Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-00541 ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ I. ~ t1 I ~ ... ~ " - . ~ .':1 ~ ~ ..... ":1- '<) \ ().. ~ ~'*'***~'ID****'~**~**'~*'~)*:-*:'****-*'~:~ $ .,- ..--_.--..._..........._._.---.._--.._-"'--~.,......--..-.........,...........---_..-..........._.'~ ..-....-,-..-..-"-~.-..-...._--.,----..__._------_.. ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ,', ~ ~ ~.' ,', ~ W ~.' ,'. ~ ~ ',' ,'~ ~ ~ ~.' ,', ~ ~ ',' rt! ~.~ $ ~ ~.~ S .'~ ~ ,I, ~ ',' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ~ ,'; ~ ,', ~ ,', ~ ,', ~ ,', ~ ,'. ~ $ ~ '.~ ,'. ~ ~ ~ ... $ !': *. ~.' ~ ~.~ ,', ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ,; ~ ~ ~ :': ~ ~ :.~ ~ ~ .' ~ ~ * * ~ * * * ~ ~ * """"'" "',',,'," "'7'" ;'.;/' """ '" "',', '" ~ ~ c"~ ~ . ........... .. ~ Attest: 4,. . Ic>7.Ujlj1 /.?t-~~odd J, ~ ...t./lr. K.I~/i1,Q~'7 ... . Q (GJ.'Tothonotary ~ ~ / ~ ~._.______.'" ......___ ...__~-....._....__..~__.__,.__.... ,__, _ , _. ~ '_'~ _._.~_.._..__, ..,~.~_....~_..,'''_~' _, _,__', . .__._...... .. i ~ ~-~**-*~~*~****~.~*****~~***~*~. OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY '\~~\~~" . ,/~?~jfj . ... ,;.. .-\. ,..,~~,...t STATE OF PENNA. . ROBIN S. SWARTZ . .............. I' I N (),...9.~:::5.~.I..c;.IVI.L...:r~IlI:I, Il) CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff Vel';oHIS ..f.CM,IGS\oIARTZ, . IN DIVORCE . . . i " . Defendant :! ~ DECREE IN DIVORCE AND NOW, ,~W;, "~~"""'" 199!l"". it is ordered and decreed that,.. .. ..' .. ~9!l:r!'l..S," !'!'IM~:r,z.., .. .., , ,.. .. , , , , .... ". plaintiff, and, .. .. .. .. , .. , .. .. , ..~ ...G%:I;<; ,~\of~~'l,'~, , .. .. .. , , , , .. .. , .. .. '. defendant, are divorced from the bonds of matrimony, ~ ,,~ ~ ~ :.' ~.; ~ ~.~ i ~.: ~ (: ~ :': ~ i :.~ The court retains jurisdiction of the following claims which have been raised of record in this action for which a final order has not yet been entered; ~ .' ~ " ~ .' NONE ,.......... ....,.......... .... ,. ... ...... ,.. ..... ....... 0', ~ ~.' ~ ~.' VERI FICA TION The foregoing Complaint is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel and me in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this Complaint and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, infonnation and belief. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa,C,S,A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 2~-0 s. ~ll Yo ,0; ROBIN s. SWARTB - Date: January c,)9 ,1998 1 I , I l , ROBIN S. SWARTZ, PlaintilT : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF v. : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 98. WI CIVIL TERM F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Defendant IN DIVORCE PLAINTIFF'S MARRIAGE COUNSELING AFFIDAVIT The plaintiff, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says: 1. I have been advised of the availability of marriage counseling and understand that I may request that the court require that my spouse and I participate in counseling, 2, I understand that the court maintains a list of marriage counselors in the Prothonotary's Office, which list is available to me upon request. 3. Being so advised, I do not request that the court require that my spouse and I participate in counseling prior to a divorce decree being handed down, I verifY that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, C,S, Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, January c:;e; , 1998 --Zw 9. JB~ ROBIN S. SW AR ! ~ '( \ ...:. \; , ROBIN S, SWARTZ, Plaintiff : IN TilE COURT OF COMMON I'LEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . I " I J I' \ 98-541 CIVIL TERM F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Defendant IN DIVORCE AFFIDAVIT OF CONSENT AND WAIVER OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REQUEST ENTRY OF A DIVORCE DECREE UNDER SECTION 3301(e) OF THE DIVORCE CODE . , 1. A Complaint in Divorce under Section 3301 (c) of the Divorce Code was filed on January 30, 1998, 3. I consent to the entry ofa tinal Decree of Divorce without notice, 2. The marriage of Plaintiff and Defendant is irretrievably broken and ninety days have elapsed from the date of filing of the Complaint. 4, I understand that I may lose rights concerning alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses if I do not claim them before a divorce is granted, 5, I understand that I will not be divorced until a divorce decree is entered by the Court and that a copy of the decree will be sent to me immediately after it is filed with the Prothonotary, I verifY that the statements made in this affidavit arc true and correct. I understand that false statements herein made arc subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, C,S, Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, ! Date: September 25 , 1998 20;,;.1 q \j",~ ROBIN S. SWART Plaintiff , , ROBIN S, SWARTZ, Plaintiff : IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW 98-541 CIVIL TERM F, CRAIG SWARTZ, Dcfcndant IN DIVORCE AFFIDAVIT OF CONSENT AND WAIVER OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REQUEST ENTRY OF A DIVORCE DECREE UNDER SECTION 3301 (c) OF THE DIVORCE CODE I. A Complaint in Divorce under Section 3301(c) of the Divorce Code was filed on January 30, 1998. 2. The marriage of Plaintiff and Defendant is irretrievably broken and ninety days have elapsed from the date of tiling of the Complaint. 3. I consent to the entry of a final Decree of Divorce without notice, 4, I understand that I may lose rights concerning alimony, division of property, lawyer's tees or expenses if I do not claim them bcfore a divorce is granted. 5, I understand that I will not be divorced until a divorce decree is entered by the Court and that a copy of the decree will be sent to me immediately after it is tiled with the Prothonotary, I vetil)' that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, C.S, Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, Datc: Ek c9 ( ,1998 ROBIN S. SWARTZ, Plaintiff I' t ' I " I( .. !j , t,l ) "11 :1. t, 'I ,f j, , , , j ~ ' : IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW 98-541 CIVIL TERM F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Defendant IN DIVORCE AFFIDA VIT OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. RULE NO. 1920.4 (0)(1)(1) ,e. , COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : ss: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND NOW, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, being duly sworn according to law, does depose and state: 1. That he is a competent adult and attorney for the plaintiff in the captioned action in divorce, .\ , I 2. That a certified copy of the complaint in divorce was served upon the defendant on February 5, 1998, by certified, restricted delivery mail, addressed to him at 130 East Main Street, Apartment #1, Shiremanstown, Pennsylvania 1701 I, with Return Receipt Number P 492 347 295. ~ ,. 3, That the said receipt for certified mail is signed and attached hereto and made a part hereof. I verifY that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, C. S, Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities ~ , i I Date: --1/Mt<A:.\ /1 / , 1998 P 492 347 295 ~ 3 ~ fIl tJ 00: o ;> ..... Cl US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mall No Insuranco Covorago Provided. Do nol usa lor Inlotnallonal Mail SeD reverso Sonllo F CRAIG SWARTZ !);3t)I 'EAln' HAIN ST APT 1 PoSl O1lico, SlaIn, 0\ lIP Code SHlREKANSTOWN PA 17011 Postag. y. S . 55 trictod Oe.1very Fee \. ?>G "J.7~ \.10 S 5 ,7~ Cer1jfjod Feo Special Delivery Foe on m Retum Kt....p wlOg 10 ... Whom & Dale De~vorod ~ RtMnFlec~StuwngtoWtml. < D31e. & MJessNfs Metess o g TOTALPoslage& Fcos C') Poslmaft{ or Dale E Q lL Ul 0. HAM/Swartz, Robin 1/30/98 i .Completelt;ma 1 and/or 2101 additional MMe... 'I lComple,.II''''' 3. .... and 4b. I 'Print your name and add..... on thl live,., 01 Ihls form so thai WI can relum thl, card 10 \'Ou, IAltac:,tl thI, form 10 the front 01 the mallpI.ce, or on the back If apace doet oct pormll, . 'Write-Retum RICe/pt ReqUftttd- on the mallpiece below the altld. number. 'Ii tThe Allum Reetlpl wi_show 10 whom the article WII delivered and the dala S doIivorod. I 3, Article Addresead 10: I also wish 10 rscelve 1l1e lollowlng eervlces (for an extra lee): 1 e.. ,12lI Reslrtctad Oellve Consult postmaster 'or lea, 4a, Article Number J I Cl Cartlflad J, o Insu acr'f o ~ ! (Only /I rsquestad J F CRAIG SWARTZ 130 EAST !lAIN STREET APT 1 SHlREKANSTOWN PA 17011 P 492 347 295 4b, Ssrvlco Type o R.glslerod o Expre.. Mall o Rstum Rscelpt for Me 7, oel~~ro 8, Addre...e.. and faa/s paid) l .!I PS Fonm 3811, Decembar 1994 Domestic Retum ece pt ROBIN S. SWARTZ, Plaintiff : IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW 98-541 CIVIL TERM F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Defendant IN DIVORCE DEFENDANT'S MARRIAGE COUNSELING AFFIDAVIT The defendant, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says: I. I have been advised of the availability of marriage counseling and understand that I may request that the court require that my spouse and I participate in counseling. 2. I understand that the court maintains a list of marriage counselors in the Prothonotary's Office, which list is available to me upon request. 3, Being so advised, I do not request that the court require that my spouse and I participate in counseling prior to a divorce decree being handed down, I verilY that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C,S, Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. fhcJ( ,1998 Date: ROBIN S, SWARTZ, Petitioner : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF .. ,J f '~ J \ : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Respondent 98.541 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY .. . ORDER OF COURT 1 AND NOW, this l, day of \0a-c...h 1998, in consideration of the attached petition, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire. the conciliator, at 39 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, on the \li. day of ~ri \ 1998 at ~ &.,M, for a Pre-hearing Custody Conference, At such . conference, a 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 this conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or pennanent order, J '\ , . I) I! I , i { I. I ! f l h :i[ ! . By the Court, &m}. 'i\\ s1\. ~ llr<\~ ~ ' Custody Conciliator rtD,) 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 Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 240-6200 t" ~ AlED-OFFICE OF TI-::: Pfll")T!YwOT"W . '. 1'.01\ '/'n. 913 H^R I 7 PH 3: la ? .. ClJM8fJ,Ui'::'; CO' 'NIl' PEJIJM;YI:/t.NLt~ .3'/>'~&F at;-'/' ~ IJ~ -d a# ~c",4~ J./'Pi' ~,.-.w;;:::. 3 ,/>.fd' +p /I(a~if -;t; .. ~-<~ . j ROBIN S. SWARTZ, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 98-541 CIVIL TERM F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Defendant : CIVIL AcrION - LAW CUSTODY aIDER OF <XXlRT . AND lUi, this ;..~ day of ~ consideration of the attached Custody Conc 1at10n and directed as follows: , 1998, upon Report, it is ordered 1. The Mother, Robin S. Swartz, and the Father, F. craig Swartz, shall have shared legal custody of McKenzie L. Swartz, born April 10, 1992, and Kristopher J. Swartz, born July 25, 1994. 2. The Mother shall have primary physical custody of the Children. 3. The Father shall have partial physical custody of the Children fran March through October each year on alternating weekends beginning April 25, 1998 from Saturday morning at 11:30 a.m. through the following Monday morning when the Father shall return the Children to daycare and every Thursday from after work through the following Friday morning when the Father shall return the Children to daycare. The parties shall cooperate in adjusting the Father's weeknight period of custody to a different evening, if necessary, to acconmodate either party's schedule. The Father shall have custody of the Children in accordance with the same schedule from November through February each year with the exception of the Father's alternating weekend periods of custody which shall begin Friday after work instead of Saturday morning. 4. Each party shall be entitled to have custody of the Children during the sumner each year for two weeks (to be taken consecutively or non-consecutively at each party's option) upon providing thirty (30) days advance notice to the other party. 