HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-03980
a
u
L?
ci
c r. ?
4.?
t
(a .
7
I.
1 '"l
it f!1 ??
r?
L?
S
J
J
Y
C
J
O
n
z Oz fW -C_
R:3 Wz
J H
a
W0
Y o < z u?l
(d tl1 cc Z
i r Z Z
W
J z w
=
J o 2 4
W a a a V
3 Y O = It
V _
? < ^G
U
a
x
w'6 ii'-i ? ? kif .. Y' Wti'..i
r a
4wo
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Vs. : No. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ORDER
AND NOW, this N Ill day of , 1999, upon consideration of
the attached Petition for Special Relief, a conference thereon is hereby scheduled to
occur, in Chambers, on July _A_, 1999, at /0 :.M o'clock A&t.
Counsel for Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order upon Andrea Jacobson, Esquire,
attorney for Defendantro--a 't- 4. -
BY THE COURT:
J.
480-1
.1. 1S-9iC
co L,rs
tom,' 4
•[;,) •
N '
93 8
F
CI a1..1 L...t„y 1
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. : No. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of
1999, upon
consideration of the attached Petition for Special Relief, and, in view of the consent of
the natural Father, it is hereby ordered and decreed that the week of vacation during
which Father shall have his minor son shalt, instead, be spent in the temporary physical
custody of Richard Collins and Martha Collins, for the purpose of a family vacation trip
to Castile, New York.
BY THE COURT:
J.
480-1
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff
VS.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: No. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF
AND NOW, comes the Petitioner, Steven R. Shepley, by his attorney, Carl G.
Wass, Esquire, and petitions as follows:
On December 8, 1997, the parties agreed to the entry of an Order of
Court regarding the custody of their minor son, Drew Shepley, born September 17,
1995, presently 3 years and 10 months of age. A copy of the Order of Court entered by
the Honorable George E. Hoffer, Judge, is attached hereto, identified as Exhibit A. and
incorporated herein by reference.
2. Paragraph 4 of the Order provides that Drew is to be with his mother on
Mothers Day and with his father on Father's Day. On Mothers Day, 1999, the
Defendant (Mother) declined to have her son with her, yet, on Father's Day, 1999, the
Defendant (Mother) refused to permit the Plaintiff (Father) to have his son for that
designated day.
3. Paragraph 7 of the Order provides that "Each parent shall have the right
of exercising up to two weeks' vacation time with the child each year." Father has
contacted Mother for the purpose of designating the period of time from Friday. July 30,
through Sunday. August 8, as one of those weeks upon which he wishes to have a
vacation with his son.
4. The aforementioned week of vacation, in fact, is not a week when Father
will spend the entire period of time with his son; instead, Father's "parents", Richard and
Martha Collins, have arranged a vacation trip for the purpose of visiting family of
Richard Collins in western New York Sate, specifically, Castile, New York.
5. Father is satisfied that his parents shall have the benefit of one of Father's
vacation weeks so that his son may spend time with his grandparents and also learn to
know other members of the family of Father.
6. Father and Martha Collins have communicated with the Defendant for the
purpose of arranging the aforementioned vacation week; however, the Defendant has
refused and continues to refuse to permit the requested and desired vacation week to
occur.
WHEREFORE. Petitioner/Plaintiff/Father, prays Your Honorable Court enter an
Order directing the Defendant to permit one of the weeks of vacation to which Plaintiff is
entitled with his minor child to be spent in the company of Plaintiffs parent, Richard and
Martha Collins.
Date; )5& Not_
480-1
Respectfully submitted,
CALDWELL & KEARNS
BV
Carl G. Wass, Ek?jire
3631 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 232-7661
I.D. !07268
Attorney for Plaintiff
;x,
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, CIVIL ACTION -LAW
Defendant
IN RE: CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, December 8, 1997, the parties having appeared for hearing with
their respective counsel, and having reached an agreement, it is ordered as
follows:
1. The parties shall share legal and physical custody of their son, Drew
Shepley.
2. Actual physical custody of the child shall be according to the schedule
set in the Order of this Court of September 22, 1997.
3. The parties shall alternate holidays with the child as follows: Easter
Sunday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving, with
Mother to have Easter Sunday 1998. In alternate years Mother shall enjoy
Thanksgiving holiday from Wednesday before Thanksgiving through Sunday after
Thanksgiving and then through her normal custody period. In alternate years,
Father shall enjoy Thanksgiving holiday through 2:00 p.m. on Friday after
Thanksgiving when custody shall be transferred in Williamsport, PA or in such
other place as the parties may mutually agree.
4. The child shall spend Mother's Day with Mother each year and Father's
Day with Father each year.
5. Drew shall be in the custody of the parent entitled to custody under the
normal schedule for his birthday each year. The parent not in custody shall have
the opportunity to a two (2) hour visit with Drew during the day for the purpose of
a birthday visit.
6. The parties agree that Christmas Eve and Christmas Day shall be divided
into two segments, the first segment beginning at 3:00 p.m. Christmas Eve and
continuing through 9:30 a.m. Christmas morning. The second segment shall begin
at 9:30 a.m. Christmas morning and continue through 3:00 p.m. December 26.
The parties shall alternate custody, with Mother enjoying the first segment in 1997
and Father enjoying the second.
7. Each parent shall have the right of exercising up to two weeks vacation
time with the child each year. Until Drew is in school, such visitation may be
exercised at any time during the year, and when in school, during his school break,
upon thirty days advance notice to the other party. Such visitation may be enjoyed
by the parent or by the grandparents during the time designated for the parent's
visitation. In the event that both parties advise the other of their intention to
exercise extended visitation on the same dates, the party being first to give notice
shall be entitled to the requested time.
8. The holiday and extended visitation provided for above shall take
precedence over the normal shared custody schedule, except that neither parry
may schedule his or her visitation over the other party's assigned holiday without
mutual agreement.
9. If the party having physical custody of Drew requires a babysitter, she or
he shall first contact the other party for the purpose of having that other party serve
as babysitter before contacting any third party.
10. The party who is to begin his or her period of custodial time with the
child shall be responsible to pick-up the child from the other party.
J.
Carl G. Wass, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire
For the Defendant
By the Court,
?I?:7f?La??L•?1
I, STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, verify that the averments made in this Petition 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
unswom falsification to authorities.
Date: 'I-t3-411
-s-ti. 6?-
Steven R. pley
483-1
L
w
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, : CIVIL ACTION -
DEFENDANT : CUSTODY/VISITATION
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this - day of
1999, upon presentation and
consideration of Defendant's Answer to Plaintiffs Petition for Special Relief, it is
HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs Petition for Special Relief is
Denied.
By the Court:
J.
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
PIAINTIFF
V.
MICHELE A. SHEPL E %
DEFENDANT
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CLIAIBERL AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO.97-3980 CIVIL TERM
: CIVIL ACTION -
: CUS OMAISITATLON
COMES NOW, defendant MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, herein, "Mother," by and
through her attorney, Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esq., JACOBSEN & MILKES, and answers
plaintiff (Father)'s Petition for Special Relief as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Denied insofar as the averment purports to characterize Paragraph a
of the Order, as the document speaks for itself.
Denied that Mother "declined" to have her son with her on Mother's
Day 1999. Rather it is averred that on Mother's Day, mother had
agreed to assist at a charitable function for part of the day and
offered Father the opportunity to have Drew for part of the Day to
spend with his father and grandmother, while she was busy. It is
further averred that more than a week prior to Father's Day, Mother
asked Father if he wished to have visitation for the holiday, and if so
to let her know so she could make plans. In prior years Father had
not exercised visitation on Father's Day, and when Father did not
advise her that he wished to exercise visitation, she made other
plans. When Father finally did contact her late Saturday evening, she
declined to change those plans.
3. Denied insofar as the averment purports to characterize Paragraph 7
of the Order, as the document speaks for itself.
Denied that Father has contacted Mother for the purpose of
designating the period of time from Friday, July 30, through Sunday,
August 8, as one of those weeks upon which he wishes to have a
vacation with his son. Rather it is averred that Father notified
Mother by letter dated 6-31-99 (sic) and postmarked July 6, 1999,
that he would like to have Drew for vacation from "August 1, 1999
through August T' 1999."
By way of further response, it is averred that Mother was contacted
by plaintiffs mother, Drew's paternal grandmother, on July 6, 1999,
and advised that she wished to take Drew on a trip to New York State
in August.
4. Denied. Mother is without sufficient basis upon which to determine
the truth of the averment, and it is therefore denied.
S. Denied. Mother is without sufficient basis upon which to determine
the truth of the averment, and it is therefore denied.
6. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Father and Martha Collins have
communicated with Mother for the purpose of requesting %isitation
in August. It is admitted that Mother has not agreed to the vacation
period designated by Father and Martha Collins.
New Matter
By way of further response, it is averred as follows:
7. Paragraph 7 of the December 8, 1997 Order of Court setting custody
and visitation rights with regard to the son of the parties provides that
each party wishing to exercise vacation visitation may do so upon
"thirty days advance notice to the other party."
8. Father has not provided Mother with thirty days advance notice of his
intention to exercise visitation for the requested period.
9. Mother has longstanding plans for the time period during which Father
and Martha Collins have requested visitation. These plans include a
visit from Mother's great aunt who is coming up from Florida. Mother
had already arranged to take off work on August 3` to take her son and
her great aunt to Hershey Park. Mother had purchased tickets for the
day in June, prior to receiving any request for visitation from Father and
Martha Collins.
10. Mother has also known since late Spring that her father's family
reunion was scheduled for the weekend of August 81h, and she had
made arrangements to leave work early on August 81h to attend the
reunion which is held in Tioga County, PA.
11. Mother's plans for the first week of August were made for the period of
time of her regular custody of Drew, and were scheduled around
Father's custody time with Drew. They did not require advance notice
of the plans to father.
12. In the past, Mother has duly provided advance notice to Father of her
vacation plans so he would be able to schedule around them.
13. In the past, Mother has allowed Father to exercise vacation %isitation on
less than thirty days advance notice, when she has not had conflicting
plans.
14. Mother does not object to Father or Martha Collins exercising vacation
%isitation with Drew in accordance with the custody order later in
August upon due notice.
IS. Mother objects to re%ising her plans, or missing out on her family
ha%ing time with Drew, to accommodate Father's family when Father
has failed to pro%ide her with the requisite notice.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
deny Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief.
Respectfully submitted,
----- Andrea--------C.-- J ----arobscn----,--Esq-------
B1': .
JACOt SLN & MILKES
32 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone: (717) 2-19-G427
Far. (717) 249-8427
Attorney No. 20972
JUL-26-99 MON 1243 CL CAMPHILL FAX NO. 7176125027 P.06
n? •x. 1:4"'4 IA:.17 1FYidef.N Y• M11Yt._+ 'i17 2.19 NQ%' r. 1i..
•
I herPhy venfy that the statements cnade in the foregoing arc true
and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to
the penalties of 18 Va.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to
al lthoritles.
i
udte: 0IMPOY
N CHE A L
ti
' Tr}trtt. P.t1i
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, CIVIL ACTION -
DEFENDANT CUSTODY/VISITATION
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this _ day of
1999, upon presentation and
consideration of Defendant's answer to Plaintiffs Petition for Special Relief it is
HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief is
Denied.
By the Court:
J.
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TEMNI
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, : CIVIL ACTION -
DEFENDANT : CUSTODY/VISITATION
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this - day of
1999, upon presentation and
consideration of Defendant's Answer to Plaintiffs Petition for Special Relief it is
HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs Petition for Special Relief is
Denied.
By the Court:
J.
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, CIVIL ACTION -LAW
Defendant
IN RE: CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, December 8, 1997, the parties having appeared for hearing with
their respective counsel, and having reached an agreement, it is ordered as
follows:
1. The parties shall share legal and physical custody of their son, Drew
Shepley.
2. Actual physical custody of the child shall be according to the schedule
set in the Order of this Court of September 22, 1997.
3. The parties shall alternate holidays with the child as follows: Easter
Sunday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving, with
Mother to have Easter Sunday 1998. In alternate years Mother shall enjoy
Thanksgiving holiday from Wednesday before Thanksgiving through Sunday after
Thanksgiving and then through her normal custody period. In aftemate years,
Father shall enjoy Thanksgiving holiday through 2:00 p.m. on Friday after
Thanksgiving when custody shall be transferred in Williamsport, PA or in such
other place as the parties may mutually agree.
4. The child shall spend Mother's Day with Mother each year and Father's
Day with Father each year.
5. Drew shall be in the custody of the parent entitled to custody under the
normal schedule for his birthday each year. The parent not in custody shall have
the opportunity to a two (2) hour visit with Drew during the day for the purpose of
a birthday visit.
6. The parties agree that Christmas Eve and Christmas Day shall be divided
into two segments, the first segment beginning at 3:00 p.m. Christmas Eve and
continuing through 9:30 a.m. Christmas morning. The second segment shall begin
at 9:30 a.m. Christmas morning and continue through 3:00 p.m. December 26.
The parties shall alternate custody, with Mother enjoying the first segment in 1997
and Father enjoying the second.
7. Each parent shall have the right of exercising up to two weeks vacation
time with the child each year. Until Drew is in school, such visitation may be
exercised at any time during the year, and when in school, during his school break,
upon thirty days advance notice to the other party. Such visitation may be enjoyed
by the parent or by the grandparents during the time designated for the parent's
visitation. In the event that both parties advise the other of their intention to
exercise extended visitation on the same dates, the party being first to give notice
shall be entitled to the requested time.
8. The holiday and extended visitation provided for above shall take
precedence over the normal shared custody schedule, except that neither party
may schedule his or her visitation over the other party's assigned holiday without
mutual agreement.
9. If the party having physical custody of Drew requires a babysitter, she or
he shall first contact the other party for the purpose of having that other party serve
as babysitter before contacting any third party.
10. The party who is to begin his or her period of custodial time with the
child shall be responsible to pick-up the child from the other party.
J.
Carl G. Wass, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Andrea C. Jacobson, Esquire t 0
For the Defendant
By the Court,
3 a
5 6
E6
O
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY. )
Plaintiff' )
vs. )
MICHELE A.SHEPLL"•Y. )
Defendant )
)
IN T'lIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL. ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY
ORDER
1997, upon receipt of the
iAA
AND NOW, this /WL day of
,11 1
Conciliator's Report, it appearing that the parties have agreed to the terms and provisions of this
temporary Order which was dictated in their presence and approved by them and their counsel, it
is hereby ordered and directed as follows:
1. A hearing is scheduled for the ) day of 1 y-
1997, at v o'clock -4.M., in Court Room Number -3 of the
Cumberland County Court House, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Both parties, through
counsel, will provide each other and the court with a list of 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 said hearing, the parties will agree to work on a temporary
schedule of custody in accordance with the following:
A. Mother shall have the child beginning Friday evening.
September 12. 1997, at 7:00 p.m., for a stretch of four (d) days until
Tuesday evening at 7:00 p.m. Father shall have the child for a three (3)
day stretch from Tuesday, September 16, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., until
Friday, September 19, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. Mother shall have the child
for a three (3) day stretch from Friday. September 19, 1997, at 7:00 p.m..
until Monday, September 22, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. Father then shall have
the child for a four (4) day stretch from Monday, September 22, 1997, at
7:00 p.m., until Friday, September 26, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. This schedule
will then continue on a rotating basis in accordance with the above
schedule such that the parties will operate on a four-three-three-four
schedule. The party who is to begin their period of custodial time with
the child shall be responsible to pick up the child from the other party at
7:00 p.m.
B. This schedule shall not prejudice either party from raising any
issues with regard to their request for a primary custodial arrangement
with the child.
BY THE COURT,
4
J.
Carl G. Wass, Esquire J C/I /f '7.
Andrea Jacobsen. Esquire
mlb
0
F -;,;y
97
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY.
Plaintiff
Ys.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY.
Defendant
JUDGE PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED: None
IN TI IF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
1. The pertinent information concerning the child(ren) who is(are) the subject of this
litigation is as follows:
NAME BIRTHDATE CURRENTLY IN
CUSTODY OF
Drew Evan Shepley September 17, 1995 Plaintiff and Defendant
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on September 11, 1997, and the following
individuals were present: the Plaintiff and his attorney, Carl G. Wass, Esquire. the Defendant
appeared with her attorney. Andrea Jacobsen, Esquire.
3. Items resolved by agreement: A temporary agreement pending a hearing.
d. Issues yet to be resolved: A final custody schedule.
5. The Plaintiff's Position on custody is as follows: Plaintiff believes that he is better
able to provide astable environment for the child. Ile suggested that the Mother has repeatedly
over the course of their marriage expressed an unwillingness to take care of the child, and that
she has not taken care of the child in accordance with the ways that he believes is necessary. fie
suggested that he be the primary care taker of the child during the week, and that Mother be
provided three out of every four weekends of partial custody with the child.
6. The Defendant's position on custody is as follows: Defendant believes that she is the
most capable of taking can of the child on a full-time basis. She acknowledged that she had
some postpartum depression for approximately six months after the birth of the child. After that,
she denies that she has expressed an unwillingness to take care of the child. While Mother wants
primary custody of the child, she understands that a shared arrangement at the child's current age
would be most beneficial for the child and was willing to go along with the shared arrangement.
7. Need for separate counsel to represent child(ren): Neither party requested.
g. Need for independent psychological evaluation or counseling: None requested and the
Conciliator does not believe any is necessary.
9. A hearing in this matter will take one-half day.
10. Other matters or comments: The parties in this case had only recently separated by
the time of the conciliation, having separated the week of August 25, 1997. Through their
attorneys. they were able to work out an interim agreement pending the conciliation which
essentially had a shared custodial arrangement with the child. Given the age of the child and
their respective work schedules, it seemed to the Conciliator that the shared arrangement is
appropriate for them at this time. This is particularly true since the Father has his days off from
work on'rhursdays and Fridays. while Mother has her days off from work on Saturday and
Sunday, so effectively the child will be in a parent's care four out of five days per week. The
other three days the child is being cared for during the day by a day care provider.
Father, however. is adamant that the child be living with him primarily. The Court will
have to ascertain whether the Father's proposal is more appropriate for the needs of the child or
whether the shared arrangement fits in the child's best interests.
Date: September 16, 1997
MICHAEL L. BANGS
Custody Conciliator
b
h
a ?
a
w
z
N
co.v It
U ccn
UuZi=ui
J
W co VQ
J
W?
O
ZZ Q
1
M1
Y
U2 ~
i F
tY
h
a
_
1
y Q
?
Vl
* den R, Shepley
Plaintiff
V
* r1???iele ?. Sheple
Def ndant
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
XURBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:NO.3C190 CIVIL 1991
:CUSTODY/VISITATION
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this (date)11;)919-1,
attached complaint, it is hereby
their respective counsel ap ear h
the conciliator, at
R-
on the i\ day of
upon consideration of the
directed that the parties and
p, M., for a Preheering Cu Cody 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. Either
party may bring the child who is the subject of this custody
action to the conference, but the child/children's attendance is
not mandatory. Failure to appear at the conference may provide
grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order.
FOR THE COURT:
By: ]VIchn r) 0, a. J?aay'
, -
Custody Conciliator
U
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
COURTHOUSE, FOURTH FLOOR
CARLISLE PA 17013
(717)240-6200
7'd9-7 ?:LL. ???j Qx4? 7 L /7fLlvW / `Cd i?
7 9 r Cif y`' rctr,? ?w A-
0
N n
z F
L O2
W
W
R
<
a <
?
Q
W o
o J >
Yo < ipj
s4
0Z
N!
J z W I= W
J o 2 f n
w + Cc a
3 0 O
Z
0
+ < m N
? . n Q
K
Z
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. No. ?'?- 391
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant IN CUSTODY
AND NOW, upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is
hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel
appear before , Conciliator, on the
day of 1997 at . m., at the
Cumberland County Courthouse, 1 Court House Square, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, for a 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 shall also be present at the t-inference. Failure
to appear at the conference may provide grounds for the entry of a
temporary or permanent Order.
The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by
law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
For information about accessible facilities and reasonable
accommodations available to disabled individuals having business
before the Court, please contact our office. All arrangements must
be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before
the Court. You must attend the scheduled Conference or Hearing.
FOR THE COURT:
DATED:
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.
Court Administrator, Fourth Floor
Cumberland County Court House
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone: (717) 240.6200
90229-1
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. No. q7- .39 30
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant IN CUSTODY
CO PLAINT FOR CUSTODY
AND NOW, comes Steven R. Shepley, by his attorneys, Caldwell
& Kearns, P.C., and respectfully represents as follows:
1. The Plaintiff, Steven R. Shepley, is an adult individual
presently residing at 80 Winter Lane, East Pennsboro Township,
Cumberland County (Enola), Pennsylvania, 17025.
2. The Defendant, Michele A. Shepley, is an adult
individual presently residing at 80 winter Lane, East Pennsboro
Township, Cumberland County (Enola), Pennsylvania, 17025.
3. The following minor child is the subject of this
Complaint:
Drew Evan Shepley 80 Winterlane 9/17/95
Enola, PA 17025 Age 2 yrs. 10 mos.
The aforementioned minor child was not born out of wedlock.
The parties have no other children.
4. The aforementioned child is presently in the physical
custody of his Father and Mother, Plaintiff and Defendant, who
presently reside at 80 Winter Lane, Enola, Pennsylvania, 17025.
S. A physical separation of Plaintiff and Defendant is
imminent, thus, the purpose in filing this Complaint is to
establish jurisdiction and venue in the home county of the family
(Cumberland County) and to resolve the issue of custody at or
before the date of separation.
6. From the date of his birth, the subject minor child has
resided with his natural parents, the Plaintiff and Defendant, at
80 Winter Lane, Enola, Pennsylvania, 17025. For a brief period
of time in mid-1996, for approximately five or six weeks, the
Plaintiff and Defendant were separated and the minor child was in
the custody of both parents at various times.
7. The relationship of the Plaintiff to the subject minor
child is that of natural father.
8. The relationship of the Defendant to the subject minor
child is that of natural mother.
9. The Plaintiff has not participated as a party or
witness, or in any other capacity, in other ligitation concerning
the custody of the child in this or any other Court. Plaintiff
has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the child
pending in a Court of this Commonwealth. Plaintiff does not know
of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical
custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation
rights with respect to the child.
10. The best interests and permanent welfare of the minor
child will be served by granting the relief requested herein, to
wit: shared legal custody in both parents; primary physical
custody in Plaintiff, and partial physical custody in the
Defendant.
11. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not
been terminated, and the person who has physical custody of the
child have been named as parties to this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests Your Honorable Court to grant
shared legal custody of the minor child, Drew Evan Shepley, to
his father (Plaintiff) and Mother (Defendant), and to grant
primary physical custody to Father, and partial physical custody
to Mother.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: )a. t 1 Gq-7
CALDWELL & KEARNS
Hy
Carl G. Wass, squ re
3631 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 232-7661
I.D. #07266
Attorneys for Plaintiff
90226-1
I, STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, verify that the averments 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. 4904,
relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
Date: -TIly
Steven R. Shepley
90228-1
CALDWELL & KEARNS
A PRI]iLSS"AL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW _
3631 N 7RONTSTREET
NMRISBURO. PERSYLYAMA 17110
717-232 760 1
n
o{Imo ?TOm CaTC?i. NIIL.+ 7/22/97
Lisa:
Here is the envelope for the Defendant in
the Shepley Custody Complaint matter.
We strongly urge you not to mail the copy
of the Order to her until we have had a
chance to make service. If you would like,
I can call you when we have made service.
In fact, I will just plan to do that.
Thanks so much for your help.
Lois
(Sec'y to Carl Wass)
k
CALDWELL i KEARNS
A Professional Corporation
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3631 North Front Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
(717) 232-7661
MEMORANDUM
TO: Prothonotary, Cumberland County
FROM: Carl G. Wass, Esquire
DATE: July 22, 1997
RE: Shepley Custody Complaint
PROTHONOTARY!
When the Custody Conciliation Conference has been scheduled,
please return both copies of the Complaint, with Order, to
Plaintiff's attorney, Carl O. Wass, Esquire. We will serve the
C?Iplaint ?d Order upon the Defendant.
Carl Wass
f
n
0
N ?
2? We
n ? W Z
f 4
c J N l
N o z
?8 s
z
J i w = W
J r z Q
W N a :
U a
3
r
s f z .,
f < 1'1 m
?N
a
U?
a
x
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff
VS.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 3980 CIVIL 1997
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :
SS:
COUNTY OF DAUPHIN
Personally appeared before me, a Notary Public in and for said
Commonwealth and County, CARL G. WASS, ESQUIRE, who being duly
sworn according to law, states that he served a certified copy of
the Complaint For Custody and attached Order of Court, upon the
Defendant, Michele A. Shepley, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of
Civil Procedure 1930.4 by mailing to the said Defendant at her
residence, 80 Winter Lane, Enola, Pennsylvania, 17025, by certified
mail, return receipt requested, said certified mail piece being No.
P 233 858 372; that service of the foregoing was made on August 2,
1997; and that attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference
is the return receipt, bearing the signature of the Defendant,
acknowledging receipt of the aforementioned documents by the
Defendant.
Sworn to and subscribed
before me this ?11L day
of _?sc 1997.
Notfjky Public
Carl G. Wa Require
91201-1 Pubbt
ouMp
?400
Lmyift 10,
5c
O .
a.
cnucn:
r.nuc +un++.nak.2 a Aaexgrr trNOw. ela whh to naNi
dl (IOf an
? e w e ntl amnn onh?m?rOt oltlrfonn ?O errw mrsm to e? foey
owd 10
?AUCh kim to Oe ftm of to moftow a w to b" Y vpOO does nd
t,O Ad oms"s
iYh?NMR/?Navp AprAw wromr4 tYO?MMrIEY mOmOV. Z.0 RNNCIW OWWM
'The PAIWn ROCW AMw.to~rtiuYWwMtl?YNi?OidhdrN cmmm Powmasbf IOfIN.
Michele A. Shepley
80 winter Lane
Enola, PA 17025
X
. ANde NIArbM
P 233 858 372
Type
PAPMWW
Up Mal O kbred
,%w ftoo for w o COO
D" M Add s AddFou if ra*=W
end AN APEW
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Defendant 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 1999, by agreement
of the parties, the father's petition for special relief is
resolved by father having custody of Drew from noon on
Saturday, July 31, 1999, until 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August
4, 1999. It shall be father's responsibility to pick up and
return Drew.
In all other respects, Judge Hoffer's prior orders
shall remain in full force and effect.
