HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-0208GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
PLAINTIFF
VS.
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO.
IN CUSTODY
COMPLAINT IN CUSTODY
AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, GEORGIA LEE BROWN, by her attorney, Samuel L.
Andes, and makes the following Complaint for Custody:
1. The Plaintiff is GEORGIA LEE BROWN, an adult individual who resides at 103
Nittany Drive in Mechanicsburg, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. The Defendant is BRIAN D. TROSTLE, an adult individual who resides at 234
West Ridge Road in Dillsburg, York County, Pennsylvania.
3. The Plaintiff and Defendant are formerly husband and wife.
4. The Plaintiff and Defendant are the parents of two minor children, Serene Trostle,
born 3 September 1990 and Colleen Trostle, born 13 January 1992.
5. The parties currently share legal custody of the children and share physical
custody of them in accordance with a custody order entered by the Court of Common Pleas
of York County and dated 5 January 1998, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked
as Exhibit A. Under that schedule, the children spend approximately 55% of their time or
more in the physical custody of Plaintiff.
6. Plaintiff seeks an order awarding her shared legal custody of the children and
primary physical custody of the children, for the following reasons:
A. The father has become verbally and, on occasion, physically abusive
of both of the children and his abuse is escalating.
B. Defendant has difficulty controlling his temper and Plaintiff fears for
the emotional and physical safety of the children when he has difficulty with
anger.
C. While the children are with Defendant, he must place them with a
third party to provide child care because of his work schedule and their school
schedule.
D. Plaintiff is available to be with the children almost all of the times
that they are not in school and she can care for them without using third party
child care.
E. The children are afraid of Defendant and his anger and have a much
closer and more trusting relationship with Plaintiff.
F. Plaintiff is better able to care for the children and to provide for and
meet their emotional, physical, and other needs.
7. This court is the proper venue to hear this custody action for the following
reasons:
A. This county is the home jurisdiction of the children because they
reside the majority of their time in Cumberland County.
B. The children have more connection to Cumberland County and its
people and institutions than to York County. The children attend school in
Cumberland County, attend church most of the time in Cumberland County, are
treated by doctors and other health care professionals in Cumberland County,
and in general have more friends and more connections to Cumberland County
than to York County.
8. Other than the prior order entered in York County, on which there has been no
activity for a period of approximately five years, Plaintiff is not aware of any custody action
involving the children.
9. During the past five years, the children have resided in the shared physical custody
of both Plaintiff and Defendant either at the Defendant's home in York County or the
Plaintiff's home in Cumberland County. The children have, however, spent the majority of
their time at the Plaintiff's home in Cumberland County.
10. The Plaintiff has not participated as a party or in any other way in any litigation
concerning the custody of the children in this or any other court.
The Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the children
pending in a court of this or any other jurisdiction.
Plaintiff knows of no other person not a party to this action already who has physical
custody of or claims to have custody or visitation rights to the said children.
11. Each parent whose parental rights to the children have not been terminated and
the person who has physical custody of the children have been named as parties to this
action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this court to assume jurisdiction in this matter and to
award her primary physical custody of the minor children and to award the parties shared
legal custody.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Supreme Court ID # 17225
525 North 12th Street
Lemoyne, Pa 17043
(717) 761-5361
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct. I
understand that any false statements in this Complaint are subject to the penalties of 18
Pa, C.S, 4904 (unsworn falsification to authorities).
Date:
GEORGI~[.EE BROWN
GEORGIA LEE BROWN
PLAINTIFF :
:
V.
:
BRIAN D. TROSTLE :
DEFENDANT :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON' PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
03-208 ,IVIL ACTION LAW
C ~
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, Frida~y, January_24, 2003
_, upon consideration of' the attached Complaint,
it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa p. Greev~_, Esq. __, the conciliator,
at 301 Market Street,__Lemoyne' PA 17043 on Tuesday, February 18, 2003
at 1:00 PM
for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effbrt will be made to resolve the issues in dispute or
if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narro~v the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary
order. All children are five or older max/also be l¢resent at the conference. Failure to a~0!oear at the conference may
provide grounds for entry ora temporary or permanent order.
Tbe 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 hearinl~.
FOR THE COURT,
By: /s/ Melissa P, Grcemy, Esq, ~
Custody Conciliator --
The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply ~vith the
Americans w/th 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
atlend the scheduled conference or hearing.
YOU SHOULD TAKE TItlS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET
FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle~ Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone (717) 249-3166
02/20/03 =9:45~m=rm=trosfle.mm=f~ 1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY~ PENNSYLVANL4
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
Vo
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
NO. 03-208
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM IN CUSTODY
ON THISA,re),[ 3}__day of February, 2003, comes the Defendant, Brian O. Trostle (hereinafter
"Father"), by and through his attorney, Karen L. Semmelman, Esquire, and files this Answer and
Counterclaim in Custody and in support thereof states as follows:
Admitted.
Admitted.
Admitted.
Admitted.
Admitted that the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Pennsylvania dated January
5, 1998 is attached. The document speaks for itself.
6.
Denied. On the contrary, Mother's behavior as more specifically set forth in the Counterclaim is
not conducive to encouraging and fostering a positive relationship between the girls and their Father. Rather
Mother's own motivations are clear for the reasons that she sets forth in her own Complaint in Custody.
02/20/03= 10:OSam=rm--trostlo.ans=f~ 1
Denied. On the contrary, Father has a very definitive routine in disciplining the children and
in structuring the environment when they are with him. This includes telling the children
three times that they must perform a certain task. In the event that they fail to respond after
the third request or statement, then Father acknowledges that he insists that they will in fact
comply with the request. The girls know exactly what is expected of them when they are with
Father. Just because Father raises his voice, does not mean that he is verbally abusive.
Denied. On the contrary, Mother asserts to the girls that Father loses his temper so that the
girls become fearful of Father through Mother's persuasion. These parties have shared
custody for eight years and the children have always been frae. Mother's change in her own
relationship is dictating her desire to obtain majority custody of the children, rather than
asserting this position for the best interests of the children.
Admitted that Father delivers the children to his cousin's house on Tuesday, Wednesday and
Thursday mornings at approximately 7:00 AM. Both girls then take the bus from the
cousin's home to school. They return from the school bus at the end of the day to the
cousin's home where Father obtains them at 4:00 PM. They absolutely enjoy spending time
at the cousin's home, where they spend time with their second cousins who are ages four, 12
and 13. The 12 year old attends the same school as Serene. The children definitely enjoy this
time. On the contrary, when they are at Mother's home, the children frequently spend time
at neighbors and Mother sleeps in in the morning, leaving them unattended for hours on end.
It is better that the children are appropriately supervised than to have an adult sleeping in the
home providing no supervision.
Bo
Denied as stated. Mother works from her home and is preoccupied with her work. Frequently,
the children spend time with neighbors or spend time unattended and unsupervised because
of Mother's focus on her work and/or her sleeping habits.
Denied. On the contrary, if in fact the children are expressing a fear of Father to the Mother,
then Father believes this is being encouraged and solicited from Mother since she does not
like Father whatsoever and refuses to talk to him in public, even when the children are
present. See Counterclaim as set forth below.
F. Denied. On the contrary, see the reasons set forth in the Counterclaim below.
Denied that Cumberland County is the appropriate venue to hear the custody action if Father would
choose to have the matter heard in Ym-k County. However, in the interests of moving this case forward
and arriving at an overall resolution in an expeditious fashion, Father is agreeing that Cumberland County
may entertain venue for this action.
2
02/20/03=9:45am=rm--trostl¢.ans=f~ 1
Denied that there has been no activity concerning custody. There have been ongoing issues between
the parties that have been addressed through counsel without the necessity of court intervention.
9.
Admitted.
10.
Unknown other than Father acknowledges he has received no other pleadings except for this one
filed in Cumberland County and the prior one filed in York County.
ll.
Admitted.
WHEREFORE, Father respectfully requests that Mother's demand for primary physical custody
of the children be denied and, if there is a change in the custodial schedule, he be awarded majority
custody.
COUNTERCLAIM
Father incorporates Mother's paragraphs 1-5 and his Answer to paragraphs 1-5.
It is in the best interests of the children to grant Father majority physical custody of the children
for the following reasons:
Encouragement. Mother absolutely refuses to engage and foster a positive relationship
between Father and the girls. During Mother's weeks of custody, if Father sees the children
with Mother, they are not permitted to even say hello to him. He will then approach them
to say hello and they will ignore him. Under no circumstances will Mother acknowledge that
Father is in her presence. She is encouraging the children to dislike their Father and align
themselves with her as opposed to being able to merely be children and enjoy and love both
of their parents. Conversely, Father goes out of his way to encourage the children to have a
02/20/03= I O:Ogam=rm--~ostl¢.am=f#1
positive relationship with Mother. Mother's attitude has been ongoing since the parties'
separation in 1995 and no matter what efforts Father has made to attempt to bridge the
communication gap, Mother places barricades between Father and Mother's ability to
communicate.