5. The parties shall alternate having custody of the Children on holidays as follows: A. Christmas: The Christmas holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from Christmas Eve at 12:00 noon until Christmas Day at 12:00 noon, and Segment B, which shall run from Christmas Day at 12:00 noon until December 26 at 12:00 noon. The Father shall have custody of the Children during Segment A in even numbered years and during Segment B in odd numbered years. The Mother shall have custody of the Children during Segment A in odd numbered years and during Segment B in even numbered years. B. New Years Eve/New Years Day': The New Years holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from New Years Eve at 12:00 noon until New Years Day at 12:00 noon, and Segment B, which shall run from New Years Day at 12:00 noon until January 2 at 12:00 noon. The entire New Years holiday shall be deemed to fall in the same year in which New Years Day falls for purposes of this provision. The Father shall have custody of the Children during Segment A in even numbered years and during Segment B in odd numbered years and the Mother shall have custody of the Children during Segment A in odd numbered years and during Segment B in even numbered years. \. .' . ( ., , J' C. July 4th: The Father shall have custody of the Children on July 4th in even numbered years and the Mother shall have custody of the Children on July 4th in odd numbered years. D. Thanksgiving: The Mother shall have custody of the Children on Thanksgiving day in even numbered years and the Father shall have custody of the Children on Thanksgiving day in odd numbered years. , E. Memorial Day/Labor Day: The party who has custody of the Children under the regular custody schedule on the weekend irrmediately preceding Memorial Day and Labor Day shall also have custody of the Children through the holiday and shall return the Children to daycare on Tuesday morning. 6. In the event either party requires care for the Children during his or her periods of custody, that party shall first offer the other parent the opportunity to provide care prior to contacting third party caregivers. '\ I \ , ! 7. Until such time as the Father reconciles with his mother, Elaine Laird and her husband, Ira Laird, the Father shall ensure that the Children have no contact with the paternal grandmother and her husband. The Father shall notify the Mother in the event of a reconciliation between the Father and Elaine and Ira Laird and shall not permit the Children to have contact with Elaine and Ira Laird for a period of twenty (20) days following notification to the Mother. I I , 8. This order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a CUstody Conciliation Conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this order by mutual agreement. In the absence of mutual agreement, the terms of this order shall control. \...: , ; , ! I I' J. cc: Marcus A. MCKnight, III, Esquire - Counsel for Mother Thomas Gould, Esquire - Counsel for Father ~.,;~L'I!.:J?/98' ,.,s,p, " ROBIN S. SWARTZr . IN THE COURT Of' COMMON PLEAS OF . Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ., VS. NO. 98-541 CIVIL TERM : . F. CRAIG SWARTZ, . CIVIL ACTION - LAW (' . , Defendant : CUSTODY CUSTODY CXH:ILIATICfi SlH!ARY REPORT , IN ACCDUlANCE wrm ClJlIBmLAND c:xnmr RULE OF CIVIL p~ 1915.3-8, the undersigned CUstody Conciliator submits the fOllowing report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subjects of this litigation is as follows: , NAME DATE OF BIRTH Cl1RRmrLY IN CUSTODY OF McKenzie L. Swartz Kristopher J. Swartz April 10, 1992 July 25, 1994 Mother Mother 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on April 15, 1998, with the following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Robin S. Swartz, with her counsel, Marcus A. MCKnight, III, Esquire and Sara MacLean, Intern, and the Father, F. Craig Swartz, with his counsel, Thomas Gould, Esquire. ') I . I J I 3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. ~ Jl~1 ''1qK'' Date o~'-~~ Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire CUstody Conciliator , L \ mW-C::i-T':: or: 7' ,r ,;,.,., "'::~')t. RY ,,' , " '".j 1\. 98 tIO'.' ..2 Pil :1: no e'l-,',l.. .... .' '" '-'''\,,4'..11..; ,', ';1 :, ~''1Y PEI'/" I,:"" ':~ ';'Ii~'" . . '~d' l.\"'-\i" ,.\ II.;).~$' d,,1 dt~Pfa~ ~415'//c,e'~r- ~:,l~ )~~ ~II~ t t:dd- M-rdiI II Yr df? /1!t'l--..d.", ?}" d.;! &'1-~ ROBIN S. SWARTZ, Petitioner : IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW 98-541 CIVIL TERM F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Respondent IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND NOW comes the Petitioner, Robin S, Swartz, by her attorneys, Irwin, McKnight & Hughes, and presents the following Petition for Custody. I. The Petitioner is Robin S, Swartz, an adult individual residing at 22 Falcon Court. Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055, 2, The Respondent is F, Craig Swartz, an adult individual residing at 130 East Main Street, Apartment #1, Shiremanstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 170 II. 3, The parties are the natural parents of two children, namely, McKenzie L. Swartz, born April 10, 1992, age 5 years; and Kristopher J. Swartz, born July 25,1994, age 3 years, " EXHIBIT "A" ROBIN S. SWARTZr Plaintiff IN TilE CQUR'r OF COl".MON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : NO. 98-541 CIVIL TERM F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Defendant . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY OODER OF CXXlRT 1IND~, this ;;} /o-lJ,. day of a~ consideration of the attached custody ConcilJ. tJ.on and directed as follows: r 1998, upon Report, it is ordered 1. The Mother, Robin S. Swartz, and the Father, F. Craig Swartz, shall have shared legal custody of McKenzie L. Swartz, born April 10, 1992, and Kristopher J. Swartz, born July 25, 1994. 2. The Mother shall have primary physical custody of the Children. 3. The Father shall have partial physical custody of the Children fran March through october each year on alternating weekends beginning April 25, 1998 from Saturday morning at 11:30 a.m. through the following Monday morning when the Father shall return the Children to daycare and every Thursday from after work through the following Friday morning when the Father shall return the Children to daycare. The parties shall cooperate in adjusting the Father's weeknight period of custody to a different eveningr if necessary, to accommodate either party's schedule. The Father shall have custody of the Children in accordance with the same schedule from November through February each year with the exception of the Father's alternating weekend periods of custody which shall begin Friday after work instead of Saturday morning. 4. Each party shall be entitled to have custody of the Children during the sumner each year for two weeks (to be taken consecutively or non-consecutively at each party's option) upon providing thirty (30) days advance notice to the other party. 5. The parties shall alternate having custody of the Children on holidays as follows: ~ A. Christmas: The Christmas holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from Christmas Eve at 12:00 noon until Christmas Day at 12:00 noon, and Segment B, which shall run from Christmas Day at 12:00 noon until December 26 at 12:00 noon. The Father shall have custody of the Children during Segment A in even numbered years and during Segment B in odd numbered years. The Mother shall have custody of the Children during Segment A in odd numbered years and during Segment B in even numbered years. B. New Years Eve/New Years Day: The New Years holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from New Years Eve at 12:00 noon until New Years Day at 12:00 noon, and Segment B, which shall run from New Years Day at 12:00 noon until January 2 at 12:00 noon. The entire New Years holiday shall be deemed to fall in the same year i.n which New Years Day falls for purposes of this provision. The Father shall have custody of the Children during Segment A in even numbered years and during Segment B in odd numbered years and the Mother shall have custody of the Children during Segment A in odd numbered years and during Segment B in even numbered years. . " 1'1 ;/ ' I 1 C. July 4th: The Father shall have custody of the Children on July 4th in even numbered years and the Mother shall have custody of the Children on July 4th in odd numbered years. D. Thanksgiving: The Mother shall have custody of the Children on Thanksgiving day in even numbered years and the Father shall have custody of the Children on Thanksgiving day in odd numbered years. :., E. Memorial Day/Labor Day: The party who has custody of the Children under the regular custody schedule on the weekend illl11ediately preceding Memorial Day and Labor Day shall also have custody of the Children through the holiday and shall return the Children to daycare on Tuesday morning. 6. In the event either party requires care for the Children during his or her periods of custody, that party shall first offer the other parent the opportunity to provide care prior to contacting third party caregivers. :, t. 7. Until such time as the Father reconciles with his mother, Elaine Laird and her husband, Ira Laird, the Father shall ensure that the Children have no contact with the paternal grandmother and her husband. The Father shall notify the Mother in the event of a reconciliation between the Father and Elaine and Ira Laird and shall not permit the Children to have contact with Elaine and Ira Laird for a period of twenty (20) days following notification to the Mother. "if'. 8. This Order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a CUstody Conciliation Conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual agreement. In the absence of mutual agreement, the terms of this Order shall control. TRUE CO!'Y FROM h!:CC'RD In T'-:lil11o~'1 \"h,-r::', lime unto set my hand a~d the seal of said Courl at Curlisle. Pa, This ..;2.'1~... day of .C1.-1..L.<:...., 19..r.~ .................J1.~~,~~,~!to=.".......... cc: Marcus A. MCKnight, III, Esquire - Counsel for Mother Thomas Gould, Esquire - Counsel for Father BY THE COURT, /5 I r"...L v7H,{ r!:', J:i':L- ! I ! J. ROBIN S. SWARTZ, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . vs. . NO. 98-541 CIVIL TERM . F. CRAIG SWARTZ, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant . CUSTODY . CUSTODY CXH:ILIATIOO SlJloIMARY REPORT IN AccnmANCE WITH CDIBERLAND ~ ROLE OF CIVIL PIM;t;uURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned CUstody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subjects of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH ClIIlRmrLY IN CUSTODY OF McKenzie L. Swartz Kristopher J. Swartz April 10, 1992 July 25, 1994 Mother Mother 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on April 15, 1999, with the following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Robin S. Swartz, with her counsel, Marcus A. MCKnight, III, Esquire and Sara MacLean, Intern, and the Father, F. Craig Swartz, with his counsel, Thomas Gould, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. ~ J{I1 ''1'1 R" Date {)~~~ Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator VERIFICATION The foregoing Petition for Custody is based upon infonnation which has been gathered by my counsel and me in the preparation of this action, I have read the statements made in this Petition and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, infonnation and belief. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S,A, Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, ?Ql'~.) ~. 9,,,_! ROBIN S. SWARTZ Date: o {J l 00 .1998 I , I ! .. ":l. { r, >- ,... ~- <1; c: t'- J:3': . .. ~..~ .;; n _"J lIl~. '...1 . l.?j-""; : . ( ) :-.~ fl"". l:o.-. CJ -.; . -1- 1,'C, ,- <=. : 'i.JJ CjC. (0'; (/1;.~ l1 Lt. --hu I- ~;I\U [j-~ <...1 ...I ,J.. t- CJ '..:; U. C':l ::; 0 C, U ROBIN S. SWARTZ, Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY , PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : NO. 98-541 CIVIL TERM : F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN CUSTODY OODER OF CXXlRT AND tDI, this ~}-' day of "H~V(mLLJ consideration of the attached Custody Conc iation Report, and directed as follows: , 1998, upon it is ordered 1. The prior Order of this Court dated April 26, 1998 shall continue in effect. 2. The Motherr Robin S. Swartz, and the Father, F. Craig Swartz, shall have shared legal custody of McKenzie L. Swartz, born April 10, 1992, and Kristopher J. Swartz, born July 25, 1994. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all major non-emergency decisions affecting the Children's general well-being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion. Pursuant to the terms of this paragraph, each parent shall have access to all records and information pertaining to the Children including, but not limited to, all medical and school records and information. Both parties shall be equally entitled to obtain school information from the Children's teachers, counselors and other school officials. 3. The parties and the paternal grandmother shall participate in counseling with Sally Rooney or other prOfessional selected by agreement of the parties and counsel. The purpose of the counseling shall be to obtain professional recOlllllendations regarding the initiation of contact between the Children and the paternal grandmother. The parties agree to follow the recOlllllendations of the counselor concerning arrangements which would be in the Children I s best interests for introducing contact between the Children and the paternal grandmother. The parties shall cooperate in making available their respective insurance coverages for the counseling. The parties shall equally share any unreimbursed costs of counseling. The parties shall cooperate in scheduling the counseling as soon as possible. In the event either party engages in a course of individual counseling, that party shall be responsible for the costs of his or her counseling sessions. Edward E. GuIdo, J. cc: Marcus A. MCKnight, III, Esquire - Counsel for Mother Thomas D. Gould, Esquire - Counsel for Father ~ 1l~,L 1l)::",/JqJ', ...J 1". F1U'{J-o:'r-:c:: 0':: ",' I; ''''"'') flRY 9n !!o:' 2 ti /1n 9: IJ ! C: :.'\/ '.-., .-, r'>j '\/"i'Y ....'~I'.'_.l .:...., .< ',.,()...;j. I FENhSi'L\~">J'I\ ."" ROBIN S. SWARTZ, Petitioner : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUN'l'Y, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : NO. 98-541 CIVIL TERM F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Respondent . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY . . PRIOO JUDGE: Edward E. Guido CUS'lOOY ~ILIATIW SlMlARY REPan' IN ACXXlmANCE wrm <llmERLAND CXUllY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned CUstody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subjects of this litigation is as follows: ~ CURRml'LY IN CUS'lOOY OF I . I DATE OF BIRTH McKenzie L. Swartz Kristopher J. Swartz April 10, 1992 July 25, 1994 Mother Mother 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on November 17, 1998, wi th the fOllowing individuals in attendance: The Mother, Robin S. Swartz, with her counsel, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire and the Father, F. Craig Swartz, with his counsel, Thomas D. Gould, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. Al6lA"~ (f-. It; liP Date ' ( (~i~ Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire CUstody Conciliator '' AUG 0 9 2010 ROBIN S. SWARTZ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 1998-541 CIVIL ACTION LAW F. CRAIG SWARTZ Defendant 1N CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ ~ ~ day of ~ 2010, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Repo , it is ordered and directed as follows: A hearing is scheduled in Courtroom Number 3 of the Cumberland County Courthouse on August 19, 2010 at 1:00 p.m., at which time testimony will be taken. For purposes of the hearing, the Mother, Robin S. Riccione, formerly Swartz, shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties shall file with the Court and opposing counsel 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 5 days prior to the hearing date. HE COUR , Edward E. Guido J. cc: Marcus A. McKnight III, Esquire -Counsel for Mother c? /Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire -Counsel for Father "=' t=~_ o , ~ Cop`,es ,.lea' ~~i~/id ~~~; ~ =,~: ~ - ~ ~; _ ~~ -~~ ~, ROBIN S. SWARTZ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 1998-541 CIVIL ACTION LAW F. CRAIG SWARTZ Defendant IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: Edward E. Guido 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. A custody conciliation conference was held in this matter on April 19, 2010, on the Mother's Petition to Modify in light of her intention to relocate with the Child to Tower City, Pennsylvania in June. The parties agreed at the conference to obtain a custody evaluation by Deborah Salem and an Order was entered accordingly for the evaluation and afollow-up conference if necessary. The Order also permitted counsel to request the scheduling of a hearing prior to the beginning of the school year if the evaluation had not been completed by the end of June. 2. On July 20, the Father's counsel had requested that a hearing be scheduled prior to the beginning of the school year so it can be determined whether the Child will attend school in the Father's school district (Northern) or in the Mother's school district in Tower City. The Child attended school in the Camp Hill School District prior to the Mother's relocation. Deborah Salem confirmed with the conciliator that she is presently in the process of preparing the written custody recommendations but that the report is not yet available. 3. In light of the time sensitive nature of the request for a hearing, the conciliator previously contacted the Court and obtained a hearing date for August 19, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. in this matter. Accordingly, the conciliator submits an Order in the form as attached scheduling the hearing. Counsel for both parties have been notified of the hearing date and time. /~d~' off.. ~6/ Z? Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator ROBIN S. (SWARTZ) RECCHIONE, Plaintiff V. F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 1998 - 541 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY MOTION OF THE PLAINTIFF FOR A CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT C Ln a L- C C, 3 w W N u? =`T "'Cl AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Robin S. (Swartz) Recchione, by and through her attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, P.C., and files this Motion of the Plaintiff for a Custody Order of Court as requested by the Court: I . The Plaintiff is Robin S. Swartz now by marriage, Robin S. Recchione, who resides with her new husband at 137 Tremont Avenue, Tower City, Pennsylvania 17980. 2. The Defendant is F. Craig Swartz who resides at 160 Chestnut Grove Road, Dillsburg, York County, Pennsylvania. 3. The parties are the parents of the minor child, Kristopher J. Swartz, age 16, whose date of birth is July 25, 1994. 4. The parties have enjoyed custody of the minor child by a Custody Order of Court dated April 26, 1998, issued by the Honorable Edward E. Guido. A copy of said Order is attached as Exhibit "A" and made a part of this Motion. 5. In June of 2010, the Plaintiff, Robin S. Recchione, married Stephen J. Recchione and her principal residence is now located with her husband in Tower City, Pennsylvania. 6. The Plaintiff still maintains her employment as a medical specialist for URL, Inc. in Harrisburg. Pennsylvania. There has been no disruption in the custody provided by the Order dated April 26, 1998, since the Plaintiff travels each day to the Harrisburg area. 7. The minor child has attended the Cedar Cliff School District but with his Mother's change of address, he will need to attend either the Williams Valley School District where the Plaintiff resides or the Northern School District where his Father, the Defendant, resides. In addition, the minor child failed the IOtn grade at Cedar Cliff High School and will need to repeat the 10"' grade at either of the schools. 8. The independent evaluation was performed by Deborah Salem, the Director of Interworks of Harrisburg. Her report recommends that the minor child remain with the Plaintiff and attend the Williams Valley School District. The Plaintiff believes that this arrangement gives her son the best chance to succeed academically. 9. The Defendant has been very negative regarding the changes in the Plaintiffs life and very negative about the Williams Valley School District. The minor child's preference is to reside with his Father and attend the Northern School District. 10. School in both districts began on Monday, August 30, 2010, and the minor child needed to be enrolled in one of the districts. The parents were unable to reach an agreement. 2 11. The minor child has continued to reside with his Mother, and has a good relationship with his stepfather. The recommendations of the evaluator, Deborah Salem, supports the current custody arrangements. The minor child has been enrolled in the Williams Valley School District on a temporary basis pending the Custody Hearing set for November 1. 2010. before the Honorable Edward E. Guido. 12. The Defendant has not consented to this enrollment and seeks to change it at the upcoming Custody Hearing. 13. Both parents will have access to the minor child's teachers, counselors. and school records at the Williams Valley School District. 14. There needs to be an Interim Custody Order which confirms the current arrangements without prejudice for either party to advocate for a change or for keeping the current school arrangements. 15. A copy of the proposed Order of Court is attached as Exhibit "B" and made a part of this Motion and has been reviewed by legal counsel for both parties. Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C. G BY: Kee, Mareu A. Mc fight, 14, Esq. 60 West Pomfre Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476 Date: August 31, 2010 Attorney for Defendant 3 ROBIN S. SWARTZ, Plaintiff VS. F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 98-541 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of 1998, upon consideration of tree attached Custody C07rC4Ii tiori Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The Mother, Robin S. Swartz, and the Father, F. Craig Swartz, shall have shared legal custody of McKenzie L. Swartz, born April 10, 1992, and Kristopher J. Swartz, born July 25, 1994. 2. The Mother shall have primary physical custody of the Children. 3. The Father shall have partial physical custody of the Children from March through October each year on alternating weekends beginning April 25, 1998 from Saturday morning at 11:30 a.m. through the following Monday morning when the Father shall return the Children to daycare and every Thursday from after work through the following Friday morning when the Father shall return the Children to daycare. The parties shall cooperate in adjusting the Father's weeknight period of custody to a different evening, if necessary, to accommodate either party's schedule. The Father shall have custody of the Children in accordance with the same schedule from November through February each year with the exception of the Father's alternating weekend periods of custody which shall begin Friday after work instead of Saturday morning. 4. Each party shall be entitled to have custody of the Children during, the st=-er each year for two ;weeks (to be taken consecutively or non-consecutively at each party's option) upon providing thirty (30) days advance notice to the other party. 5. The parties shall alternate having custody of the Children on holidays as follows: A. Christmas: The Christmas holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from Christmas Eve at 12:00 noon until Christmas Day at 12:00 noon, and Segment B, which shall run from Christmas Day at 12:00 noon until December 26 at 12:00 noon. The Father shall have custody of the Children during Segment A in even numbered years and during Segment B in odd numbered years. The Mother shall have custody of the Children during Segment A in odd numbered years and during Segment B in even numbered years. B. New Years Eve/New Years Day: The New Years holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from New Years Eve at 12:00 noon until New Years Day at 12:00 noon, and Segment B, which shall run from New Years Day at 12:00 noon until January 2 at 12:00 noon. The entire New Years holiday shall be deemed to fall in the same year in which New Years Day falls for purposes of this provision. The Father shall have custody of the Children during Segment A in even numbered years and during Segment B in odd numbered years and the Mother shall have custody of the Children during Segment A in odd numbered years and during Segment B in even numbered years. C. July 4th: The Father shall have custody of the Children on July 4th in even numbered years and the Mother shall have custody of the Children on July 4th in odd numbered years. D. Thanksgiving: The Mother shall have custody of the Children on Thanksgiving day in even numbered years and the Father shall have custody of the Children on Thanksgiving day in odd numbered years. E. Memorial Day/Labor Day: The party who has custody of the Children under the regular custody schedule on the weekend immediately preceding Memorial Day and Labor Day shall also have custody of the Children through the holiday and shall return the Children to daycare on Tuesday morning. 