Both parties are directed to attend the Innerworks
Seminar for Separating Families, and to provide proof to the
Court of their attendance, before October 15, 1999.
By the Court
Carl G. Wass, Esquire
CALDWELL 6 KEARNS
3631 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
For the Plaintif
Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire
JACOBSEN & MILKES
52 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
For the Defendant
E ward E. Guido, J.
C?.?4 n»s.(<d 7I36/9t .
A- a'•
1 t
,:., ..,
STEVEN R. SIIEPLEY IN] I IF COURT' OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CI INIBERLAND COUN11% IIENNSYLVANIA
V.
MICHELL- A. SIIEPLEY
DEFENDANT 97-3990 CIVIL A("I ION LAW
IN ('l iSTODY
AND NOW Weduesday, August 15, 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 Senate Avenue, Suite 105, Camp NIII. PA 17011 on Monday, August 20, 2001 at 9:15 AM
for a 1're-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an clTort 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 nmferencc. 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 40 hours prior to scheduled hearing.
FOR THE COUR 1.
Hy: !sl 1}1'rfiMd_Ps Grr rya E*M_
Custody Conciliator
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 aningements 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 "rills PAPER '1 O YOUR A'ITORN1;Y AI' ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
I IAVF: AN AITORNEY OR CANNOT' AFFORD ONI:, GO "rO OR TEI.F:PHONE THE OFFICE SET
FORM BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU I CAN Ghr 116AL HELP.
Cuml+crland ('oamty liar Association
I dxYty Avenue
Carlisle. Pennsylvania 17013
Teleplxrn 17171249-3166
d* '°4,c,+ u?
wee,
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 97-3980
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant : IN CUSTODY
AND NOW, upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that the
parties and their respective counsel appear before
the Conciliator, on the
day of , 2(101 at o'clock .m., at
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, for a
Custody Conciliation. 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 aTemporary Order. Failure to appear at the Conference may provide grounds for the entry
of a temporary or permanent Order.
BY THE COURT:
Dale of Order.
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 COUNT BAR ASSOCIATION
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 97-3980
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant : IN CUSTODY
NOTICE
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth
in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and
Notice are serve, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing
with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned
that if you fail to do so the rase may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against
you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other
claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights
important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO HIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
CUMBERLAND COUNT BAR ASSOCIATION
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717) 2.19-3166
USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Se usted desea defenderse de las demandas
que se prsentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar action dentro de los proximos
veinte (20) dins despucs de la notification de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o
pot medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte pot escrilo sus
defensas de, y objections a, ]as demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Sc Ie advierte de que
si usted falla de tomar action comp se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted
y un fall pot cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demands o cualquier otra reclamation o
remedio solicitado pot el demandantc puede set dictado en contra suya pot la Corte sin mas aviso
adicional. Used puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted.
USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO
INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO O NO PUEDE PAGARLE
A UNO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE
PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
CUMBERLAND COUNT BAR ASSOCIATION
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES
ACT OF 1940
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 assessable
facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disable 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.
CUMBERLAND COUNT BAR ASSOCIATION
2 LIBERTY AVENUE.
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 97-3980
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant : IN CUSTODY
PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Michele A. Shepley, by and through her attorney,
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire and respectfully represents as follows:
1. The Plaintiff is Steven R. Shepley, an adult individual who resides at 1316
Balthaser, Apartment 4, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, 17112.
2. The Defendant is Michele A. Shepley, an adult individual who resides at 213
Wyoming Avenue, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17025.
3. The Plaintiff seeks primary physical custody of the following child:
him Date of Birth ABC
Drew Evan Shepley 9/17195 5
The child is presently in the physical custody of both his Mother and Father. The
parties currently share physical and legal custody of the child.
4. The Honorable George E. Hoffer entered an Order of Court in this matter on
September 22, 1997 which was amended on December 8, 1997, a copy of said Orders are
attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
6. The Defendant, Michele A. Shepley is seeking a modification in the existing
Order of Court by way of requesting primary physical custody of the subject minor child.
7. The relationship of the Defendant to the child is that of Mother. Defendant
currently resides with the minor child.
9. The relationship of the Plaintiff to the child is that of Father. Plaintiff currently
resides with the minor child and with his fiance, Shelly Riddle.
Defendant has not participated as a party or witness or in another capacity in other
litigation concerning the custody of the child in this or another Court.
Defendant has no information of the custody proceedings of the child pending in a
Court of this Commonwealth.
Defendant does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical
custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with the child.
10. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting
the relief requested because:
a. Defendant learned that Father enrolled the child in Kindergarten in his
school district without consulting Defendant.
b. Defendant has tried to negotiate with Father regarding Kindergarten
since January 2001 without succcm.
C. Defendant has been the primary care giver of the child and has
provided the child with consistent and loving care.
d. Defendant is willing and able to continue to provide proper care and
supervision of the child.
C. Defendant can provide a stable and loving environment to the child.
11. Each parent whose parental rights of the child have not been terminated and
the person who has physical custody of the child has been named as parties to this action.
There are no other persons who are known to have a claim or right to custody or visitation
in this matter.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Michele A. Shepley, respectfully requests the Court
to modify the existing Custody Order by granting her primary physical custody of the minor
child with liberal partial physical custody to Plaintiff.
Respectfully Submitted,
IF Z&OA'
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
4711 Locust Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
(717) 657-0632
Id. No. 63522
Dated: Y-1`I-Ot
08/14/2001 09:26 717-657-1512 MARIANNE E RUDEt11J5CH PAGE 05
STEVEN & SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-3990
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, : CIVIL ACTION. JAW
Defendant : IN CUSTODY
I verify that the statements trade in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand
that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904
relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
BY.
4'-,?4. Shep y -y-
Date
Exhibit A
JRI-12-1999 1359 JACOBSEN 8 MILKES 717 249 9427 P.02
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff ) OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
VS. )
1 N0.97-3980 CIVIL TERM
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY. )
Defendant ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY
AND NOW, this Q-2/ day of 1997, upon receipt of the
Conciliator's Report, it appearing that the parties have agreed to the terms and provisions of this
temporary Order which was dictated in their presence and approved by them and their counsel, it
is hereby ordered and directed as follows:
1. A hearing is scheduled for the _P day oi`6...,/..d
1997, at ?.ad o'clock -?0 X. in Court Room Number ,3 of the
Cumberland County Court House, Carlisle, Pennsylvania- Both parties, through
counsel, will provide each other and the court with a list of 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 said hearing, the parties will agree to work on a temporary
schedule of custody in accordance with the following:
A. Mother shall have the child beginning Friday evening,
September 12. 1097, at 7.00 p.m.. for a sueteh of four 14) days until
.IRI-12-1999 1359 JRCOBSEN R MILKES 717 249 13427
Tuesday evening at 7:00 p.m. Father shall have the child for a three (3)
day stretch from Tuesday, September 16, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., until
Friday. September 19, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. Mother shall have the child
for a three (3) day stretch from Friday, September 19, 1997, at 7:00 p.m.,
until Monday, September 22, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. Father then shall have
the child for a four (4) day stretch from Monday, September 22, 1997, at
7:00 p.m., until Friday. September 26,1997, at 7:00 p.m. This schedule
will then continue on a rotating basis in accordance with the above
schedule such that the parties will operate on a four-three-three-four
schedule. The party who is to begin their period of custodial time with
the child shall be responsible to pick up the child from the other party at
7:00 p.m.
B. This schedule shall not prejudice either party from raising any
issues with regard to their request for a primary custodial arrangement
with the child.
BY THE COURT,
P:03
Carl G. Wass, Esquire TRUE COPY FROM RECORD
Andrea Jacobsen. Esquire In TeslkntJrty WhOW, l hem utlto Set 111)1 haml
mlb aftCiM taeil ttlrsaidrd-tot-1p.
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. N0. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, CIVIL ACTION -LAW
Defendant
IN RE: CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, December 8,1997, the parties having appeared for hearing with
their respective counsel, and having reached an agreement, it is ordered as
follows:
1. The partiba shall share legal and physical custody of their son, Drew
2. Actual physical custody of the child shall be a %cding to the schedule
. 16,
set in the Order of this Court of September 22, 1997.
3. The parties shall alternate holidays with th9 child as follows: Easter
Sunday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving, with
Mother to have Easter Sunday 1998. In alternate years Mother shall enjoy
Thanksgiving holiday from Wednesday before Thanksgiving through Sunday after
Thanksgiving and then through her normal custody period. In alternate years,
Father shall enjoy Thanksgiving holiday through 2:00 p.m. on Friday after
Thanksgiving when custody shall be transferred In Williamsport, PA or in such
other place as the parties may mutually agree.
4. The child shall spend Mother's Day with Mother each year and Father's
Day with Father each year.
5. Drew shall be in the custody of the parent entitled to custody under the
normal schedule for his birthday each year. The parent not in custody shall have
the opportunity to a two (2) hour visit with Drew during the day for the purpose of
a birthday visit.
6. The parties agree that Christmas Eve and Christmas Day shall be divided
'r%to two segments, the first segment beginning at 3:00 p.m. Christmas Eve and
continung through 9:30 a.m. Christmas morning. The second segment shall begin
W. 9:30 a.m. Christmas morning and continue through 3:00 p.m. December 26.
The parties shall alternate custody, with Mother enjoying the first segment in 1997
and Father enjoying the second.
7. Each parent shall have the right of exercising up to two weeks vacation
time with the child each year. Until Drew is in school, such visitation may be
exercised at any time during the year, and when in school, during his school break,
upon thirty days advance notice to the other party. Such visitation may be enjoyed
by the parent or by the grandparents during the time designated for the parent's
visitation. In the event that both parties advise the other of their intention to
exercise extended visitation on the same dates, the party being first to give notice
shall be entitled to the requested time.
8. The holiday and extended visitation provided for above shall take
precedence over the normal shared custody schedule, except that neither party
may schedule his or her visitation ovar the uther party's assigned holiday without
mutual agreement.
9. if the party having physical custody of Drew requires a babysitter, she or
he shall first contact the other party for the purpose of having that other party serve
as babysitter before contacting any third party.
10. The party who is to begin his or her period of custodial time with the
child shall be responsible to pick-up the child from the other party.
J.
Carl G. Wass. Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire
For the Defendant
By the Court.
,?? ?.
?_
??? ? ?
? ?
? ? ?
?o ?
f?F
i
STEVEN % SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff
V.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 97-3980
: CIVIL LAW
: IN CUSTODY
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA:
Please enter the appearance of Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire on behalf of the Defendant
in the above referenced matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated:
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
4711 locust Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
(717) 6574)632
Id. No. 63522
Please withdraw the appearance of Andrea C. Jacobsen, Esquire on behalf of the Defendant
in the above referenced matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: •.t S pt
acc?
Andrea C(Jacpbsen, Esquire
52 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 2494427
Id. No. 211952
.z ?
-.
;•'
r';i
rj
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
VS.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff
Defendant
AUG 2 2001
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS F
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 97-3980
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: CUSTODY
Hoffer, P. J. - /w.
AND NOW, this day of 2001, upon
consideration of the attached ustody Conciliatio u mary Report, it is hereby ordered and
directed as follows:
1. The parties shall submit themselves and their minor Child to an independent
custody evaluation to be performed by Deborah Salem, M.H.S., C.A.C. In the event that Ms.
Salem is unavailable, unless otherwise agreed, the evaluation shall be performed by Dr.
Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D. The parties shall sign all necessary releases and authorizations for
the evaluator to obtain medical and psychological information pertaining to the parties.
Additionally, the parties shall extend their full cooperation to complete this evaluation and in
the scheduling of appointments in a timely fashion. The cost of the evaluation shall be shared
by the parties pro rata as determined by the Domestic Relations Office.
2. Within thirty days of the receipt of the report from the custody evaluator, either
party, via counsel, may request an additional Custody Conciliation Conference prior to filing a
motion for the scheduling of a hearing.
3. The Child shall attend private Kindergarten at his present location at the Oakwood
Baptist Church.
4. Legal Custodv. The parties, Steven R. Shepley and Michele A. Shepley, shall
have shared legal custody of the minor Child, Drew Evan Shepley, born September 17, 1995.
Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all
major non-emergency decisions affecting the Child's general well-being including, but not
limited to, all decisions regarding his health, education and religion. Pursuant to the terms of
Pa. C. S_ § 5309, each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the
Child including, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious or school records, the residence
address of the Child and of the other parent. To the extent one parent has possession of any
such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof,
with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and information of
reasonable use to the other parent. VIA
No. 97-3980 Civil Term
5. Physical Custody. The parties shall maintain the status quo of the physical
custody arrangement as set forth in the Order of September 22, 1997, for the school year
2001-2002 and during the period of the custody evaluation.
Father shall have custody from August 31, 2001, until September 1, 2001, at 7:30
p.m. for the purpose of the Child attending his wedding. The custodial exchange following the
wedding shall occur at the McDonald's restaurant in South Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
6. In the event that either party will be out of state while the Child is in their custody,
the traveling parent will provide to the other parent notice of the address and telephone
number where they will be during the time that they are away.
7. Telephone Contact. Each party shall be entitled to reasonable telephone contact
with the child when the child is in the other parent's custody.
8. In the event either party is unavailable to provide care for the Child during his or
her period of custody for a period of four hours or more, that party shall first make a
reasonable effort to contact the other party to offer the parent the opportunity to provide care
for the Child before contacting third-party caregivers.
9. Holidays. Unless otherwise agreed, the following holidays shall be alternated:
Easter, Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day. The custodial period shall be from
9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. The Child shall be in the custody of Father for Father's Day and in
the custody of Mother on Mother's Day. The custodial period for Father's Day and Mother's
Day shall be 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.
Disc Ma Wd* E. RudeWsch, Esgwm. 4711 Loast t.me, Hams", PA 17109 to ttca? 41t t?.l 9. Os U f
Carl G Wan, Esgwe. 3631 N. Front Sbeet, HorftW9. PA 17110 ! om.
BY THE COURT,
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. : NO. 97-3980
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant : CUSTODY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is
as follows:
NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF
Drew Evan Shepley
September 17, 1995 Mother and Father
2. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on August 20, 2001, with the following
individuals in attendance: the Father, Steven R. Shepley, and his counsel, Carl G. Wass,
Esquire; the Mother, Michele A. Shepley, and her counsel, Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire.
3. The parties reached an agreement in the form of an Order as attached and, based
on the terms of the agreement, are not in need of a hearing at this time.
?67/01 c a ';a c
Date Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire
Custody Conciliator /
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY IN THE: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
V.
. 97-3980 CIVII. ACTION LAW
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY
DEFENDANT IN CUSTODY
AND NOW, Friday, May 24, 2002 , 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 301 Market Street, Lemoyne. PA 17043 on Monday. July 01, 2002 at 8J0 AM
for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or
if this cannot be accomplished to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court. and to enter into a temporary
order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may
provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order.
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: Is, Melissa P. G n, Esq.
Custody Conciliator .
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 SEE
FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County liar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone (717) 249-3166
..?f/ 4.2
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 97-3980
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant : IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that the
parties and their respective counsel appear before
day of
21K12 at
the Conciliator, on the
o'clock .m., at
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, for a
Custody Conciliation. 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 the entry
of a temporary or permanent Order.
BY THE COURT:
Date of Order:
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 COUNT BAR ASSOCIATION
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 97-3980
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant : IN CUSTODY
NOTICE
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to dJend against the claims set forth
in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and
Notice are serve, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing
with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned
that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against
you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other
claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights
important to you, including visitation of your children.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE. CO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
CUMBERLAND COUNT BAR ASSOCIATION
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717) 2.19-31 M
USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Se usted desea defenderse de las demandas
que se prsentan mas adelantc en Las siguicntes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de Ins proximos
veinic (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o
por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus
dcfensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas prm-ntadas aqui en contra suya. Sc le advierte de que
si usted falla de tomar accion Como sc describe anteriormente, el caso puede procedcr sin usted
y un fall por cualquicr sumo de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquicr otra reclamacion o
remcdio solicitado por el demandante puede scr dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso
adicional. Used pucde perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted.
USTED DEBE I.LEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO
INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO O NO PUEDE PAGARLE
A UNO, LLAME O VAYA A 1A SIGUIENTE OEICINA PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE
PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
CUMBERLAND COUNT BAR ASSOCIATION
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES
ACT OF 1990
The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about assessable
facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disable 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.
CUMBERIAND COUNT BAR ASSOCIATION
2 I.IBERTY AVENUE
CARLISLE. PA 17013
(717)249-3166
STEVEN R. SFIEPLEY,
Plaintiff/Respondent
V.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Derendant/Petitioner
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 97-3980
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: IN CUSTODY
PETITION FOR CUSTODY CONCILIATION
AND NOW, comes the Defendant/Petitioner, Michele A. Shepley, by and through her
attorney, Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire and respectfully represents as follows:
1. The Plaintiff/Respondent is Steven R. Shepley, an adult individual who resides
at 525 Spruce Street, Steelton, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, 17113.
2. The Dcfendant/Pctitioner is Michele A. Shepley, an adult individual who
resides at 213 Wyoming Avenue, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17025.
3. The Defendant/Petitioner is requesting a custody conciliation to modify the
existing Custody order of the following child:
1
Date of Birth A>s
Drew Evan Shepley 9/17/95 5
d. On September 4, 2001, the Honorable George E. Hoofer entered an Order
directing that the parties submit themselves and the minor child to a custody evaluation. Said
Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
5. Said evaluation was completed by Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D. and is attached
hereto as Exhibit B.
6. Defendant/Petitioner has not been able, through her attorney, Marianne E.
Rudebusch, to get a response from the Plaintiff/Respondent to her repeated requests to
modify the existing Custody Order attached as Exhibit A.
7. The Defendant/Petitioner, Michele A. Shepley is seeking a modification of the
existing Order of Court by way of requesting that the recommendations of Dr. Shienvold be
entered as an Order of Court.
WHEREFORE, Defendant/Petitioner respectfully requests that this matter be
scheduled before a Custody Conciliator.
Respectfully Submitted,
7
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
4711 Locust Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
(717) 657-0632
Id. No. 63522
Dated: tS p
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT ON COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 97.3980
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, : CIVIL ACTION • LAW
Defendant : IN CUSTODY
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. 1 understand
that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904
relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
.
By
Mi- hiile A. epley
t
Date:
Exhibit A
AO J
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
VS.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Hoffer, P. J. -
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 97-3980
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant : CUSTODY
AND NOW, this 4Q' day of„?t _" L• _ 2001, upon
consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and
directed as follows:
1. The parties shall submit themselves and their minor Child to an independent
custody evaluation to be performed by Deborah Salem, M.H.S., C.A.C. In the event that Ms.
Salem is unavailable, unless otherwise agreed, the evaluation shall be performed by Dr.
Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D. The parties shall sign all necessary releases and authorizations for
the evaluator to obtain medical and psychological information pertaining to the parties.
Additionally, the parties shall extend their full cooperation to complete this evaluation and in
the scheduling of appointments in a timely fashion. The cost of the evaluation shall be shared
by the parties pro rata as determined by the Domestic Relations Office.
2. Within thirty days of the receipt of the report from the custody evaluator, either
party, via counsel, may request an additional Custody Conciliation Conference prior to filing a
motion for the scheduling of a hearing.
3. The Child shall attend private Kindergarten at his present location at the Oakwood
Baptist Church.
4. Legal Custody. The parties, Steven R. Shepley and Michele A. Shepley, shall
have shared legal custody of the minor Child, Drew Evan Shepley, born September 17, 1995.
Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all
major non-emergency decisions affecting the Child's general well-being including, but not
limited to, all decisions regarding his health, education and religion. Pursuant to the terms of
Pa. C. S. § 5309, each paren' shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the
Child including, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious or school records, the residence
address of the Child and of the other parent. To the extent one parent has possession of any
such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof,
with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and information of
reasonable use to the other parent.
V
No. 97-3980 Civil Term
5. Physical Custody. The parties shall maintain the status quo of the physical
custody arrangement as set forth in the Order of September 22, 1997, for the school year
2001-2002 and during the period of the custody evaluation.
Father shall have custody from August 31, 2001, until September 1, 2001, at 7:30
p.m. for the purpose of the Child attending his wedding. The custodial exchange following the
wedding shall occur at the McDonald's restaurant in South Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
6. In the event that either party will be out of state while the Child is in their custody,
the traveling parent will provide to the other parent notice of the address and telephone
number where they will be during the time that they are away.
7. Telephone Contact. Each party shall be entitled to reasonable telephone contact
with the child when the child is in the other parent's custody.
8. In the event either party is unavailable to provide care for the Child during his or
her period of custody for a period of four hours or more, that party shall first make a
reasonable effort to contact the other party to offer the parent the opportunity to provide care
for the Child before contacting third-party caregivers.
9. Holidays. Unless otherwise agreed, the following holidays shall be aftemated:
Easter, Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day. The custodial period shall be from
9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. The Child shall be in the custody of Father for Father's Day and in
the custody of Mother on Mothers Day. The custodial period for Father's Day and Mother's
Day shall be 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.
BY THE COURT,
Ge65rge A. H ffer, P. J.
Dist: Marianne E. RudebtacK Eaquee. 4711 Lmat Lana, Hwnsh". PA 17109
Cad M Wau. Ew*e. 3631 N. FraN Stree, Hardatarg, PA 17110
Pruthonutbr--Tj '-?
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. : NO. 97-3980
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant : CUSTODY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is
as follows:
NAM DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF
Drew Evan Shepley September 17, 1995 Mother and Father
2. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on August 20, 2001, with the following
individuals in attendance: the Father, Steven R. Shepley, and his counsel, Carl G. Wass,
Esquire; the Mother, Michele A. Shepley, and her counsel, Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire.
3. The parties reached an agreement in the form of an Order as attached and, based
on the terms of the agreement, are not in need of a hearing at this time.
VA ?
Date Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire
Custody Conciliator /
Exhibit B
Rie} ler • Shienvold
R Associates
CUSTODY EVALUATION
huuif Ricgler. ICI( D. ( 194S- 1999)
\nudJ 7. Slucn\old. Ph.D.
%felinda E.01. Ms
Jame. Fash. LS\\
Michael 1 Ashen. Ph D
Bonnie I lo%%arxl. 1'11 1)
\nn K Kciamg. \('S%%. LC'S\\, l1CU
Traci Richards, QCS\\'.I(S\\
Don Lawrence. I.S\\
D)anne Seymore. QCS\\ LS\\'
kffrcy Pincus. Ph D
Ann \'ergales. ACSW. LS\\', BCD
Lisa R. Palxmem. %1A
STEVEN R SHEPLEY v. MICHELE A. SHEPLEY
97-3980
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Referred By: By Order Of Court dated September 4, 2001
Referral Reason: To conduct a comprehensive custody evaluation and to make
recommendations regarding the most appropriate parenting plan for
Drew Evan Shepley, DOB 9/17/95
Individual Interviews: Michele Shepley 10/23/01, 11/21/01, 12126101
Steven Shepley 10/3I/01, 11/29/01, 12/6101
Drew Shepley 12/26/01, 12/28101
Richard and Martha Collins 113/02
Shelly Shepley 1/2/02
Psychological Testing: Minnesota Muhiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2)
'Michele Shepley
'Steven Shepley
`Shelly Shepley
Home Visit: Each parent's residence was evaluated for safety concerns and the
family was observed interacting in the home en6ronment
Patent-Child Interaction: Each parent was observed interacting with Drew in the office
setting
Additional Information. 1. Letter dated August 23, 2001 from Carl G Waas to Dr.
Shienvold
'ICI Iu21,:,t %%nRoad,Suilc'oo • Ilani.hi;: P'-Zm,\ h.inia l - t t o . f'III:10.1111 • la\ I'I')5.t0-Itln
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 2
2. Petition To Modify filed on behalf of Michele A. Shepley dated
8/14/01
3. Order dated September 22, 1997 re: temporary custody of
Drew
4. Order Of Court dated December 8, 1997
5. Custody Conciliation Conference Summary Report dated
9/16/97
6. Detailed options for School for Drew provided by Michele
7. Detailed proposed parenting plans provided by Michele
8. List of "Involvement" showing activities in which Michele has
participated with Drew
9. Correspondences between the parties provided by Michele
10. Miscellaneous information provided by Michele
11. Letter from Andrea C. Jacobsen to Carl Waas dated July 24,
2001
12. Log of Michele's observations regarding daily events of Drew
13. List of important issues dated October 31, 2001 provided by
Steve
14. Letter from Michele to Dr. Shienvold dated Febmary 8, 2002
15. Drew's kindergarten report card
16. Letter from Steven to i. Shienvold dated February 24, 2002
17. Letter from Steven to Dr. Shienvold dated March 13, 2002
The recommendations at the conclusion of this report are based on all of these sources of
information and data
Shepley v Shepley
Page 3
Background
Steven and Michele Shepley are the parents of Drew Evan Shepley who is 6 years old.
They have been sharing equally the custody of Drew since the time of their separation in
December of 1997. At that time it was decided that Drew would spend alternating periods of
either three or four days with each of his parents. Because Steven typically worked on weekends,
Michele's days were either from Friday to Monday or Friday to Tuesday.
Michele decided to petition for a modification of the current custody order. Michele
believes, and thought that Steve agreed, that Drew needs a primary residence now that he is
attending school. Furthermore, Michele feels that she can provide the more appropriate residence
during the school week. According to Michele, she is the more "regimented, routine person" of
her and Steve. She believes that Drew needs the kind of structure that she provides. Michele
reported that she can provide on-going stability for Drew. She does not feel that he gets that with
his father. Michele indicated that she enjoys getting very active with Drew and keeping him
involved in activities outside of the home. She reported that she is the team mom for soccer and
that she is involved at his day school.
Michele is concerned about attempting to maintain a shared custodial arrangement.
According to Michele, part of the reason that she filed her petition for modification was as a result
of Steve's unwillingness to discuss Drew's school situation. Michele wanted to place Drew in the
East Pennsboro school district. According to Michele, Steve wanted Drew to go into the Central
Dauphin district, but would not have a discussion with her about the options Oakwood Baptist
School, which is where he is attending kindergarten, was the emergency "back-up" when they
could not reach an agreement. However, Michele used this as an example of the difficultly she
feels that he has caused with regard to communication between them
According to Michele, Steve will not communicate about any type of important
information. He has made decisions to go places without informing Michele or providing details
for her. Michele reported that when she attempts to communicate with Steve she is accused of
"harassment." Michele alleges that Steve is unwilling to coordinate parenting Qecisiom such as
bedtimes, or activities She perceives Steve as being very "rigid and stubborn f 1
Steve indicated that he opposes Michele becoming the primary custodian. Initially, Steve
reported that he wanted to maintain a shared custodial arrangement. However, at another point in
the evaluation, Steve stated that if Drew was to be primarily in one location. Steve felt that it
should be at his home.