Aligning Themselves with Mother. Father is fearful that as a result of Mother's intense
dislike of Father that she is imposing that view upon the girls resulting in emotional
detrimental damage to the girls. Father has observed one of the girls particularly attempting
to "push Father's buttons" by refusing to listen to him whatsoever. This is a major change
in her behavior since the filing of the Custody Complaint in January of 2003. Father believes
that this change is directly attributable to the persuasion that Mother is exhibiting and
imposing upon the children.
Sleeping. Particularly in the summer, Mother sleeps late in the morning, sometimes until
after 9:00 AM. This means that during those times the children must get their own breakfast
and are unsupervised while Mother is sleeping. Further, because of Mother's working at
home, the children spend an extraordinary amount of time at the neighbor's home since
Mother is unable to be interrupted for an extensive period of time.
Sibling. Father recently had a new child who was born on November 18, 2002 whose name
is Garrett H. Trostle. The children enjoy the time that they spend with Father and their new
brother.
E. Stability. Father is able to provide a stable, comfortable environment for the children and is
able to encourage and foster a relationship that they have their Mother.
WHEREFORE, for these reasons, Father requests that he be granted majority custody of these two
children with reasonable rights of partial custody granted to Mother.
Respectfully submitted,
HOFFMEYER & SEMMELMAN, LLP
/
BY:[~
Kar~n,/L. Semmelm~m, Esquire
Att6rfiey for Defendant
30 North George Street
York, Pennsylvania 17401
Telephone #: (717) 846-8846
Supreme Court #: 29971
4
02/21/03 11:05 ~'7176055369
02/21/2003 10:59 FAX 17178B28780,
NSA 09~211
HOFF~R &
~ 001/001
i~002/002
COMMONW~ALTH OP PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
The foregoing DEFERDANT'SANSWERANDC0~C~AiNXN CUSTODY is based
upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in order to
represent me in the lawsuit. The language contained in the pleading is
that of counsel and not my own. I have read the DEFENDANT, S ANb"WER AND
COUNTERC~MINCT3STODY and to %he extent that the document &s based upon
information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to
the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the
content of the document is that of counsel, I have =elled upon counsel An
making this verification.
This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of
18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswo~n falsification to authorities,
which provides that if I knowingly~ake false averments, I may be subject
to c~iminal penalties.
Date:
n <D. Trostle
- 02/20/03=9:45am=rm=trostlc.ans--f/t 1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGIA LEE BROWN, NO. 03-208
PLAINTIFF
Vo
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
DEFENDANT
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have on this date served the Defendant's Answer and Counterclaim in
Custody on the person and in the manner indicated below, which satisfies the requirements of Pa.R.C.P.
440.
Service by first class, postage paid, United States mail addressed as follows:
Samuel L. Andes, Esquire
Andes, Vaughn and Bangs
525 North Twelfth Street
P.O. Box 168
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043
DATE:
aren ~:~/Semmelman, t~squire
Attorney for Defendant
30 North George Street
York, Pennsylvania 17401
Telephone #: (717) 846-8846
Supreme Court #: 29971
MAR 2,3 003
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
Plaintiff
V.
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 03-208 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 2~' day of rh~-,.A ,2003, upon consideration
of the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as
follows:
1. Custody Evaluation. The parties shall submit themselves and their minor
children to an Independent custody evaluation to be performed by Dr. Arnold T. Shienvold.
The parties shall extend their full cooperation to completing this evaluation in a timely
fashion and in the scheduling of appointments. The parties shall share the cost of the
evaluation on a 50/50 ratio. Following the completion of the evaluation, and within ten days
of the receipt of the report by counsel, counsel for either party may make a letter request to
the Conciliator to reconvene the Custody Conciliation Conference as an alternative to
making a request for a hearing before the Court.
Dist:
BY THE COURT:
Samuel L. Andes, Esquire, P.O. Box 168, Lemoyne, PA 17043
Karen L. Semmelman, Esquire, 30 North George Street, York, PA 17401
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
Plaintiff
V.
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 03-208 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
1. The pertinent information concerning the child who is the subject of this
litigation is as follows:
NAME
Serene Trostle
Colleen Trostle
DATE OF BIRTH
September 3, 1990
January 13, 1992
CURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF
Mother and Father
Mother and Father
2. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on February 28, 2003. Present
for the conference were the Mother, Georgia Lee Brown, and her counsel, Samuel L.
Andes, Esquire; the Father, Brian D. Trostle, and his counsel, Karen L. Semmelman,
Esquire.
3. Father filed a Complaint for Custody on or about January 15, 2003 seeking
shared legal custody and primary physical custody of the children. Subsequent to the filing
of the Complaint, through the assistance of counsel, the parties agreed to participate in an
updated Custody Evaluation with Dr. Arnold T. Shienvold. At the time of the Custody
Conciliation Conference appointments had been scheduled to begin the week of March 3,
2003.
4. The parties, through counsel, elected to waive the requirement of
Subparagraph C on Page 6 of their Stipulation of December 3, 1997, This paragraph
required the parties use mediation to resolve any request for modification of the provisions
of the Stipulation.
5. A form of Order providing the terms of the parties' agreement to participate in
an updated Custody Evaluation and the procedure,.s_Ze.~ccur following the receipt of the
Custody Evaluation Report, is provided as attached,
Date Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire
:211330 Custody Conciliator
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
Plaintiff
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
Defendant
AUG ! 2003
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND ~.~1 It, l-tv D=,,,,,- ..........
AU 003
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 03-208 CIVIL TERM
CiViL ACTION - LAW
iN CUSTODY
HESS, J. --- ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~b'~' day of August, 2003, upon consideration of the attached
Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows:
1. Hearing.. A hearing is sched~d in Courtroom Number /-~ of the
at
Cumberland ~ounty Courthouse, on the /Oc~ day o,f A.2~.~-~'~~'' 2003,
C],'30-r~¢~~ o'clock /~r .M., at h tim will rl~o
~earing, the Mother, Georgia Lee Brown, shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall
proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties or the parties pro se shall file with
the Court and opposing counsel/party a memorandum setting forth each party's position on
custody, a list of witnesses who are expected to testify at the hearing, and a summary of the
anticipated testimony of each witness. These memoranda shall be filed at least fourteen
(14) days prior to the hearing date accompanied by identification of witnesses and the
summary of the expected witness testimony and exhibits.
2. The parties have stipulated to the entry of tl~e children's educational records
without necessity of the custodian of records appearing to authenticate the records.
3. The parties have agreed to choose Dr. Alba as the children's orthodontist.
4. With regard to the field hockey equipment, the parties agreed that the
following equipment will travel with the child at the time of custodial exchanges: the field
hockey stick, the uniform, the shin-guards, the cleats, the socks. Father will replace the
mouth-guard with a mouth-guard other than Shockwave bran .
BY THE COURTi
///~evin A. Hess, J.
Dist: ,S. amuel L. Andes, Esquire, P.O. Box 168, Lemoyne, PA 17043 .~ ~' ' '-~ /~
.... ~ ~rn~lm~n Esouire, 30 North George Street, York, PA 17401 ~ ~
NO. 03-208 CIVIL TERM
presence of the children. Father disagrees with Dr. Shienvold's views on corporal
punishment and believes the report relies too much on Father's anger in determining the
recommendation. Father has indicated that he intends to go to meet with the children's
therapist to gain a better understanding of their perception of him.
6. Inasmuch as the parties did not reach an agreement to modify the custodial
schedule which Mother seeks by her petition, the parties are in need of a hearing. Counsel
request two (2) days for hearing.
7. Counsel have reached some agreements with regard to pretrial disclosures.
However, they have not reached a full agreement with regard to the disclosures related to
Dr. Shienvold's records. Therefore, in the absence of an agreement by counsel, the
Conciliator recommends a telephone conference with the Court will be sufficient to address
this issue.
8. At the time of the Custody Conciliation the parties were in disagreement with
regard to the exchange of field hockey equipment used by ,one of the children. Additionally,
the parties apparently had not chosen an orthodontist. After Conference with the
the parties had reached agreements on these two issues.
Conciliator, (,~4/~,~(~,~ ,,)~ .~ ~_~
Date ' M~lissa ~eel Greevy, t~squire
Custody Conciliator
:217367
8/28/0310:39AMMd--~osflecustintg=fgl
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 03-208
GEORGIA LEE BROWN, PLAINTIFF :
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
BRIAN D. TROSTLE, DEFENDANT : CUSTODY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have on this date served the DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF on the person :and in the manner indicated below, which
satisfies the requirements of Pa.R.C.P. 440.
Service by United States first class mail, postage pre-paid as follows:
Samuel L. Andes, Esquire.
Andes, Vaughn and Bangs
525 North Twelfth Street
p.OA rx
L emoyn ,~Pennsylvani~3
Karen L. Semmelman, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
30 North George Street
York, Pennsylvania 17401
Telephone #: (717) 846-8846
Supreme Court #: 29971
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
PLAINTIFF
VS.