6. In the event either party requires care for the Children during his or her periods of custody, that party shall first offer the other parent the opportunity to provide care prior to contacting third party caregivers. 7. Until such time as the Father reconciles with his mother, Elaine Laird and her husband, Ira Laird, the Father shall ensure that the Children have no contact with the paternal grandmother and her husband. The Father shall notify the Mother in the event of a reconciliation between the Father and Elaine and Ira Laird and shall not permit the Children to have contact with Elaine and Ira Laird for a period of twenty (20) days following notification to the mother. 8. This Order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a Custody Conciliation Conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual agreement. In the absence of mutual agreement, the terms of this Order shall control. TRUE ha^d BY THE COURT, in T and the seal cf said court at Ccd-,sle, Pa. This ..?`1AL... day of CE L` 14...E J. Prothonotary cc: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire - Counsel for Mother Thomas Gould, Esquire - Counsel for Father ROBIN S. SWARTZ, Plaintiff VS. F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Defendant . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 98-541 CIVIL TERX CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND OOUNrY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subjects of this litigation is as follows: DATE OF BIRTH McKenzie L. Swartz Kristopher J. Swartz CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF April 10, 1992 Mother July 25, 1994 Mother 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on April 15, 1998, with the following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Robin S. Swartz, with her counsel, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire and Sara MacLean, Intern, and the Father, F. Craig Swartz, with his counsel, Thomas Gould, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to entry of an order in the form as attached. 821nlj J Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire/ Custody Conciliator V ~~GE SEP 012010 r fir- {~~,r-1,1r•:~i~ltf'1f~i ~0 SAP -~2 APB 8~ 23 ~PENNSYLVa~NTY ROBIN S. (SWARTZ) RECCHIONE, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Defendant CIVIL ACTION -LAW 1998 - 541 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY PROPOSED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW this S~ 3~ day of August, 2010, upon consideration of the attached Motion, it is hereby ORDERED AND DIRECTED as follows: 1. The mother, Robin S. Recchione, and the Father, F. Craig Swartz, shall have shared legal custody of Kristopher J. Swartz, born July 25, 1994. Both parties will have access to the teachers, counselors, and school records of Kristopher J. Swartz. 2. The Mother shall have primary physical custody of Kristopher J. Swartz who will begin 2010-2011 school year at Williams Valley High School. 3. The Father shall have partial physical custody of Kristopher J. Swartz on alternating weekends from 5:00 p.m. on Friday to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. The Mother shall provide transportation to and from the Father's residence. 4. Each party shall be entitled to custody of Kristopher J. Swartz during the summer each year for two weeks (to be taken consecutively or non-consecutively at each party's option) upon providing thirty (30) days advance notice to the other party. 5. The parties shall alternate having custody of Kristopher J. Swartz on holidays as follows: A. Christmas: the Christmas holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from Christmas Eve at 12:00 noon until Christmas Day at 12:00 noon, and Segment B, which shall run from Christmas Day at 12:00 noon until December 26 at 12:00 noon. The Father shall have custody of the Child during Segment A in even numbered years and during Segment B in odd numbered years. The Mother shall have custody of the Child during Segment A in odd numbered years and during Segment B in even numbered years. B. New Years Eve/New Years Day: The New Years holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from New Years Eve at 12:00 noon until New Years Day at 12:00 noon, and Segment B, which shall run from New years Day at 12:00 noon until January 2 at 12:00 noon. The entire New Years holiday shall be deemed to fall in the same year which New Years Day falls for purposes of this provision. The Father shall have custody of the Child during Segment A in even numbered years and during Segment B in odd numbered years and the Mother shall have custody of the Child during Segment A in odd numbered years and during Segment B in even numbered years. C. J~4tt': The Father shall have custody of the Child on July 4th in even numbered years and the Mother shall have custody of the Child on July 4th in odd numbered years. D. Thanks ig ving_DaX: The Mother shall have custody of the Child on Thanksgiving Day in even numbered years and the Father shall have custody of the Child on Thanksgiving Day in odd numbered years. E. Memorial Day/Labor DaX: The party who has custody of the Child under the regular custody schedule on the weekend immediately preceding Memorial Day and Labor Day shall also have custody of the Child through the holiday and shall return the Child on Tuesday morning. 6. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual agreement. In the absence of mutual agreement, the terms of this Order shall control. Ccc. Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff ~ Andrew C. Sheel Es . Y~ q Attorney for Defendant Q~~.~ ~U ~~ Edward E. Guido, Judge ROBIN S. (SWARTZ) RECCHIONE, Plaintiff v. F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW 1998 - 541 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of attached document was served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and addressed as follows: Andrew C. Sheely, Esq. 127 South Market Street P. O. Box 95 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C. By: Marc A:'1VIc fight, I, Esquire 60 W st Pomfret eet Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476 Date: August 31, 2010 4 1 ROBIN S. (SWARTZ) RECCHIONE, Plaintiff VS. . F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Defendant EKP % of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLE S CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 1998 - 541 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ?e* day of September 2010, upon consideration of the Joint Motion filed by counsel in this case, it is hereby ORDERED and DIRECTED as follows: 1. The Court Order dated August 31, 2010, is hereby vacated. 2. A custody hearing is set for November 1, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom #3 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, 4th Floor, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 17013, at which time all the custody issues shall be heard and addressed by the Court. 3. The Plaintiff/Mother, Robin S. Recchione and the Defendant/Father, F. Craig Swartz, shall have shared legal custody of Kristopher J. Swartz, born July 25, 1994, who is attending tenth (10th) grade at the Williams Valley High School. Both parents shall have access to the teachers, counselors, and school records of Kristopher J. Swartz. 4. The Defendant/Father, F. Craig Swartz shall have partial physical custody of the child on alternating weekends from Friday through Sunday with no specified weekday periods of custody unless arranged by agreement of the parties. 5. All other provisions of the April 26, 1998 Order of Court shall continue in effect as modified herein. Marcus A. McKnight, III, Attorney for Plaintiff ?AtAndrew C. Sheely, Esquire Attorney for Defendant coP tks- m--g c (L 4la??rd c? BY TH COURT, Edward E. Guido, Judge ?11 CD Esquire n- C-? C 3 .? M ROBIN S. SWARTZ RECCHIONE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. F. CRAIG SWARTZ, NO. 1998 - 0541 CIVIL TERM Defendant ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1 ST day of NOVEMBER, 2010, the hearing scheduled for November 1, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. is rescheduled for MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom # 3. B ourt, Edward E. Guido, J. Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 ,,?Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire P.O. Box 95 Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055 :sld (Ip E. S m?1tlac)-, I o ;- -lCD t; 7 Tj ` - c?? P ? ROBIN S. (SWARTZ) RECCHIONE,: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 1998-541 CIVIL TERM F. CRAIG SWARTZ, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of November, 2010, our Order of August 31, 2010 is hereby made final. By the Court, Edward E. Guido, J. ? Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire Attorney for Defendant srs 49pes m4 ; Jed i t /a? k, L1, rnw m-n - ca ?z ac ?o -° 3 - ©-n =C C4 :z- Orn CA M r CO O AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Robin S. (Swartz) Recchione, by and through lilr attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, P.C., and files this Pre-Hearing Memorandum as required by Rule , O 1920.33 of the PA Rules of Court, setting forth as follows: 1. Summary of the Case: oEc 10 2010 AUG 17 2010 ROBIN S. (SWARTZ) RECCHIONE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff o? CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ?I V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW 1998 - 541 CIVIL TERM F. CRAIG SWARTZ, _ d ? Defendant IN CUSTODY -a o O rnai c:3 ? rn r r :;0rn PRE-HEARING MEMORANDUM D o ?o OF PLAINTIFF, ROBIN S. (SWARTZ) RECCHIONE The parties have operated pursuant to a Custody Order dated April 26, 1998, a copy of which is attached. Since that time the Mother/Plaintiff, Robin S. (Swartz) Recchione) has exercised primary physical custody. She works in Harrisburg and in June of 2010 married to Stephen J. Recchione who owns Recchione Auto Body in Hegins, Pennsylvania. They reside in Tower City, Pennsylvania. The minor child, Kristopher J. Swartz, has attended the Cedar Cliff School District but due to Mother's remarriage, would attend school in the Williams Valley School District. Although Kristopher initially indicated that he wanted to attend Williams Valley and continue to reside primarily with his Mother, he, in consultation with his Father, indicated a preference to reside with his Father and attend the Northern School District in Northern York County where his Father resides. I I By Order of Court dated April 27, 2010, the parties agreed to a custody evaluation with Deborah L. Salem, the Clinical Director of Interworks of Harrisburg. Her evaluation was received by counsel late Friday, August 13, 2010 or Monday, August 16, 2010, but unfortunately Deborah Salem cannot testify since she is to be in Virginia the date of the Custody Hearing. Kristopher Swartz failed I Oh grade and will need to retake it wherever he attends school in September 2010. The Mother believes that the testimony of Deborah Salem will be very critical to the Court. Counsel for the Plaintiff suggests that the hearing be continued until September 3, 2010, in order to give Deborah Salem an opportunity to testify. A copy of her report is attached. II. Issues: Where should Kristopher Swartz reside and attend high school? III. List of Witnesses: 1. Robin S. (Swartz) Recchione, mother of Kristopher J. Swartz, will testify regarding her love and affection for her son, and the manner in which she has been raised. She will also testify as to the relationship with her new husband and his relationship with Kristopher. 2. Deborah Salem, Interworks, Counselor, will testify regarding the evaluation she performed. A copy of which is attached. 3. Stephen J. Recchione, step-father, and owner of Recchione Auto Body will testify regarding his relationship with Kristopher 4. Meckenzie L. Swartz, sister of Kristopher, will testify regarding the relationship of Kristopher to Plaintiff and the time they spent together this summer. 