Steve reported that he was surprised by Michele's petition for modification There was a
disagreement over the school at which Drew would attend kindergarten. According to Steve,
Michele had withdrawn Drew from Oakwood Baptist School and registered him in East
Shepley v Shepley
Page 4
Pennsboro without informing him of the decision. He denied an allegation that he had registered
Drew at Linglestown Elementary School without informing Michele. He admitted that he had
"inquired" about enrollment at that school. According to Steve, it took court intervention to put
Drew in Oakwood for this school year. Steve believes that Michele wants Drew in East
Pennsboro for her convenience
Steve is somewhat concerned that Michele's motive for seeking primary custody is to gain
an increase in child support. He noted that Michele has repeatedly asked him for "one extra day."
He reported that when Michele filed her petition for modification of custody, she also filed a
petition to modify the child support. Steve stated that Michele has been consistently unwilling to
show flexibility around the custodial schedule. According to Steve, Michele will ask for
additional time for herself, but will never allow additional time for him. Steve feels that Michele is
vindictive towards him. He reported that she has befriended an old girlfriend of his and has
actually brought her to his house during transitions with Drew.
Steve reported that Drew has made derogatory statements about him and Shelly that he
could have only heard from his mother. For example, according to Steve, Drew said that he and
Shelly "serve Lucifer." Drew reported that God had told him that. Drew was also reported to
have said, "You don't love me, just Shelly." Steve believes that Michele promises Drew activities
in order to interfere with Steve's time with him.
Steve desperately wants to be a full-time father for Drew. He feels that he puts family
before all else in his life. He believes that he is very understanding of Drew and provides a good
listener for him. Steve feels that he sets guidelines for his son and that he can teach him to be a
good person. Steve believes that he provides a stab:e environment for his son.
History
Michele and Steven met in 1994. After dating for approximately S months, Michele
became pregnant. They decided to get married and did so on April 29, 1995. The pregnancy
went without problems, although Steve complained that Michele was very moody. Michele
reported that Steve was very attentive during the pregnancy and he was present at the birth.
Labor and delivery went well and Drew was bom as a healthy baby. However, he developed colic
and nights were very difficult. Neither Steve nor Michele got much sleep.
Michele and Steve agree that the relationship began to deteriorate after Drew's birth.
According to Michele, they began to "grow apart" because Steve was working two jobs. They
did not see much of one another, or spend much time together. She stated that they would have
"heated arguments" over things like money. Steve agreed that there were arguments, but he
blamed them on Michele He felt that she was experiencing a Post-Partum Depression Michele
admitted to having the "blues" after Drew's birth Steve reported that Michele would get
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 5
physically violent during the arguments. He also stated that Michele flattened all the tires in his
car to keep him from going out.
Shortly after that time, Michele went to her family physician and got medication for her
depression. She admitted to feeling miserable. Michele felt abandoned by Steve, who wanted
virtually no physical intimacy with her. Michele stated that it was Steve who would push her
during their arguments. According to Michele. Steve admitted that he did not know what love
and family were, because of his background. They separated for six months at Michele's
initiation. However, she asked him to return so they could have a "family."
The relationship did not improve, but worsened. Physical altercations continued to occur.
Both parties accused the other of initiating the fights. Michele admitted that she would become
frustrated and tell Steve to take care of Drew. Steve reported that Michele would express anger
at Drew's crying at night. He alleged that Michele was constantly sleeping. Finally, he left with
Drew for 2 weeks and stayed with his "parents." He returned, but within 2-3 months he left
again. They separated permanently in August, 1997.
Drew Shepley
Drew is described by both of his parents as energetic and extremely active. He is good
natured, independent and creative. His parents feel that he is funny, loving and thoughtful. He
has good motor skills and enjoys playing sports. Drew can become aggressive and, by the end of
the evaluation, was demonstrating increased aggression at school.
Drew attends kindergarten at Oakwood Baptist Day School. His teachers feel he is doing
well, but demonstrating increasing anxiety over the last couple of months. For that reason,
Michele requested to have Drew begin counseling. At the time of this writing, Drew was going to
begin counseling with Ms. Melinda Eash. Nonetheless, Drew continues to meet his
developmental expectations at school. His social development has been good. He has friends at
school and participates with other children in activities like soccer. Again, the only problem is
that he becomes aggressive with other children.
Drew's physical health is good. He demonstrates a healthy appetite. There is no problem
with his weight. Drew is somewhat difficult to calm down at bedtime. Once he gets to sleep he
generally sleeps through the night. Both parents use the same bedtime on school nights. He gets
up without difficulty Both parents have mealtime and bedtime routines which are appropriate
and family oriented
Michele and Steve reported that Drew has an excellent relationship with each of them,
individually. Michele stated, "Drew loves his father, dearly " Steve reported that Drew, "Wants
to call mommy and talk to her and see her- Steve reported that the relationship between Drew
Shepley V. Shepley
Page 6
and Shelly "started slowly," but now is getting closer. Steve believes that Michele told Drew that
he did not have to listen to Shelly. However, he admitted that Shelly is more strict than he and
that may be a factor in Drew's reaction to her.
Drew was interviewed on two separate occasions, once when his father brought him and
once when his mother brought him in. There was a distinct difference in Drew's moods and
statements when each parent brought him to the interview. When Drew was accompanied by
Steve, he answered questions appropriately about who lived in each home. He was aware that
Shelly was pregnant and that he would have a new baby. Drew was not upset by that fact. He
also knew that his mother had a boyfriend named Mike.
Drew reported that he attended kindergarten at Oakwood Baptist School. He likes school
and has friends there. He stated that he "learns stuff' at school" and that his mom allows him to
go all day, but his dad does not. According to Drew, Shelly will often pick him up at school
because his dad has to work late. Drew stated that he likes spending time at both houses. His
mom takes him places and cooks pretty good. His dad plays lots of games and takes him outside,
but also punishes him more often. According to Drew, his mom and dad will spank him on
occasion. Shelly only sends him to his room. She does not spank him because, "Mom says it's not
allowed." Drew reported that his parents fight about all sorts of things. Dad and Shelly also fight
sometimes, as do Mike and Mom.
Upon entering the interview room when brought by his mother, Drew declared, "Dad put
me in a dryer when I was four years old." He also stated, "One day dad threw a football at me
and hit me in the stomach. It hurt when I was 6" When asked why he was telling me these
stories, Drew responded that his mother had reminded him to say them. It should be noted that
Drew was not angry or agitated when he reported those events. With respect to the football
incident, Drew stated that his father made him feel better by rubbing his tummy and giving it a
kiss.
Drew admitted that he was in a "bad mood" during that appointment. He felt that
different people had been mean to him. He stated that he didn't like football because you get
Iturt, he didn't like soccer because the coach is mean, and he didn't like Chucky Cheese because
people take your tickets Drew went on to say that he and his dad don't like Shelly. However, he
likes his dad's old girl friend, Sharon, who is a friend of his mom's. Drew reported that Sharon
doesn't like his dad because they got into a fight Drew indicated that Shelly was mean because
she would not let him watch television or play with his Play Station or X-Box. "
It is unclear whether Drew's "bad mood" lead to his negative attitude about almost
everything, or if being "reminded" about certain negative events in the past created anxiety and
anger in Drew Nonetheless, the young boy seen at the second visit, which was only two days
after the first, was less cheafiil and relaxed than he was at his first visit Additionally, Drew had
changed some of his perceptions about his environment, especially about Shelly
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 7
Steven Shepley
Steve Shepley is a 34 year old man who has worked for United Express at the Harrisburg
International Airport for the last 12 years. Steve is a customer service representative. His hours
are from 5:00 A.M. to 1 30 P.M one week and from 9 00 AM to 5 00 P.M. the next. Steve
generally has either Tuesday and Wednesday or Wednesday and Thursday off during the week.
Steve has a very complex childhood history . Steve and his sister, Kim, were in and out of
foster homes for much of their childhood. They were first removed from their mother's care
when Steve was 5 years old. He reported that his mother had her first "breakdown" at that time.
The children went initially to a temporary foster home, and then a permanent placement was
obtained. Unfortunately, Steve's foster father was abusive and he ran away from that location.
After another temporary placement, Steve and his sister were placed back with his mother. That
was short lived when his mother had another problem. She has a diagnosis of Paranoid
Schizophrenia. Steve was in the Methodist Children's Home for approximately four years.
Another foster home was attempted unsuccessfully. Finally, Steve and his sister found a
permanent home with the Collins'. He considers them to be his parents and the children from that
home to be his family.
An interview with Richard and Martha Collins reinforced much of what Steven had
reported. They indicated that they have had a total of 9 foster children. The Collins' also stated
that they consider the children and themselves to be a "family." They reported that their "family"
was a concept that Michele had a difficult time accepting or understanding. Their perception of
Steve was that he was initially a quiet child who kept everything "inside." He was cautious and
had a difficult time expressing his emotions. However, they never perceived him as being
aggressive or abusive. They admitted that Steve could become a "bear" when he was in a bad
mood. However, they reported that Michele was also very moody and would frequently "put-
down"Steve. They remember their relationship as always being "contentious."
Steven presented as a serious, well-spoken young man who was anxious about the
evaluation. I le was determined to "remain a part" of Drew's life. Steve's affect showed an
appropriate range of expression during the interviews tie was attentive and concentrated well
within the sessions. lie was able to present his side of the story in a logical, goal-directed manner.
There was an air of confidence about Steve that was inconsistent with his concerns about custody
and his concerns about his ability to articulate his feelings about the situation
Steve reported that he drinks alcohol very infrequently. His last drink was approximately
six months ago. Steve denied smoking or using any drugs lie had been in psychotherapy
following his separation from Michele Steve admitted that he will occasionally get "down," but
he has never suffered with depression. He can also become situationally anxious Steve has never
been fired from a job He is a graduate of Lebanon Valley College
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 8
Steve completed the MMPI-2. His profile is generally valid, but Steve demonstrated a
considerable degree of defensiveness in answering questions. Individuals with this profile tend to
show a lack of insight and a denial of common human frailties. They are most likely
psychologically naive and evasive. They report to having strong moral values and they are
conforming and self-controlled. Men with this profile are prone to periodic anxiety attacks.
However, these men generally over-control their emotions. They may appear irritable as a
function of their desire to withhold the expression of negative emotions. Men with a similar
profile tend to be immature and naive. They appear optimistic, cheerful and enthusiastic, but
admitting failure is very difficult for them. They have strong needs for affection and attention and
may seek to meet those needs through manipulative techniques if they are not being met in more
appropriate ways. These men tend to be perfectionistic and mildly independent. They can also
act impulsively. Their social skills are good and they enjoy being with others. They tend to use
denial and repression to deal with unwanted feelings. However, that may create a lack of insight.
They have a strong desire to be accepted and well liked. Physical problems often develop as a
function of stress. Diagnoses associated with this profile have to do with their tendency to
experience anxiety.
A home visit was conducted at Steve's previous residence. Since the time of the
completion of the evaluation Steve has relocated to a new home. Therefore, the observations of
the old home are somewhat irrelevant. However, the home was appropriately furnished and
attired for Drew. It was clean, neat and without safety concerns. One can assume that the same
will be true of the new home, especially since Steve and Shelly have a new baby in that home.
Steve's interactions with Drew were playful and appropriate. It is obvious that Drew
enjoys interacting with his father and that they like to tease one another. Steve applied some
simple limits to Drew's behavior, but the situation was such that the limits were not essential.
Shelly tended to be more the rule setter and frequently presented riles in a negative perspective,
i.e. don't do such and such, or don't touch the snow, etc. She was not as involved or as close to
Drew as was his father.
Michele Shepley
Michele is 28 years old She is employed at the main branch of Allfirst Bank where she
works as a receptionist Michele has been employed there for the last S years. She has some
limited flexibility to her schedule in that on the days that she has custody of Drew she winks from
8 00 AM to 4:30 P.M. while on the days that she does not have Drew she works until 5:00 P.M.
Michele indicated that she enjoys her job
Michele was raised in rural Pennsylvania tier father worked for a gas company and her
mother stayed at home with the children. Michele has one brother and one sister. She also has
four half siblings from her mother's first marriage Michele related that she had "good memories"
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 9
from growing-up. She was a "daddy's girl" who was a A-B student. After graduating high
school, Michele moved to the Harrisburg area in order to attend Central Penn Business School.
Michele presented as a pleasant woman who appeared on time for all of her appointments.
She was always neatly dressed and well-groomed. Michele's mood was consistent with the
situation. She demonstrated a wide range of affectual responses. Her concentration was good
and her attention was adequate. Michele was able to describe her concerns without difficulty.
She was articulate and rational in her presentation.
Michele reported that she had suffered feelings of depression shortly after the birth of
Drew. She also related that when she is under stress she experiences anxiety. While in college,
Michele suffered with panic attacks. She reported that she had a panic attack during the marriage.
Michele took Ativan at that time from her family physician. She has not seen an individual
counselor. Michele denied any symptoms of anxiety or depression at this time. Michele reported
that she drinks alcohol approximately one time per month in social situations. She neither smokes
or uses drugs. Michele has never been arrested nor has she ever been fired from a job.
Michele completed the MMPI-2. Her profile is valid. Michele appears to have responded
frankly to all items. Interestingly, this profile is more common amongst psychological patients
rather than evaluation clients. That is because of the significant openness in the presentation.
Such an approach is often interpreted as an individual making a plea for help. More frequently in
evaluations, clients are attempting to look their very best. Michele's profile is associated with
individuals who demonstrate strong self-dissatisfaction, notable openness, bluntness and a critical
attitude. Women with this profile often have unrecognized hostility. They are emotionally labile
and irritable. Anxiety is common, as is occasional periods of acute distress. Similar women tend
to be overly dramatic in social situations. They are also energetic, aggressive, gregarious and
histrionic. Answers to questions denote a tendency to disassociate affect, inadequate impulse
control and a sense that emotions are strange. On the other hand, they exhibit a great need for
affection and attention. These women often lack insight into their own psychological make-up.
They also complain of numerous psychosomatic symptoms. Diagnoses related to this profile are
associated with the anxiety experienced by the client.
Michele resides in Enola, PA in a second floor apartment. The apartment is in an older
building, but it appears to be well maintained There is no yard available for Drew. Drew has his
own bedroom which is appropriately decorated for a young child. There were no safety concenis
noted in the home environment Michele's interactions with Drew were smooth, comfortable and
appropriate for Drew He is a bright child and responds well to his mother's style of interaction.
It was obvious from the observation and attendant conversation that Michele and Drew play
games frequendy. Michele is patient with him, but also appears willing to set realistic limits
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 10
Shelley Shepley
Shelley is a 22 year old woman who works for American Airlines as a ticket agent. She
has worked for them for approximately one year. Shelley is currently on maternity leave from her
job. She is allowed up to 6 weeks of maternity leave, but would like to take up to a year off from
work in order to stay home with her new baby.
Shelley met Steve in March of last year. She became pregnant in April and they were
married on September 1, 2001. Shelley and Steve actually began living together in August. She
reported that she met Drew very early in the relationship. According to Shelley, she was not
concerned that Steve had a child. She felt that she and Drew could learn to relate to one another
over time. She did not try to push him in the relationship.
Shelley reported that she tries "to be there for Drew." She tries to point out to him what
he does right and wrong. Shelley indicated that Drew will get into "moods" and not listen, but
generally he is a "good kid." When Shelley disciplines Drew she gives him three warnings and
then sends him to his room. She reported, "Steve does any punishment beyond that." Shelley
indicated that Steve has some difficulty with discipline. According to Shelley, prior to her coming
into the picture, Steve was "more of a best friend than a father." Shelley feels that Steve and
Michele are great parents. It is her opinion that Steve and Michele should continue to share
custody.
Shelley appeared to be a relatively mature woman in spite of the fact that she is
considerably younger than Steve. She reported that she neither smokes nor drinks alcohol. She
does not use any illegal drugs. Shelley denied any history of anxiety or depression. She has never
been in treatment for a psychological disorder. Religion is very important to Shelley. She is
protestant and Steve is Catholic. According to Shelley the baby will be raised in her religion.
Shelley's MMPI-2 profile is valid. The response pattern suggests a frank approach to
answering question with only mild defensiveness. Women with this profile are emotionally stable
and free from disabling anxiety. All of the clinical scales are within normal limits. Similar women
are quite trusting, Lrnventionud, cheerful and somewhat insensitive. They may reject traditional
feminine values and are self-confident.
Recommendations
Michele and Steve Shepley currently share the physical custody of Drew Michele
believes that it is in Drew's best interests to be in her primary custody during the school year
Steve disagrees with that opinion He feels that Drew would be better served if he was in his
primary care, or the shoed custody of both parents Steve also feels that Drew should attend
school in his school district. In the alternative, he wants Drew to attend a Catholic parochial
school
Shepley v Shepley
Page I I
The current evaluation revealed that Drew is strongly attached to both of his parents. The
history of the family shows that Michele and Steve have had significant involvement in the raising
of Drew. They both fed him, bathed him, changed him and played with him as an infant. Both
have a good understanding of his developmental growth and needs. Michele demonstrates a
greater ability to set limits for Drew than does Steve. Additionally, Michele has had greater
involvement in most of his medical and dental care. However, Steve is equally capable of
providing for those needs and would like to do so. With the help of Shelley, Steve is improving
his limit setting and discipline procedures.
In general, Drew has done well in adjusting to the divorce of his parents. Neither parent
indicated that Drew has shown behavioral or emotional problems. More recently, the stress of the
custodial problems appears to causing some behavioral disturbances for Drew. These have been
noted at his school where the teachers have reported that Drew is more irritable and aggressive.
The evaluation seems to indicate that Michele is exposing Drew to her negative feelings about
Steve and Shelley. Such exposure leads to confusion and anxiety in Drew. He loves both of his
parents and has not shown any desire to take sides in their conflict. Fortunately, Michele and
Steve have agreed to take Drew to a counselor and have begun that process. Part of the therapy
needs to focus on the importance of Steve and Michele increasing their communication. They
need to respect the importance of each of them to Drew's overall well being and sense of security.
The only apparent reason to change the current custody schedule appears to be the
problems associated with the fact that the parents five in two different school systems. It is
recommended that Drew attend school either at East Pennsboro schools, or at a mutually
agreeable parochial school on the West Shore. In other words, it is recommended that Drew's
school district be determined by Michele's residence. However, it is also recommended that the
parents continue to employ a shared physical custodial arrangement. As long as Steve, or
someone he designates, is able to take Drew to and from either his school or day care program,
then a shared custodial arrangement should be able to continue to best meet the needs of Drew.
The most logical schedule for that parenting plan would have Drew spending every Monday and
Tuesday with his mother, every Wednesday and Thursday with his father and the parents would
altemair the weekends. Such an arrangement would maximize the time that Drew would get to
spend with each parent Summers should also be shared, as should all holidays.
It is imperative that the conflict over custody come to a stop as soon as possible- Michele
has noted that Drew is being exposed to multiple changes in his life and she would like to stabilize
his environment Steve has recently moved to a new home, gotten engaged, married and had
another child all within the last year. During that time the custody battle is being fought.
Admittedly, those are many changes for Drew to deal with However, the stability of his
relationships with his parents is most important and will serve the greatest part in creating security
for Drew Those have remained stable When Michele gets to the point in her life where she
finds another relationship and decides to relocate to her own home. Drew will again experience
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 12
changes in his life. It is doubtful that Michele would want Drew to live primarily with his father at
that time because he would have a more stable living environment. More likely, she too would
see the importance of maintaining stable parental relationships as the basis from which Drew
would be able to accept, adapt and adjust to a changing environment around him.
The importance of Steve and Michele creating a "truce" between them and opening their
communication cannot be stressed enough. These are both decent people who love their child.
They each have psychological problems and issues from their personal histories that affect their
overall ability to get along and co-parent effectively. Hopefully, they will seek professional
assistance in achieving the ability to over come those personal issues and work together for the
good of Drew. Whether they need to do that individually, or together may need further
exploration. Which ever way they decade to proceed, a reduction in the expressed animosity
between them is essential for the future healthy development of Drew.
V1 A (-
Dated
Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D.
-Oqrma„
-c
vC
L.i
6
c
t? G
S,
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, ,
Plaintiff/Respondent :
V.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY :
Defendant/Pet itioner:
IN THE COUR OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-3980
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
IN CUSTODY
r
RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR CUSTODY CONCILIATION
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff/Respondent, Steven R. Shepley, by and through
his attorney, Kathryn Waters-Perez, Esquire and respectfully replies as follows:
Admitted
2. Admitted
3. Admitted
4. Admitted
5. Admitted
6. Denied. Defendant/Petitioner, through her attorney, has made all previous
contact with Plaintiff/Respondent's previous attorney, Carl Wass concerning any
modification of the existing Custody Order. See Exhibit A attached.
Defendant/Petitioner's new counsel is not in possession of any previous records
concerning the custody concerning the minor, Drew Evan Shepley.
7. Admitted
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, IN THE COUR OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff/Respondent: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 97-3980
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY : CIVIL ACTION-LAW
Defendant/Petitioner: IN CUSTODY
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand that
false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904
relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
By
Steven R. Shep
Date: 46102
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, IN THE COUR OF COMMON PLEAS
PlaintifURespondent: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 97-3980
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY CIVIL ACTION-LAW
Defendant/Petitioner: IN CUSTODY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this o? day of June 2002, serving the foregoing
document upon the person(s) indicated below my by first class mail mail.
Marianne E_ Rudebusch, Esquire
4711 Locast Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
? r j -4,v
Kathryn Wateii-Pirez, Esquire
107 Hiddenwood Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
EXHIBIT A
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
vs.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Hoffer, P. J. -
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 97-3980
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant : CUSTODY
AND NOW, this 44, day of , 2001, upon
consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and
directed as follows:
1. The parties shall submit themselves and their minor Child to an independent
custody evaluation to be performed by Deborah Salem, M.H.S., C.A.C. In the event that Ms.
Salem is unavailable, unless otherwise agreed, the evaluation shall be performed by Dr.
Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D. The parties shall sign all necessary releases and authorizations for
the evaluator to obtain medical and psychological information pertaining to the parties.
Additionally, the parties shall extend their full cooperation to complete this evaluation and in
the scheduling of appointments in a timely fashion. The cost of the evaluation shall be shared
by the parties pro rata as determined by the Domestic Relations Office.
2. Within thirty days of the receipt of the report from the custody evaluator, either
party, via counsel, may request an additional Custody Conciliation Conference prior to filing a
motion for the scheduling of a hearing.
3. The Child shall attend private Kindergarten at his present location at the Oakwood
Baptist Church.
4. Legal Custodv. The parties, Steven R. Shepley and Michele A. Shepley, shall
have shared legal custody of the minor Child, Drew Evan Shepley, born September 17, 1995.
Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all
major non-emergency decisions affecting the Child's general well-being including, but not
limited to, all decisions regarding his health, education and religion. Pursuant to the terms of
Pa. C. S. § 5309, each paren?shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the
Child including, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious or school records, the residence
address of the Child and of the other parent. To the extent one parent has possession of any
such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof,
with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and information of
reasonable use to the other parent.
No. 97-3980 Civil Term
5. Physical Custody. The parties shall maintain the status quo of the physical
custody arrangement as set forth in the Order of September 22, 1997, for the school year
2001-2002 and during the period of the custody evaluation.
Father shall have custody from August 31, 2001, until September 1, 2001, at 7:30
p.m. for the purpose of the Child attending his wedding. The custodial exchange following the
wedding shall occur at the McDonald's restaurant in South Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
6. In the event that either party will be out of state while the Child is in their custody,
the traveling parent will provide to the other parent notice of the address and telephone
number where they will be during the time that they are away.
7. Telephone Contact. Each party shall be entitled to reasonable telephone contact
with the child when the child is in the other parent's custody.
8. In the event either party is unavailable to provide care for the Child during his or
her period of custody for a period of four hours or more, that party shall first make a
reasonable effort to contact the other party to offer the parent the opportunity to provide care
for the Child before contacting third-party caregivers.
9. Holidays. Unless otherwise agreed, the following holidays shall be alternated:
Easter, Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day. The custodial period shall be from
9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. The Child shall be in the custody of Father for Father's Day and in
the custody of Mother on Mothers Day. The custodial period for Father's Day and Mother's
Day shall be 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.
BY THE COURT,
41.4 C ,(1...-
e rge A. H ffer, P. J.
Dist: Marianna E. Rudehach. Eaqu m. 4711 Locust Lau, Harrisburg, PA 17109
Cal G. Wow Esquire, 3631 N. Front Sir"t, Harrisburg, PA 17110
'?4 :ISQ .Sao 1.N
Prothonotart
P '? n 1?..
-*.
? •.5
a- -1
`7
f:y ;}t
_a <<J
111 2002
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY IN,nir COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PhthatilURespondent: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 97-3980
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY CIVIL ACTION-LAW
Defendant/Petitioner: IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOV4L upon co ' n rtttached Petition, it is hereby
04
ordued this day of _ 2002 that the parties and the
mirror child submit to an independent custody evaluator for an update and review
of the custody evaluation.
C O?urD
Air
E6:
4.t. PeA
1a9.lkica%nt Ruaausc.?
BY THE COURT:
1 _f
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff/Respondeat: CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO.97-3980
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY CIVIL ACTION-LAW
Defendant/Petitioner: IN CUSTODY
PETITION FOR UPDATED CUSTODY EVALUATION AND REVIEW
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff/Respondent, Steven R. Shepley, by and through
his attorney, Kathryn Waters-Perez, Esquire and respectfully represents as follows:
The PlaintifVRespondent is Steven R. Shepley, and aduh individual who
resides at 525 Spruce Street, Steelton, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania,
17113.
2. The ikfendant/Petitioner is Michele A. Shepley, an adult individual who
resides at 213 Wyoming Avenue, Enola, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, 17025.
3. The Deferdant/Petitioner is requesting a custody conciliation to modify
the existing Custody Order of the minor child, Drew Evan Shepley.