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
DEFENDANT
liN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 03-208
IN CUSTODY
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES
Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories propounded and served in this matter by the
Defendant because discovery in custody cases is prohibited without prior special order of
court and Defendant has not obtained such an order to date. Plaintiff also objects
because she believes the information requested by Defendant will not lead to useful
information in the preparation or litigation of this case, will violate a confidence or
confidential communication from a person who intended to help the children who are the
subject of this case, and because the information that Defendant seeks to obtain may be
subject to a lawful privilege or some other restriction upon its use.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Supreme Court liD # 17225
525 North 12th '.Street
Lemoyne, Pa 17043
(717) 761-5361
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
Plaintiff
VS.
BRIAN D. TROSTLE, Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
03-0208 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2 v ~ day of September, 2003, argument on the plaintiff's
objections to defendant's interrogatories is set for Thursday, October 30, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. in
Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA.
BY THE COURT,
/gamuel L. Andes, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
./Karen L. Semmelmen, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rlm
K~I'(A. Hess, J.
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
PLAINTIFF
VS,
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO.
IN CUSTODY
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
AND NOW comes the above-named Plaintiff, by her attorney Samuel L. Andes, and
moves the court for a Protective Order in this matter, based upon the following:
1. The moving party herein is the Plaintiff Georcjia Lee Brown. The responding
party herein is the Defendant Brian D. Trostle.
2. This action involves the custody of the parties' two minor daughters, Serene
Trostle, born 3 September 1990 and Colleen Trostle, born 13 January 1992. Up to the
present time, the children have been residing in the shared legal and physical custody of
both parents and Plaintiff commenced this action in an effort to modify that arrangement.
3. By agreement of the parties, Arnold Shienvold, Ph.D. has performed a custody
evaluation in this case. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A is a copy of Dr.
Shienvold's report, dated 1 July 2003.
4. Defendant has expressed his unwillingness to accept Dr. Shienvold's
recommendation or to modify the existing custody ord,gr as requested by Plaintiff. He has
made it clear that he will oppose Plaintiff's efforts to modify the custody order and will, at
the hearing in this matter, challenge and question Dr. Shienvold's conclusions and
recommendations and the information on which they are based, To assist him in doing
that, Defendant has demanded that Dr. Shienvold release to Defendant or his attorney all
of the notes, reports, and other information compiled by Dr. Shienvold and used in his
evaluation, with the exception of certain specified test results which Dr. Shienvold is not
permitted to release by law.
5. Plaintiff believes a release of this information to Defendant will operate to the
prejudice of Plaintiff and the two children for the following reasons:
A. Defendant has a history of angry and verbally violent outbursts
directed at people near him, including the children and Plaintiff believes that
the information in Dr. Shienvold's file may cause such angry outbursts by
Defendant and that Defendant may direct such a~ngry outbursts at the
children while they are in his custody; and
B. Defendant has, in the past, used his anger, threats of violence, and
on rare occasions, physical violence directed toward the children, to control
them and to control the custody situation and Plaintiff believes he will try to
use such measures now to control the children after he sees Dr. Shienvold's
file contents; and
C. The children have already expressed fear and apprehension of
Defendant and Plaintiff believes their fear will be aggravated if they know
what they told Dr. Shienvold and others, which information will be available
to Defendant when he sees Dr. Shienvold's file and its contents; and
D. Much of the information submitted to Dr. Shienvold by Plaintiff,
the children, and others will cause considerable embarrassment to Defendant
and will prompt, Plaintiff believes, angry outbursts by him.
As a result of the above, Plaintiff does not wish Defendant to have the information from
Dr. Shienvold's file.
6. Plaintiff is willing to allow Defendant's attorney to receive and review
information from Dr. Shienvold's file on the following conditions:
A. That Defendant's attorney not share any of that information with
Defendant, or any other person beyond Defendant's counsel's professional
staff and any expert witness she may elect to use; and
B. That neither Defendant nor his attorney shall attempt to contact
any of the persons who supplied information to Dr. Shienvold to confront or
challenge the information they have submitted, prior to the time for a hearing
in this case.
Plaintiff believes that these restrictions will permit Defendant's counsel to have the
information she needs to properly prepare this case for a hearing and will still protect the
children and other innocent third parties from unnecessary involvement of the case or
from the angry or frustration of Defendant.
7. Defendant, through his counsel, has expressed a willingness to agree to
conditions substantially like these and Plaintiff hopes that these conditions can be
approved without a formal hearing or other formal proceeding before the court.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves this court to enter a Protective Order in the form
attached hereto.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Supreme Court ID # 17225
525 North 12th Street
Lemoyne, Pa 17043
(717) 761-5361
VERIFICATION
verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I
understand that any false statements in this document are subject to the penalties of 18
Pa. C.S. 4904 (unsworn falsification to authorities).
Date:~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing document upon counsel for
the Defendant herein by regular mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Karen L. Semmelman, Esquire
30 North George Street
York, PA 17401
Date:
Amy ~. Harkins
Secretary for Samuel L. Andes
Riegler · Shienvold
& Associates
July 1, 2003
Elliot Riegler, Ph.D. (1948-I999)
Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D.
Melinda Eash, MS
James Eash, LSW
Bonnie Howard, Ph.D.
Amy K. Keisling, ACSW, LCSW, BCD
Tracy Richards, QCSW, LCSW
Dyanne Seymore, QCSW, LCSW
Jeffrey Pincus, Ph.D.
Ann Vergales, ACSW, LSW, BCD
Lisa R. Paponetti, MA
Chrissi Hart, Ph.D.
Gregory Plotica, MA
Hoffineyer & Semmelman
Karen Semmelman, Esquire
30 N. George Street
York, PA 17401
Sam Andes, Esquire
525 N. Twelfth Street
P.O. Box 168
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Dear Attorneys:
Enclosed please find the Custody Evaluation completed by Dr. Shienvold for your
clients Georgia Brown and Brian Trostle.
Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions regarding
this report.
Sincerely,
RIEGLER, SHIENVOLD & ASSOCIATES
2151 Linglestown Road, Suite 200 · Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 · (717) 540-1313 · Fax: (717) 540-1416
Riegler · Shienvold
& Associates
CUSTODY RE-EVALUATION
GEORGIA BROWN vs. BRIAN TROSTLE
Elliot Riegler, Ph.D. 1~1948-1999)
Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D.
Melinda Eash, MS
James Eash, LSW
Bonnie Howard, Ph.D.
Amy K. Keisling, ACSW, LCSW, BCD
Tracy Richards, QCSW, LCSW
Dyanne Seymore, QCSW, LCSW
Jeffrey Pincus, Ph.D.
Ann Vergales, ACSW, LSW, BCD
Lisa R. Paponetti, MA
Chrissi Hart, Ph.D.
Gregory Plotica, MA
Serene and Colleen Trestle are currently in the primary custody of their mother during the
school year. Their father has partial custody of the gifts alternating weeks from Monday after
school until the following Sunday. Each parent has a visit with the children during the other
parent's custodial time. Brian spends Thursday evenings from 4-.7 P.M. with the girls whereas
Georgia spends time with the children on Fridays. During the summer, the parents share custody
of the children from Sunday to Sunday.
Georgia is requesting a change in the current custodial schedule. Georgia stated, "Brian's
control issues are escalating and his parenting skills have not improved." According to Georgia,
Brian has had multiple incidents during which he has hurt one &the children. She reported that
in 1999 Brian "hurt Serene" on two separate occasions. Serene had been in counseling with
Bonnie Howard and told her of the incidents. Georgia indicated that Brian subsequently told the
children that they were not to share those types of issues with Dr. Howard. Dr. Howard noted
that the children had become more withdrawn in therapy after those pronouncements.
Georgia alleged "Brian's abuse" has shifted from Serene to Colleen. According to
Georgia, Brian tends to get angry at Colleen and either slap her or "throw her into a wall."
Georgia reported that in 2002 she received a call from Colleen's elementary school stating that
Colleen was fearful of her father if she got a poor grade. Colleen told the official that her father
had slapped her in the face. She also reported an incident of slapping to Dr. Howard. Neither Dr.
Howard nor the school reported the incident to the children and youth agency. Therefore, there
was never an investigation of the claim. However, shortly thereafter, Georgia filed for a change in
the custodial arrangement.
Georgia indicated that she had not filed prior to that time for two reasons. She noted that
Brian's girlfriend was expecting a child in January and she did not want to start the litigation prior
to the birth &the child. Secondly, she noted that she wanted to insure that the children would be
safe given their father's knowledge of the filing. Georgia reported that when she told the children
that she requested a change in custody, the children were "ecstatic."
2151 Linglestown Road, Suite 200 · Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 ' (717) 540-1313 · Fax: (717) 540-1416
Brown v. Trestle
Page 2
Georgia feels that Brian "needs help with his anger and with how to be a better parent."
Georgia noted that after he received the court papers in which she requested the modification,
Brian took each of the children aside and told them to read the papers. Georgia reported that
Brian "lambasted" Colleen, telling her that she was "miserable" and that "God would know."
Colleen told her teacher, Mr. Brad Wolfe about the incident. Mr. Wolfe reported that he had, in
fact, talked with Colleen and that she reported to him the incidents involving her father.