5. F. Crain Swartz will testify as on cross-examination. 2 i IV. Conclusion: The Plaintiff/Mother requests that she continue to have primary physical custody of Kristopher Swartz. Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & M IGH By: i Marcus A Mc , 60 W omfret Street isle, Pennsylvania 17013 17) 249-2353 Attorney for Defendant Date: August 17, 2010 3 ROBIN S. SWARTZ, Plaintiff VS. F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 98-541 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this a to--f?-`' day of , 1998, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliftion Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The Mother, Robin S. Swartz, and the Father, F. Craig Swartz, shall have shared legal custody of McKenzie L. Swartz, born April 10, 1992, and Kristopher J. Swartz, born July 25, 1994. 2. The Mother shall have primary physical custody of the children. 3. The Father shall have partial physical custody. of the Children from March through October each year on alternating weekends beginning April 25, 1998 from Saturday morning at 11:30 a.m. through the following Monday morning when the Father shall return the Children to daycare and every Thursday from after work through the following Friday morning when the Father shall return the Children to daycare. The parties shall cooperate in adjusting the Father's weeknight period of custody to a different evening, if necessary, to accommodate either party's schedule. The Father shall have custody of the Children in accordance with the same schedule from November. through February each year with the exception of the Father's alternating weekend periods of custody which shall begin Friday after work instead of Saturday morning. 4. Each party shall be entitled to have custody of the Children during the summer each year for two weeks (to bee taken consecutively or non-consecutively at each party's option) upon providing thirty (30) days advance notice to the other party. 5. The parties shall alternate having custody of the Children on holidays as follows: A. Christmas: The Christmas holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from Christmas Eve at 12:00 noon until Christmas Day at 12:00 noon, and segment B, which shall run from Christmas Day at 12:00 noon until December 26 at 12:00 noon. The Father shall have custody of the Children during Segment A in even numbered years and during Segment B in odd numbered years. The Mother shall have custody of the Children during Segment A in odd numbered years and during Segment B in even numbered years. B. New Years Eve/New Years Day: The New Years holiday shall be divided into Segment At which shall run from New Years Eve at 12:00 noon until New Years Day at 12:00 noon, and Segment B, which shall run from New Years Day at 12:00 noon until January 2 at 12:00 noon. The entire New Years holiday shall be deemed to fall in the same year in which New Years Day falls for purposes of this provision. The Father shall have custody of the Children during Segment A in even numbered years and during Segment B in odd numbered years and the Mother shall have custody of the Children during Segment A in odd numbered years and during Segment B in even numbered years. C. July 4th: The Father shall have custody of the Children on July 4t-h in even numbered years and the Mother shall have custody of the Children on July 4th in odd numbered years. D. Thanksgiving: The Mother shall have custody of the Children on Thanksgiving day in even numbered years and the Father shall have custody of the Children on Thanksgiving day in odd numbered years. E. Memorial Day/Labor Day: The party who has custody of the Children under the regular custody schedule on the weekend immediately preceding Memorial Day and Labor Day shall also have custody of the Children through the holiday and shall return the Children to daycare on Tuesday morning. 6. In the event either party requires care for the Children during his or her periods of custody, that party shall first offer the other parent the opportunity to provide care prior to contacting third party caregivers. 7. Until such time as the Father reconciles with his mother, Elaine Laird and her husband, Ira Laird, the Father shall ensure that the Children have no contact with the paternal grandmother and her husband. The Father shall notify the Mother in the event of a reconciliation between the Father and Elaine and Ira Laird and shall not permit the Children to have contact with Elaine and Ira Laird for a period of twenty (20) days following notification to the Mother. 8. This order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a Custody Conciliation Conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual agreement. In the absence of mutual agreement, the terms of this Order shall control. TRUE C07Y FROM MC-Cm In Testimony ?, n r I h -re unto set my hand BY THE COURT, and the sea{ of said Court at Carlisle, Pa. This ..?.? (y??j..'.4 day of... ',-Q..... 19...(k /?/4 ................. .5?::.Ylc7WGk ..(!?.... .................. - '/S , ` d ' i7: A J ?0, . Prothonotary J. cc: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire - Counsel for Mother Thomas Gould, Esquire - Counsel for Father y ROBIN S. SWARTZ, Plaintiff VS. F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 98-541 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY CONCILIMcK S[ Ry REPORT IN AO00EMANCE: WITH CUKBE tLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subjects of this litigation is as follows: DATE OF B31M CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF McKenzie L. Swartz April 10, 1992 Mother Kristopher J. Swartz July 25, 1994 Mother 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on April 15, 1998, with the following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Robin S. Swartz, with her counsel, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire and Sara MacLean, Intern, and the Father, F. Craig Swartz, with his counsel, Thomas Gould, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator APR C b - ROBIN S. SWARTZ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. 1998-541 CIVIL ACTION LAW F. CRAIG S WARTZ Defendant : IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT e AND NOW, this day of , 2010, upon _ /44 consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Rep rt, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The parties shall submit themselves, their minor Child and any other individuals deemed necessary by the evaluator to a short form custody evaluation to be performed by Deborah Salem. All costs of the evaluation shall be shared equally between the parties. The parties shall sign any authorizations deemed necessary by the evaluator to obtain additional information pertaining to the parties or the Child. The parties shall contact the evaluator's office promptly following the conciliation conference to schedule the initial sessions. 2. Pending completion of the custody evaluation and further Order of Court or agreement of the parties, the prior Order of this Court dated April 26, 1998 shall continue in effect as modified by the parties' agreement as follows: The Father shall have partial physical custody of the Child on alternating weekends from Friday through Sunday with no specified weekday periods of custody unless arranged by agreement between the parties. Neither party shall change the Child's school enrollment except by Court Order or by the consent of both parties in writing. 3. Within 60 days of receipt of the evaluator's written custody recommendations, counsel for either party may contact the conciliator to schedule an additional custody conciliation conference, if necessary. In the event the evaluation is not completed by the end of June, 2010, and either parry feels it is necessary to schedule a hearing prior to the beginning of the school year, counsel for either party may contact the conciliator to reserve a date for hearing. RECEIVED APR 2 8 2010 €RWIN & McKNIGHT I-AW OFFICES 4. This Order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a custody conciliation conference. 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 T COURT, Edward E. Guido J. cc: Marcus A. McKnight III, Esquire - Counsel for Mother Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire - Counsel for Father TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In and tho Toftonydt ,1 hart unto set my hand at Isle, PaThis 20J/6 Froth ROBIN S. SWARTZ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 1998-541 CIVIL ACTION LAW F. CRAIG SWARTZ Defendant : IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: Edward E. Guido 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 Kristopher Swartz July 25, 1994 Mother 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on April 19, 2010, with the following individuals in attendance: the Mother, Robin S. Swartz, with her counsel, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, and the Father, F. Craig Swartz, who indicated that he was represented by Andrew C. Sheely, but that his counsel was not attending the conciliation conference. The Father spoke with his counsel by telephone during the conference. 3. This Court previously entered an Order in this matter on April 26, 1998, under which the Mother had primary physical custody of the Children and the Father had partial custody on alternating weekends from Saturday through Monday and one weekday overnight each week. Subsequent to entry of that Order, the parties modified the schedule between themselves so that the Father had custody on alternating weekends from Friday through Sunday without weekday periods of custody. 4. The Mother filed this Petition to Modify the custody Order in light of her intention to relocate with the Child to Tower City on June 12, 2010 due to her impending remarriage. The parties were able to reach an agreement to obtain a custody evaluation to obtain recommendations as to the Child's needs and best interests in light of the proposed relocation. The conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached based upon the parties agreement. Date i Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator AUG 0 9 2010 ROBIN S. SWARTZ vs. F. CRAIG S WARTZ Plaintiff Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 1998-541 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT i AND NOW, this /014 day of *Vw?-V- , 2010, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Repo , it is ordered and directed as follows: A hearing is scheduled in Courtroom Number 3 of the Cumberland County Courthouse on August 19, 2010 at 1:00 p.m., at which time testimony will be taken. For purposes of the hearing, the Mother, Robin S. Riccione, formerly Swartz, shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties shall file with the Court and opposing counsel 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 5 days prior to the hearing date. 'lnr'CO , Edward E. Guido J. cc: Marcus A. McKnight III, Esquire -- Counsel for Mother Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire - Counsel for Father RECEIVED AUG 12 2010 TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony wtweof, I Nsn unto sst my hwW a ofdasaidlra at Carlisle, Ps. ?nd•tt _is.lL seal_ a??? VAN & McKNI K LAW OFHCES ROBIN S. SWARTZ vs. F. CRAIG SWARTZ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 1998-541 CIVIL ACTION LAW Defendant : IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: Edward E. Guido 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. A custody conciliation conference was held in this matter on April 19, 2010, on the Mother's Petition to Modify in light of her intention to relocate with the Child to Tower City, Pennsylvania in June. The parties agreed at the conference to obtain a custody evaluation by Deborah Salem and an Order was entered accordingly for the evaluation and a follow-up conference if necessary. The Order also permitted counsel to request the scheduling of a hearing prior to the beginning of the school year if the evaluation had not been completed by the end of June. 2. On July 20, the Father's counsel had requested that a hearing be scheduled prior to the beginning of the school year so it can be determined whether the Child will attend school in the Father's school district (Northern) or in the Mother's school district in Tower City. The Child attended school in the Camp Hill School District prior to the Mother's relocation. Deborah Salem confirmed with the conciliator that she is presently in the process of preparing the written custody recommendations but that the report is not yet available. 