4. The minor child, Drew F.van Shepley was born on September 17, 1995.
5. On September 4, 2001, the Ifonorabk George E. Hoofer entered an Order
directing that the panics submit themselves and the minor child to a
custody evaluation Said Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6. On March 19, 2002, the independent custody evaluator, Arnold T.
Shienvold. Ph.D., made recommendations the the P4riotiff/Responden4
Steven R. Shepley and the DefendantlPetitioner, Michele A. Shepley
maintain shared custody of the minor child. See Exhibit B.
7. The independent evaluator, Amol1 T. Sheinvokl, Ph.D. made strong
recommendations for the interest of the minor child, that the
PlaintifdRespondent and Dcfendant/Petitioner create a "truce" between
them and open their communication.
8. The independent evaluator further recommended that both the
Plaintiff/Respondent and Defendant/Petitioner seek professional assistance
in resolving their psychological problems, which are affecting the minor
child.
9. On July 2, 2002, the DefendantlPetitioner, Michele A. Shepley failed to
provide visitation and physical custody of the minor child to the
Plaintiff/Respondent as ordered by the court on September 22, 1997 and
September 4, 2001. See Exhibit C.
10. DefendanvTditioner. Michele A. Shepley has also made threats to the
Plaintiff/Respondent, Steven R. Shepley in the presence of the minor child
and the Plaintiff/Respondent's wife, Shelley Shepley that she would rot
permit the minor to have visitation with his father, Steven R. Shepley.
11. The Defendant/Petitioner, Michele A. Shepley has emotionally damaged
the minor and caused more emotional stress on the mirror child. Drew
Shepley on a repetitive basis since the cusody evaluatkin was completed
by Arnold T. Sheinvold, PhD. on March 19, 2002.
12. The Defendant/Petitioner, Michele A. Shepley is also in contempt of court
for fuiling to honor the court orders concerning the custody of the minor
child Drew Evan Shepley.
13. The Dcfendant/Petitioner, Michele A. Shepley failed to appear at a
scheduled appointment for counseling for the minor child, Drew Evan
Shepley even alter a request was made by the counselor to appear for such
counseling for the benefit and interest of the said minor, Drew Evan
Shepley.
14. The Plaintiff/Respondent, Steven R. Shepley is seeking a review and
updated custody evaluation with Arnold T. Sheinvold, PhD. prior to any
custody conciliation to address the concerns which are currently affecting
the minor child and are also a concern of the court appointed evaluator,
Arnold T. Sheinvold, Ph.D. The Plainti(pRespondent believes this
updated evaluation prior to the resolution of any custody conciliation is in
the best interest of the minor child.
15. Plaintiff/Respondent through his attorney made a request to
Defendant/Petitioners attorney informally to have the minor child and the
parents voluntarily submit themselves to the independent custody
evaluator for an update and review in the interest of the minor child. The
Defendant(Petitioner has failed to respond to such request for a voluntary
updateireview with the court appointed independent evaluator.
16. In the alternative, the Plaintiff/Respondent seeks to continue and
reschedule the custody conciliation until the court appointed custody
evaluator has updated and reviewed the custody evaluation, the minor
child and parents of Drew Evan Shepley.
WHEREFORE. PlaintifT/Respondent respectfully request an updated custody
evaluation and review be completed in the interest of the minor child prior to any
custody determination made by a Custody Conciliator.
Respectfully Submitted,
Waters-Perez, Esquire
107 Hiddenwood Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 541-1078
Id.No. 77781
Dated. _7? 0;
e
S IlVG`t R St?PLRY I IN]
tYle+am0'RMporAnts Cll
V.
MICBM A. SIii LgY t CIV
Madu0teddwah IN I
I wr* tot the od maob mak
umktobw to him
PtCAJL Swdoa 4904 missW b
Dsae: s •
COURT OF COMMON PL AS
WAND COUM, RBNNSYLVANiA
brapbe we t= ad oasre A I
say snide su bjxt to the pssoeltiee of It
6MScatim so esgorkkL
R. Nwpky
r
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff/Respondent: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 97-3990
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY : CIVIL ACTION-LAW
Defendant/Petitioner: IN CUSTODY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
III
I hereby certify that 1 am this of July 2002, serving the foregoing document
upon the person(s) indicated below by certified mail.
Marianne E. itudebusch, Esquire
4711 Locust Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
Wat?Uen:z, Esquire
107 Hiddenwood Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
EXHIBIT A
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
vs.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 97-3980
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant : CUSTODY
Hoffer, P. J. -
N
AND NOW, this V ' day of 4reAmL.- 2001, upon
consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it Is hereby ordered and
directed as follows:
1. The parties shall submit themselves and their minor Child to an independent
custody evaluation to be performed by Deborah Salem, M.H.S., C.A.C. In the event that Ms.
Salem is unavailable, unless otherwise agreed, the evaluation shall be performed by Dr.
Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D. The parties shall sign all necessary releases and authorizations for
the evaluator to obtain medical and psychological information pertaining to the parties.
Additionally, the parties shall extend their full cooperation to complete this evaluation and in
the scheduling of appointments in a timely fashion. The cost of the evaluation shall be shared
by the parties pro rata as determined by the Domestic Relations Office.
2. Within thirty days of the receipt of the report from the custody evaluator, either
party, via counsel, may request an additional Custody Conciliation Conference prior to filing a
motion for the scheduling of a hearing.
3. The Child shall attend private Kindergarten at his present location at the Oakwood
Baptist Church.
4. Legal Custodv. The parties, Steven R. Shepley and Michele A. Shepley, shall
have shared legal custody of the minor Child, Drew Evan Shepley, bom September 17, 1995.
Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all
major non-emergency decisions affecting the Child's general well-being including, but not
limited to, all decisions regarding his health, education and religion. Pursuant to the terms of
Pa. C. S. § 5309, each paren',shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the
Child including, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious or school records, the residence
address of the Child and of the other parent. To the extent one parent has possession of any
such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof,
with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and information of
reasonable use to the other parent.
No. 97-3980 Civil Term
5. Physical Custody. The parties shall maintain the status quo of the physical
custody arrangement as set forth in the Order of September 22, 1997, for the school year
2001-2002 and during the period of the custody evaluation.
Father shall have custody from August 31, 2001, until September 1, 2001, at 7:30
p.m. for the purpose of the Child attending his wedding. The custodial exchange following the
wedding shall occur at the McDonald's restaurant in South Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
6. In the event that either party will be out of state while the Child is in their custody,
the traveling parent will provide to the other parent notice of the address and telephone
number where they will be during the time that they are away.
7. Telephone Contact. Each party shall be entitled to reasonable telephone contact
with the child when the child is in the other parent's custody.
8. In the event either party is unavailable to provide care for the Child during his or
her period of custody for a period of four hours or more, that party shall first make a
reasonable effort to contact the other party to offer the parent the opportunity to provide care
for the Child before contacting third-party caregivers.
s?
9. HQ1idays. Unless otherwise agreed, the following holidays shall be alternated:
Easter, Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day. The custodial period shall be from
9:00 a.m. unfit 6:00 p.m. The Child shall be in the custody of Father for Father's Day and in
the custody of Mother on Mother's Day. The custodial period for Father's Day and Mother's
Day shall be 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.
BY THE COURT,
r- ,
e rge A. H ffer, P. J. 00
Dist: MarWM E. Rudebuscl% Esquire, 4711 Locust Lane. Harrisburg. PA 17109
Carl O. Won, Esquire, 3031 N. Front street, Harrisburg, PA 17110
Y 1 A
vi; i!it`. 5 `ia Cn' sli
-- Q. yt t i%. , to
P:olhonutarj
EXHIBIT B
Rieglcr • Shienvold
& Associates
CUSTODY EVALUATION
Hhot Riegler. Ph D. (1943.1991,
Arnold T Slrien\old, Ph U
Melinda ra.h. \I.
J,rnres Gash. Lsu
\hchael J Asken. Ph 1,
Donnie Howard. Ph 11
\m% h Re,.lurg. ACS11. L(-S\%. NCI
I ra.) Richards. QCSW, LCS\\
Don Lawrence. LS\\
D)anne Seymore. QCSw. LS\1
Jeffrey Pincus. PhD
Ann Vergales. ACS11'. LSW. BCD
Lisa R Paponeni. NIA
STEVEN IL SHEPLEY v. MICHELE A. SHEPLEY
97-3980
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Referred By: By Order Of Court dated September 4, 2001
fi
Referral Reason: To conduct a comprehensive custody evaluation and to make
recommendations regarding the most appropriate parenting plan for
Drew Evan Shepley, DOB 9/17/95
Individual Interviews: Michele Shepley 10/23/01,11/21/01,12/26/01
Steven Shepley 10/31/01, 11/29/01,12/6/01
Drew Shepley 12/26/01, 12/28/01
Richard and Martha Collins 1/3/02
Shelly Shepley 1/2/02
Psychological Testing: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2)
"Michele Shepley
"Steven Shepley
"Shelly Shepley
Home Visit Each parent's residence was evaluated for safety concerns and the
family was observed interacting in the home environment
Parent-Child Interaction Each parent was observed interacting with Drew in the office
setting
Additional Information. 1 Letter dated August 23, 2001 from Carl G Waas to Dr.
Shienvold
2111 1 mglc.mscn Road. Surrc '1111 • II'm0,ure. Pcna,%1%.rn,.r I'111) • 1 '1'1 =10 1 AI t • I at (717) 540-1416
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 2
2. Petition To Modify filed on behalf of Michele A. Shepley dated
8/14/01
3. Order dated September 22, 1997 re: temporary custody of
Drew
4. Order Of Court dated December 8, 1997
5. Custody Conciliation Conference Summary Report dated
9/16/97
6. Detailed options for School for Drew provided by Michele
7. Detailed proposed parenting plans provided by Michele
8. List of "Involvement" showing activities in which Michele has
participated with Drew
6
9. Correspondences between the parties provided by Michele
10. Miscellaneous information provided by Michele
11. Letter from Andrea C. Jacobsen to Carl Waas dated July 24,
2001
12. Log of Michele's observations regarding daily events of Drew,
13. List of important issues dated October 31, 2001 provided by
Steve
14. Letter from Michele to Dr. Shienvold dated February 8, 2002
15. Drew's kindergarten report card
16. Letter from Steven to br. Shienvold dated.febtuary 24, 2002
!7. Letter from Steven to Dr. Shienvold dated March 13, 2002
The recommendations at the conclusion of this report are based on all of these sources of
information and data.
Shepley v Shepley
Page 3
Background
Steven and Michele Shepley are the parents of Drew Evan Shepley who is 6 years old.
They have been sharing equally the custody of Drew since the time of their separation in
December of 1997. At that time it was decided that Drew would spend alternating periods of
either thret or four days with each of his parents. Because Steven typically worked on weekends,
Michele's days were either from Friday to Monday or Friday to Tuesday
Michele decided to petition for a modification of the current custody order. Michele
believes, and thought that Steve agreed, that Drew needs a primary residence now that he is
attending school. Furthermore, Michele feels that she can provide the more appropriate residence
during the school week. According to Michele, she is the more "regimented, routine person" of
her and Steve. She believes that Drew needs the kind of structure that she provides. Michele
reported that she can provide on-going stability for Drew. She does not feel that he gets that with
his father. Michele indicated that she enjoys getting very active with Drew and keeping him
involved in activities outside of the home. She reported that she is the team mom for soccer and
that she is involved at his day school.
Michele is concerned about attempting to maintain a shared custodial arrangement.
According to Michele, part of the reason that she filed her petition for modification was as a result
of Steve's unwillingness to discuss Drew's school situation. Michele wanted to place Drew in the
East Pennsboro school district. According to Michele, Steve wanted Drew to go into the Central
Dauphin district, but would not have a discussion with her about the options. Oakwood Baptist
School, which is where he is attending kindergarten, was the emergency "back-up" when they
could not reach an agreement. However, Michele used this as an example of the difficultly she
feels that he has caused with regard to communication between them. ;
According to Michele, Steve will not communicate about any type of important
information. He has made decisions to go places without informing Michele or providing details
for her. Michele reported that when she attempts to communicate with Steve she is accused of
"harassment." Michele alleges that Steve is unwilling to coordinate parenting decisions such as
bedtimes, or activities. She perceives Steve as being very "rigid and stubborn ._I
Steve indicated that he opposes Michele becoming the primary custodian. Initially, Steve
reported that'ie wanted to maintain a shared custodial arrangement. However, at another point in
the evaluation, Steve stated that if Drew was to be primarily in one location, Steve felt that it
should be at his home.
Steve reported that he was surprised by Michele's petition for modification There was a
disagreement over the school at which Drew would attend kindergarten. According to Steve.
Michele had withdrawn Drew from Oakwood Baptist School and registered him in East
Shepley v Shepley
Page 4
Pennsboro without informing him of the decision. lie denied an allegation that he had registered
Drew at Linglestown Elementary School without informing Michele. He admitted that he had
"inquired" about enrollment at that school. According to Steve, it took court intervention to put
Drew in Oakwood for this school year Steve believes that Michele wants Drew in East
Pennsboro for her convenience.
Steve is somewhat concerned that Michele's motive for seeking primary custody is to gain
an increase in child support. He noted that Michele has repeatedly asked him for "one extra day."
He reported that when Michele filed her petition for modification of custody, she also filed a
petition to modify the child support. Steve stated that Michele has been consistently unwilling to
show flexibility around the custodial schedule. According to Steve, Michele will ask for
additional time for herself, but will never allow additional time for him. Steve feels that Michele is
vindictive towards him. He reported that she has befriended an old girlfriend of his and has
actually brought her to his house during transitions with Drew.
Steve reported that Drew has made derogatory statements about him and Shelly that he
could have only heard from his mother. For example, according to Steve, Drew said that he and
Shelly "serve Lucifer." Drew reported that God had told him that. Drew was also reported to
have said, "You don't love me, just Shelly." Steve believes that Michele promises-Drew activities
in order to interfere with Steve's time with him.
Steve desperately wants to be a full-time father for Drew. He feels that he puts family
before all else in his life. He believes that he is very understanding of Drew and provides a good
listener for him. Steve feels that he sets guidelines for his son and that he can teach him to be a
good person. Steve believes that he provides a stable environment for his son.
History
Michele and Steven met in 1994. After dating for approximately 8-months, Michele
became pregnant. They decided to get married and did so on April 29, 1995. The pregnancy
went without problems, although Steve complained that Michele was very moody. Michele
reported that Steve was very attentive during the pregnancy and he was present at the birth.
Labor and delivery went well and Drew was born as a healthy baby. However, he developed colic
and nights were very difficult. Neither Steve nor Michele got much sleep
Michele and Steve agree that the relationship began to deteriorate after Drew's birth.
According to Michele, they began to "grow apart" because Steve was working two jobs. They
did not see much of one another, or spend much time together She stated that they would have
"heated arguments" over things like money Steve agreed that there were arguments, but he
blamed them on Michele He felt that she was experiencing a Post-Partunr Depression Michele
admitted to having the "blues" after Drew's With Steve repotted that Michele would get
Shepley V Shepley
Page 5
physically violent during the arguments fie also stated that Michele flattened all the tires in his
car to keep him from going out.
Shortly after that time, Michele went to her family physician and got medication for her
depression. She admitted to feeling miserable. Michele felt abandoned by Steve, who wanted
virtually no physical intimacy with her. Michele stated that it was Steve who would push her
during their arguments. According to Michele, Steve admitted that he did not know what love
and family were, because of his background. They separated for six months at Michele's
initiation. However, she asked him to return so they could have a "family."
The relationship did not improve, but worsened. Physical altercations continued to occur.
Both parties accused the other of initiating the fights. Michele admitted that she would become
frustrated and tell Steve to take care of Drew. Steve reported that Michele would express anger
at Drew's crying at night. He alleged that Michele was constantly sleeping. Finally, he left with
Drew for 2 weeks and stayed with his "parents." He retumed, but within 2-3 months he left
again. They separated permanently in August, 1997.
Drew Shepley
Drew is described by both of his parents as energetic and extremely active. He is good
natured, independent and creative. His parents feel that he is fumy, loving and thoughtful. He
has good motor skills and enjoys playing sports. Drew can become aggressive and, by the end of
the evaluation, was demonstrating increased aggression at school.
Drew attends kindergarten at Oakwood Baptist Day School. His teachers feel he is doing
well, but demonstrating increasing anxiety over the last couple of months. For that reason,
Michele requested to have Drew begin counseling. At the time of this writing, Drew was going to
begin counseling with Ms. Melinda Eash. Nonetheless, Drew continues to meet his
developmental expectations at school. His social development has been good. He has friends at
school and participates with other children in activities like soccer. Again, the only problem is
that he becomes aggressive with other children.
Drew's physical health is good. He demonstrates a healthy appetite There is no problem
with his weight. Drew is somewhat difficult to calm down at bedtime. Once he gets to steep he
generally sleeps through the night Both parents use the same bedtime odschool nights. He gets
up without difficulty. Both parents have mealtime and bedtime routines which are appropriate
and family oriented ,
Michele and Steve reported that Drew has an excellent relationship with each of them,
individually Michele stated, "Drew loves his father, dearly " Steve reported that Drew, "Wants
to call mommy and talk to her and see her " Steve reported that the relationship between Drew
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 6
and Shelly "started slowly," but now is getting closer Steve believes that Michele told Drew that
he did not have to listen to Shelly. However, he admitted that Shelly is more strict than he and
that may be a factor in Drew's reaction to her.
Drew was interviewed on two separate occasions, once when his father brought him and
once when his mother brought him in. There was a distinct difference in Drew's moods and
statements when each parent brought him to the interview. When Drew was accompanied by
Steve, he answered questions appropriately about who lived in each home. He was aware that
Shelly was pregnant and that he would have a new baby. Drew was not upset by that fact. He
also knew that his mother had a boyfriend named Mike.
Drew reported that he attended kindergarten at Oakwood Baptist School. He likes school
and has friends there. He stated that he "learns stuff' at school" and that his mom allows him to
go all day, but his dad does not. According to Drew, Shelly will often pick him up at school
because his dad has to work late. Drew stated that he likes spending time at both houses iris
mom takes him places and cooks pretty good. His dad plays lots of games and takes him outside,
but also punishes him more often. According to Drew, his mom and dad will spank him on
occasion. Shelly only sends him to his room. She does not spank him because, "Mom says it's not
allowed." Drew reported that his parents fight about all sorts of things. Dad and Shelly alsoJ*t
sometimes, as do Mike and Mom.
Upon entering the interview room when brought by his mother, Drew declared, "Dad put
me in a dryer when I was four years old." lie also stated, "One day dad threw a football at me
and hit me in the stomach. It hurt when I was 6." When asked why he was telling me these
stories, Drew responded that his mother had reminded him to say them. It should be noted that
Drew was not angry or agitated when he reported those events. With respect to the football
incident, Drew stated that his father made him feel better by rubbing his tummy and giving it a
kiss.
Drew admitted that he was in a "bad mood" during that appointment. He felt that
different people had been mean to him. He stated that he didn't like football because you get
hurt, he didn't like soccer because the coach is mean, and he didn't like Chucky Cheese because
people take your tickets Drew went on to say that he and his dad don't like Shelly. However, he
likes his dad's old girl friend, Sharon, who is a friend of his mom's. Drew reported that Sharon
doesn't like his dad because they got into a fight. Drew indicated that Shelly was mean because
she would not let him watch television or play with his Play Station or X-Box.
It is unclear whether Drew's "bad mood" lead to his negative attitude about almost
everything, or if being "teminded" about certain negative events in the past created atmiety and
anger in Drew. Nonetheless, the young boy seen at the second visit, which was only two days
after the fast, was less cheerful and relaxed than he was at his Gist visit Additionally. Drew had
changed some of his perceptions about his environment, especially atx)ut Shelly
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 7
Steven Shepley
Steve Shepley is a 34 year old man who has worked for United Express at the Harrisburg
International Airport for the last 12 years. Steve is a customer service representative. His hours
are from 5:00 A.M. to 1:30 P.M. one week and from 9.00 A.M. to 5: 00 P.M. the next. Steve
generally has either Tuesday and Wednesday or Wednesday and Thursday off during the week.
Steve has a very complex childhood history. Steve and his sister, Kim, were in and out of
foster homes for much of their childhood. They were first removed from their mother's care
when Steve was S years old. He reported that his mother had her first "breakdown" at that time.
The children went initially to a temporary foster home, and then a permanent placement was
obtained. Unfortunately, Steve's foster father was abusive and he ran away from that location.
After another temporary placement, Steve and his sister were placed back with his mother. That
was short lived when his mother had another problem. She has a diagnosis of Paranoid
Schizophrenia. Steve was in the Methodist Children's Home for approximately four years.
Another foster home was attempted unsuccessfully. Finally. Steve and his sister found a
permanent home with the Collins'. He considers them to be his parents and the children from that
e home to be his family.
An interview with Richard and Martha Collins reinforced much of what Steven had
reported. They indicated that they have had a total of 9 foster children. The Collins' also stated
that they consider the children and themselves to be a "family." They reported that their "family"
was a concept that Michele had a difficult time accepting or understanding. Their perception of
Steve was that he was initially a quiet child who kept everything "inside." He was cautious and
had a difficult time expressing his emotions. However, they never perceived him as being
aggressive or abusive. They admitted that Steve could become a "bear" when he was in a bad
mood. However, they reported that Michele was also very moody and would frequently "put-
down" Steve. They remember their relationship as always being "contentious."
Steven presented as a serious, well-spoken young man who was anxious about the
evaluation. Ile was determined to "remain a part" of Drew's life. Steve's affect showed an
appropriate range of expression during the interviews. He was attentive and concentrated well
within the sessions. He was able to present his side of the story in a logical, goal-directed manner.
There was an air of confidence about Steve that was inconsistent with his concerns about custody
and his concerns about his ability to articulate his feelings about the situation. .01
Steve reported that he drinks alcohol very infrequently. His last drink was approximately
six months ago Steve denied smoking or using any drugs lie had been in psychotherapy
following his separation from Michele. Steve admitted that he will occasionally get "down," but
he has never suffered with depression. Ile can also become situationally anxious Steve has never
been fired from a job lie is a graduate of Lebanon Valley College.
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 8
Steve completed the MMPI-2. His profile is generally valid, but Steve demonstrated a
considerable degree of defensiveness in answering questions. Individuals with this profile tend to
show a lack of insight and a denial of common human frailties. They are most likely
psychologically naive and evasive. They report to having strong moral values and they are
conforming and self-controlled. Men with this profile are prone to periodic anxiety attacks.
However, these men generally over-control their emotions. They may appear writable as a
function of their desire to withhold the expression of negative emotions. Men with a similar
profile tend to be immature and naive. They appear optimistic, cheerful and enthusiastic, but
admitting failure is very difficult for them. They have strong needs for affection and attention and
may seek to meet those needs through manipulative techniques if they are not being met in more
appropriate ways. These men tend to be perfectionistic and mildly independent. They can also
act impulsively. Thew social skills are good and they enjoy being with others. They tend to use
denial and repression to deal with unwanted feelings. However, that may create a lack of insight.
They have a strong desire to be accepted and well liked. Physical problems often develop as a
function of stress. Diagnoses associated with this profile have to do with their tendency to
experience anxiety.
fi A home visit was conducted at Steve's previous residence. Since the time of the
completion of the evaluation Steve has relocated to a new home. Therefore, the observations of
the old home are somewhat irrelevant. However, the home was appropriately furnished and
attired for Drew. It was clean, neat and without safety concerns. One can assume that the same
will be true of the new home, especially since Steve and Shelly have a new baby in that home.
Steve's interactions with Drew were playful and appropriate. It is obvious that Drew
enjoys interacting with his father and that they like to tease one another. Steve applied some
simple limits to Drew's behavior, but the situation was such that the limits were not essential. ;
Shelly tended to be more the rule setter and frequently presented rules in a negative perspective,
i.e. don't do such and such, or don't touch the snow, etc. She was not as involved or as close to
Drew as was his father. '
Michele Shepley
Michele is 28 years old. She is employed at the main branch of Allfirst Bank where she
works as a receptionist. Michele has been employed there fur the last 5 years. She has some
limited flexibility to her schedule in that on the days that she has custody of New she works from
8 00 AN to 4a0 P.M while on the days that she does not have Drew she works until 5.00 P.M.
Michele indicated that she enjoys her job
Michele was raised in rural Pennsylvania Her father worked for a gas company and her
mother stayed at home with the children Michele has one brother and one sister. She also bas
four half siblings from her mother's first marriage Michele related that she had "good memories"
Shepley v Shepley
Page 9
from growing-up. She was a "daddy's girl" who was a A-B student Alter graduating high
school, Michele moved to the Harrisburg area in order to attend Central Penn Business School.
Michele presented as a pleasant woman who appeared on time for all of her appointments.
She was always neatly dressed and well-groomed. Michele's mood was consistent with the
situation. She demonstrated a wide range of affectual responses tier concentration was good
and her attention was adequate. Michele was able to describe her concerns without difficulty.
She was articulate and rational in her presentation.
Michele reported that she had suffered feelings of depression shortly after the birth of
Drew. She also related that when she is under stress she experiences anxiety. While in college,
Michele suffered with panic attacks. She reported that she had a panic attack during the marriage.
Michele took Ativan at that time from her family physician. She has not seen an individual
counselor. Michele denied any symptoms of anxiety or depression at this time. Michele reported
that she drinks alcohol approximately one time per month in social situations. She neither smokes
or uses drugs. Michele has never been arrested nor has she ever been fired from a job.
s? Michele completed the MMPI-2. Her profile is valid. Michele appears to have responded
frankly to all items. Interestingly, this profile is more common amongst psychological patients
rather than evaluation clients. That is because of the significant openness in the presentation.
Such an approach is often interpreted as an individual making a plea for help. More frequently in
evaluations, clients are attempting to look their very best. Michele's profile is associated with
individuals who demonstrate strong self-dissatisfaction, notable openness, bluntness and a critical
attitude. Women with this profile often have unrecognized hostility. They are emotionally labile
and irritable. Anxiety is common, as is occasional periods of acute distress. Similar women tend
to be overly dramatic in social situations. They are also energetic, aggressive, gregarious and
histrionic. Answers to questions denote a tendency ?o disassociate affect, inadequate impulse
control and a sense that emotions are strange. On the other hand, they exhibit a great need for
affection and attention. These women often lack insight into their own psychological make-up.
They also complain of numerous psychosomatic symptoms Diagnoses related to this profile are
associated with the anxiety experienced by the client
Michele resides in Enola, PA in a second floor apartment. The apartment is in an older
building, but it appears to be well maintained There is no yard available for Drew. Drew has his
own bedroom xhich is appropriately decorated for a young child There were no safety concern{s
noted in the home environment Michele's interactions with Drew were smooth, comfortable and
appropriate for Drew. He is a bright child and responds well to his mother's style of interaction.