Georgia noted several other concerns regarding Brian's behavior. She indicated that Brian
was not respecting the children's privacy when they were 7 and 8 years old respectively while
they were bathing. It was not until Dr Howard talked to the children's pediatrician, who
ultimately talked to Brian that he began to give them greater privacy. Brian admitted that he was
unaware that the children were uncomfortable with his process of helping them bath. However,
according to Brian, as soon as Dr. Howard requested that he change his behavior, he did so
wmingiy.
Georgia reported that in the past Brian has pulled Serene"s arms behind her back.
Interestingly, Georgia feels that for a long time Colleen was her thther's favorite child, but that
she has now become a focus of his anger. Georgia stated that Brian has made Colleen sit in a
chair for up to an hour for misbehaving. Brian denies that he has. the children sit for longer than
l0 minutes. Georgia also alleged that Brian has choked Colleen so hard that she thought she was
going to die. Brian denied almost all of those claims.
Georgia reported that she and Brian attempted "commurfication sessions" to see if they
could work more cooperatively together in their decision making. According to Georgia, Brian
stopped the sessions because he stopped seeing his individual therapist. Georgia's perception of
the joint counseling was that it was unsuccessful and simply underscored the tremendous difficulty
Brian has with communication. As an example of Brian's inability, or unwillingness to
communicate, she noted that Colleen had oral surgery involving anesthesia and he did not tell her
about it until the night before the surgery was scheduled. Georgia did not give her approval for
the surgery. On other occasions, Serene was bitten by a dog and stung by a bee, yet Brian did not
inform Georgia.
Brian reported that he was surprised when he was served in January with the custody
papers. According to Brian he read about the alleged verbal and physical abuse of the children for
the first time when he read the petition. He believed that perhaps the children had complained to
their mother that he yelled at them or grabbed them.
Following receiving the petition Brian asked the gifts about the "situation." According to
Brian, Serene stated that she did not "have a clue" as to why her mother was requesting a change
in custody. On the other hand, Colleen told her father that she didn't have to read the petition or
answer his questions. Brian reported that Colleen told him that "with an attitude" and would not
talk to him about it.
Brown v. Trostle
Page 3
Brian stated that since receiving the petition he has talked with the girls and asked them if
they liked coming to his house. According to Brian, both children told him that they wanted to
keep the arrangement the same because they enjoy being with him. Brian believes that Colleen
talked to her mother about these situations and her mother acted upon what she said. However,
Brian feels that Colleen had no idea of the consequences of the complaining and the fact that the
custody would change "drastically." He believes that Serene has a "little better conception of it,"
but feels that Serene wants to go back and forth between houses. Brian reported that Colleen is
"maturing and testing how far she can push dad. Colleen has the attitude that she can make her
own decisions." Brian stated that he has needed to tell Colleen that parents make the decisions.
Brian reported that he would not simply agree to a change in custody if the children
reported that they wanted one. Rather, he would "see what their thinking was" and decide
whether to respect their opinions, "somewhat." Brian indicated 'that although he is not entirely
happy with the current custodial arrangement, he feels that the children need both parents.
Overall, he is satisfied with the situation.
With regard to changes that he would like to see, Brian indicated that he would eliminate
the time the children spend with their mother on his Fridays. Brian admitted that there are "on-
going" communication problems. He noted that there is "no connnunication." All
communication is made via written communication. Brian noted that Georgia will not even allow
the girls to talk to him if they are with her.
On the other hand, Brian feels that as a function of the em'rent arrangement, the girls have
had the advantage of having input into their activities, school work and ethics from both parents.
When with him, the children have the opportunity of spending time with a large extended family.
Brian noted that the children get "two of everything" because they are not allowed to bring things
back and forth between houses. Brian alleged that Georgia is the parent who is opposed to
sharing clothing, sporting goods or uniforms.
Brian feels that in general the girls are doing relatively well. Brian stated that both girls do
"excellent" at school. Both children are honor roll students and are involved in activities. Both of
the gifts have good friends and do well sodally. He reported that the children come to him with
problems and ask his advice on a variety of topics. Brian reported that he believes Colleen is
fighting for some control.
Brian denied any physical or verbal abuse of the children. He stated that when the children
are with him they get three chances to do something and then he yells at them. He reported that
he has grabbed the girls on occasion and, on one occasion, Colleen told him that he had hurt her
when grabbing her by the back of the neck. Brian reported that in response to Colleen's
complaint he said, "Then you need to listen." Brian stated that Colleen was brealdng a rule about
fighting with her sister when he grabbed her neck.
Brown v. Trostle
Page 4
Brian admitted that about 1 lA years ago he slapped Serene in the face for talking back to
him. There was no CYS report. Brian feels that the discipline he used was appropriate for the
situation and that he has that right to make the choice. Brian admitted that he has spanked Serene
on multiple occasions, but denied spanking Colleen. Brian also admitted that he has held Serene
against a wall for misbehaving.
In order to assess the best interests of the children, multiple sources of information were
obtained. In addition to talking with the parents, the children were interviewed as was Sherry
Minnich, the mother of Brian's 5 month-old son, Garret, and Mr. Brad Wolfe, Colleen's current
teacher and Serene's past teacher. Each parent took the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III
and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI-1). Serene completed a Sentence
Completion Test and the children's school records were examined. Finally, Dr. Bonnie Howard
was interviewed with regard to her work with the children.
A review of all of these sources of information suggests l[hat there needs to be a change in
the parenting arrangement that the Trostle's are using. It is believed that it is in the children's
best interests to spend less time than they currently do with their father. The reasons for that
recommendation are outlined below.
The chUdren were interviewed on two separate occasions. At both of her interviews,
Colleen reported that she wanted to spend less time with her father and more time with her
mother. Colleen's reasons were neither frivolous nor exaggerat~. She indicated that she feels
much more comfortable with her mother. According to Colleen.. her father constantly questions
her and gets into fights with her. Colleen reported that her father told her that it was aH her fault
that her mother was suing for custody. He was angry that she had "told people about him."
Colleen admitted that she had told people that her father had grabbed the back of her neck
and had shoved Serene against the wall. As recently as a week prior to her interview, Colleen
indicated that her father had become angry at Serene and "pushed her against glass." She
reported that her father has grabbed her neck many times. According to Colleen, her father did it
one time in front of his girl friend. (Sherle Minieh admitted in her interview that she saw Brian
grab Colleen by the neck, an act that she felt was inappropriate.) Colleen stated that she does not
tell her father of her preference because she does not want to make him angry. She is hopeful,
however, that if custody changes, "he will respect my decision."
Serene indicated that she was aware of the current custody conflict. She stated that, in
general, she is more comfortable with her mother than with her father. However, Serene was
unwilling to state a preference with respect to custody. In fact, her solution to the overall
problem was for her father to move to Mechanicshurg. That would place him in her school
system and closer to her friends. Serene indicated that her father lives in a very rural area and she
has few friends near-by. Serene plays with her cousins occasionally when she is at her father's
home.
Brown v. Trostle
Page 5
Serene was reluctant to say anything particularly negatiw~ about her father. She stated
that her father has slapped her in the face, but she thought it was "an accident." Serene also noted
that her father has pushed her and yelled at her, but she admitted that she had misbehaved prior to
those incidents. Serene reported that her father wanted her to read the custody papers, but she
did not get all the way through them.
It was obvious that Serene was unwilling to choose between her parents. She is becoming
increasingly centered around her friends and peers. Her anxieties are more related to social issues
with her friends than about other issues. However, Serene appears to have become fixated on her
plan for her father to move to Mechanicsburg as a solution to her worries about the custody
situation. That plan proves that Serene does not want to offend either parent, but she is not
comfortable with the current arrangement. She feels that it confuses her friends and that she
cannot be "normal."
Colleen's perception of her father, as well as some of Georgia's concerns and allegations,
were confirmed by the interviews of Sherie Minich and Brad Welfe. Ms. Minich indicated that
she did not approve of Brian's parenting style. She described him as a "dictator," "obsessive-
compulsive" about certain things, yet allows his house to be a "wreck," and he is extremely
controlling and rigid. According to Sherie, Brian did not want Colleen in elite soccer because it
cost extra money and he did not want to travel. She believes that Brian "stalks" Georgia, by
driving by her house for no reason "all the time."
Sherle is concerned about Brian's anger, but at the same time believes that he is obsessed
with his daughters and generally treats them like "goddesses." However, she does not feel that he
recognizes the needs of the children, especially as socially based in Mechanicsburg. Sherie noted
that when Serene asked him to move to Mechanicsburg he responded, "You don't like my
house." The implication was that he did not understand Serene's needs.
Sherie reported that she has concerns about Georgia's desire to foster a relationship
between the girls and Brian. She noted that when the gkls are with their mother and Brian is
present, they are not allowed to speak to him. On the other hand, Brian encourages the girls to
speak with their mother. She also noted that the girls appear to ]love their dad and he certainly
loves them. Nonetheless, she admitted that she would not want her child to be in Brian's primary
or shared custody. She has seen and felt, literally, his anger. She saw Brian hurt Serene and she
has experienced Brian's violent behavior.
As noted above, Mr. Wolfe indicated that Colleen has complained to him about her
father's behavior. He also had Serene as a student and noted that she had talked about similar
problems between her and her father. Mr. Wolfe did not hear similar concerns from the children
about their mother.