3. In light of the time sensitive nature of the request for a hearing, the conciliator previously contacted the Court and obtained a hearing date for August 19, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. in this matter. Accordingly, the conciliator submits an Order in the form as attached scheduling the hearing. Counsel for both parties have been notified of the hearing date and time. a C461 D -0:n:=4 -!?? Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator { NTWrORiCS VV .r. i - -?- DATE: TO: re FROM: 08/12/10 Clinical Director Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC Associate Anthea L. Stebbins, LSW 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg PA 17110 Tel 717-236-6630 Fax 717-236-6677 frontdesk@interworksonline.com RECEIVED Marcus McKnight, Esq. Andrew Sheeley, Esq. Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC Clinical Evaluator AUG 14'7 2010 IRWIN & McKNIGHT IAW OFFICES -w- RE: Robin Swartz Recchione vs. F. Craig Swartz W Evaluation Report Enclosed is the evaluation report on your above referenced clients. I was ?R first advised today through Robin inquiring on behalf of her attorney that a hearing was scheduled for August 19, 2010. Unfortunately, I am out of town that day and can not reschedule those plans so I am hoping that h things will move forward without my assistance. Please feel free to -? schedule a conference call with me after reviewing the results with your clients. I am available this Monday before 10 AM and after 11:15AM _ until 1 PM. If you want to schedule a call, email me at frontdesk@interworksonline.com to do so. d`A cc: Robin Recchione (cover letter only) + Craig Swartz (cover letter only) 4ft r"I w s Clinical Oir!ector i N T?R{5 Deborah L. Salem, CACb, LPC Associate Mtthea L. Stebbins, MSW, LSw C? 2201 North Front Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17110 . Plaintiff: .is Defendant: A Minor Child: It. Docket No.: Tel 717-236-6630 Fax 717-236-6677 frontdeWWcl4interworksonline.com Abbreviated Custody Evaluation Submitted by Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC 08/12/10 Robin Swartz Recchione F. Craig Swartz Marcus McKnight, Esq. Andrew Sheeley, Esq. Kristopher -J. Swartz, Age 16, DOB 7/25/94 1998-541 Civil Action in Custody, Cumberland County Identifying Information and Procedure 7* This abbreviated custody evaluation was ordered April 27, 2010, by The Honorable Edward E. Guido of the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas after Robin P?A Swartz Recchione and Craig Swartz agreed at an April 19, 2010, custody conciliation hearing to undergo an evaluation to resolve their custody dispute with regard to their 16-year-old son, Kris Swartz. The couple was married for almost 10 years when they separated in July of 1997, with their divorce being initiated by Robin in January 1998 and finalized in September 1998. It should be noted that Robin and Craig have another child, McKenzie L. Swartz, ® who was born 4/10/92. She is no longer subject to a custody order because she A recently turned 18. + Both children have lived with Robin ever since a 4 / 26 / 98 court order gave her primary custody of them. Craig has had custody with both children every other weekend -and has not exercised his right to have the children one weeknight or for summer vacations. Craig and Robin share custody for the holidays. In preparation for her July 2010 marriage to Stephen J. Recchione, who owns a business in Hegins, and their move to Tower City, Robin petitioned the court on March 15, 2010, to have Kris move with her and remain in her primary custody. - Craig is resisting Robin's request and is asking the court to award primary custody of Kris to him, stating that it is Kris' wish to remain in the greater Harrisburg area rather Confidential Page 1 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz rY than move to Tower City, which is located in Schuylkill County, just across the Dauphin County line. Important to the question of Kris' custody is his schooling, since he will be changing high schools no matter which parent he lives with. Currently, he attends Cedar Cliff High School in the West Shore School District of Camp Hill, where he had been living with his mother. If he remains in her primary custody and moves to Schuylkill County with her and Steve, he will attend Williams Valley Junior-Senior High School in the Williams Valley School District of Tower City. If he is placed in his father's primary custody, then Kris will attend Northern High School in the Northern York County School District of Dillsburg, where his father lives. Another aspect of custody that is not part of the legal custody action but is being emphasized as central to the custody conflict is the issue of child support. Heretofore, Father has been the parent paying child support, but that could be reversed if Kris is placed in his father's primary care. With regard to procedure, both parents were interviewed three times, for one hour each time. Two of Mother's sessions included her new husband, Steve Recchione. Because of Kris's age, parent child observations were not completed. Kris was interviewed individually for an hour-long session; once when accompanied to the office by his mother and once when accompanied by his father. In addition to face-to-face interviews, both parents also completed several questionnaires, regarding their psychosocial history, their relationship history, their mental status, their history of chemical use and abuse, their perceptions of the custody strain and their attempts to remedy the custody strain prior to this evaluation. Finally, adjunct information provided by each parent and various other resources was reviewed, as listed below: 1. Robin Swartz: A. 7/ 12/ 10 e-mail to the evaluator regarding transportation for Kris's session at InterWorks with Craig; B. 7/ 13/ 10 e-mail to the evaluator regarding supervision of Kris in the Camp Hill house and Craig's involvement in that neighborhood; C. 5/ 10/ 10 text messages in which Craig told Kris not to mention that they spoke the day of Kris' first session with the evaluator and to erase all of their text messages from that day; D. Mileage tracking showing custodial-transition distance between residences; E. 7/ 13/ 10 e-mail to evaluator in response to Craig's concerns about Kris' well- being in the Camp Hill house; F. June 2009 text messages in which Craig enlists Kris' support for his position and tells him to keep it a secret; Confidential Page 2 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz G. 4/ 10/ 10 letter from Kris to custody conciliator regarding Kris' custody preference; H. 4/21/10 intereet ratings showing Northern and Williams Valley high schools to be comparable; 1. 5/ 10/ 10 list of 20 possible job sites for Kris within 20 minutes of Tower City home; J. 7/25/08 signed permission from Craig for Kris to receive therapy from Victoria A. Whitcomb, M.S., LPC, RPT-S, of Strickler and Whitcomb in Mechanicsburg and acknowledgement from Craig that he is invited to participate in the therapeutic process with Kris; K. January and March 2010 a-mails between Robin and Kris' teachers, showing her continued interest in Kris' schooling; L. Accounting of therapy fees paid by Robin alone to Strickler and Whitcomb for Kris' counseling; M. Accounting of fees paid by Robin alone to JDC Pediatrics of Mechanicsburg for Kris' doctor's visits; N. Accounting of fees paid by Robin alone to Kearns and Ashby, D.D.S., P.C. for Kris' dental care; 0. May 2010 character letters on behalf of Robin from her mother and stepfather, Glenn Kerns and Donna Mae Stepler-Kerns, from her brother, James E. Black, Jr., and from a former work supervisor, Isadore R. Baseman. P. 6/8/ 10 e-mail from Robin to the evaluator regarding a conversation Robin had with Kris about the custody issue; Q. 6/6/ 10 e-mail from Robin to the evaluator about issues surrounding the custody conflict; R. 7 / 21 / 10 e-mail from Robin to the evaluator with a response to allegations by Craig that she sought a court order for child support unnecessarily. 2. Craig Swartz A. Resume and explanation of work history; B. 1 / 29 / 09 letter to Craig from H. Michael Liptak, President of Highway Equipment and Supply Co., regarding the elimination of Craig's job due to economic conditions; C. Medical record of Craig's 9 / 2 / 09 visit to Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania for a hand problem that resulted in a recommendation that he less physically demanding job; D. 09/21/09 letter to Craig from Urology of Central Pennsylvania, Inc., recommending that Craig continue to maintain his COBRA health insurance due to his recurrent bladder cancer; Confidential Page 3 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz E. 3/ 10/ 10 letter to Craig from State Representative Scott Perry of the 92nd Legislative District, congratulating Craig on being named to the Dean's List at HACC; F. HACC Certificate of Commendation for high academic achievement, naming Craig to the Dean's List; G. 6/16/ 10 notification of scholarship awarded to Craig from HACC; H. April 2010 letter to from Kris to Custody Conciliator Dawn Sunday, Esq.; 1. 4/28/ 10 Cedar Cliff High School grade report showing that Kris' marks went down from the previous year; J. 7/13/ 10 e-mail exchange with the evaluator regarding supervision of Kris at the Camp Hill house. K. Reports of Craig's high grades from two semesters at HACC; 3. Legal Documents A. 3/17/98 Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas order for the parties to attend a custody conciliation session on 4/14/98 B. 4/16/98 report from 4/14/98 conciliation session; C. 4/26/98 order of the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas giving primary custody of McKenzie and Kris Swartz to Mother; D. 11/2/98 order for the parties to attend another conciliation session on 11/17/98; E. 11 / 18/ 98 report of conciliation session held 11 / 17/ 98; F. 11/23/98 Cumberland County court order keeping the 4/26/98 custody ruling in effect; G. 6/18/09 Cumberland County Domestic Relations petition from Robin for child support; H. 7/21/09 interim order from Cumberland County court's Domestic Relations Division for payment of child support; 1. 7/30/09 letter to Domestic Relations Officer from Attorney Marcus McKnight on behalf of Robin Swartz, appealing the 7/21/09 interim order for payment of child support; J. 9 / 29 / 09 Domestic Relations Support Master's report and recommendations; K. 10/06/09 order of the Court's Domestic Relations Division, increasing child support; L. 3/25/19 notice from Marcus McKnight, Esq., to Craig, stating that Robin had filed a petition on 3/ 15/ 10 for modification of custody arrangement and that a conciliation session is set for 4/ 19/ 10 Confidential Page 4 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz M. 4/21/10 summary report of the 4/ 19/ 10 custody conciliation session, in which the parties agreed to undergo a custody evaluation; N. 4 / 27 / 10 court order for a short-form custody evaluation to be done; 0. 