It was obvious from the observation and attendant conversation that Michele and Drew play
games frequently. Michele is patient with him, but also appears willing to set realistic limits
Shepley v Shepley
Page 10
Shelley Shepley
Shelley is a 22 year old woman who works for American Airlines as a ticket agent. She
has worked for them for approximately one year. Shelley is currently on maternity leave from her
job. She is allowed up to 6 weeks of maternity leave, but would like to take up to a year off from
work in order to stay home with her new baby.
Shelley met Steve in March of last year. She became pregnant in April and they were
married on September 1, 2001. Shelley and Steve actually began living together in August. She
reported that she met Drew very early in the relationship. According to Shelley, she was not
concerned that Steve had a child. She felt that she and Drew could learn to relate to one another
over time. She did not try to push him in the relationship.
Shelley reported that she tries "to be there for Drew. She tries to point out to him what
he does right and wrong. Shelley indicated that Drew will get into "moods" and not listen, but
generally he is a "good kid." When Shelley disciplines Drew she gives him three warnings and
then sends him to his room. She reported, "Steve does any punishment beyond that." Shelley
indicated that Steve has some difficulty with discipline. According to Shelley, prior to her coming
into the picture, Steve was "more of a best friend than a father." Shelley feels that Steve and
Michele are great parents. It is her opinion that Steve and Michele should continue to share
custody.
Shelley appeared to be a relatively mature woman in spite of the fact that she is
considerably younger than Steve. She reported that she neither smokes nor drinks alcohol. She
does not use any illegal drugs. Shelley denied any history of anxiety or depression. She has never
been in treatment for a psychological disorder. Religion is very important to Shelley. She is
protestant and Steve is Catholic. According to Shelley the baby will be raised in her religion.
She:.,.y's MMPI-2 profile is valid. The response pattern suggests a frank approach to
answering question with only mild defensiveness. women with this profde are emotionally stable
and free from disabling anxiety. All of the clinical scales are within normal limits. Similar women
are quite tnrsting, conventional, cheerful awl somewhat insensitive. They may reject traditional
feminine values and are self-confident
Recommendations
Michele and Steve Shepley currently share the physical custody of Drew. Michele
believes that it is in Drew's best interests to be in her primary custody during the school year.
Steve disagrees with that opirdon He feels that Drew would be better served if he was in his
primary care, or the shared custody of both parents Steve also feels that Drew should attend
school in his school district In the alternativv, he wants Drew to attend a Catholic parochial
school
Sheplev v Shepley
Page I I
The current evaluation revealed that Drew is strongly attached to both of his parents. The
history of the family shows that Michele and Steve have had significant involvement in the raising
of Drew. They both fed hint, bathed him, changed him and played with him as an infant. Both
have a good understanding of his developmental growth and needs. Michele demonstrates a
greater ability to set limits for Drew than does Steve Additionally, Michele has had greater
involvement inmost of his medical and dental care llowever, Steve is equally capable of
providing for those needs and would like to do so With the help of Shelley, Steve is improving
his limit setting and discipline procedures.
In general, Drew has done well in adjusting to the divorce of his parents. Neither parent
indicated that Drew has shown behavioral or emotional problems. More recently, the stress of the
custodial problems appears to causing some behavioral disturbances for Drew. These have been
noted at his school where the teachers have reported that Drew is more irritable and aggressive.
The evaluation seems to indicate that Michele is exposing Drew to her negative feelings about
Steve and Shelley. Such exposure leads to confusion and anxiety in Drew. lie loves both of his
parents and has not shown any desire to take sides in their conflict. Fortunately, Michele and
Steve have agreed to take Drew to a counselor and have begun that process. Put of the therapy
H needs to focus on the importance of Steve and Michele increasing their communication. They
need to respect the importance of each of them to Drew's overall well being and sense of security.
The only apparent reason to change the current custody schedule appears to be the
problems associated with the fact that the parents live in two different school systems. It is
recommended that Drew attend school either at East Pennsboro schools, or at a mutually
agreeable parochial school on the West Shore. In other words, it is recommended that Drew's
school district be determined by Michele's residence. llowever, it is also recommended that the
parents continue to employ a shared physical custodial arrangement. As long as Steve, or
someone he designates, is able to take Drew to and from either his school or day care program,
then a shared custodial arrangement should be able to continue to best meet the needs of Drew.
The most logical schedule for that parenting plan would have Drew spending every Monday and
Tuesday with his mother, every Wednesday and Thursday with his father and the parents would
alternate the weekends. Such an arrangement would maximize the time that Drew would get to
spend with each parent. Summers should also be shared, as should all holidays.
It is imperative that the conflict over custody come to a stop as soon as possible. Michele
has noted that Drew is being exposed to multiple changes in his life and she would like to stabilize r
his environment Steve has recently moved to a new home, gotten engaged, married and had
another child all within the last year. During that time the custody battle is being fought
Admittedly, those are many changes for Drew to deal with llowever, the stability of his
relationships with his parents is most important and will serve the greatest part in creating security
for Drew Those have remained stable When Michele gets to the point in her life where she
finds another relationship and decides to relocate to her own home. Drew will again experience
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 12
changes in his life. It is doubtful that Michele would want Drew to live primarily with his father at
that time because he would have a more stable living environment. More likely, she too would
see the importance of maintaining stable parental relationships as the basis from which Drew
would be able to accept, adapt and adjust to a changing environment around him.
The importance of Steve and Michele creating a "truce' between them and opening their
communication cannot be stressed enough. These are both decent people who love their child.
They each have psychological problems and issues from their personal histories that affect their
overall ability to get along and co-parent effectively. Hopefully, they will seek professional
assistance in achieving the ability to over come those personal issues and work together for the
good of Drew. Whether they need to do that individually, or together may need further
exploration. Which ever way they decide to proceed, a reduction in the expressed animosity
between than is essential for the future healthy development of Drew.
Dated Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D.
0
EXHIBIT C
Michael Bucher Testimony
On July 2, 2002, 1 Michael Bucher at 211 Wyoming Ave, Enola, PA 17025,
witnessed that Steven Shepley arrived at the residence of Michelle Shepley, which is 213
Wyoming Avenue, Enola PA 17025. His arrival time was 7:00pm. Steven was at that
location to pickup his son, which I have witnessed in the pest. On this evening. Steven's
son Drew was unavailable for pickup. Steven waited until 8:30pm at which time he
spoke to me about this incident. Steven stated that his normal pickup time is 7:00pm and
that no one was at the residence. 1 told him that I would be a witness to this occurrence.
After we spoke, Steven left Michelle's residence without his son.
Please use this letter as my testimony to the fact that Drew was unavailable for
pickup at 7;00pm and Steven waited 1 1/2 hours to receive his son.
Signed
e Michael Bucher
211 Wyoming Ave
Enola, PA 17025
(717) 732.4645
t. r•
LL
i ..
ti
U CJ sj
G V
Jtli 1. r, '1110?
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
V.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
AND NOW, this a,f"' day of July, 2002, upon consideration of the attached
Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows:
1. Legal Custody. The parties, Steven R. Shepley and Michele A. Shepley, shall
have shared legal custody of the minor child, Drew Evan Shepley, born September 17,
1995. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to
make all major non-emergency decisions affecting the child's general well-being including,
but not limited to, all decisions regarding his health, education and religion. Pursuant to the
terms of Pa. C. S. §5309, each parent shall be entitled to all records and information
pertaining to the child including, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious or school
records, the residence address of the child and of the other parent. To the extent one
parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to
share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to
make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent.
2. Physical Custody. Father shall have physical custody according to the
following four week alternating schedule:
(a) Week 1. Effective July 16, 2002 from Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. until Friday
at 7:00 p.m.
(b) Week 2. From Friday at 7:00 p.m. until Monday at 7:00 p.m.
(c) Week 3. From Monday at 7:00 p.m. until Friday at 7:00 p.m.
(c) Week 4. From Friday at 7:00 p.m. until Tuesday at 7:00 p.m.
At all times when Father does not have custody, Mother shall have custody.
3. Taansnortation. The person receiving custody shall provide transportation
incident to their periods of custody.
N0.97-3980 CIVIL TERM
4. Holidays. Unless otherwise agreed, the following holidays shall be alternated:
Easter, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving. Custodial period
shall be from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. The child shall be in the custody of Father for
Father's Day and in custody of Mother for Mother's Day. The custody for Fathers Day and
Mother's Day shall be from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. The Thanksgiving holiday period shall
be from Wednesday after school until Monday at 8:30 a.m. The alternating holiday
schedule shall commence with Father having Labor Day 2002. In the event that Father
does not have to work the weekend following Thanksgiving, his custodial period for a
Thanksgiving holiday shall be from Wednesday after school until Monday at 8:30 p.m.
5. The parties shall participate in eight (8) additional sessions with Melinda Eash
of therapeutic family counseling to enhance the parents' abilities to communicate and make
decisions in a cooperative fashion regarding their son. Unreimbursed costs of these
therapeutic services shall be shared equally by the parties. Following the conclusion of
these sessions, a progress report will be made to counsel for the parties.
6. Fathers counsel has agreed to stay the action on their Petition for an Updated
Custody Evaluation and Review pending the outcome of the parties' counseling as
recommended by Dr. Shienvold in the evaluation dated March 19, 2002. The
Respondent/Mother shall therefore not be required to file an Answer to the
Petitioner/Father's Petition for the Updated Custody Evaluation and Review.
7. Drew shall continue in counseling with his therapist and the parties shall
participate as directed by that therapist.
8. Mother shall share information with Father regarding the school and teaching
staff and coordinate with him an appointment to register the child for school no later than
July 22, 2002.
9. Vacation. Father shall have custody for vacation from August 9, 2002 through
August 18, 2002 at 8:00 p.m. In subsequent years, each parent shall be entitled to fourteen
(14) days of vacation time with the child, not more than ten (10) of which shall be used
consecutively. The parties shall provide each other with a minimum of sixty (60) days notice
of their vacation plans. In the event that the parties have scheduled conflicting vacations,
the party first providing written notice shall have choice of the vacation time.
10. This custodial schedule is presently based on an agreement of the parties
which attempts to maximize the child's time to be with a parent outside of working hours.
Therefore, it is contemplated that if Fathers days off were to change and include weekends
that the schedule would be changed accordingly.
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
11. In the event that either party will be out of state while the child is in their
custody, the traveling parent will provide the other parent with notice of the address and
telephone number where they will be during the time that they are away.
12. Telephone Contact. Each party shall be entitled to reasonable telephone
contact with the child when the child is in the other parent's custody.
13. In the event that either party is unavailable to provide child care during his or
her period of custody for a period of four (4) hours or more, that parties shall first make a
reasonable effort to contact the other parent to offer that parent the opportunity to provide
care for the child before a third party caregiver is contacted..,?
BY THE
Dist: Kathryn Waters-Perez, Esquire. 107 Hiddenwood Drive. Harrisburg, PA 17110 q • p Z
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire, 4711 Locust Lane, Harrisburg. PA 17109' mt r""1
ep-1 4.
C4 t. .
.r
,July `'
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff
V.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
1. The pertinent information concerning the child who is the subject of this
litigation is as follows:
Drew Evan Shepley September 17, 1995 Mother and Father
2. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on July 15, 2002 with the
following individuals in attendance: The Father, Steven R. Shepley and his counsel,
Kathryn Waters-Perez, Esquire; the Mother, Michele A. Shepley and her counsel, Marianne
E. Rudebusch, Esquire.
3.
attached.
The parties reached an agreement for a Temporary Order in the form as
c??IDZ
Date
Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire
Custody Conciliator
:1608"
1 6 20n'
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
V.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
TEMPORARY ORDER OF COU
day of 2002, upon consideration of the attached
AND NOW, this V I lak
Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows:
1. Legal Custody. The parties, Steven R. Shepley and Michele A. Shepley, shall
have shared legal custody of the minor child, Drew Evan Shepley, born September 17,
1995. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to
make all major non-emergency decisions affecting the child's general well-being including,
but not limited to, all decisions regarding his health, education and religion. Pursuant to the
terms of Pa. C. S. §5309, each parent shall be entitled to all records and information
pertaining to the child including, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious or school
records, the residence address of the child and of the other parent. To the extent one
parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to
share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to
make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent.
2. Physical Custody. Father shall have physical custody according to the
following four week alternating schedule:
(a) Week 1. Effective July 16, 2002 from Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. until Friday
at 7:00 p.m.
(b) Week 2. From Friday at 7:00 p.m. until Monday at 7:00 p.m.
(c) Week 3• From Monday at 7:00 p.m. until Friday at 7:00 p.m.
(c) Week 4. From Friday at 7:00 p.m. until Tuesday at 7:00 p.m.
At all times when Father does not have custody, Mother shall have custody.
3 Transportatron, The person receiving custody shall provide transportation
incident to their periods of custody.
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
4. Holiday . Unless otherwise agreed, he following holidays shall be alternated:
Easter, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving. Custodial period
shall be from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. The child shall be in the custody of Father for
Father's Day and in custody of Mother for Mother's Day. The custody for Father's Day and
Mother's Day shall be from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. The Thanksgiving holiday period shall
be from Wednesday after school until Monday at 8:30 a.m. The alternating holiday
schedule shall commence with Father having Labor Day 2002. In the event that Father
does not have to work the weekend following Thanksgiving, his custodial period for a
Thanksgiving holiday shall be from Wednesday after school until Monday at 8:30 p.m.
5. The parties shall participate in eight (8) additional sessions with Melinda Eash
of therapeutic family counseling to enhance the parents' abilities to communicate and make
decisions in a cooperative fashion regarding their son. Unreimbursed costs of these
therapeutic services shall be shared equally by the parties. Following the conclusion of
these sessions, a progress report will be made to counsel for the parties.
6. Father's counsel has agreed to stay the action on their Petition for an Updated
Custody Evaluation and Review pending the outcome of the parties' counseling as
recommended by Dr. Shienvold in the evaluation dated March 19, 2002. The
Respondent/Mother shall therefore not be required to file an Answer to the
Petitioner/Father's Petition for the Updated Custody Evaluation and Review.
7. Drew shall continue in counseling with his therapist and the parties shall
participate as directed by that therapist.
8. Mother shall share information with Father regarding the school and teaching
staff and coordinate with him an appointment to register the child for school no later than
July 22, 2002. For purposes of school registration, primary residence shall be deemed to be
with Mother in East Pennsboro School District.
9. Vacation. Father shall have custody for vacation from August 9, 2002 through
August 18, 2002 at 8:00 p.m. In subsequent years, each parent shall be entitled to fourteen
(14) days of vacation time with the child, not more than ten (10) of which shall be used
consecutively. The parties shall provide each other with a minimum of sixty (60) days notice
of their vacation plans. In the event that the parties have scheduled conflicting vacations,
the party first providing written notice shall have choice of the vacation time.
10. This custodial schedule is presently based on an agreement of the parties
which attempts to maximize the child's time to be with a parent outside of working hours.
Therefore, it is contemplated that if Father's days off were to change and include weekends
that the schedule would be changed accordingly.
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
11. In the event that either party will be out of state while the child is in their
custody, the traveling parent will provide the other parent with notice of the address and
telephone number where they will be during the time that they are away.
12. Telephone Contact. Each party shall be entitled to reasonable telephone
contact with the child when the child is in the other parent's custody.
13. In the event that either party is
her period of custody for a period of four (4)
reasonable effort to contact the other parent
care for the child before a thins party caregive
unavailable to provide child care during his or
hours or more, that parties shall first make a
to offer that parent the opportunity to provide
J.
Dist: Kathryn Waters-Perez, Esquire, 107 H ddenwood Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire, 4711 Locust Lane, Harrisburg, PA 17109
?' : y
Cu,. ? ..; i;11 Y
f ?i?i' ,
?? ,2`vt:
AUGZ6M?
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
V.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
1. The pertinent information concerning the child who is the subject of this
litigation is as follows:
Drew Evan Shepley September 17. 1995 Mother and Father
2. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on July 15, 2002 with the
following individuals in attendance: The Father, Steven R. Shepley and his counsel,
Kathryn Waters-Perez, Esquire; the Mother, Michele A. Shepley and her counsel, Marianne
E. Rudebusch, Esquire.
3. The parties reached an agreement for a Temporary Omer in the form as
tta hed. The Conciliator submits an Amended Order fining an additional agreement
is ert e tly left out of Paragraph Bin the Report of July 24, 002.
a elissa Peel Greevy, _Esquire
Custody Conciliator
150844v 2
LAW OFFICES
JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART IF WEIDNER
A Professional Cor{xtration
JERRY R DUFFIE 301 MARKET' STREET
RICHARD W STEWART P O BOX 109
C. ROY WEIDNER. JR. LEMOYNE, PENNSYLVANIA 17043.0109
EDMUND G MYERS WERSITE: w Idiwxom
DAVID W DELUCE
RALPH H. 11RIGHT, JR. TELEPHONE 717.761.4540
DAVID 1. LANZA FACSIMILE 117-761 f01S
MARK C DUFFIE E-MAIL malAld.?,,m
MELISSA PEEL GREEVY
MICHAEL J. C"IDY
Memorandum
ROBERT M. WALKER KER
TO: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr.
FROM: Melissa Peel Greevy, Custody Conciliator
RE: Paul and Janis Him v. Kenneth A. Deloatch
Docket No.: 02-3277 Civil Tenn
In Custody
DATE: August 22, 2002
I IORACE A. JOHNSON
COUNSEL TO THE FIRM
KEIRSTEN WALSH DAVIDSON
OF COUNSEL
...............................................................................
Your Honor:
I had a custody conciliation conference in the above-referenced matter on August 19,
2002. One result of that conference was an agreement on the temporary physical custody
arrangements. The matter will still need to be heard. The paternal grandparents are in need of
a full hearing on their Petition for Physical Custody. However, I believe that the hour-and-a-half,
which is allocated for the emergency relief hearing on September 30, 2002, will not be adequate
hearing time for this matter. Therefore, it would be my suggestion that you cancel the hearing
for emergency relief on September 30m, or continue it to another date for a full hearing of the
matter.
Very *ly yours,
tMLt?8 FFI STEWAR & WEIDNER
I
reevy
MPG?jlb:181933
Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire
127 S. Market Street
P.O. Box 95
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
PA ID NO. 62469
717-697-7050 (Phone)
717-697-7065 (Fax)
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff/Petitioner
VS.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK,
formerly known as MICHELE A.
SHEPLEY,
Defendant/Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO: 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
EMERGENCY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF
Petitioner, Steven R. Shepley, by his attorney Andrew C.
Sheely, Esquire, hereby submits this Emergency Petition for Special
Relief and Temporary Modification of a Custody Order and in support
thereof, states the following:
1. Petitioner is STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, an adult individual
who currently resides at 24 North Enola Drive, East Pennsboro
Township, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Respondent is MICHELE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK, formerly
known as MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, an adult individual who currently
resides at 15 Givler Avenue, East Pennsboro Township, Enola,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
3. Petitioner and Respondent are the natural parents of
Drew Evan Shepley, born September 17, 1995, age 14, currently a
student in the 8th grade.
4. The present legal and physical custody of the
parties child is controlled by an Order of Court dated August 27,
2002 entered by the Honorable Edward E. Guido, Judge, a true and
correct copy of which Order is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein as Exhibit "A".
5. In accordance with the Court's Order dated August 27,
2002, Petitioner and Respondent currently share physical and legal
custody of the minor child Drew Evan Shepley.
6. On or about September 18, 2009, the minor child, Drew
Evan Shepley, left his Respondent's home and went to Petitioner's
home.
7. On or about September 18, 2009, Petitioner discovered
the minor child, Drew Evan Shepley, at Petitioner's residence
whereupon the minor child advised Petitioner, Steven R. Shepley,
that Respondent's husband, Michael Zinck, had, through the use of
excessive physical force, pushed and pinned the minor child to a
bathroom wall for no legitimate purpose against the will of the
minor child.
8. On or about September 18, 2009, upon further inquiry,
the minor child, Drew Evan Shepley, advised his father, Petitioner,
that the minor child had been subjected to other incidents of
unwarranted and excessive physical contact while in Respondent's
custody.
2
9. On or about September 18, 2009, the minor child, Drew
Evan Shepley, advised his father, Petitioner, Steven R. Shepley,
that the minor child was afraid to return to Respondent's residence
and that the minor child no longer desired to have custody with his
mother as a result the incidents reported in paragraphs 7 and 8
above, and due to other physical and verbal incidents which have
physically and emotionally harmed the minor child.
10. Petitioner, Steven R. Shepley, has witnessed
Respondent and Respondent's husband verbally and emotionally abuse
the minor child, Drew Evan Shepley, on multiple occasions during
the past six months.
11. On one occasion in the past several months, the
minor child, Drew Evan Shepley, told Petitioner that Respondent
told the minor child that if the minor child told Petitioner about
incidents of physical contact with Respondent's husband that the
minor child would never reside with Respondent again.
12. The abusive, threatening and volatile behavior as
noted above has caused upset and turmoil to the minor child Drew
Evan Shepley.
13. The abusive, threatening and volatile behavior as
noted above has affected the emotional and physical well being of
the minor child, Drew Evan Shepley.
3
14. The abusive, threatening and volatile behavior as
noted above has occurred while the minor child Drew Evan Shepley is
under the care and supervision of Respondent.
15. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the
abusive, threatening and volatile behavior as noted above and at
other times has caused the minor child Drew Evan Shepley to refrain
from advising his father or other responsible adult for fear of
retaliation by Respondent and her husband.
16. For the reasons set forth above, there has been a
substantial change in circumstances affecting the minor child's
best interests justifying a change in the August 27, 2002 Order of
Court and an immediate award of primary physical custody of the
minor child Drew Evan Shepley to Petitioner.
17. Due to the aforesaid actions and incidents as noted
above, Drew Evan Shepley is presently in custody of petitioner.
18. A copy of this Petition for Emergency Relief was
faxed on September 24, 2009 to Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire, and
Petitioner believes that Respondent will not consent to the relief
sought herein.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner, Steven R. Shepley, respectfully
request this Court to:
A. Enter an Order modifying the current custody order
and awarding exclusive primary physical custody to
Petitioner of the minor child Drew Evan Shepley pending
an expedited conciliation conference and further Order of
this Court; and
4
B. Grant such other relief as this Court in its
discretion deems appropriate.
Date: September 2t( , 2009
Respectfully submitted,
9 '('(") C- ?;tQ
Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
PA ID No. 62469
P.O. Box 95
127 S. Market Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
717-697-7050
5
Exhibit "A"
r s 2on'
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY.
V.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
MEEMMUORDEROF
AND NOW, this day of ft upon oor?side?ion of the aft shed
Custody Conciliation Summary Report, k is hereby ordered and mad as fodows:
1. LaQt1L?Y3 L. The parties. Steven R. Shepley and Michele A. Shepley. shalt
have shared ftal cuatody of the minor child, Drew Evan Shepley, bom Seplernber 17,
1995. Each parent shell have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent. to
make all now non-emergency decisions afbcdng the child's general well-being Wckx tng.
but not lirnited to, all decisions regarding his health. education and religion. Pusuant to be
terns of Pa. C. S. §5309. each parent shad be entitled to all records and nbrmation
pertaining to the child kK* ding. but not ii-elm d to. medical. dental, neNgkm or school
records. the residence address of the child end of the other parent. To the extent one
parent has possession of any such records or irdormadon. that parent shad be required b
shame the snare. or copies thereof, with the other parent wow such reasonabb time as to
make the records and iniormation of reasonable use to the other pa ref.
2. Ebsicat Custndv. Father shad have physical custody according to the
following four week akwna ft schedule:
(a) „1. Effective July 16. 2002 horn Tuesday at 7:00 P.M. until Friday
at 7:00 P.M.
(b) Week . From Friday at 7:00 p.m. until Monday at 7:00 p.m.
(c) Week . From Monday at 7:00 p.m. until Friday at 7:00 p.m.
(c) Wak?. From Friday at 7.0W p.m. until Tuesday at 7:00 p.m.
At all times when Father does not have custody. Mother shat have custody.
3 Ila?odMioti• The person receiving Custody shad provide tnanepatation
irxdent b their periods of custody.
d
L
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
4. dQWW. Unless otherwise agreed, he following Iolidays shall be attemaded:
Easter. Memorial Day. Inds 1 1 in ice Day. Labor Day and Thanksgiving. Custodial period
shall be from 9:00 a.m. uru0 6:00 p.m. The child shag be in the custody of Fad for
Father's Day and in custody of Mother for Mother's Day. The cusiocyr for Father's Day and
Mother's Day shall be horn 9:00 a.m. until 6.00 p.m. The Thanksgiving holiday period shall
be from Wednesday after achmod until Monday at 8:30 a.m. The alternating holiday
schedule shall Commence with F89mer having Labor Day 2002. In the event that Father
does not have to work the weekend following Thanksgiving. his custodial period for a
Thanksgivng holiday shall be born Wednesday after school until Monday at 8:34 p.m.
5. The pasties shall participate in eight (8) additional sessions with Melinda Eash
of therapeutic family counseling to enhance the parents' abilities to wmmunk afe and make
decisions in a cooperative fashion regarding their son. Unreimbursed costa of these
therapeutic services shall be shared equally by the parties. Fdlowing the Concluswn of
these sessions, a progress report will be made to counsel for the parties.
6. Fathef s counsel has agreed to stay the action on their petition for an Updated
Custody Evakration and Review pending the out m me of the parties' counseling as
recommended by Dr. Sh ienvoid in the mduation dated March 19. 2002. The
ResponcientlAAckhmecr shall therefore not be required to fie an Answer to the
PetitionerlFather's Petition for the Updated Custody Evakrntion and Review.
7. Drew shall continue in counseling with his therapist and the parties shah
participate as directed by that therapist.
8. Mother shall share information with Father regarding the school and teedming
staff and coordinate with him an appointment to register the child for school no hater than
Judy 22.2002. For purposes of school Mo alon. primary residence shah be deemed lobe
with Mother in East Pennsboro School DW kct.
9. X. Father shall have custody for vacation from August 9. 2002 through
August 18, 2002 at 8:00 p.m. In subsegmmerri year& each parent SW be entitled to fourteen
(14) days of vacation time with the chid. not more than ten (10) of which aNM be used
consecutively. The parties shall provide each other with a mirarnum of sixty (60) days nodoe
of their vacation plans. In the event that the parties have scheduled cmading vacations.
the party first prawidng written notice shall have droioe of the vacation time.