Brown v. Trostle
Page 6
Brian's psychological testing suggests that it is extremely important to him to be perceived
as very controlled and appropriate in his behavior. As a function of that need, Brian is likely to
deny many of his psychological problems. Additionally, he is an individual who tends to over-
control all of his emotions, including anger. Unfortunately, as a result of the over-control, he is
likely to lack awareness as to what he is feeling and anger may surge in an outburst as a result of
the lack of recognition. Brian appears to have a considerable need for attention and affection,
which he may try to gain through manipulative and immature mechanisms. Brian's tendency on
his testing to deny anger is elearly unsupported by the reports of others in his environment.
Georgia's test results also indicate a desire to "look good" to others. In fact, Georgia is
vulnerable to feelings of anxiety when she is unable to gain the approval of authority or if she is
criticized by individuals she respects. She may act deferential, yet seW-confident around others.
Unfortunately, she may also possess fairly deep feelings of resentment and dependency on others.
However, Georgia showed no problems with respect to her depth of anger or her ability to
control anger in her life.
It is believed that Brian is experiencing difficulty with the increas'mg needs for
independence of the girls as they are getting older. Brian tends to be very controlling and rigid in
his approach to parenting. He also appears to lack some sensitivity and insight into the social and
emotional needs of his daughters at this age. As a result, the girls feel more comfortable with
their mother and in their mother' s environment. She has a better feel for their developmental
needs and uses a style that combines the appropriate amount of limits and freedom.
Brian has not done a good job in looking at those factors in his own personality, i.e. his
anger, need for control and use of denial, which interfere with his ability to be a better parent
and/or spouse. Additionally, when angry Brian uses inappropriate behaviors, including hitting,
pushing and verbal abuse in lieu of more appropriate behaviors that could accomplish the same
results. His behavior in forcing the children to read the court documents also illustrates his lack
of judgement and sensitivity as a parent.
Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the children rema'm in the mother's primary
custody throughout the year. It is further recommended that the children spend alternat'mg
weekends from Friday until Sunday evening with their father and every Wednesday overnight with
him. However, it is also recommended that Brian re-enter therapy to deal with the issues that
were noted above and that he agree that no physical punishments shall be used with the children.
If Brian is unwilling to do so, the option of supervised visitation should be considered.
Brown v. Trostle
Page 7
Finally, it is recommended that the children continue to v~isit with Dr. Bonnie Howard on a
regular basis. Georgia needs to encourage the children to communicate with their father,
especially when she and Brian are at a child activity together. O:orgia needs to begin to work on
communicating more effectively with Brian, as well.
Date Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D.
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
PLAINTIFF
VS,
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO.
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW this ~ -'~ day of ~c,~,~- ,2003, upon
consideration of the attached Motion for Protective Order, a Rule is hereby issued upon
the Defendant Brian D. Trostle, to show cause, if any he has, why the relief requested
therein should not be granted. The Rule shall be served upon the Defendant's counsel of
record and shall be returnable 2_ ~ days from service.
Distribution:
BY THE COURT,
Samuel L. Andes, Esquire (Attorney for Plaintiff)
525 North 12th Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043
Karen L. Semmelman, Esquire (Attorney for Defendant)
30 North George Street, York, PA 17401
8:53AM=8:53AM-~'m-~crostleanscc=~l
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY~ PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
NO. 03-208
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
AND NOW, to wit, this~ day of ~) C-~'~"'... , 2003, comes the Defendant,
Brian D. Trostle (hereinafter "Father"), by and through his attorney, Karen L. Semmelman, Esquire, and files
this Answer to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order and in support thereof, states as follows:
1.
Admitted.
Admitted. By way of further answer, Father filed an Answer and Counterclaim seeking majority
custody on February 24, 2003.
3.
Admitted in part. The July 1, 2003 report by Dr. Shienvold is actually a custody re-evaluation in this
matter.
Admitted in part. Denied in part. Father acknowledges that he does not accept Dr. Shienvold's
recommendation that the children's best interests are met by the cte~todial plan proposed by Dr. Shienvold. By
way of further answer, it is Father's right to explore all of the assumptions asserted in Dr. Shienvold's report
regarding Father's alleged, behavior that have a negative impact on his children including the lack of
communication with Mother, as well as the children's feelings toward the custody situation and Father.
Father obviously needs all of the information utilized or relied upon by Dr. Shienvold to prepare his report,
8:53AM=g:53AM-~m-~rostleanscc=fgl
with the exception of the raw test scores (which are prohibited from release by law) in order to challenge those
conclusions at the hearing scheduled in this matter.
5.
Denied. On the contrary Father believes that Mother is conthsing anger related outbursts with corporal
punishment. Father denies that he has a history of angry, verbally violent outbursts that are abusive. He
acknowledges that he believes corporal punishment is appropriate trader certain circumstances. However,
Father has not heard either of his children expressly state that they are in fear of him or apprehensive of being
in his custody. By way of further answer, Father is already aware of comments made to Dr. Shienvold by
Mother, the children and others as many of those comments are already contained in Dr. Shienvold's report.
Father has not engaged in any angry or violent confrontations with any of the contributors to Dr. Shienvold's
report, including the children since receipt of said report. Father believes that Mother is purposefully
attempting to inflame the situation by asserting such averments as contained in her Motion. By way of further
answer, Father asserts:
Alienation. Mother continually attempts to alienate the children fi.om Father by her words and
actions. Rather than encouraging and fostering a positive relation between Father and the
children, Mother discourages the children from cmranunicating with Father, especially when
they are all present together. Further, Mother ignores Father when they are all together, and
indirectly makes the children aware that it is not acceptable that they acknowledge Father's
existence in front of her. Father, on the other hand, does his best to encourage the children to
have a positive relationship with their mother. Father attempts to communicate openly with
Mother regarding issues surrounding the children, but Mother makes no effort to bridge the
communication gap.
Children's Alignment with Mother. Father has observed changes in the girls attitudes and
behaviors since the custody complaint was filed in January 2003. Father is aware that Mother
strongly dislikes him and believes that she is imposing her views and impressions on the girls
which Father believes results in emotional damage, to the girls. Father believes this is an
important issue which was not properly addressed in Dr. Shienvold's report; to the contrary Dr
Shienvold's report focused mainly on Father's anger and what Dr. Shi~nvold considered-~tg b~
his inappropriate use of corporal punishment.
Disparagement of Father. Father believes it is Mother's singular intent to disparage him in
front of the children. It is Father's view that Mother is: encouraging the children to see only the
worst about Father and his behavior. It is Mother's view as stated in her Motion for Protective
2
8:01 AM=8:01 AM-~m-~rostlcanscc=f~l
Order that the information contained in Dr. Skdenvold's files will cause considerable
embarrassment to Father, thereby prompting him to have an angry outburst. If, in fact, there are
such demeaning and derogatory comments contained in Dr. Shienvold's files, it is Father's right
to explore the alleged allegations and be prepared or challenge to refute them.
Admitted in part. Denied in part:
Admitted. By way of further answer, Father will agree to this condition only if it also is
extended to Mother's attorney and Mother. Additiomdly, Father would agree to this condition
so long as both Father and Mother agree that they may use the information to the extent
necessary for use during the heating and in preparation of examination of Dr. Shienvold.
Denied. Sherie Minich, the mother of Father's other child who is not a party to this custody
matter, provided information to Dr. Shienvold. However, Father also intends to call Sherie
Minich as a wimess and therefore will be interviewing her prior to the heating. Likewise, other
contributors to Dr. Shienvold's report may also be potential witnesses with whom Father or his
attorney may have contact prior to the hearing.
7.
Admitted. By way of further answer, Father asserts this Petition was wholly unnecessary because:
Conciliation Conference. The issue of Dr. Shienvold's report and the underlying documentation
was discussed at the conciliation conference held befbre Melissa Peel Greevy on August 15,
2003.
Correspondence. After a discussion regarding the same, Mother's counsel sent Father's counsel
a letter dated August 19, 2003 proposing that the information be released on the condition that it
not be shared with Father. Mother's counsel further proposed that a stipulation to this effect be
prepared and executed. Father's counsel responded irt a letter dated August 22, 2003, which is
marked Exhibit" A", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein agreeing that
neither counsel will disclose the contents of Dr. Shienvold's file to their clients other than to the
extent necessary for use in the courtroom and in prep.aration of cross-examination of Dr.
Shienvold.
Request of Dr. Shienvold. On August 22, 2003, Father's counsel wrote to Dr. Shienvold asking
that he provide copies of any and all documentation other than the raw test scores to both
Mother's and Father's counsel.
Motion for Protective Order. Mother's counsel forwarded a copy of the Motion for Protective
Order with the proposed Order to Father's counsel on September 12, 2003. Mother's counsel
requested that Father's counsel edit as necessary and advise if it could be entered as an Order
without the necessity of filing a Petition or Motion.
3
Modified Order. On September 23, 2003, upon return tSom vacation, Father's counsel did edit
the proposed Order of Court, a copy of which is marked Exhibit" B", attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein. Father's counsel foxed the proposed order with changes to
Mother's counsel that same date, the same which is now being reviewed by Mother's counsel.
