that they have used for tile past two (2) years resides In the geographic area of the Hampden Elementary School. Neither parent is able to provide the transportation after the morning Kindergarten session to the daycare provider, Additionally, Mother is unhappy with the (Iaycare provider because she claims that the parties' five (5) year old daughter has told her that the daycare provider has required children who do not eat their lunch to eat their lunch for breakfast the following day and that this caused a child to vomil. Aduiliollcllly, lht;: Mull!t;:1 It;:fJull:; lhol:;lit;: ho:; UU:;t;:IVt;:U lhe daycare provider ridicule a child who had a toileting accident. She was also disappointed that the daycare provider told the children that shE! would miss them and inquired whether they did not want to go to school with two other children_ Mother viewed this as the daycare provider interfering with her role as parent. ," .' ..1, 08/20/2003 16:10 FAX 717 761 3015 JDS&W 141003 ,;("" --. , NO, 00':'1477 CIVIL TERM 4, Father's position on custody Is as follows: I"ather dO<1lS f1ul want to change the daycare provider becausEl he is happy with her sf3rvices and is unhappy with continued changing of caregivers for the parties' children. Father says that Mother has moved four (4) times in five (5) yCi!:lrG and has had four (4) differen1 daycare providers, He hAliAves that at a time when Kareston is making adjustments to the beginning of Kindergarten, it is a bad time to also maKe a change in daycare provider. Father complains that Mother maKes unilateral decisions withc.ut his input. Father has not visited with the proposed new provider, Father's preference is to allow the childrell to attend Hampden Elementary School which would be in tho sarna geographic locale as the daycare provirlflr Ann would allow the family to rely on the School District to provide transportation. Father resides in the Big Springs School District, However, he is nol lS~ekillg to have the children enrolled in the school district of his residE'nce, 5. Both partiall acknowledge that there are control il'il'ilJAll underlying the difficulties they have in making a decision in this case. They had agreed to use mediation services of Dr. Shienvold to address these type of issues. A IIIl:!eling had been scheduled for August 18, 2003, However Mother canceled tho appointment because she had another appointment scheduled that day. Unfortunately, Dr. Shienvold is not able to meet with these parties ,prior to the start of school on August 27, 2003. Accordingly, the parties are in nflAn of a he'aring which we eslimate will require approxilnately two (2) hours of the Court's time. The prior Judge In the custody matter h.llJ l.J~~1I Juu!J~ Hess. However, Judge Bayley siQned the most recent Order denying the Petition for S 'al Relief on August 7,2003. 1/U/;)"J ~ate ~ eli::;lS<:l PI:lI:!I Gre~vy, 'squire Custody Conciliator :217444 ",' DANIELLE DEE MARKLEY, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DARNELL J, MARKLEY, DEFENDANT AND NOW, this 00-3477 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT ~ day of August, 2003, IT IS ORDERED that Kareston F, Markley and Madison Rose Markley shall attend Green Ridge Elementary School and go to daycare at Small Frye's, Carol J, Lindsay, Esquire For Plaintiff Mary A. Etter Dissinger, Esquire For Defendant / ~ ~ If',H,o3 ~q :sal >. <::> r:= ~ &; l-' z llJQ N ::::> C)~:. ~ 8i ij:~".; -- Ff~" "- Q'~ -r'c ,-j ..,,>= C.)C:: u") tJ..!C_ cv 5~ tt'~"H ~ '0-2 'tf1w t::: - ~o.. """ t.,. <'':l ::S 0 C.::4 U ii!lI :~J~ ED~{)fFiCE "'r- "'1 '10' ~"-"'''''''-1 ''-''- /"\',_ Any lJr ! r':I' !'- ~~ -. (\..1.\:) !.hh 0, ':, l/,t' 2'~ t/ !{.,J.z ...; PN 2: 31 CI/MUi,CCr;.i 4,'1". 'Y"J'\1T\1 U ULilt,..,j "J ~Lj ~,~~ J" I 1 PeNNSYLVANIA ,'~- ,.""," ~ l"""~ ,-,C. ~._~- ,."-" -'~ ., ~",-' \fIIfiI!I!'[-~If~l ,~! 1;~~ "'''''"r " r L ~~~