10. This custodial schedule is presently based an an agreement of the parties
which attempts to maximize the child's time to be with a parent outside of working hours.
Therefore. it is COntenlplafed OW if Father's days off were b clangs and include weekends
that the schedule would be changed accordingly.
No. 97-3990 CIVIL TERM
11. In the event That either party will be out of state while the chid is in their
custody. the traveling parent will provide the other parent with notice of the address and
telepoone number where they will be during the time that they are away.
12. JAMM S M&Nt Each party shah be entitled to reasonable telephone
contact with the child when the child is in the otlm parent's custody.
13. In the event that either party is unevallable to provide child care duff his or
her period of custody for a period of ft w (4) hours or more. that parties shall twat make a
reason?le effort to contact the other parent to oftr that parent the appo kinky b provide
care for the child before a third party caregiver is no to V*.O-*N
J.
Dist: tt~ WakV64%mr. E.aw..1e7 hOdll - I R Hd D OM MriMM9. PA 17110
MWfWM1e E. Rudsbuwdb Eapkw 4711 Lawd LMM Hwhb". PA 17109
Avf. 2 6
STE N Ft SHEPLEY
W *WCST OF CMNM RAM OF
C COUNTY. PENNOYLVANA
Nth v?
V.
VACMW E .
CMLACTIOM-LAW
FIT o
IN :comwicgwm-"
1M344 WWWMkPW C rd C!ww it a edow"ooklial" "spot
w 1ll+ww 1llM1p w
Ift post k do.
mok" is as fovowv
fir Eves 3il1? IffillbW17. !d ow F~
Z #4 COW* C&rA*dM CGdWM* 00 bW 00 J* IS. M *lb 0&
kfto ftla" in aftnftow. Ift Now, Sam R. ft"ft wo m wwwww „
V w w Esoftdt momlli. Mmv* A. Sl i ad ter wows. Mallo I
E? pw +w .
uw4wft 2
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Petition are
true and correct. I understand that false statements
herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A.
Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
Date: SeptemberZW , 2009 '
Steven R. S1 ep y
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, ANDREW C. SHEELY, hereby certify that I served a true and
correct copy of the Petition for Emergency Relief upon counsel of
record on the below listed date by first class mail, postage
prepaid, as follows:
Marianne E. Rudebusch
Attorney at Law
4711 Locust Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
September , 2009
Andrew C. Sheely,`Attorney, 4
Fit -1'
OF THE NR.
r
2009
ivl..tl? _ ei
#70. ao po AVY
CO 35to3
P-t* 0131 oa&
SEP 2 8 2009-(n
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff/Petitioner
VS.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK,
formerly known as MICHELE A.
SHEPLEY,
Defendant/Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO: 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW, this3 d day of 2009, it is
hereby ORDERED that a RULE is issued upon Respondent Michele
A. Shepley-Zinck, formerly known as Michele A. Shepley, why
the relief requested in the Petition for Emergency Relief and
Temporary Modification of Custody Order filed by Petitioner
Steven R. Shepley.
RULE RETURNABLE on 7 the day of , 2009, at
3 :36 o'clock I m in Courtroom No..3 of the Cumberland
County Courthouse, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, at which time a hearing on the aforementioned
Petition shall be held.
BY E COURT
vA/ndrew C. Sheely, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
,,Zarianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent J
J
F11Enr #CE
cF THE PPOTHMOTARY
2009 SEP 30 AM 11: 16
OMEKX40 0044Y
A
Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire
127 S. Market Street
P.O. Box 95
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
PA ID NO. 62469
717-697-7050 (Phone)
717-697-7065 (Fax)
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff/Petitioner
vs.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK,
formerly known as MICHELE A.
SHEPLEY,
Defendant/Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO: 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER
1. Plaintiff/Petitioner is STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, an adult
individual who currently resides at 24 North Enola Drive, Enola,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant/Respondent is MICHELE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK, formerly
known as MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, an adult individual who currently
resides at 15 Givler Avenue, East Pennsboro Township, Enola,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. The parties are the parents of one minor child, namely,
Drew Evan Shepley, born September 17, 1995, age 14.
4. The child is presently subject to an exiting custody
order dated August 27, 2002, wherein Petitioner and Respondent
share legal and physical custody. See Exhibit "A".
5. The natural father of the child is Steven R. Shepley,
currently residing at 24 North Enola Drive, Enola, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania. He is divorced from the Respondent.
6. The natural mother of the child is Michele A. Shepley-
Zinck, formerly known as Michele A. Shepley, currently residing at
15 Givler Avenue, East Pennsboro Township, Enola, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania. She is divorced from the Petitioner.
7. The relationship of the Petitioner to the child is that of
natural father. The Petitioner and child currently reside with the
following persons during father's period of custody:
Names
Trinity H. Shepley
Relationship
Daughter (DOB 1/19/02)
Caleb N. Shepley
Son (DOB 4/25/03)
8. The relationship of the Respondent to the child is that
of natural mother. The Respondent and child currently reside with
the following persons during mother's period of custody:
Names
Michael Zinck
Relationship
Husband
Step-brother
9. Petitioner filed a petition for special relief on
September 25, 2009 as a result of concerns that the minor child's
best interests were not met during the minor child's period of
custody with Respondent.
2
10. Specifically, the minor child advised Petitioner of
certain incidents of physical, verbal and psychological abuse
during the child's custody with Respondent.
11. The minor child has advised Petitioner that the minor
child desires to reside with Petitioner on a full-time basis as a
result of incidents reported to Petitioner.
12. The best interest and permanent welfare of the minor
child will be served by granting Petitioner and Respondent shared
legal custody, and granting Petitioner primary physical custody,
with periods of partial custody to Respondent only after
appropriate family counseling has been completed and sufficient
protections in a court order are entered to protect the child's
best interests during Respondent's period of partial custody.
13. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not
been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the
child has been named as parties to this action.
14. A hearing on Petitioner's request for special relief is
scheduled for October 7, 2009.
15. A current custody order is necessary to address present
circumstances for the benefit of the minor child.
16. Plaintiff is capable of providing a stable, healthy and
supportive environment for the benefit of the minor child.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests your Honorable Court to
grant both parties shared legal custody and to schedule a
3
conciliation conference to enter a new order meeting the best
interests of the minor child for the reasons set forth above.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: October 7 2009 1464jjcg-C2?
Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
PA ID No. 62469
P.O. Box 95
127 S. Market Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
717-697-7050
4
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this petition to modify
custody order are true and correct. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A.
Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: October 2009
Steven R. epley
Exhibit "A"
t a ton'
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY. .
Plaintiff
V. .
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUM13ERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-39M CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
AND NOW, # day of , upon consideration of the attached
Custody Conciliation &ww y Report. it is hereby ordered and directed as follows:
1. LtI?I.Gt1-tlY. The parties. Steven R. Shepley and Michele A. Shepley. shall
have shared legal custody of the minor child. Drew Evan Shepley, bom Saplember 17.
1995. Each parent shah have an equal riht, to be exercised joirdy with the other parent, to
make so msW.non-urrw9wwy decisions atfadit the chW9 general welt-b ft irk.
but not limited to, all decisions regarding his health. education and retWon. Pursuant to the
terms of Pa. C. S. OM. each parent shag be entitled to as records and lnbnvwkn
pe talnang to the chid Including, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious or school
records. the residentaa address of the child and of the other parent. To the extent one
parent has possession of any such records or iribmation. Not parent shall be required to
share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to
make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent.
2. MMhal Cam. Father shall have physcal custody acaading to the
toft*" fax week WWMting scheduler
(a) > -1. Effec" July 16. 2002 from Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. until Friday
at 7:00 P.M.
(b) W". - From Friday at 7:00 p.m. until Monday at 7:00 p.m.
(c) ftgk . From Monday at 7:00 p.m. until Friday at 7:00 p.m.
(c) Mhm& 4. From Friday at 7:00 p.m. until Tuesday at 7:00 p.m.
At ant times when Father does not have custody. Mother shalt have custody.
3. ?tllutipatdiMiltsl. The person raoaft custody shall provide transpomdon
incifnt to their periods of custody.
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
. 4. dWid . Unless otherwise, agreed. he fallowing holidays shall be alternated:
Easton, Memorial Day. Independence Day. Labor Day and Thanksgiving. Custodial period
shat be from 9:00 a.m until 8:00 p.m. The child shall be In the custody of Father for
Father's Day and In custody of Mother for Mother's Day. The custody for Father's Day and
Mother s Day shall be from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. The Thanksgiving holiday period shoo
be from Wednesday after school until Monday at 8:30 a.m. The alternating holiday
schedule shall commence with Father having Labor Day 2002. In the event that Father
does not have to work the weekend following Thanksgiving, his custodial period for a
Thanksgiving holiday shall be from Wednesday after school until Monday at 8:30 p.m.
5. The parties shalt participate In eight (8) add8lonal sessions with Melinda Eash
of therapeutic family counseling to enhance the parents' abilities to communicate and make
decisions in a cooperative fashion regarding their son. Unreimbursed costs of these
therapeutic services shall be shared equally by the parties. Following the conclusion of
these sessions. a program report will be made to counsel for the parties.
6, Father's counsel has agreed to May the action on their Pe#kvn for an Updated!
Custody Evaluation and Review pending the outcome of the parties' counself as
recommended by Dr. Shlommidf in the evaluation doted March 19, 2002. The
ResponderNMother shah therefore not be requirod to fie an Answer to the
Petitioner/Father's Petition for the Updated Custody Evaluation and Review.
7. Drew shall continue in counseling with his therapist and the Perdu shao
participate as directed by that therapist.
8. Mother shall share Mforma*m with Fa#w ragwding the school and teaching
SW and caOrdinste with him an appointment to register the child for school no taw than
July 22. 2002. For purposes of sthcol rsgistntion. primary residence shall be deemed to be
with Mother in East Pennsbor+o Schaal District.
9. y.. Father shoo have custody for vacation from August 9, 2002 through
August 18. 2002 at 8:00 p.m. In subsequent years. each parent shall be enticed to fourteen
(14) days of vacation time with the child. not more than ten (10) of which shop be used
Consecutively. The perdu shoo provide each other with a mird"Mm of $ixty (60) days notice
of their vacation plans. In the event that the parties have scheduled conflicting vacations,
the party first pro*ft written notice shoo have choice of the vacation time.
to. This custodial schedule is presently based on an agree meat of the parties
which attempts to maximize the chid's time to be with a parent outside of working hours.
Therefore, H is contemplated that if Father' off wane to change ond bxkW* weekends
that the schedule would be changed accord
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
11. In the event that either party will be out of state white the child Is In N1elr
custody, the traveling parent will provide the other parent with notice of the address and
telephone number where they will be during the time that they we away.
12. TeMOM QmM. Each party shall be erMled to reasonable telephone
contact with the child when the child Is In the other parent's custody.
13. In the event that either party Is unavailable to provide clad cans during Me or
her period of cuMody for a perbd of four (4) hours or alas, that parties shall first macs e
reasonable effort to conbd the other parent 10 oilier do parent the opportunity to provide
care for the gild before a #*d party caregiver Is come
BY THE T•
J.
K Mo" VAON?P*M. E@qWn.107 Hldduapood Ddw. tftn% orq, PA 1T110
minas E. RuddK". E"ft 4711 LMM U""k FlMOM PA 17168
sn'4 N R. SHEPLEYM
V.
WM A X il?Y ERV.
Nbpwm is Url as kftw-
C*Wff of CIA" "M I' CAM "M PL"$ OF
J
Y
CWACWW-iAW
of" Eon ago" sop! - im 1?. IM
1AMari@F*NW
"**%a
RLED--0i ICE
T „- Y
2009 OCT -7 PM 3: 14
C dI L?i;iVd
6". J ,316M
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2009, after hearing,
the request for special relief is denied. This does not in any way
reflect any decision on the merits as to what's in the child's best
interest. If the parties cannot decide that at conciliation, we
will decide that issue after a full and fair hearing on the merits.
? Esquire
Andrew C. Sheely, Esq
FFoor the Petitioner
/Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
For the Respondent
mlc
?D l DES .? ? t,?
ev14?oq
?IY7
F T ?'AY
2009 OC T - 9 Are 8: 4 9
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
1997-3980 CIVIL ACTION LAW
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK IN CUSTODY
DEFENDANT
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, _ Tuesday, October 13, 2009 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint,
it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Jacqueline M. Verney, Esq. the conciliator,
at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Thursday, November 12, 2009 at 8:30 AM
for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or
if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary
order. 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/ jac?ueline M Verney, Esq, I
Custody Conciliator
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 Bar Association
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone (717) 249-3166
Uzi,
'
2009 OCT 13 Pil 3; 2
Alp - /13D? ,W?
A X.? - D? ??
NOV 13 2009
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 1997-3980 CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MICHELLE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK, :
Defendant : IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ?O day of 2009, upon
consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as
follows:
1. A Hearing is schedy?ed in Court Room No. , of the Cumberland
County Court House, on the I t day of 20* , at I -VOt • Al
o'clock .. W', at which time testimony will be taken. For purposes of this Hearing,
the Father shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with
testimony. Counsel for each party shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a
Memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list of witnesses who will-
be expected to testify at the Hearing and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each
witness. These Memoranda shall be filed at least five days prior to the Hearing date.
2. Pending further Order of Court or agreement of the parties, the prior Order
of Court dated August 27, 2002 shall remain in full force and effect with the following
addition.
3. The parties shall cooperate with counseling for the child to be arranged by
Mother.
4. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In
the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control.
cc: drew Sheely, Esquire, counsel for Father
Marianne E. Rudebusc+h, Esquire, counsel for Mother
i £S mat l
3
Edward E. Guido, J.
t,
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 1997-3980 CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MICHELLE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK, :
Defendant : IN CUSTODY
PRIOR JUDGE: Edward E. Guido, J.
CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following
report:
1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this
litigation is as follows:
NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF
Drew Evan Shepley September 17, 1995 shared
2. A Conciliation Conference was held November 12, 2009 with the
following individuals in attendance: The Father, Steven R. Shepley, with his counsel,
Andrew Sheely, Esquire, and the Mother, Michelle A. Shepley-Zinck, with her counsel,
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire.
3. The Honorable Edward E. Guido previously entered Orders of Court dated
August 27, 2002 providing for shared legal custody and shared physical custody, and on
October 7, 2009, denying Father's Petition for Special Relief.
4. Father's position on custody is as follows: Father seeks shared legal and
primary physical custody with Mother having alternating weekends and other time with
the child. Father asserts that the child has reported tension in the home between himself
and Mother, stepfather and half sibling. The child has requested to live primarily with
Father. Father is in agreement that the child should begin counseling, but disagrees that
an updated custody evaluation should be performed.
5. Mother's position on custody is as follows: Mother seeks to maintain the
status quo. She denies that there is tension in the home. She asserts that the child wishes
to live primarily with Father because he is more permissive that Mother. Mother agrees
that the child should begin counseling and is in favor of an updated custody evalution.
6. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached scheduling
a Hearing and maintaining the status quo and for the child to begin counseling . It is
expected that the Hearing will require one-half day.
-,?-
(L___v, A ?L
Date eline A Verney, Esquire
Custody Conciliator
(Ji FU"
N Tl E P ,)1 w '`'G'ARY
2009 OV 16 PM 3: 0 2
ti
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
4711 Locust Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
717-657-0632
Id. No. 63522
Attorney for Defendant/Petitioner
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff/Respondent : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 97-3980
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant/Petitioner : IN CUSTODY
PETITION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL
CUSTODY EVALUATION
AND NOW, comes the Defendant/Petitioner, Michele A. Shepley-Zinck, by and
through her attorney, Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire, and respectfully avers as follows:
1. The Defendant/Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as Mother, is Michele A.
Shepley-Zinck, an adult individual who resides at 15 Givler Avenue, Enola, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania, 17025.
2. The Plaintiff/Respondent, hereinafter referred to as Father, is Steven R.
Shepley, an adult individual who currently resides at 24 North Enola Drive, Enola,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17025.
3. The parties are the natural parents of Drew Evan Shepley, born 9/17/95.
4. The parties have shared legal and physical custody under the terms of a
Custody Order dated 8/27/02. (See attached Exhibit A).
5. On 9/25/09, Father filed a Petition for Special Relief requesting, inter alia, that
the child reside with him because of abusive behavior towards the child by his Mother and
step-father. Said Petition for Special Relief is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
6. A hearing on the Petition for Special Relief was held before the Honorable
Edward E. Guido on 10/7/09, and an Order was issued on 10/7/09, denying the relief
requested. See attached Exhibit C.
7. On 10/7/09, Father filed a Petition for Modification of Custody seeking
primary physical custody of the child. See attached Exhibit D.
8. On 11 / 12/09, a Custody Conciliation Conference was held with Jacqueline M.
Verney, Esquire. The Conciliator's Report is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
9. On 3/19/02, a custody evaluation was done and a report issued by Arnold
Shienvold, Ph.D. See attached Exhibit F.
10. Mother believes that a court ordered psychological evaluation or update on the
custody evaluation performed on 3/19/02 would assist the court in determining if it is in the
child's best interest to disturb a custody schedule which has been in place for seven years.
11. Mother requests that the cost of such an evaluation or update be borne by
Father since he is the party requesting a change in the current order.
2
WHEREFORE, Mother respectfully requests that, pursuant to Rules 1915.8 of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court enter an order directing that the parties and
the parties' child submit to a psychological custody evaluation or an update to the custody
evaluation dated 3/19/02, to be conducted by Shienvold & Associates and directing that
Shienvold & Associates deliver to the Court and to the attorneys of record copies of a
detailed written report setting forth the findings, results of all tests made, diagnosis and
recommendations and that the cost of the evaluation is to be borne by Father.
Respectfully Submitted,
J
At k
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
4711 Locust Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
(717) 657-0632
Id. No. 63522
Dated: tJ'a-'? ?f
3
EXHIBIT A
., r $ 20W
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY
v.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEYPlakhtlff
, :
Ddfondent
IN THE COURT OF COWAON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-3M CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION.. LAW
IN CUSTODY
JEARX QE COURT
AND WW, this g I day of r upon era lsra nrr of the aftched
Custody ConcMtion Summary Report. It Is hereby ordered and directed as follows:
1. . The parties. Steven R. Shepley and Michele A. Shepley. shall
have shared ksgal antody of go mktor chid. Drew Evan Shaft, bom Seplwnttuxr 17.
1995. Each parent add harm an equal right. to be exwcised jokly wNh the-al w p"nt, to
make MR major non-emergency decisions affecting the child's general rvol- *bV kx*g trtQ.
but not Iknlted to. all dedsim regarding his health, education and redalon. Pursuant to the
INN of Pa. C. S. , +a" parent shelf be entilled to all records and infvrma Lion
pertaining to the child Inclaft, but not I mIted to. medical. dental. religious or sr,#tool
M=f?, the residencs address of MO cdW and of the other parent. To the extent one
patent has possession of any such rerwds or inf mwootn. that parent SMalf be w#*vd to
share the earns. or copies thereof, with the auhsr pare" within such reasonable time as to
make the recortft and WWMQtion of reasonable use to the other parent.
2• ! CMtgQ?c. F'Wther shag have physical custody atx+offt to the
foffa* ng four week ailtwraft schedule:
(a) . 1.I Emotive July 10. 2002 from Tuesday at 7:50 p.m. uniil Friday
at 7.00 P.M.-
(b).- . From friday at 7:00 P.m, until Monday at 7:00 P.M.
(c) )!!tft From Monday at To p.m, untlf Ffty at 7:00 p.m.
(c) ZW4. Frmn Friday at 7:00 p.m. untg Tuesday at 7:00 p.m.
At aA Nmw1 when Father doss sot have custody. MMher Shag have custody.
IIAQNtItIThe person
incident to thetlr receiving custody shall provide tranapwgafiott
periods of custody. I?.
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
.4. dabdW. Unless o#wwlse agreed, As b oft holidays shall be alterra*W:
Easter..'Memorial Oay: Indppenderice Day. Labor Day and Thanksgiving. CusbWN period
shill be from 9.00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. The child shall be In the custody of Father kr
Father's Day and In custody of Mother for Mother's Day. The custody for Father's Day and
Mothers Day shall be from f3:0t1 a.m. until 8.00 p.m. The Thanksgiving holiday period shaft
be from Wednesday after school until Monday at 8:30 a.m. The aftraft trod
schedule shall commence with Father having tabor Day 2002. to the event that Father
does not have to work the weekend following Thanksgiving, hie custodial period for a
Thanksgiving holiday shall be Won Wednesday after school wd Monday at 8:30 p.m.
5. The parties ohs)) participate in sight (8) adsikfahat OW) WO +nch MOnda Eras h
of therapeutic famfly, counseling to enhance the parents' abiligas to communicate and make
deciafons nh a cooperative fashion reganding their son. Unr imbuasad costs 01 these
therapeutic services shall, be shatul a3q w1y by the pertles. FOkAft the Wnduslon of
these sessions, a progress report will be made to counsel for the portiere.
8. Fathaaes counsel has agreed to stay the action on Uwk Petition for an todaled
Custody Evaluation and Review pending the outcome of the Pie' counsang as
recoMMsndaat by Dr. Shlenvo}d in the +evaktation dated March 19, fit. The
ResponderdiMother shall therefore not be required to file an AnftW to the
Petilkww/Father's Petition for the Updated Custody Evaluation and Review.
7. Drew shag continue in counseling with his therapist and the pars shell
p"cipate as directed by that therapist.
8• Mother shag share Mformation with Father regatta ft the school and teaching
staff and ciordinao with him an + hininont to ruler go c IM for s no later than
July 22. 2002. For potposes of school registration, primary residence shag be deemed to be
with Mother In East Pennaboro Schaal OW t.
9. Yin. Father shah have custody for vacation from August 9, 2002 through
August 18, 20122 at 8:00 p.m. In subsequent years. each parert:ihtsl be w*Vod to kaft8q
(14) do" of vacation time with the c hgd. jot more than ten (10) of which OW be cased
consecutively. The parties Shaft Provide each other with a minimurn of sixty (Sp) days noft
of their uWation laps. In the event diet the parties have scheduled
vacations.
the-party first providing *Men notice shaft have choice of the vacation time.
14. This custodial who" is presently paused an an agmmnt which O t "As to mamnlte the dWe time to be with a pewnt of of the poet m
Thenelare. N is o? that N Father's qff were to MkIng hours.
Mat the •cho" would be changed accordingly and induce
A 24 Z
STEVEN FR. SH111PLEY0
W,
WHEURANNE n
o=
its `? 'Py +2y?F Q? ?(
a ?I F?AI?Aa O??N ,17!'R
NO. 0014M CM TOW
COAL AMM - LAW
IN CUSTODY
INN cowm am a^
4. pwOrmi WomoPma NMI " ow V" of ow IW*d d Rm to hs:
?7?11111?
17,
wopmwmw NkMmw and How
oploy
0
EXHIBIT B
Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire
127 S. Market Street
P.O. Box 95
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
PA ID NO. 62469
717-697-7050 (Phone)
717-697-7065 (Fax)
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff/Petitioner CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. NO: 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
formerly known as MICHELE A. s., c
SHEPLEY,
Defendant/Respondent
IN CUSTODY
G?-° r
<
EMERGENCY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF
_ r...,
.
NA"Hwe" ROD
/-
Petitioner, Steven R. Shepley, by his attorney Andrew C.
Sheely, Esquire, hereby submits this Emergency Petition for Special
Relief and Temporary Modification of a Custody Order and in support
thereof, states the following:
1. Petitioner is STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, an adult individual
who currently resides at 24 North Enola Drive, East Pennsboro
Township, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Respondent is MICHELE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK, formerly
. known as MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, an adult individual who currently
resides at 15 Givler Avenue, East Pennsboro Township, Enola,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
3. Petitioner and Respondent are the natural parents of
Drew Evan Shepley, born September 17, 1995, age 14, currently a
student in the 8th grade.
4. The present legal and physical custody of the
parties child is controlled by an order of Court dated August 27,
2002 entered by the Honorable Edward E. Guido, Judge, a true and
correct copy of which Order is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein as Exhibit "A".
5. In accordance with the Court's Order dated August 27,
2002, Petitioner and Respondent currently share physical and legal
custody of the minor child Drew Evan Shepley.
6. On or about September 18, 2009, the minor child, Drew
Evan Shepley, left his Respondent's home and went to Petitioner's
home.
7. On or about September 18, 2009, Petitioner discovered
the minor child, Drew Evan Shepley, at Petitioner's residence
whereupon the minor child advised Petitioner, Steven R. Shepley,
that Respondent's husband, Michael Zinck, had, through the use of
excessive physical force, pushed and pinned the minor child to a
bathroom wall for no legitimate purpose against the will of the
minor child.
8. On or about September 18, 2009, upon further inquiry,
the minor child, Drew Evan Shepley, advised his father, Petitioner,
that the minor child had been subjected to other incidents of
unwarranted and excessive physical contact while in Respondent's
custody.
2
9. On or about September 18, 2009, the minor child, Drew
Evan Shepley, advised his father, Petitioner, Steven R. Shepley,
that the minor child was afraid to return to Respondent's residence
and that the minor child no longer desired to have custody with his
mother as a result the incidents reported in paragraphs 7 and 8
above, and due to other physical and verbal incidents which have
physically and emotionally harmed the minor child.
10. Petitioner, Steven R. Shepley, has witnessed
Respondent and Respondent's husband verbally and emotionally abuse
the minor child, Drew Evan Shepley, on multiple occasions during
the past six months.
11. on one occasion in the past several months, the
minor child, Drew Evan Shepley, told Petitioner that Respondent
told the minor child that if the minor child told Petitioner about
incidents of physical contact with Respondent's husband that the
minor child would never reside with Respondent again.
12. The abusive, threatening and volatile behavior as
noted above has caused upset and turmoil to the minor child Drew
Evan Shepley.
13. The abusive, threatening and volatile behavior as
noted above has affected the emotional and physical well being of
the minor child, Drew Evan Shepley.
3
14. The abusive, threatening and volatile behavior as
noted above has occurred while the minor child Drew Evan Shepley is
under the care and supervision of Respondent.
15. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the
abusive, threatening and volatile behavior as noted above and at
other times has caused the minor child Drew Evan Shepley to refrain
from advising his father or other responsible adult for fear of
retaliation by Respondent and her husband.