Counsel Fees. Because of the time involved in reviewing and preparing the various
correspondence outlined above, as well as the changes made to the proposed Order and the
necessity of filing this Answer and because Mother is well aware Father is entitled to the file,
Father requests that Mother pay Father's counsel fees.
WHEREFORE, Father respectfully requests this Honorabte Court:
A. Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order.
B. Order Mother to pay Father's counsel fees.
C. Any other equitable relief the Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
HOFFMEYER & SEMMELMAN, LLP
BY: ~
Karen L. Semmelman, Esquire
Attomey for Defendant
30 North George Street
York, Pennsylvania 17401
Telephone #: (717) 846-8846
Supreme Court #: 29971
4
/Z~O~ 10:0~ FAX 171755~$750
~OYFI~rKER & SEI~EL~N
~]008
COMlVIONWEALTH OF PE~,FNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF YORK
: SS:
Th/s .~.atcment Md v~.~c?ion am m~e..s~bjcct to thc p~r~tics of Pa-C.S. Section 4904 relati~ to
unswom falsification to authorities, which provides that if I know~ly make f~lse averments, I rn~ be
subject w criminal penalties.
Da~e: (~=Y'oBz~ /: ;P-~03
A CKNOV~q.~D (LENIE]N'T
CgMMONWE LTH OF PENNSYLVANL
COUNTY OF YORK
On this, the da7 of
,2003 befo~me, th~
undersigned officer, persomlly appeared
BRIA~ D. TROSTLE, known to me (or
~atlsfacrm-ily provea) to ~; the p¢~on whose
name i~ ,~ubseril~d to the within m.~crumcnt,
and ~:knowlcdged that h~ ex~cuted s~rne for
the pm-poses therein cont~ued.
IN %VITNES$ 'W~r~NdEOF, I h~reunto set
my h~ud ~1 o~ici~l s~al.
.(SF L)
N otm-y Public
MCE:
BRIAN D. 2'KOSTLE
ACI~NOWLEDGEM~.'NT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUN'I'f OF YORK
On this, the ~ ~y of
,2003, before mc~ thc
~dersigne~ officer, personally appeax~
, lmow~ to me (or
smisf~cu)rilF proven)'to be a member of
bar of (he highest cou~ Supreme Cour~ ID
# of said staxe and
subsc~bmg witness to the within
and cert~ed that he was per, only present
when BRIAN D. TROSTLE, whose name is
subscribed t~ the within fi~stzument execuxed
'dae same, and that said person acknowledge
that he ~ecuted the same for the purposes
therein containS.
~ ]t~l'l'lgJ~.~$ WHEREOF, I
hereunto set my hand ~a official seal
· (SF. L)
Notm-f Public
MCE:
Z00/Z00~ IIZ~80 VS~ 69C9909£I~,~, 0g:II ~0/I0/0I
Karen L. Semmelman*
James G. Keenan
Robert L. Buzzendore
David C. Schanbacher
Michael J. Connor
Amy J. Phillips
Tel: (7 t 7) 846-8846 (York)
Tel: (717) 235-6133 (Shrewsbury)
30 North George Street 73 East Forrest Avenue
York, PA 17401 Shrewsbury, PA. 17361
Darlene E. Dubs
Vicki M. Runkle
Barbara A. Froman
Support Professionals
Stephanie A. Hughes
Professional Liaison
Cindy S. Crol~
Louise C. Overmiller
Fax: (717) 852-8780
E-Mail: info~hoffsemm.com
FACSCIMILE ONLY: (717) 761-1435
NO FIRST CLASS MAIL WILL FOLLOW
Samuel L. Andes, Esquire
Andes, Vaughn and Bangs
525 North Twelfth Street
P.O. Box 168
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043
Dear Sam:
August 22, 2003
(Dictated August 20, 2003)
Re: Trostle/Brown
8027-00
Please avoid sending letters containing your client's view of facts with which I obviously do not
agree to the Conciliator. Obviously, these client pleasing letters are inflammatory, biased and
inappropriately provided to her. Since I am sending a copy of this to the Conciliator, I am advising that
we dispute the comments that you set forth in your letter. However, I will agree that neither of us
disclose the contents of Dr. Shienvold's file to our clients, other than to the extent that is necessary for
use in the courtroom and in preparation for cross examination of Dr. Shienvold.
Very truly yours,
HOFFMEYER & SEMMELMAN, LLP
Karen L. Semmelman, Esquire
KLS:Id
xc: Brian D. Trostle
Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire FACSCIMILE ONLY: (717) 761-3015
NO FIRST CLASS MAIL WILL FOLLOW
axc: Custody Record
EXHIBIT "A'
VS,
PLAINTIFF
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND
,COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO.
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW this day of , 2003, upon
consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, we hereby order and decree as
1. Defendant's attorney, Karen L. S, emmelman, Esquire,~ma~r~e~c.e. ive from Arnold
Shienvold ~nd his officest~c mstcr~l in Dr. Shienvold s *l~e ~~~o
~e hi~ custody evaluation dated July 1, 2003, on the following conditions:
A~efendant's attorn~no~r~ information with ~ ~
Defendant, or any other person _~ey~D~ndant's .9~un~el's professiDna~ ........ ~
staff and any expert witnes~ may elect to us~~,~ ~,~ ~
~rso~ who ~uppiiud information to Dr. Shiu~vu~G to , ...... nt or ~
2. Dr. Shienvold is hereby authorized and directed to make information from his
files available to counsel for both parties equally. '
BY THE COURT,
Distribution:
Samuel I', Andes, Esquire (Attorney for Plaintiff)
525 North 12~h Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043
Karen L. Semmelman, Esquire (Attorney for Defendant)
30 North George Street, York, PA 17401
8:53 AM=8:53 AM--rm-'~trosfleanscc=f~ 1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY~
GEORGIA LEE BROWN, :
PLAINTIFF :
V.
:
BRIAN D. TROSTLE, :
DEFENDANT :
NO. 03-208
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have on this date served the Det~ndant's Answer to Plaintiff's Motion for
Protective Order on the person and in the manner indicated below, which satisfies the requirements of
Pa.R.C.P. 440.
Service by facsimile at 717/761/1435 and first class, postage paid, United States mail addressed as
follows:
Samuel L. Andes, Esquire
Andes, Vaughn and Bangs
525 North Twelfth Street
P.O. Box 168
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 15'043
Service by first class mail, postage pre-paid, United States mail:
DATE:
The Honorable Kevin A. Hess
Cumberland County Courthouse
Squ e
~rns~e, t'ennsylv/~013.,3387
BY:
Karen L. Sennnelman, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
30 North George Street
York, Pennsylvania 17401
Telephone #: ('717) 846-8846
Supreme Coun: #: 29971
9:08 AM-~:08 AM--rm-~xosfle grant leave =F#1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
PLAINTIFF :
DEFENDANT :
NO. 03-208
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY
MOTION TO DIRECT PLAINTIFF TO
ANSWER DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES
ON TItlS '2~}-rtl, dayof ~,'~')O~,~ ,/~ ,2003, comestheDefendant, BfianO. Trostle
(hereinafter "Father"), by and through his attomey, Karen L. Serrmtelman, Esquire, and files this MOTION
TO DIRECT PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES and in support thereof,
states as follows:
The moving party herein is the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as "Father"). The responding party
herein is the Plaintiff, Georgia Lee Brown (hereinafter referred to as "Mother").
2.
This action involves the custody of the parties' two minor daughters, Serene Trostle, bom September
3, 1990 and Colleen Trostle, bom January 13, 1992. Up to the present time, the children have been residing in
the shared legal and physical custody of both parents. Mother commenced this action in an effort to modify
that arrangement.
3.
A conciliation conference was held on March 26, 2003 whereupon the parties agreed to a custody re-
evaluation by Amold T. Shienvold, Ph.D.
4.
The custody reevaluation was completed and a report prepared by Dr. Shienvold on July 1, 2003.
5.
A second conciliation conference was held on August 15, 2003 whereupon no agreement as to custody
was reached and the matter was scheduled for trial in December 2003..
At the August 15, 2003 conciliation, Mother stated that the reason she brought the current action was
because a third party had told her that Father threatened to harm the pets of the children. Mother and her
attorney refused to identify the alleged details as well as the third party.
At the conciliation Mother also indicated that a third party reported to her that the children were
fearful of Father. Mother again refused to identify the details orthe third party.
In Mother's January 13, 2003 Complaint in Custody, sl3te alleged that Father has verbally! and
physically abused the children. Father strenuously denies these characterizations and believes Mother is
encouraging the children to perceive Father in any possible negative fashion. In fact, she will not ~ven
acknowledge his existence in front of the children."
9.
On August 29, 2003 Father served Mother th Defendant s F~rst Set of Interrogatories Direct6d to
Plaintiff.
10.
On September 11,2003 Mother filed Plaintiff's objections to ]Defendant's Interrogatories because:!
A. Discovery in custody cases is prohibited without prior special order of court and Father has not
obtained such an order.
B. Mother believes the information requested by Father will not lead to useful information i~ the
preparation or litigation of this case.