6/ 13/ 10 order directing the parties to appear for a conference regarding Craig's request to modify the existing child-support order; 3. Other Professionals A. 7/ 15/ 10 phone consultation with Victoria A. Whitcomb, MS, LPC, RPT-S, of Strickler and Whitcomb in Mechanicsburg, who was Kris' therapist in 2008 and again recently; B. 5/27/ 10 transcript of Kris' final marks for 10th grade from Cedar Cliff High School; C. 5/27/ 10 list of Kris' discipline summary from the 10th grade at Cedar Cliff High School. Findings The findings reported in this section are the result of all face-to-face sessions and a review of several written questionnaires provided by the Evaluator to the parents. Finally, the findings are the result of a review of all adjunct information provided by both parents and other professionals. Although a volume of information was gathered during this abbreviated evaluation, only those findings pertinent to the custody recommendations are included below. A. Overview of Parental Conflict 1. Relationship History Both Robin and Craig report that they have known each other for 25 years, having met in 1985 when they both worked at USAir in Middletown. Robin recalled having a lot of fun times with their friends, and Craig recalled thinking that Robin was "simple, intelligent [and] articulate." Despite a brief breakup, they dated each other exclusively sometime in 1986, and then began living together in 1986. They became engaged in the early part of 1987 and were married on 4/16/88. Shortly after Craig's father died in 1989, he received enough of an inheritance to buy a house in Mechanicsburg. Two children and almost 10 years later, the couple separated on 7/26/97. Robin initiated divorce proceedings in January 1998 and the decree was finalized on 9/30/98. Both parents confirmed that Craig's alcohol abuse was central to the end of their marriage. Robin added that Craig's unmodulated anger was a further reason fr her desire to divorce. Confidential Page 5 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz 2. Parents' Custody Preferences a. Mother: Robin S. Swartz, Age 45, DOB 3/17/65 Robin Swartz filed a petition 3/15/ 10 for the primary physical custody of their 16- year-old son Kris to remain with her when she relocates to Tower City in the summer of 2010 with her new husband, Steve Recchione. b. Father: F. Craig Swartz, Age 48, DOB 9/21/61 Craig is responding to Mother's petition by requesting primary physical custody of Kris, predominantly for the school year. While Craig is uncertain about what type of schedule he would want with Kris for the summer, he thinks Kris should spend at least one full month of the summer with his mother. Additionally, Father has requested that Mother maintain Kris on her medical coverage even if Kris lives with him, since Robin only pays an extra $15 from her paycheck per month to cover Kris but Craig would have to pay an additional $400 per month. 3. Support for Parents' Preferences a. Mother Robin reported her concern that Kris is being coached and manipulated by his father into resisting being in his mother's primary custody, even though he actually wants to remain with her. Until the custody conflict arose, Robin said, Kris was very excited about moving to Tower City with her and her new husband. Steve corroborated Robin's assessment of Kris' view of the move. He said Kris was very excited initially about the move to Tower City and was very involved in looking at houses, in planning what they would do with the acreage upon which Steve built the house, and in talking about many of the things that would happen when they all lived in Tower City. In fact, Robin noted that Kris still talks excitedly about the kind of room he wants to have in the new house. Robin listed several reasons why she believes Kris is being secretly manipulated into changing his ideal preference for custody. Robin noted that Kris had written a note to the custody conciliator at the urging of his father. Robin provided a copy of the note, indicating that it was obvious it had not been written by a 16-year-old because of the level of the vocabulary. Robin reported that when she questioned Kris about the letter, he admitted that his father and his father's attorney helped him with the wording, but that it was his desire not to move to Tower City. In fact, Robin said Kris admitted to her that if she weren't moving, he would not be asking to expand his time with his father at all. Robin listed several other pieces of evidence that Kris is being manipulated in his decision-making by Craig, who she said is building a false case against the merits of Confidential Page 6 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz Kris moving to Tower City. She said it was because of her closeness with Kris that less than a year ago, he came to her and said he felt guilty keeping secrets from her about conversations he was having with his father related to the custody conflict. Robin said it was then that Kris admitted all of the ways he was being made to feel guilty by his father. Because of all this alleged manipulation, Robin said, Kris is defensive and does not want to go against his father, for fear that he will hurt his dad. Robin's allegations include: -- That Craig lied when he said that Kris needed to stay in this area in order to remain in the advanced classes in which he was enrolled. According to Robin, Kris has not been in advanced classes since middle school, and in fact, is currently not likely to pass his junior year because of the amount of emotional distress he suffers from the custody conflict. In addition, Robin said Craig got an individual from Tower City to write a note about how bad the school district there is. -- Robin reported that Craig lost his job due to illness and was unable to pay child support. She said Kris told her that Craig told him that the only way he could get out of paying child support was for Kris to agree to stay here. Robin said Kris also told her that his father said that Robin's filing for child support has made him financially unable to get treatment for his cancer. -- In addition, Robin said that Kris admitted feeling sorry for Craig because he has no emotional support and Kris doesn't want him to suffer through his cancer struggle alone. Kris also allegedly told Robin that Craig sometimes cries and tells him that he is his only friend. -- Most recently, Robin said, Kris has been coached by Craig's attorney to say he wants to stay with his father even though he will be switching from Cedar Cliff High School to Northern High School because he doesn't want to leave his friends in this area and he fears that he won't be able to get a part-time job in Tower City and that he won't like the school there; --Robin found a series of text messages between Kris and his father with Craig instructing Kris on the day of his first session with the evaluator "best not tell her we talked today; and erase your text messages from today." Another set of texts followed Craig's first appointment with the evaluator where in response to Kris asking him how the session went, Craig said "pretty good except your mother is telling a lot of lies about me." Furthermore, Robin reported that Craig has been diagnosed as an alcoholic and that he was violent and abusive with her. Robin said there were some violent exchanges between her and Craig when they ended their marriage, but things have been better for a good number of years. However, she said Craig told her to "watch your back" after she allowed their daughter, McKenzie, to stay with her even though Craig was angry over a Father's Day argument. Confidential Page 7 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz Although Craig had reported that the family separation has been going well, Robin said they are far from perfect. She recalled that there were many times when Craig had the kids on his weekends and he complained about how much they ate, etc. She said that on Christmas of '08, Kris called from Craig's house to say that his father had blown up at him because he happened to find some gifts that were hidden in a bag behind the couch. According to Robin, Kris is not admitting how much his father can upset him. For example, she cited the time when Kris broke the cell phone that Craig had bought for him and he was terrified to tell his dad. Instead, he told his father that he must have left it in his mother's car, and unfortunately, Craig decided to turn around and go back to the house to try to find the phone. Kris entered the house frantic and Robin advised him to simply say that she wasn't there so they couldn't get into her car. Eventually, Robin bought another phone for Kris to end the conflict; however, Kris had already told his father what had happened. Both Robin and Steve reported that over the months, Kris has become increasingly edgy and over-sensitive, sometimes provoked by issues and other times seeming to be clearly unprovoked. The couple said they feel as if they are walking on eggshells with Kris. Because Kris is being supported by his father in the custody strain, when they discipline him, he threatens to leave and go to his father's house. Robin said the result is that she is less assertive than she usually is in disciplining Kris. Steve and Robin revealed a recent incident in which Kris was disciplined. On 5/30/10, there was a disagreement between Kris and his soon-to-be stepbrother Dustin, age 14, over a deal in which Kris would buy Dustin's old guitar so he could buy a new one. After Dustin bought his new guitar, Kris tried to back out of the deal. The argument ensued and Steve talked to Kris about being dishonorable in his agreement. Kris got angry and called his father. Hours later, the anger had dissipated, but Robin is certain Craig did not know how deeply Kris appreciated Steve's talk with him. She said Kris apologized to Steve and hugged him, indicating that he understood what Steve's position was and why it was important for him to keep his word. Both Robin and Steve shared their insights into how the custody strain is affecting Kris. Robin said that she has never seen Kris so stressed and mentally boggled. She said it is very difficult to talk to Kris about how he is feeling about the custody strain because she knows that Craig is talking to him about it and she doesn't want to put him in a tug-of-war between them. In addition, Steve noted that Kris can barely maintain eye contact and that he comes home at night and goes to his room, barely talking to anyone. Steve thinks this is indicative of how much conflict Kris is feeling. In addition, Steve fears these are signs that Kris might be smoking pot or doing something that he shouldn't do. In summary, both Steve and Robin believe that Craig's actions are putting tremendous stress on Kris. Interestingly, Robin said, prior to her getting engaged and announcing that she was moving to Tower City, Craig was willing to accept the every-other-weekend custody schedule that he had, and in fact, had never exercised the additional two-week summer period of custody that he was afforded for a vacation with Kris. She added that she and Craig co-parented well for many years, until last summer, when there Confidential Page 8 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz was a fallout between Craig and McKenzie, resulting in McKenzie avoiding her father for a brief time. Steve was asked about his impression of Craig's motivation with regard to the custody conflict. He reported having met Craig when Robin, Craig and Steve were all together a couple of years ago for McKenzie's prom. According to Steve, Craig seemed fine about him and Robin dating until he realized it was a serious relationship and they got engaged. Both Robin and Steve said they believe Craig wants Kris to stay with him so he doesn't have to pay child support. They said Craig is always somewhat behind in his payments, and in fact, paid up $1,500 of the overdue amount right before the custody conciliation session. He has not made any payments since the end of April, Robin said, noting that she calls Craig about every two months to inquire about the child-support payments. Robin supported her ideal custody preference of having Kris move to Tower City with her with the following list of ways she believes she has contributed to Kris' well-being: -- She reported that she raised Kris from birth and is the person who knows him best and has the best to offer him; -- Robin said she never missed any of Kris' school activities, functions, etc.; -- Knowing Kris the way she does, Robin said, she believes that his reasons for staying in this area with his father will backfire on him, especially because he is not likely to pass this school year; -- Robin reported that the closeness between her and Kris is not only because of her total availability to the children as they were growing up, but also the fact that Craig has a history of being verbally abusive. She said Kris and the older children have always found it difficult and resisted telling their father information that would cause a reaction in him. In addition, Robin noted that the distance between her current home and her new home in Tower City is only 42 miles. As a result, Robin will be maintaining her job on Route 22 near the Colonial Park Mall and will be driving into this area every day. Therefore, she said, it is not such an extraordinary task to come up with a custody arrangement that could readily work. It should be noted, however, there is an additional 10- to 15-mile difference between where father lives and the new home in Tower City. b. Father When asked to give supporting reasons for wanting Kris in his primary custody, Craig said first and foremost that it is Kris' desire to remain in this area even though his mother has