16. For the reasons set forth above, there has been a.
substantial change in circumstances affecting the minor child's
best interests justifying a change in the August 27, 2002 Order of
Court and an immediate award of primary physical custody of the
minor child Drew Evan Shepley to Petitioner.
17. Due to the aforesaid actions and incidents as noted
above, Drew Evan Shepley is presently in custody of petitioner.
18. A copy of this Petition for Emergency Relief was
faxed on September 24, 2009 to Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire, and
Petitioner believes that Respondent will not consent to the relief
sought herein.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner, Steven R. Shepley, respectfully
request this Court to:
A. Enter an Order modifying the current custody order
and awarding exclusive primary physical custody to
Petitioner of the minor child Drew Evan Shepley pending.
an expedited conciliation conference and further order of
this Court; and
4 '
B. Grant such other relief as this Court in its
discretion deems appropriate.
Date: September 7-t( , 2009
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire '-
Attorney for Plaintiff
PA ID No. 62469
P.O. Box 95
127 S. Market Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
717-697-7050
5
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Petition are
true and correct. I understand that false statements
herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A.
Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
Date: SeptemberZN 2009
Steven R. S ep y
Exhibit "A"
t 6 29n,
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Deandant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION -- LAW
IN CUSTODY
AND NOW, the 97 ?** day of Wrowen conaideratfon of the aftached
Custody Conciliation Summary Report. it is herby ordered and directed as wk we:
1. ?dk. The parties. Stevan R. Shepley and M ole A. Shepley. shall
have shared legal custody of the minor chid. Drew Evan Shepley, born September 17.
1995. Epch parent shill t an equal right, to be exemisstl JoIrdly with the otter panant, to
make all major non-emergency demons aftdft the dilld's general wallow ft bxkWpq.
but not limked to. all decisicins ragw4ing his health. education and rem. Pur'suent to the
terra of Pa. C. S. $5309. each parent shall be entitled to alt records and kwwmation
pertaining to the field inducing, but trot Itnhitted Ux medical. dente!. religious or school
records. the residence addmos of the child and of the other parent. To ffm extent one
parent has possession of any such racmde or information. that parent shall be requirsd to
share the some. or ores thereof, with ft other parent within such reasonable time as to
make thr, record and Wxwd tipn of reasonable use to the other parent.
2. Ebyst W 00990. Father shall !revs physical Custody =04ng to the
fatioiwing four week atoms" schedule:
et at (a) W**1,.EffecWe July 10. 2 fmm Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. urd Friday
7.£10 p.m:
(b) . Wed . From frlday at 7:00 p.m. until Monday at 7:00 p.m.
(+c) WMA. From Monday at 7:00 p.m. unto Friday at 7:00 p.m.
(C) %&A From Friday at 7:00 p.m. until Tuesday at 7.00 p.m.
At IN times when Father does not have custody. Mother shaft have custody
Itane?dfMiDO• The person 0e001v#n9 custody shall provide transportation
kiddard to their periods of custody.
WOO,
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
4. ?. ?Jntess oglenalae agreed, .??e follo?ring boys shall be ailtemat+aNd:
Easter.. memoftl bay. In Wendsrice Day. Labor Day and Thanksghring. Custodial period
0114 be from 9:00 a.m. urd 8:110 P.M. The child shall be in the custody of Paulin t+ and
Father's Day and In custody of Mather tar M011wes D". The cswk* for Fathers Day and
N other's flay shall be irom 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. The Thanksgiving holiday period Ad
be from Wednesday after sdwW unt8 Monday at 8:30 am. The alternsf#re holiday
schedule shall commence with Father having Labor Day 2002. In the event that Father
does not have to work the wseltand following Thw*egkft. his custodial period for a
Thanksgiving holiday ohs# be from WedoWay, after school until Monday at 8:30 p.m.
5. The ponies shall participate to oWtt (8) addhional smiorss with Mollml l Ea sh
of therapeutic famky counseling to enhance the parents' abilities to communicate end make
decisions in a cooperative, fashion regarding emir son. Unmimbrrreed costs of these
Owspsutfc services shall be shared equally by the parties. Foftft the owchreion of
these sessions. a progress report will be rnade to counsel for the parties.
6. Father's corarl W hoe agreed to stay to action on their Patitlon tier an LV daW
Custody Evaluation and Review pending the outcome of the partfea' counssilng as
recommended by Or. 8hienvold in the ew*mtkm dated Match 19, 20t>Z The
RespondenWother Owl Owafore not be required to Me an Answer to the
Peteio1er1Fo1 ers Petition for dre Updsted Custody Evaluation and Review.
7. Drew shall continua in counseling wNh his therapist and the parties ohs#
gamic 00 as &acted by that therapist.
S. Mother shall share inIbrmation with Father regarding the sdwW and teedting
staff and coordinate with him an appointment to register the guild for #dW no teter Itran
July 22.2002. For purposes of school rrtgisinasiat. primary residence shall be deemed to be
with Mother In Fast Pennsbwo School MOW.
9. YA=ft.'Father shall have custody for vas mks from August 9, 20M #...0
A urn 16. 2002 at 8:04 p.m. to subsequent yes M each parent sW be erupted to
(1 ) kmr%m
days of vacation time with the chili. M more ftn ten (10) of which shW be used
consecutively. The parties shall pxwIda each outer with a minimum of sixty (80) days raft
of their vacation plans. In'the event Orel the parties have scheduled wnMdft vacoarts.
OW. party first providing wren notice shall have choice of the vacation time.
10. This custadtali schaMe is pre o* based on an agreement of the pepas
which 04"ft m "WOM40 the doll's tlme to be with a parent outside of working hours,
Theftre, it is p+onterrpiated that O Fathers days off were to change and include weekends
that 1119 schedule would be changed accardift*.
A 2 A Igo?
2. J4 Owk* dome Combmw on %, Ai v AM #a
Kim" we*&%& "ff? ift?. M*4*A. ? molmMil
E -M j"ft,
t4O
+l+la
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, ANDREW C. SHEELY, hereby certify that I served a true and
correct co nd
py of the Petition for Emergency Relief upon counsel of
record on the below listed date by first class mail, postage
prepaid, as follows:
Marianne E. Rudebusch
Attorney at Law
4711 Locust Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
i
September 2009 C
An rew C. Sheely, Attorney
4
ti
f
EXHIBIT C
n
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2009, after hearing,
the request for special relief is denied. This does not in any way
reflect any decision on the merits as to what's in the child's best
interest. If the parties cannot decide that at conciliation, we
will decide that issue after a full and fair hearing on the merits.
Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire
For the Petitioner
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
For the Respondent
: ml c
Irv% ?
9n'__~ ..
and il"
This ..... ay
Ttho4notaryv ???
EXHIBIT D
Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire
127 S. Market Street
P.O. Box 95
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
PA ID NO. 62469
717-697-7050 (Phone)
717-697-7065 (Fax)
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff/Petitioner
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK,
formerly known as MICHELE A.
SHEPLEY,
Defendant/Respondent
NO: 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER
?'-
n
r
f'
ra
-,
, 73T
- `J C7
W
1. Plaintiff/Petitioner is STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, an adult
individual who currently resides at 24 North Enola Drive, Enola,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant/Respondent is MICHELE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK, formerly
known as MICHELE A. SHEPLEY, an adult individual who currently
resides at 15 Givler Avenue, East Pennsboro Township, Enola,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. The parties are the parents of one minor child, namely,
Drew Evan Shepley, born September 17, 1995, age 14.
4. The child is presently subject to an exiting custody
order dated August 27, 2002, wherein Petitioner and Respondent
share legal and physical custody. See Exhibit "A".
5. The natural father of the child is Steven R. Shepley,
currently residing at 24 North Enola Drive, Enola, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania. He is divorced from the Respondent.
6. The natural mother of the child is Michele A. Shepley-
Zinck, formerly known as Michele A. Shepley, currently residing at
15 Givler Avenue, East Pennsboro Township, Enola, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania. She is divorced from the Petitioner.
7. The relationship of the Petitioner to the child is that of
natural father. The Petitioner and child currently reside with the
following persons during father's period of custody:
Names Relationship
Trinity H. Shepley Daughter (DOB 1/19/02)
Caleb N. Shepley Son (DOB 4/25/03)
8. The relationship of the Respondent to the child is that
of natural mother. The Respondent and child currently reside with
the following persons during mother's period of custody:
Names Relationship
Michael Zinck Husband
Step-brother
9. Petitioner filed a petition for special relief on
September 25, 2009 as a result of concerns that the minor child's
best interests were not met during the minor child's period of
custody with Respondent.
2
C,
r
10. Specifically, the minor child advised Petitioner of
certain incidents of physical, verbal and psychological abuse
during the child's custody with Respondent.
11. The minor child has advised Petitioner that the minor
child desires to reside with Petitioner on a full-time basis as a
result of incidents reported to Petitioner.
12. The best interest and permanent welfare of the minor
child will be served by granting Petitioner and Respondent shared
legal custody, and granting Petitioner primary physical custody,
with periods of partial custody to Respondent only after
appropriate family counseling has been completed and sufficient
protections in a court order are entered to protect the child's
best interests during Respondent's period of partial custody.
13. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not
been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the
child has been named as parties to this action.
14. A hearing on Petitioner's request for special relief is
scheduled for October 7, 2009.
15. A current custody order is necessary to address present
circumstances for the benefit of the minor child.
16. Plaintiff is capable of providing a stable, healthy and
supportive environment for the benefit of the minor child.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests your Honorable Court to
grant both parties shared legal custody and to schedule a
3
conciliation conference to enter a new order meeting the best
interests of the minor child for the reasons set forth above.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: October !
2009 4CZIV 4NL?
Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
PA ID No. 62469
P.O. Box 95
127 S. Market Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
717-697-7050
4
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this petition to modify
custody order are true and correct. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A.
Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: October 2009
Steven R. S p ey
Exhibit "A"
16 200'
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff
V.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY,
Defendant
IN CUSTODY
I MEMRV ORDER OF
AND NOW, this W2 714* day off . upon consideration of the attached
Custody Corwtatton Summary Report. tl is hereby ordered and directed as follows:
1. Ltigttl S.tuttQtlY- The Parties. Steven R. Shepley and Michele A. Shepley. shall
have shared legal custody of the mhw chid. Draw Evan Shepisy, born September 17.
1995. Epch parent shO have an Niue! right, to be exercised job* WM the other parent, to
make an moW non-ernwooncy decisions affeeft go child's gerwal wail-bairn fig.
but not limited to, all decisions regarding his health. education and religion. pt wsnt to the
t8rm of Pa. C. S. 15309. each part shed be entitled to all records and hftanation
PwinbV b the child Includtng, but not limited to mecca!. dwdal, ragglious or school
records. tire residence address of ire dnki and of on other parent. To the extent one
Pam has possession of any such records or Wwrnation. OW parent sled1 be ragt*W to
share the same. or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to
make the records and lnbmnation of reasonable use to the other parent.
7. Phvq Cµ Father shall have physics custody according to the
Wowing four wails alternating schedule:
(a) Wink 1 Effective July 16. 2002 from Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. until Friday
` at 7:00 P.M.
(b) SlYlnik;t• Faint Friday at 7:00 P.M. until Monday at 7:00 p.m.
(c) From Monday at 7:00 p.m. until Friday at 7:00 p.m.
(c) Y18t4. From Friday at 7:00 p.m. until Tuesday at 7:00 p.m.
At all times whit Father does not have custody. Mother shalt have custody.
3. It9utiprtd9o. The person receiving custody shall provide Iranaportatlon
incident b their periods of custody.
C V
c Irv P,
NO. 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
4. t I,ayi?• Unless otlUMIse agreed. he foWng holidays shall be alternated:
Easter.;"Momodal Day. lndopendetice Day, Lobar Daryl and Thanksgiving. Custodial period
shit be from 9:00 a.m. until 13:00 p.m. The child shall be In the custody of Father for
Father's Day and In custody of Mother for Mover's Day. The custody for Father's Clay and
Mother's Day shall be from 9:10 a.m. until 840 p.m. The Thank g0virng holiday period shall
be from Wednesday after school until Monday at 13:30 am. The alternating holiday
schedule shall commence with Father having Labor Day 2002. In the event that Father
does not have to work the weekend following Thanksgiving. his custodial period for a
Thanksgiving holiday shall be from Wednesday after school unM Monday at 8:30 p.m.
5. The parties shall participate In eight (8) addilkwal sessions with Melinda Eash
of therapeutic family counseling to enhance the parents' abates to communicate and make
decisions in a cooperative fashion regarding their son. Unrairnbursed costs of these
therapeutic services shall be shared equally by the parties. Following the conclusion of
these sessions. a progress report will be made lo counsel for the parties.
6. Fathses counsel has agreed to stay the action on trek Petition for an Updated
Custody Evaluation and Review pending the outcome of the pandas' counseling as
recommended by Dr. Shlenvold in the evatuatlon dated March 19, 2002. The
ResponderNMother shall therefore not be required to fife an Answer to the
PetitionerfFathtWe Petition for the Updated Custody Evalustion and Review.
7. Drew shalt come in counseling with his therapist and the parties shag
pard*ats as directed by that therapist.
8. Mother shay share information with Father regaaft the school and lead"
staff and coordinate with him an appointment to register the child far school no later than
July 22.2002. For purposes of school registration. primary residence span be deemed to be
with Mother In East Pennsboro School District.
9. yWAft. Father shall have custody for vacation from August 9. 2W2 through
August -18.2002 at 8.00 p.m. In subsequent years, each parent shag be entitled to fohMeen
(14) days of vec? the with the do. not more than ten (10) of which std be used
consecutively. The parties shall provide each other Oh a minimum of $ixty (130) days notice
of their vacatiorh plans. In the event that the parties have scheduled conflicting vacations,
the patty first providing written notice shoo have choice of the vacation time.
W. This custodial schedule is presently bored on an agreement of the parties
which attempts to maximize the child's time to be with a pownt outside of working tho m
Therefore, it is conteng6 ted that If Fa#Ws days off were to change and include v 4skends
that the schedule would be changed acodedingly.
NO. 97-3880 CIVIL TERM
11. In the event that efthsr party will be out of state white the child is In their
custody. the traveling parent will provide the other parent with notice of the address and
telephone number where they will be during the time that they are away.
12. TmWphnne QM acc Each party shall be eMi W to reasonable telephone
canted with the child when the child Is In the other parents custody.
13. In the event that ekher party Is unavailable to provide c#dld cars during We or
her period of aatody for a period of four (4) hours or more. time parties shall first make a
reasonable effort to confect the other parent to offer that parent the opportunity to provide
care for the child before a third party caregim Is
J.
0t KB*P Wes. Es*ft.107 ! Udt y PA 1tr10
limas L RuQdsuch. E54WM 011 LQ=W Imwk mnjd j+ PA 17169
94 ? OOMMON PLE" OF
CUMUNLANDCOUWY,MWWLVANA
1.9 C TIERM
llMACTI - I.AW
?Lrl''.:?i.1
ioIS44 " ? CvW* ~ ? ftftAmo1 ft:
MOWW JS 40 W&AW
KiOrp ??a w ft mpowr Mkbw A. sh"ft ow EMI' • M
E, kkkauseft. Is wp**.
w0WV I'
EXHIBIT E
NOV 1 32,00?' (et
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff
V.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 1997-3980 CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MICHELLE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK, :
Defendant : IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this `(O day of , 2009, upon
consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as
follows:
1. A Hearing is scheduled in Court Room No. , of the Cumberland
County Court House, on the I t day of 2( , at / UOP • Al
o'clock ;=:==W., at which time testimony will be taken. For purposes of this Hearing,
the Father shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with
testimony. Counsel for each party shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a
Memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list of witnesses who will-
be expected to testify at the Hearing and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each
witness. These Memoranda shall be filed at least five days prior to the Hearing date.
2. Pending further Order of Court or agreement of the parties, the prior Order
of Court dated August 27, 2002 shall remain in full force and effect with the following
addition.
Mother.
The parties shall cooperate with counseling for the child to be arranged by
4. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In
the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control.
BY COURT,
Edward E. Guido, J.
cc: Andrew Sheely, Esquire, counsel for Father
} y s'.
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire, counsel for Mother . F
t
n n 0 t
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff
V.
MICHELLE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1997-3980 CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: IN CUSTODY
PRIOR JUDGE: Edward E. Guido, J.
CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following
report:
1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this
litigation is as follows:
NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF
Drew Evan Shepley September 17, 1995 shared
2. A Conciliation Conference was held November 12, 2009 with the
following individuals in attendance: The Father, Steven R. Shepley, with his counsel,
Andrew Sheely, Esquire, and the Mother, Michelle A. Shepley-Zinck, with her counsel,
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire.
3. The Honorable Edward E. Guido previously entered Orders of Court dated
August 27, 2002 providing for shared legal custody and shared physical custody, and on
October 7, 2009, denying Father's Petition for Special Relief.
4. Father's position on custody is as follows: Father seeks shared legal and
primary physical custody with Mother having alternating weekends and other time with
the child. Father asserts that the child has reported tension in the home between himself
and Mother, stepfather and half sibling. The child has requested to live primarily with
Father. Father is in agreement that the child should begin counseling, but disagrees that
an updated custody evaluation should be performed.
5. Mother's position on custody is as follows: Mother seeks to maintain the
status quo. She denies that there is tension in the home. She asserts that the child wishes
to live primarily with Father because he is more permissive that Mother. Mother agrees
that the child should begin counseling and is in favor of an updated custody evalution.
6. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached scheduling
a Hearing and maintaining the status quo and for the child to begin counseling. It is
expected that the Hearing will require one-half day.
-0!? A
Date ac eline M. Verney, Esquire
Custody Conciliator
EXHIBIT F
Elliot Riegler, Ph.D. (1948-1999)
Riegler - Shienvold Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D.
& Associates Melinda Eash, MS
James Eash, LSW
Michael J. Asken, Ph.D.
Bonnie Howard, Ph.D.
Amy K. Keisling, ACSW, LCSW, BCD
Tracy Richards, QCSW, LCSW
Don Lawrence, LSW
Dyanne Seymore, QCSW, LSW
Jeffrey Pincus, Ph.D.
Ann Vergales, ACSW, LSW, BCD
Lisa R. Paponetti, MA
CUSTODY EVALUATION
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY v. MICHELE A. SHEPLEY
97-3980
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Referred By: By Order Of Court dated September 4, 2001
Referral Reason: To conduct a comprehensive custody evaluation and to make
recommendations regarding the most appropriate parenting plan for
Drew Evan Shepley, DOB 9/17/95
Individual Interviews: Michele Shepley 10/23/01, 11/21/01, 12/26/01
Steven Shepley 10/31/01, 11/29/01, 12/6/01
Drew Shepley 12/26/01, 12/28/01
Richard and Martha Collins 1/3/02
Shelly Shepley 1/2/02
Psychological Testing: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2)
*Michele Shepley
*Steven Shepley
*Shelly Shepley
Home Visit: Each parent's residence was evaluated for safety concerns and the
family was observed interacting in the home environment
Parent-Child Interaction: Each parent was observed interacting with Drew in the office
setting
Additional Information: 1. Letter dated August 23, 2001 from Carl G. Waas to Dr.
Shienvold
2151 Linglestown Road, Suite 200 - Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 - (717) 540-1313 - Fax: (717) 540-1416
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 2
2. Petition To Modify filed on behalf of Michele A. Shepley dated
8/14/01
3. Order dated September 22, 1997 re: temporary custody of
Drew
4. Order Of Court dated December 8, 1997
5. Custody Conciliation Conference Summary Report dated
9/16/97
6. Detailed options for School for Drew provided by Michele
7. Detailed proposed parenting plans provided by Michele
8. List of "Involvement" showing activities in which Michele has
participated with Drew
9. Correspondences between the parties provided by Michele
10. Miscellaneous information provided by Michele
11. Letter from Andrea C. Jacobsen to Carl Waas dated July 24,
2001
12. Log of Michele's observations regarding daily events of Drew
13. List of important issues dated October 31, 2001 provided by
Steve
14. Letter from Michele to Dr. Shienvold dated February 8, 2002
15. Drew's kindergarten report card
16. Letter from Steven to Dr. Shienvold dated February 24, 2002
17. Letter from Steven to Dr. Shienvold dated March 13, 2002
The recommendations at the conclusion of this report are based on all of these sources of
information and data.
: - C, t
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 3
Background
Steven and Michele Shepley are the parents of Drew Evan Shepley who is 6 years old.
They have been sharing equally the custody of Drew since the time of their separation in
December of 1997. At that time it was decided that Drew would spend alternating periods of
either three or four days with each ofhis parents. Because Stevenxypically worked on weekends,
Michele's days were either from Friday to Monday or Friday to Tuesday.
Michele decided to petition for a modification of the current custody order. Michele
believes, and thought that Steve agreed, that Drew needs a primary-residence now that he is
attending school. Furthermore, Michele feels that she can provide the more appropriate residence
during the school week. According to Michele, she is the more "regimented, routine person" of
her and Steve. She believes that Drew needs the kind of structure that she provides. Michele
reported that she can provide on-going -stability -for Dsew She does not feel that he gets that with
his father. Michele indicated that she enjoys getting very active with Drew and keeping him
involved in activities outside of the home. She reported that she is the team mom for soccer and
that she is involved at his day school.
Michele is concerned about attempting to maintain a shared custodial arrangement.
According to Michele, part of the reason that she filed her petition for modification was as a result
of Steve's unwillingness to discuss Drew's school situation. Michele wanted to place Drew in the
East Pennsboro school district. According to Michele, Steve wanted -Drew to go into the Central
Dauphin district, but would not have a discussion with her about the options. Oakwood Baptist
School, which is where he is attending kindergarten, was the emergency "back-up" when they
could not reach an agreement. However, Michele used this as an example of the difficultly she
feels that he has caused with regard to communication between them.
According to Michele, Steve will not communicate about any type of important
information. He has made decisions to go places without informing Michele or providing details
for her. Michele reported that when she attempts to communicate with Steve she is accused of
"harassment." Michele alleges that Steve is unwilling -to coordinate parenting, decislons such as
bedtimes, or activities. She perceives Steve as being very "rigid and stubborn."
Steve indicated that he opposes Michele becoming the primary custodian. Initially, Steve
reported that he wanted to_main ain ashared custodial arrangement. -However, at another point in
the evaluation, Steve stated that if Drew was to be primarily in one location, Steve felt that it
should be at his home.
Steve reported that he was surprised by Michele's petition for modification. There was a
disagreement over theschoolat which Drew would attend. kindergarten. According to Steve,
Michele had withdrawn Drew from Oakwood Baptist School and registered him in East
l
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 4
Pennsboro without informing him of the decision. He denied an allegation that he had registered
Drew at LinglestownElementaty School without informing Michele. He admitted that he had
"inquired" about enrollment at that school. According to Steve, it took court intervention to put
Drew in Oakwood for this school year. Steve believes that Michele wants Drew in East
Pennsboro for her convenience.
Steve is somewhat concerned that Michele's motive for seeking primary custody is to gain
an increase in child support. He noted that Michele has repeatedly asked him for "one extra day."
He reported that when Michele filed her petition for modification of custody, she also filed a
petition to modify the child support. Steve stated that .Michele Jim been consistently unwilling to
show flexibility around the custodial schedule. According to Steve, Michele will ask for
additional time for herself, but will never allow additional time for him. Steve feels that Michele is
vindictive towards him. He reported that she has befriended an old girlfriend of his and has
actually brought her to his house during transitions with Drew.
Steve reported that Drew has made derogatory statements about him and Shelly that he
could have only heard from his mother. For example, according to Steve, Drew said that he and
Shelly "serve Lucifer." Drew reported that God had told him that. Drew was also reported to
have said, "You don't love me, just Rhelly_" Steve believes that Michele promises Drew activities
in order to interfere with Steve's time with him.
Steve desperately wants to be a full-time father for Drew. He feels that he puts family
before all else in his life. He believes that he is very understanding ofDrew and provides a good
listener for him. Steve feels that he sets guidelines for his son and that he can teach him to be a
good person. Steve believes that he provides a stable environment for his son.
History
Michele and Steven met in 1994. After dating for approximately 8 months, Michele
became pregnant. They decided to get married and did so on April 29, 1995. The pregnancy
went without problems, although Steve complained that Michele was very moody. Michele
reported that Steve was very attentive during the pregnancy and he was present at the birth.
Labor and delivery went well and Drew was born as a healthy baby. However, he developed colic
and nights were very difficult. Neither Steve nor Michele got much sleep.
Michele and Steve agree that the relationship began to deteriorate after Drew's birth.
According to Michele, they began to "grow apart" because Steve was working two jobs. They
did not see much of one another, or spend much time together. She stated that they would have
"heated arguments" over things like money. Steve agreed that there were arguments, but he
blamed them on Michele. He felt that she was experiencing a Post-Partum Depression. Michele
admitted to having the "blues" after Drew's birth. Steve reported that Michele would get
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 5
physically violent during the arguments. He also stated that Michele flattened all the tires in his
car to keep him from going out.
Shortly after that time, Michele went to her family physician and got medication for her
depression. She admitted to feeling miserable. Michele felt abandoned by Steve, who wanted
virtually no physical intimacy with her. Michele stated that it was Steve who would push her
during their arguments- According lo-Michele, Steve .admitted that he did not.know what love
and family were, because of his background. They separated for six months at Michele's
initiation. However, she asked him to return so they could have a "family."
The relationship did not improve, but worsened. Physical altercations continued to occur.
Both parties accused the other of 't' t'ng the fights. Micheleadmitted that she would become
frustrated and tell Steve to take care of Drew. Steve reported that Michele would express anger
at Drew's crying at night. He alleged that Michele was constantly sleeping. Finally, he left with
Drew for 2 weeks and stayed with his "parents." He returned, but within 2-3 months he left
again. They separated permanently in August, 1997.
Drew Shepley
Drew is described by both of his parents as energetic and extremely active. He is good
natured, independent and creative. His parents feel that he is funny, loving and thoughtful. He
has good motor skills and enjoys playing sports. Drew can become aggressive and, by the end of
the evaluation, was demonstrating increased aggression at school.
Drew attends kindergarten at Oakwood Baptist Day School. His teachers feel he is doing
well, but demonstrating -increasing anxiety over the last couple of months. For that reason,
Michele requested to have Drew begin counseling. At the time of this writing, Drew was going to
begin counseling with Ms. Melinda Eash. Nonetheless, Drew continues to meet his
developmental expectations at school. His social development has been good. He has friends at
school and participates with other children in activities like soccer. Again, the only Problem is
that he becomes aggressive with other children.