C. The information Father is requesting will violate a confidence or confidential communication
from a person who intended to help the children who me subjects of this case.
The information that Father seeks to obtain may be subject to a lawful privilege or some other
restriction upon its use.
2
9:08 AM--9:08 AM=rm-~-osfle grant leave =F# 1
communication from a person who intended to help the children who are the subject of this
WHEREFORE, for these
answer Defendant's Interrogatories.
reasons, Father respectfully requests that the Court direct Plaintiff to
Respectfully submitted,
HOFFMEYER & SEMMELMAN, LLP
Attorney for Defendant
30 North George Street
York, Pennsylvania 17401
Telephone #: (717) 846-8846
Supreme Court #: 29971
4
9:08 AM--9:08 AM--rm=trostle grant leave =F#1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGIA LEE BROWN, : NO. 03-208
PLAINTIFF :
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
DEFENDANT 'CUSTODY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have on this date served the MOTION TO DIRECT PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO
ANSWER DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES on the person and in the manner indicated below, which
satisfies the requirements ofPa. R.C.P. 440.
Service by facsimile at 717/761/1435 and first class, postage paid, United States mail addressed as
follows:
DATE:
Samuel L. Andes, Esquire
Andes, Vaughn and Bangs
525 North Twelfth Street
P.O. Box 168
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043
Service by first class mail, postage pre-paid, United States m~fil:
The Honorable Kevin A. Hess
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Karen L. Semm¢,lman, Esquire
Attorney for DetLmdant
30 North George,, Street
York, Pennsylvania 17401
Telephone #: (717) 846-8846
Supreme Court #: 29971
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
PLAINTIFF
VS.
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 03-208
IN CUSTODY
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DIRECT
PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES
AND NOW comes the above-named Plaintiff, by her attorney, Samuel L. Andes, and
makes the following Answer to Defendant's Motion: 1 through 5. Admitted.
6. Denied as stated. Mother made no such statement. Mother's counsel, in
response to an accusation made by Father's counsel regarding Mother's motive in filing
this action, responded that the accusations regarding Father's physical and emotional
mistreatment and abuse of the children did not come from Mother alone but had been
reported or confirmed to her by other individuals. Mother's counsel stated that the
mistreatment by Father included threats to the children's pets. Mother admits that her
attorney refused to disclose the identity of any third party who made those reports to
Mother.
7. Denied as stated for the same reasons set forth in the answer to Paragraph 6
above.
8. Admitted in part and denied in part. Mother admits that she has accused Father
of verbally and physicaliy abusing and mistreating the .children. Mother admits that Father
strenuously denies those accusations. Mother denies that she is taking any action to
encourage the children to perceive Father in a negative fashion. She admits that she
frequently will not discuss custody matters with Father in the presence of the children,
because she thinks that such discussions are improper' and because, in the past, such
discussions have deteriorated into arguments which upset Mother and the children.
9. Admitted.
10. Denied as stated. Mother's objections to Fal~her's Interrogatories speak for
themselves and do not need further description or characterization by Father or his
attorney in this Motion.
1 1. It is admitted that Father makes those requests but denied that the court
should grant them. Mother makes the following specific response to the factual claims
made by Father in his Motion:
A. The accusations against the Father are made by the children
themselves and not by Mother alone or by any other witnesses. The
accusations have been thoroughly explored by the psychological evaluation
performed in this matter and it is not necessary for either party to engage in
formal discovery at this stage in the litigation.
B. Mother has not attempted to alienate the children from the Father.
To the contrary, the Father, by his abusive conduct toward the children, has
adversely affected his relationship with the children. Mother does not
attempt to prevent the children from communicating with Father and only
declines to engage in discussions with him in an effort to avoid
confrontations and arguments which Father creates. Mother has declined to
identify third parties who have repeated the children's accusations about the
Father in an effort to spare those people from being dragged into the
litigation, especially since any information they have, derived as it is from the
children, is only hear say evidence.
C. Mother is not damaging the children's emotional state or
attempting to impose her feelings about Father on the children. The children
made the reports about Father's mistreatment of them and threats against
their pets and identifying third parties to whom the children made those
disclosures will not serve the advancement of this case, particularly since the
children have repeated those reports to Dr. Shienvold as part of his custody
evaluation.
D. The matter raised in Mother's Motion for Protective Order has been
resolved by agreement between the parties and Father will have access to
Dr. Shienvold's records. The information contained in those records will
make moot Father's demand for the identify of third parties who may have
repeated the daughters' complaints to Mother.
E. It is admitted that, with the release of information from Dr.
Shienvold's file, the identity of the third party who is the subject of Father's
inquiry will be disclosed to Father. However, because of the agreement
between the parties, the third party will be protected by the order entered by
the court on Mother's Motion for Protective Order.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves this court to deny IDefendant's Motion to Compel
Answers to Interrogatories and allow this case to proceed in accordance with the Rules of
Court.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Supreme Court ID # 17225
525 North 12th Street
Lemoyne, Pa 17043
(717) 761-5361
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing document upon counsel for
the Defendant herein by regular mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Karen L. Semmelman, Esquire
30 North George Street
York, PA 17401
Date: 14 October 2003
Amy M. H~ins
Secretary for Samuel L. Andes
:51 PM=l:51 PM-'=rm-~rostle grant leave =F# 1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
PLAINTIFF :
:
DEFENDANT :
NO. 03-208
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY
ORDER
ANDNOWthis /~'* dayof Od~/,~.~ ,2003, uponconsiderationoftheattaehed
Defendant's Motion to Direct Plalntiffto Answer Defendant's Inte~xogatories, a Rule is hereby issued upon
Plaintiff, Georgia Lee Brown to show cause, if any she has, why the relief requested therein should not be
granted. The Rule shall be served upon the Plaintiff's counsel of record and shall be returnable lo . days
from service.
BY THECOURT
Karen L. Semmelman, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
30 North George Street
York, Pennsylvania 17401
Samuel L. Andes, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
525 North Twelfth Street
P.O. Box 168
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
PLAINTIFF
V$,
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLE,
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW this ~,z ~ day of O~/-~,~,- , 2003, upon consideral
of the Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, we hereby order and decree as follows:
1. Plaintiff's attorney, Samuel L. Andes, Esquire and Defendant's attorney, Karen L.
Semmelman, Esquire may receive from Arnold Shienvold and his offices any and all documenta
in Dr. Shienvold's file regarding his custody evaluation in the above case, dated July 1, 2003,
the following conditions:
A. Both Plaintiff's attorney and Defendant's attorney shall not share such
information with either Plaintiff or Defendant, or any other person beyond the
professional staff of either Plaintiff's counsel or Defendant's counsel or any expert
witnesses he or she may elect to engage, other than 1:o the extent necessary for use
at the hearing and to prepare for the examination of Dr. Shienvold.
B. Neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant shall confront or challenge any
person identified by Dr. Shienvold's file as having supplied information to him for
use in his custody evaluation in an effort to persuade them to change any of their
statements.
2. Dr. Shienvold is hereby authorized and directed to make information from his files
available to counsel for both parties equally.
Distribution:
BY THE COURT,
/
i,~amuel L. Andes, Esquire (Attorney for Plainti'ff)
525 North 12th Street, Lemoyne, PA 1704:~
I'l('aren L. Semmelman, Esquire (Attorney for Defendant)
30 North George Street, York, PA 17401
ion
tion
on
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
P1 ai nti ff
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
Defendant
IN
AN
to direct
/samuel L.
For the
~ames G.
For the
:bg
RE: MOTION
ANSWER
TO DIRECT PLAINTIFF TO
DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION LAW
03-0208 CIVIL TERM
NOW, this 30th day of october,
,laintiff to respond
Andes, Esquire
laintiff
Keenan, Esquire
~efendant
O~RDER OF COUR~
2003, the motion
to interrogatories is denied.
By the court,
A HesS, 3 ·
31 -db,
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
Plaintiff
VS.
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
03-208 CIVIL
CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW, this /~' day of January, 2004, the hearings in this matter set for
January 22, 2004, and January 23, 2004, are continued to Monday, March 29, 2004, from 9:00
a.m. until noon, and Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom Number 4,
Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA.
BY THE COURT,
effamuel L. Andes, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
~l~aren L. Semmelman, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rlm
4t29/04-~:53 PM-~'m-~cmstle legal memo=F#3
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
BRIAN D. TROSTLE,
PLAINTIFF :
:
DEFENDANT :
NO. 03-208
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC, E
I hereby certify that I have on this date served Father's Position Statement Following Custody Trial on
the person and in the manner indicated below, which satisfies the requirements of Pa.R.C.P. 440.
Service by United States first class mail, postage pre-paid as fbllows:
DATE:
Samuel L. Andes, Esquire
Andes, Vaughn and Bangs
525 North Twelfth Street
P.O. Box 168
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 170.43
~ Karen L.~e'~'l~man, Esquire
Xttomey for Defendant
30 North George Street
York, Pennsylvania 17401
Telephone #: (717) 846-8846
Supreme Cotttt #: 29971
GEORGIA LEE BROWN,
Plaintiff
VS.
BRIAN D. TROSTLE, :
Defendant :
AND NOW, this
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
03-208 CIVIL
CUSTODY
ORDER
day of May, 2004, following hearing and extended
consideration of the testimony adduced as well as the post-hearing memoranda of the parties, the
court being satisfied that the existing custody order continues tc~ be in the best interest of the
children, the order of Honorable Penny L. Blackwell, Judge of Common Pleas of York County,
Pennsylvania, dated January 5, 1998, is RATIFIED and AFFIRMED. Specifically, it is ordered
and directed that:
1. Legal Custody. Joint legal custody of the minor children, as that term is defined in
the Custody Act 1984, October 30, P. L. 264, No. 66, Section 1, 23 Pa.C.S.A. 5301 et seq. is
awarded to both mother and father. Joint legal custody means the right of both parents to share
in making decisions of importance in the lives of their children, including educational, medical,
extracurricular activities and religious decisions. Both parents shall be entitled to equal access to
the children's school, medical and dental records.
2. Joint Physical Custody. Joint physical custody of the minor children shall be shared
by mother and father. The parties shall share rights of physical custody as follows:
a. Weeks During the School Year. Alternating weeks with mother having
rights of custody from 6:00 p.m. on Sunday evening tln~ough the following
second Monday at 4:00 p.m., an eight-day period. Father shall have rights of
custody from Monday at 4:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m., a six-day period.
b. Custody During School Year.
(1) During the school year, during mother's custodial eight-day
period, father shall have partial custody on Thursday evenings from
4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
(2) During the school year, during father's custodial six-day
period, mother shall have physical custody on Friday from between
6:50 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Mother's physical custody
on Fridays shall only occur if father is working. If father is not
working on the Friday of his custodial week, then mother will not
have the right of custody. Father will inform mother of the Fridays
he will be off fourteen (14) days in advance.
c. Summer Weeks of Custody. During the summer months, the parties
shall have alternating weeks from Sunday through Sunday. The parties will
continue the same weekly rotation that is followed during the school year.
The first week of summer shall be defined as beginning the Sunday following the
children's last day at school. Each parent shall have three (3) weeks of
non-interrupted custodial time for vacation purposes. These weeks will not be
consecutive. During those three weeks, the other parent agrees that there will be no
interruption of the custodial parent's time with the children. This time will allow the
custodial parent an opportunity to go on vacation or or]her planned activity with the
children. As to the remaining weeks of physical custo~[y, during father's week of
physical custody, mother shall have the children on Wednesdays from 6:30 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m. when mother is not working. If mother is wurking, she shall have the
children on Wednesdays from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. In addition, if father is
working on Friday and mother is not working, mother shall be entifled to the
children on Friday consistent with the times set for 2.(b) above. During mother's
weeks of custody, father shall have physical custody of the children from 4:00 p.m.
to 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays.
Regarding the three (3) nonconsecutive weeks of uninterrupted time, each parent
will give twenty-one (21) days notice to the other of the scheduled dates.
Each party agrees to inform the other of the destination and telephone number
where the children can be reached during those three (3) nonconsecutive weeks of
uninterrupted time.
d. Alternating Itolidays. Holidays shall include Easter, Memorial Day, Fourth
of July, Labor Day and Thanksgiving and shall be alternated. The custodial period
shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. the day of the holiday except Easter which
shall begin at 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. to allow the children to attend Sunday School
and Church. Thanksgiving shall include the Friday following Thanksgiving Day
until 7:00 p.m. If father's holiday falls on a Monday immediately after the Sunday
that father has the children, then father shall keep the c[fildren overnight on Sunday
evening and return them Monday at 7:00 p.m. This shall begin with mother having
Easter in 1998.
e. Additional Holidays/Days Off. Additional holidays are federal government
holidays and scheduled school holidays/days off. The additional holidays shall include,
but not be limited to, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Columbus Day and
Veterans' Day (or their respective observed holidays) and scheduled school
in-service days. These days shall be alternated between mother and father from
9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. If a holiday falls on the first Momtay of mother's week
(Monday following father's custodial week), father shall keep the children overnight
on Sunday evening and remm them Monday at 7:00 p.m. Mother and father both
have school calendars and should be aware of these holidays/scheduled days off,
and will coordinate these holidays at least thirty (30) days in advance. These
alternating holidays shall only be taken by the parent if the parent is not working.
This shall begin with father having Martin Luther King Day if he is off from work.
f. Spring Recess. Spring recess shall be divided equally commencing the day
the children are out of school at 9:00 a.m. and continue 'through the day before the
children commence school at 7:00 p.m. Whoever has Easter Day will receive that
half (1/2) of the recess in which Easter falls.
g. Christmas. The Christmas holiday shall be divided into three (3) segments as
follows:
(1) Segment A is defined as the period commencing at 9:00 a.m.
the day after school is recessed through December 25 at noon.
(2) Segment B is defined as commencing at noou on December 25,
and continue for a period equal to one-half (1/2) of the entire school
Christmas recess until 7:00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Segment C is defined as commencing at 7:00 p.m. on the
last day of Segment B and continue for the remainder of the school
4
recess until the day before school commences at 7:00 p.m. This
segment shall include New Year's Day.
Mother shall be entitled to Segments A and C in the even-numbered
years and father shall be entitle3d to Segment B in ewm-numbered
years. Father shall be entitled to Segments A and C in odd-numbered
years and mother shall be entitled to Segment B in odd-numbered years.
h. Mother's Day/Father's Day. Mother shall always have the fight
of custody on Mother's Day and father shall always haw: the right of
custody on Father's Day, which dates shall supersede the standard custody
schedule. The day will commence at 8:00 a.m. and continue through
7:00 p.m. (earlier 8:00 a.m. time is to accommodate attendance at church).
i. Children's Birthdays. Mother shall have custody of the children
on their birthdays in even-numbered years and father shall have custody
of the children in odd-numbered years. The custodial period shall run from
9:00 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. the day of the birthday so long as the children do not
have school. If one or both children have school that day then the time shall
be from 4:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. For the purposes of.celebrating a birthday,
both girls shall be together to celebrate the birthday. ~Ihe non-custodial
parent shall have custody of both girls either the day before or the day
after the birthday from 4:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. If the non-custodial
parent has a normal custodial day scheduled the day before or after the
birthday, then that parent shall utilize that time to celebrate the birthday
and is not entitled to the additional three and one-half (3 ½) hour period
5
as called for herein. If a birthday falls on an enumerated holiday, the
holiday shall take precedence.
j. Notice. Each party shall inform the other of their destination, and
telephone number where the children can be reached in the event the
children are taken out of the parent's residence for an extended period of
time or overnight, including vacations. Each party shall immediately
notify the other by telephone, if possible, or telegram, of illness or other
emergency that may arise while the children are in his or her custody.
During such illness or other emergency, each party shall have the right
to visit the affected child as often as he or she desires if the child is in
the hospital. If the child is in a parent's home, the other parent may visit
once a day for a period of no more than one and one-ha]fO 1/2) hours,
during a pre-arranged time. The word "illness' as used herein shall mean
any disability which confines the children to bed under the direction of a
licensed physician for a period in excess of forty-eight ,(48) hours, or any
serious injury to the children which requires hospitaliz~ttion.
k. Children's Activities. Both parents shall permi~I the children to
attend their various extracurricular activities while exercising his or her
rights of partial custody. If either parent is unable to provide transportation
for the children to attend the various extracurricular activities, then he or she
shall permit the other parent to provide transportation for the children to and
from the extracurricular activities. Both parents shall discuss and agree on
any activities that the children wish to participate in before that activity begins.
6
3. Positive Relationships. Each of the parties and any third party in the
presence of the children and the party shall take all measures deemed advisable to foster a feeling
of affection between the children and the other party and neither will do anything which may
estrange the children from the other party or impair the children's high regard for the other party.
Neither party shall do anything which may estrange the child from the other party or injure
the children's opinion of the parent or which may hamper the free and natural development of
the children's love and respect for the other parent.
4. Consultation. The parties shall consult with each other as often as may be necessary
regarding matters pertaining to the children, which shall include the following:
a. Access. Both parties shall have the following rights with respect to
the children: reasonable telephone calling privileges as defined below; parent;
access to report cards and other relevant information concerning the progress of
the children in school; approval of extraordinary medical and/or dental treatment
provided that such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld; approval of summer
camp and schools provided that such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
b. Telephone Calls. The non-custodial parent shall be entitled to daily telephone
contact with the children. The custodial parent will make certain the children are
available to receive the call.
c. Matters of importance. On all matters of impe,rtance relating to the
children's health, education and welfare, both parents shall have the duty to confer
with each other, with a view to adopting a harmonious policy calculated to promoting
the children's best interests. This duty shall include the requirement that both
parents advise each other and discuss with each other all important events in the
7
children's lives, including by way of example, but not limited to, school meetings,
travel plans, medical condition, education progress and plans, summer camp
arrangements, extracurricular activities, vacation plans, etc.
BY THE COURT,
~amuel L. Andes, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
,~aren L. Semmelman, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rim
eSS~ ·
05. I-0
8