Drew's physical health is good. He demonstrates a healthy appetite. There is no problem
with his weight. Drew is somewhat -difficult to calm down at bedtime Once he gets to sleep he
generally sleeps through the night. Both parents use the same bedtime on school nights. He gets
up without difficulty. Both parents have mealtime and bedtime routines which are appropriate
and family oriented.
Michele and Steve reported that Drew has an excellent relationship with each of them,
individually. Michele stated, "Drew loves his father, dearly." Steve reported that Drew, "Wants
to call mommy and talk to her and see her." Steve reported that the relationship between Drew
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 6
and Shelly "started slowly," but now is getting closer. Steve believes that Michele told Drew that
he did not have to listen to Shelly. However, he admitted that Shelly is more strict than he and
that may be a factor in Drew's reaction to her.
Drew was interviewed on two separate occasions, once when his father brought him and
once when his mother brought him in. There was a distinct difference in Drew's moods and
statements when each parent brought him to the interview. When Drew was accompanied by
Steve, he answered questions appropriately about who lived in each home. He was aware that
Shelly was pregnant and that he would have a new baby. Drew was not upset by that fact. He
also knew that his mother had a boyfriend named Mike.
Drew reported that he attended kindergarten at Oakwood Baptist School. He likes school
and has friends there. He stated that he "learns stuff' at school" and that his mom allows him to
go all day, but his dad does not. According to Drew, Shelly will often pick him up at school
because his dad has to work late- Drew Mated that he likes -spending time at both houses. -us
mom takes him places and cooks pretty good. His dad plays lots of games and takes him outside,
but also punishes him more often. According to Drew, his mom and dad will spank him on
occasion. Shelly only sends him to his room. She does not spank him because, "Mom says it's not
allowed." Drew reported that his parents -fight about all sorts of things- Dad and Shelly also fight
sometimes, as do Mike and Mom.
Upon entering the interview room when brought by his mother, Drew declared, "Dad put
me in a dryer when I was four years old." He also stated, "One day dad threw a football at me
and hit me in the stomach. It hurt when I was 6." When asked why he was telling me these
stories, Drew responded that his mother had reminded him to say them. It should be noted that
Drew was not angry or agitated when he reported those events. With respect to the football
incident, Drew stated that his father made -him feel better by rubbing his tummy and giving.it a
kiss.
Drew admitted that he was in a "bad mood" during that appointment. He felt that
different people had been -mean to him. He stated that he didn't like football because you get
hurt, he didn't like soccer because the coach is mean, and he didn't like Chucky Cheese because
people take your tickets. Drew went on to say that he and his dad don't like Shelly. However, he
likes his dad's old girl friend, Sharon, who is a friend of his mom's. Drew reported that Sharon
doesn't like his dad because they got into a fight- Drew indicated that Shelly was mean because
she would not let him watch television or play with his Play Station or X-Box.
It is unclear whether Drew's "bad mood" lead to his negative attitude about almost
everything, or if being "reminded" about certain negative events in the past created anxiety and
anger in Drew. Nonetheless, the young boy seen at the second visit, which was only two days
after the first, was less cheerful and relaxed than he was at his first visit. Additionally, Drew had
changed some ref-his percepts about his -environment, especially about Shelly.
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 7
Steven Shepley
Steve Shepley is a 34 year old man who has worked for United Express at the Harrisburg
International Airport for the last 12 years. Steve is a customer service representative. His hours
are from 5:00 A.M. to 1:30 P.M. one week and from 9:00 A.M. to 5: 00 P.M. the next. Steve
generally has either Tuesday and Wednesday or Wednesday and Thursday off during the week.
Steve has a very complex childhood history. Steve and his sister, Kim, were in and out of
foster homes for much of their childhood. They were first removed from their mother's care
when Steve was 5 years old. He reported that his mother had her first "breakdown" at that time.
The children went initially to a temporary foster home, and then a permanent placement was
obtained. Unfortunately, Steve's foster father was abusive and he ran away from that location.
After another temporary placement, Steve and his sister were placed back with his mother. That
was short lived when his mother had another problem. She has a diagnosis of Paranoid
Schizophrenia. Steve was in the Methodist Children's Home for approximately four years.
Another foster home was attempted unsuccessfully. Finally, Steve and his sister found a
permanent home with the Collins'. He considers them to be his parents and the children from that
home to be his family.
An interview with Richard and Martha Collins reinforced much of what Steven had
reported. They indicated that they have had a total of 9 foster children. The Collins' also stated
that they consider the children and themselves to be a "family." They reported that their "family"
was a concept that Michele. had a difficult time -accepting or understanding Their perception of
Steve was that he was initially a quiet child who kept everything "inside." He was cautious and
had a difficult time expressing his emotions. However, they never perceived him as being
aggressive or abusive. They admitted that Steve could become a "bear" when he was in a bad
mood. However, they reported that Michele was also very moody and would.frequently "put-
down" Steve. They remember their relationship as always being "contentious."
Steven presented as a serious, well-spoken young man who was anxious about the
evaluation. He was determined to "remain a .part" of Drew's life. Steve's affect showed an
appropriate range of expression during the interviews. He was attentive and concentrated well
within the sessions. He was able to present his side of the story in a logical, goal-directed manner.
There was an air of confidence about Steve that was inconsistent with his concerns about custody
and his concerns about his ability to articulate his feelings about the situation.
Steve reported that he drinks alcohol very infrequently. His last drink was approximately
six months ago. Steve denied smoking or using any drugs. He had been in psychotherapy
following his separation from Michele. Steve admitted that he will occasionally get "down," but
he has never suffered with depression. He can also become situationally anxious. Steve has never
been fired from a job. He is a graduate of Lebanon Valley College.
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 8
Steve completed the MMPI-2. His profile is generally valid, but Steve demonstrated a
considerable degree of defensiveness in answering questions. Individuals with this profile tend to
show a lack of insight and a denial of common human frailties. They are most likely
psychologically naive and evasive. They report to having strong moral values and they are
conforming and self-controlled. Men with this profile are prone to periodic anxiety attacks.
However, these men generally over-control their emotions. They may appear irritable as a
function of their desire to withhold the expression of negative emotions. Men with a similar
profile tend to be immature and naive. They appear optimistic, cheerful and enthusiastic, but
admitting failure is very difficult for them. They have strong needs for affection and attention and
may seek to meet those needs through manipulative techniques if they are not being met in -more
appropriate ways. These men tend to be perfectionistic and mildly independent. They can also
act impulsively. Their social skills are good and they enjoy being with others. They tend to use
denial and repression to deal with unwanted feelings. However, that may create a lack of insight.
They have a strong desire to be accepted and well liked. Physical problems often develop as a
function of stress. Diagnoses associated with this profile have to do with their tendency to
experience anxiety.
A home visit was conducted at Steve's previous residence. Since the time of the
completion of the evaluation Steve has relocated to.a newhome. Therefore, the observations of
the old home are somewhat irrelevant. However, the home was appropriately furnished and
attired for Drew. It was clean, neat and without safety concerns. One can assume that the same
will be true of the new home, especially since Steve and Shelly have a new baby in that home.
Steve's interactions with Drew were playful and appropriate. It is obvious that Drew
enjoys interacting with his father and that they like to tease one another. Steve applied some
simple limits to Drew's behavior, but the situation was such that the limits were not essential.
Shelly tended to be more the-rule setter and frequently presented rules in _a negative perspective,
i.e. don't do such and such, or don't touch the snow, etc. She was not as involved or as close to
Drew as was his father.
Michele Shepley
Michele is 28 years old. She is employed at the main branch of Allfirst Bank where she
works as a receptionist. Michele has been employed there for the last 5 years. She has some
limited flexibility to her schedule in that on the days that she has custody of Drew she works from
8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P-M. while on the days that she does nothave Drew she works until 5.00 P.M.
Michele indicated that she enjoys her job.
Michele was raised in rural Pennsylvania. Her father worked for a gas company and her
mother stayed at home with the children. Michele has one brother and one sister- She also has
four half siblings from her mother's first marriage. Michele related that she had "good memories"
t
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 9
from growing-up. She was a "daddy's girl" who was a A-B student. After graduating high
school, Michele moved to the Harrisburg area in order to attend Central Penn Business School.
Michele presented as a pleasant woman who appeared on time for all of her appointments.
She was always neatly dressed and well-groomed. Michele's mood was consistent with the
situation. She demonstrated a wide range of affectual responses. Her concentration was good
and her attention was adequate. Michele was able to describe her concerns without difficulty.
She was articulate and rational in her presentation.
Michele reported that she had suffered feelings of depression shortly after the birth of
Drew. She also related that when she is under stress she experiences anxiety- While in college,
Michele suffered with panic attacks. She reported that she had a panic attack during the marriage.
Michele took Ativan at that time from her family physician. She has not seen an individual
counselor. Michele denied any symptoms of anxiety or depression at this time. Michele reported
that she drinks alcohol approximately one time per month in social situations- She neither smokes
or uses drugs. Michele has never been arrested nor has she ever been fired from a job.
Michele completed the MMPI-2. Her profile is valid. Michele appears to have responded
frankly to all items. Interestingly, this profile is more common amongst psychological patients
rather than evaluation clients. That is because of the significant openness in the presentation.
Such an approach is often interpreted as an individual making a plea for help. More frequently in
evaluations, clients are attempting to look their very best. Michele's profile is associated with
individuals who demonstrate strong self-dissatisfaction, notable openness, bluntness and a critical
attitude. Women with this profile often have unrecognized hostility. They are emotionally labile
and irritable. Anxiety is common, as is occasional periods of acute distress. Similar women tend
to be overly dramatic in social situations. They are also energetic, aggressive, gregarious and
histrionic. Answers to questions denote a tendency to disassociate affect, inadequate impulse
control and a sense that emotions are strange. On the other hand, they exhibit a great need for
affection and attention. These women often lack insight into their own psychological make-up.
They also complain of numerous psychosomatic symptoms. Diagnoses related to this profile are
associated with the anxiety experienced by the client.
Michele resides in Enola, PA in a second floor apartment. The apartment is in an older
building, but it appears to be well maintained. There is no yard available for Drew. Drew has his
own bedroom which is appropriately decorated for a young child. There were no safety concerns
noted in the home environment. Michele's interactions with Drew were smooth, comfortable and
appropriate for Drew. He is a bright child and responds well to his mother's style of interaction.
It was obvious from the observation and attendant conversation that Michele and Drew play
games frequently. Michele is patient with him, but also appears willing to set realistic limits.
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 10
Shelley Shepley
Shelley is a 22 year old woman who works for American Airlines as a ticket agent. She
has worked for them for approximately one year. Shelley is currently on matemity leave from her
job. She is allowed up to 6 weeks of maternity leave, but would like to take up to a year off from
work in order to stay home with her new baby.
Shelley met Steve in March of last year. She became pregnant in April and they were
married on September 1,2001..Shelley and Steve actually began living togetherinAugust. She
reported that she met Drew very early in the relationship. According to Shelley, she was not
concerned that Steve had a child. She felt that she and Drew could learn to relate to one another
over time. She did not try to push him in the relationship.
Shelley reported that she tries "to be there for Drew." She tries to point out to him what
he does right and wrong. Shelley indicated that Drew will get into "moods" and not listen, but
generally he is a "good kid." When Shelley disciplines Drew she gives him three warnings and
then sends him to his room. -She reported, "Steve does any punishment beyond that." Shelley
indicated that Steve has some difficulty with discipline. According to Shelley, prior to her coming
into the picture, Steve was "more of a best friend than a father." Shelley feels that Steve and
Michele are great parents. It is her opinion that Steve and Michele should continue to share
custody.
Shelley appeared to be a relatively mature woman in spite of the fact that she is
considerably younger than Steve. She reported that she neither smokes nor drinks alcohol. She
does not use any illegal drugs. Shelley denied any history of anxiety or depression. She has never
been in treatment for a psychological disorder. Religion is very important to Shelley. She is
protestant and Steve is Catholic. According to Shelley the baby will be raised in her religion.
Shelley's MMPI-2 profile is valid. The response pattern suggests a frank approach to
answering question with only mild defensiveness. Women with this profile are emotionally stable
and free from disabling anxiety. All of the clinical scales are within normal limits. Similar women
are quite trusting, conventional, cheerful and somewhat insensitive. They may reject traditional
feminine values and are self-confident.
Recommendations
Michele and Steve Shepley currently share the physical custody of Drew. Michele
believes that it is in Drew's best interests to be in her primary custody during the school year.
Steve disagrees with that opinion. He feels that Drew would be better served if he was in his
primary care, or the shared custody of both parents. Steve also feels that Drew should attend
school in his school district. In the alternative, he wants Drew to attend a Catholic parochial
school.
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 11
The current evaluation revealed that Drew is strongly attached to both of his parents. The
history of the family shows that Michele and Steve have had significant involvement in the raising
of Drew. They both fed him, bathed him, changed him and played with him as an infant. Both
have a good understanding of his developmental growth and needs. Michele demonstrates a
greater ability to set limits for Drew than does Steve. Additionally, Michele has had greater
involvement in most of his medical and dental care. However, Steve is equally capable of
providing for those needs and would like to do so. With the help of Shelley, Steve is improving
his limit setting and discipline procedures.
In general, Drew has done well in adjusting to the divorce of his parents. Neither parent
indicated that Drew has shown behavioral or emotional problems. More recently, the stress of the
custodial problems appears to causing some behavioral disturbances for Drew. These have been
noted at his school where the teachers have reported that Drew is more irritable and aggressive.
The evaluation seems to indicate that Michele is exposing Drew to her negative feelings about
Steve and Shelley. Such exposure leads to confusion and anxiety in Drew. He loves both of his
parents and has not shown any desire to take sides in their conflict. Fortunately, Michele and
Steve have agreed to take Drew to a counselor and have begun that process. Part of the therapy
needs to focus on the importance of Steve and Michele increasing their communication. They
need to respect the importance of each of them to Drew's overall well being and sense of security.
The only apparent reason to change the current custody schedule appears to be the
problems associated with the-fact that the parents live in two different school systems. It is
recommended that Drew attend school either at East Pennsboro schools, or at a mutually
agreeable parochial school on the West Shore. In other words, it is recommended that Drew's
school district be determined by Michele's residence. However, it is also recommended that the
parents continue to employ a shared physical custodial .arrangement. As -long as Steve, or
someone he designates, is able to take Drew to and from either his school or day care program,
then a shared custodial arrangement should be able to continue to best meet the needs of Drew.
The most logical schedule for that parenting plan would have Drew spending every Monday and
Tuesday with his mother, every Wednesday and Thursday with his father and the parents would
alternate the weekends. Such an arrangement would maximize the time that Drew would get to
spend with each parent. Summers should also be shared, as should all holidays.
It is imperative that the conflict over custody come to a stop as soon as possible. Michele
has noted that Drew is being exposed to multiple changes in his life and she would like to stabilize
his environment. Steve has recently moved to a new home, gotten engaged, married and had
another child all within the last year. During that time the custody battle is being fought.
Admittedly, those are many changes for Drew to deal with. However, the stability of his
relationships with his parents is most important and will serve the greatest part in creating security
for Drew. Those have remained stable. When Michele gets to the point in her life where she
finds another relationship and decides to relocate to her own home, Drew will again experience
Shepley v. Shepley
Page 12
changes in his life. It is doubtful that Michele would want Drew to live primarily with his father at
that time because he would have a more stable living environment. More likely, she too would
see the importance of maintaining stable parental relationships as the basis from which Drew
would be able to accept, adapt and adjust to a changing environment around him.
The importance of Steve and Michele creating a "truce" between them and opening their
communication cannot be stressed enough. These are both decent people who love their child.
They each have psychological problems and issues from their personal histories that affect their
overall ability to get along and co-parent effectively. Hopefully, they will seek.professional
assistance in achieving the ability to over come those personal issues and work together for the
good of Drew. Whether they need to do that individually, or together may need further
exploration. Which ever way they decide to proceed, a reduction in the expressed animosity
between them is essential for the future healthy development of Drew.
Dated Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this, day of K)09PAQ3P , 2009, I, Katherine A. Frey,
Secretary to Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire, Attorney for the Defendant/Petitioner, hereby
certify that a copy of the within document has been served, by depositing a copy of the same
in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, delivery at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
to the following addressee:
Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire
P.O. Box 95
127 S. Market Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
1 '.
By:
Katherine A. Frey
RLE = ?i t
20091il T' 2 i F' 92: 172
NOV 3 U 20096
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
4711 Locust Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
717-657-0632
Id. No. 63522
Attorney for Defendant/Petitioner
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff/Respondent : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 97-3980
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant/Petitioner : IN CUSTODY
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
AND NOW, this day of , 2009, upon review of
Defendant/Petitioner's Petition for Psychological Custody Evaluation, a Rule is hereby issued
upon Plaintiff/Respondent to show cause, if any, as to why Defendant/Petitioner's request
should not be granted.
Rule Returnable days from date of service.
BY THE COURT:
J.
ibution:
'anne E. Rudebusch, Esquire, 4711 Locust Lane, Harrisburg, PA 17109
??ndrew C. Sheely, Esquire, P.O. Box 95, 127 S. Market Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(1:5 /' 1a t l CL
3
- THE
2089 DEC -- I r , 2': 9
I J
Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire
127 S. Market Street
P.O. Box 95
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
PA ID NO. 62469
717-697-7050 (Phone)
717-697-7065 (Fax)
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff/Respondent
VS.
MICHELLE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK,
Defendant/Petitioner
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
97 - 3980 CIVIL TERM
RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
IN RE: PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR CUSTODY EVALUATION
Plaintiff/Respondent, Steven R. Shepley, by and through
counsel of Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire, hereby files this Answer
to the Rule to Show Cause dated December 1, 2009 regarding
Defendant/Petitioner's Petition for a Custody evaluation, and
respectfully states as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted with clarification. The Order and decision of
the Honorable Edward E. Guido speaks for itself. By way of
further Answer, the Honorably Edward E. Guido scheduled a
custody hearing for January 11, 2010 on November 16, 2009, prior
to the filing of the instant petition by Mother Petitioner.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted.
9. Admitted with clarification. The prior custody
evaluation was completed when the minor child was 6 years old.
10. Admitted upon information and belief that Petitioner
Mother believes a custody evaluation would assist the Court with
making a custody determination.
11. Denied. Respondent Father opposes a custody
evaluation and Father's objects to Petitioner's request that
Father bear the total costs of a custody evaluation for the
following reasons:
A. Father's petition for modification was based upon
repeated statements from the fourteen year old child that
he desired to live with Father/Respondent, a request
initiated by the child and pursued by Father in the instant
petition after consideration and reflection by Father; and
B. Father is not in a financial position to absorb the
costs associated with any type of custody evaluation due to
his economic circumstances and Father has not requested a
custody evaluation in the present circumstances; and
C. The basis of allegations for change in custody stem from
issues occurring in Petitioner/Mother's household due to no
fault of Respondent/Father and Petitioner/Mother has not
filed an Answer to the underlying custody petition denying
the allegations set forth therein; and
D. The Court of Common Pleas has authority/discretion
to weigh the credibility of the fourteen year old child's
testimony as to his desire to reside with Father/Respondent
and whether a change in custody is in the child's best
interests without a custody evaluation at an upcoming
hearing scheduled for January 11, 2010; and
E. A full custody evaluation will require substantial
delay of at least six (6) months before the fourteen year
2
old child has the opportunity to express his concerns and
representations to the Court and such delays would not be
in the best interests of the fourteen year old child; and
F. Mother's Petition is void of any allegation as to why
she cannot afford to pay in full or partially for a custody
evaluation in this circumstance, and her petition is void
of any allegation relating to the potential costs of such
evaluations and why Father's sole assumption of such
unknown costs is in the best interests of their son.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Respondent, Steven R. Shepley,
respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendant
Petitioner's request for a psychological custody evaluation
and/or an update to the custody evaluation dated March 19, 2002
and her request that Plaintiff/Respondent bear the costs of such
custody evaluation for the reasons set forth in the proceeding
paragraph 6 and 11, and in light of the upcoming custody hearing
scheduled for January 11, 2010 in approximately one month.
Respectfully submitted,
December 9, 2009 6eryw
Andrew C. Sheely, Es ire
PA ID 62469
Attorney for Plaintiff/Respondent
127 South Market Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
717-697-7050
717-697-7065 (fax)
andrewc.sheely@verizon.net
3
VERIFICATION
I, Steven R. Shepley, Plaintiff/Respondent, hereby verify
that the factual allegations set forth in the attached Answer to
Rule to Show Cause are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.
December 16 , 2009
Steven R. heple
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, ANDREW C. SHEELY, hereby certify that I served a true
and correct copy of the Respondent's Answer to Rule to Show
Cause upon counsel of record on the below listed date by first
class mail, postage prepaid, as follows:
Marianne E. Rudebusch
Attorney at Law
4711 Locust Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
December 2009 ?CiW a
Andrew C. Sheely, Attorney
THE PPO 6?GTARY
2009 DEC 10 Eh 12: 15
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS NO. 1997-3980 CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MICHELLE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK,
Defendant IN CUSTODY
IN RE: PETITION FOR CUSTODY EVALUATION
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 17th day of December, 2009, after review
of Defendant's Petition for a Custody Evaluation and Plaintiff's
response thereto, our decision is held in abeyance pending
completion of the hearing scheduled for January 11, 2010, at
1:00 p.m.. We will make a determination as to whether we feel a
custody evaluation would be beneficial in helping us decide this
case after we have heard the evi
By t
Edward E. Guido, J.
J na E. Rudebusch Esquire
Marian
4711 Locust Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
For the Plaintiff
Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire
127 South Market Street
P.O. Box 95
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
mlc
l?S M'1r1d-??`,
cal`
OF THE F .,7., Hn !0TARY
2009 DEC 18 ?1i 3'.4 9
+.
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff/Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. NO: 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK,
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW C °
o
formerly known as MICHELE A. : r? ?--
SHEPLEY
Defendant/Respondent IN CUSTODY 5;- .1
CUSTODY STIPULATION
C
W
4r.n
Plaintiff, Steven R. Shepley, by and through counsel of
Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire, and Defendant, Michelle A. Shepley-
m
-e
2
Zinck, by and through counsel of Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire,
hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. The hearing scheduled in Court Room No. 3 of the
Cumberland County Courthouse on January 11, 2010 at 1:00 p.m.
shall be cancelled; and
2. Defendant, Michelle A. Shepley-Zinck, shall continue
arranging counseling for the child, Drew E. Shepley, with Sheri
L. Fullas, B.S., M.H.T., of Good Hope Psychotherapist, Inc. for
a minimum of 4 counseling sessions or for a period of time as
deemed necessary by the counselor.
3. Defendant, at the directives of Sheri L. Fullas, B.S.,
M.H.T., of Good Hope Psychotherapists, Inc., shall participate
in family counseling with the minor child, Plaintiff and
Defendant's husband. Upon request of the counselor Father shall
also participate.
4. Pending further Order of Court or agreement of the
parties, the prior order of Court dated August 27, 2002 shall
remain in full force and effect with the following addition.
the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall
control pending further Order of Court.
5. At the conclusion of the counseling provisions
contained in paragraphs 2 and 3, either party may request the
rescheduling of the custody hearing and resolution of
Defendant's Petition for a Custody Evaluation referenced by
Order of Court dated December 17, 2009.
In
6. Plaintiff and Defendant hereby agree and stipulate to
the entry of an Order of Court incorporating the terms and
conditions set forth above.
By: AdA
Andrew C. Sheely, squire
Attorney for Plaintiff/Father
127 South Market Street
P.O. Box 95
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
By:
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant/Mother
4711 Locust Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
January 6, 2010
January 6, 2010
2
-Jan 06 2010 4118PM RUD BUSCHLRWOFFTCE
01/06/2119 15:12 7176977966 AOSWELY
717-657-1512 P.2
PAW 93
4. Pending further Order of Court or sgreemaent of the
parties, the prior Order of Court dated August 27, 2002 shall
remain in full force and affect with the f ollowinq addition. In
the absentia of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall
control pdtidl.aq further order of Court.
5, At the,'aojaclusion of the counseling provisions
contained in paragraphs 2 and 3, either party may request the
rosabeduling of the custody hearing &nd resolution of
Defsndaiat - o petition for A Custody avalQat.ion referenced by
Oder of Court dated Dsosmber 17, 2000.
6. Plaintiff and Defendant here0y agXse and etipulats to
the entry of an Order of Court incorporating the terms and
conditions mot forth above.
ay:
And;ew C..Shemxy, quire
Attgazey for Plaintift:/Father
12a South Market street
P'0. Cox 9.4
;ighpnia*b1krg-, !A 17055
ay u'
Ma>riann• r. 1ludebusa , psquirs
Attorney for Defendant/Mother
4711 Locus% Lane
Harrisburg, PA 37109
January 6, 2010 Januarp b, 2010
2
I
JAN 0 8 2010
STEVEN R. SHEPLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff/Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Vs. NO: 97-3980 CIVIL TERM
r
MICHELE A. SHEPLEY-ZINCK, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW _
formerly known as MICHELE A. :
.
`
_
7
SHEPLEY, I ,
. :?. f
S 3
T
Defendant/Respondent IN CUSTODY C3
ORDER
?y
OF COURT
-
w`
AND NOW, this lid day of January, 2010, upon
consideration of the attached stipulation, it is ordered and
directed as follows:
1. The hearing scheduled in Court Room No. 3 of the
Cumberland County Courthouse on January 11, 2010 at 1:00 p.m.
is cancelled; and
2. Defendant shall continue arranging counseling for the
child with Sheri L. Fullas, B.S., M.H.T., of Good Hope
Psychotherapist, Inc.
3. Defendant, at the directives of Sheri L. Fullas,
B.S., M.H.T., of Good Hope Psychotherapists, Inc., shall
participate in family counseling with the minor child,
Plaintiff and Defendant's husband.
4. Pending further Order of Court or agreement of the
parties, the prior Order of Court dated August 27, 2002 shall
remain in full force and effect with the following addition.
In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this order
shall control pending further Order of Court.
5. At the conclusion of the counseling provisions
contained in paragraphs 2 and 3, either party may request the
rescheduling of the custody hearing and resolution of
Defendant's Petition for a Custody Evaluation referenced by
Order of Court dated December 17. 2009.
.'---Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff/Father
/rianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant/Mother
?..U ? t P3? .rye ??
2
zawara E. Guido, J.