moved to Tower City. According to Craig, Robin filed a petition for custody of Kris on March 13, 2010, due to the fact that she was getting married and moving to Tower City. He said Robin and her then-fiance, Steve, began building a house in Tower Confidential Page 9 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz City last summer, and that was when Kris began stating that he did not want to move to Tower City. Initially, Craig said, Kris' reaction was because he didn't want to change schools and he feared there wouldn't be enough to do in Tower City. Next, according to Craig, Steve moved in with Robin and this was the first time Kris experienced what it would be like to live with Steve and his son, Dustin. Craig said that experience strengthened Kris' desire to stay here and live with his father. Also, Craig said Robin has re-emerged as "mean and ugly" since the custody strain began. He added that ever since Robin met Steve, she has let Kris' needs fall by the wayside and Kris says he is tired of the animosity between his parents. Other reasons Craig gave in support of his preference for primary physical custody of Kris during the school year are: -- It would be logistically cheaper, certainly for him, if he were to have a mirrored opposite schedule of what Robin has had for years, because he would not be responsible to pay her child support like he does now; -- He believes Kris is clearly old enough to make his own decisions about what he wants to do with the summer, and certainly what he wants to do during the school year; -- The school district that Kris would attend if he were to move to Tower City is significantly less competent and success-oriented than Northern High School, which he would attend if he lived with his father in Dillsburg. Craig promised to provide information he had obtained online, showing that the Williams Valley School District in Tower City is considered one of the 10 worst districts in the state. Craig explained that he would benefit financially if Kris were placed in his primary custody because of not being required to pay child support for him to be in someone else's primary custody. He added that he would also benefit from being paid child support by Robin and had an idea of what the support figure would be. He said that when he and Robin divorced in 1998, from then until June of 2009, he paid Robin whatever amount of child support they had both agreed on. The amount began as $200, and from requests for increases over the years, it grew to $300. He added that he lost his job in January of 2009 and his finances got difficult. He reported that as a result, on the basis of only one payment being slightly late, in January of 2009, Robin sought an official ruling on child support from the Domestic Relations Division of the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. Craig stated that he and Robin seemed to get along well until a Father's Day argument he had with their daughter McKenzie, who is now 18. He said he challenged McKenzie about scheduling work on Father's Day, which would mean she couldn't see her father but would go home to her mother's house after work and spend the rest of the day with Mother's fiance. Craig said this is the only major argument that occurred over the years with any of his children, whom he has had access to every other weekend. He said the argument kept him and McKenzie apart for one custody weekend and they quickly resumed the every-other-weekend visits. Confidential Page 10 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz Craig added that prior to Robin filing for support through Domestic Relations, he trusted her as a co-parent. He noted that despite Robin taking him to Domestic Relations, believing that the amount of child support would increase extensively, because of his job loss and the fact that he had a hernia and had a diagnosed problem with his hand, he did not believe he could get a job running large equipment as he had previously. He therefore decided to go back to school and study photography. As a result, although she was awarded a significantly higher amount of child support, because of him going back to school, on appeal, she was awarded $400 a month, which was only $100 more than what he paid previously. Craig reported that he was able to appeal on the basis of his medical history and the fact that he was going to school for a degree in photography and had a plan to become self-employed following that. In addition to Craig's hernia and had problem, Craig was previously treated for bladder cancer which was in remission until recently when a biopsy showed a very slight impression of a possible return and he therefore accepted his physicians advice t do another regimen of treatment. Craig said he had trusted Robin as a co-parent but cited several ways in which she failed to keep him informed about the children. For one, he said he hadn't seen a report card of either of the children in years and added that if he had primary custody of Kris, he would keep Robin abreast of Kris' schooling. Craig noted that he was not made aware of medical conditions and doctor's appointments when they occurred for either of the children as they were growing up, although he admitted he never requested the information. While Robin said that he could call the doctor any time he wanted to, Craig said he did not believe it should be his responsibility to contact the doctor and said Robin should have kept him informed. Craig said he was kept in the loop about the children's sports because he had to sign in order for them to participate. However, he said he would have to get a game schedule from one of the other kids because Robin didn't give him one. When asked for his theory about why he was shut out, Craig indicated that Robin's parents were divorced when she was 6 because her father was allegedly an alcoholic and abusive. Craig admitted that as long as he has known Robin, he never met her father, and therefore, Robin was raised with the attitude that a person doesn't need a father and she is applying the same thinking to her children. In addition, Craig admitted that he never pushed the boundaries of the custody arrangement until last summer when he asked for one month with Kris to do some work for Craig's then-girlfriend. Kris put a lot of pressure on Robin and she ultimately acquiesced; however, according to Craig, Robin called Kris constantly, almost as if she was suspicious of Craig's motives. Craig said Robin called Kris so many times that he felt bothered and frustrated and stopped returning her calls. It was at this time, Craig said, that he suspected that Robin felt threatened about the possibility that Kris may want to remain in this area. Craig added that even this custody evaluation is nothing more than a stall tactic, because Robin does not want to lose the finances she would by having to pay child support to him. Craig indicated that in furtherance of his theory that Robin is motivated by her need to remain financially solvent and not for the purpose of serving Kris best interest, he reported that the day after the custody conciliation hearing in March, 2010, Robin Confidential Page 11 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz took Kris to his therapist, Victoria Whitcomb, MS, whom he had not seen in a while but never told Craig about it. According to Craig, Kris was very angry about the session, telling his father that the therapist said, "You are hurting your mom, and do you know how much it will cost her in child support if you don't go with her?" According to Craig, Kris also quoted the therapist as saying, "Isn't your father a drunk?" Craig said Kris called him on the phone and was extremely upset. When asked about that statement by the therapist, Craig admitted that he and Robin divorced due to his alcohol problems, which resulted in a DUI arrest in 1990 and his entrance into the ARD program. Craig had therapy with David Sullivan back then but the issues in the marriage then subsided for a significant number of years. In addition, Craig listed the following concerns about Robin's parenting of Kris: -- According to Craig, he has greater concerns for Kris' welfare since Robin and Steve are now living in Tower City and Kris is often left at the Camp Hill home with little food. Craig said Kris told him, "Mommy didn't leave much food because she packed everything up." Craig noted that he's always had concerns about Robin's disinterest in making sure Kris' basic needs are met, including the fact that she only gives him $5 for food all day while she is working. Craig believes that he does a better job of providing food for Kris, even though he is on unemployment and is paying child supports. -- Craig further reported significant concern that Kris' basic needs are not being met and that Kris is being pushed to the background because of Robin's attention to her new husband and her husband's son. Craig reported that Kris said Steve's son whines, and therefore, gets his needs met. Kris also allegedly told Craig that he has to "beg for a new pair of sneakers." Craig added that Kris has been waiting for his sister to graduate from high school so that he can be Number One in his mother's life but is now in line behind others. Craig said, "It's OK if Robin wants to marry and leave town, etc., but Kris should still be Number One." Craig stated that he is getting concerned and depressed over Kris being repeatedly pushed to the background. -- Specifically, Craig believes that Kris is not doing as well in 10th grade as he did in 9th grade because Robin has not properly attended to his educational needs by supervising his school work closely. -- Finally, Craig believes that one of Kris' major issues is the fact that Robin has not let go of her animosities toward Craig. In fact, Craig reported that Kris asked him, "Why does she need to still be so mean and nasty?" According to Craig, Robin is even willing to tell the kids that he is still a drunk, when that is not true. 4. Parent Rebuttals a. Mother Confidential Page 12 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz With regard to Craig's allegations that since Robin moved Tower City she has failed to provide for Kris and leaves him unsupervised in the Camp Hill house which is empty except for a bed and a blanket, crating a fertile ground for a teenager to get in trouble without a TV, a computer, or video games, Robin reported that in an attempt to keep Kris in touch with his friends and not cut him off completely from spending time with them, he has been permitted to visit with his friends in Camp Hill while still sleeping at the home in Tower City. Kris spent one day in Camp Hill shortly after the move on June 30, and the next time he was there was on July 8, following his second appointment with this evaluator. Admittedly, Kris stayed there both Thursday and Friday nights. With regard to leaving Kris in the house with no furnishings, Robin indicated that she has two family rooms with furniture, two bedrooms with furniture, the kitchen still has appliances and is stocked with dishes, glasses and silverware and the refrigerator is stocked with beverages. The cable TV was only removed on July 10, all utilities are still on and there are multiple blankets, linens, etc. there. Robin denied that Kris complained of hunger, and in fact, on the Saturday morning following Kris' two-day stay, she and Steve picked him up and they all went out to eat. With regard to a lack of supervision, Robin reported that the next-door neighbors -- who have been long-term friends of Kris' and with whom there have been multiple sleepovers - are keeping an eye on Kris and McKenzie. Both of them maintain their curfews and are very respectful of each other, Robin said. She has no concerns whatsoever that McKenzie is irresponsible or unable to supervise Kris. Robin did report that in addition to Kris staying two nights in Camp Hill, both McKenzie and Kris have already had friends from the Camp Hill area at their house in Tower City. In summary, Robin said, at no time has Kris been in Camp Hill for a full week, nor has he ever been without supervision , food, furniture and necessities. Craig theorized that Kris chooses to stay in Mother's "empty" house with his sister rather with his dad because most likely, Kris would not be permitted to stay with him. In response, Robin said she and Steve mentioned that Kris could spend The Fourth of July with his father, but Kris declined. In addition, Robin reported that the custody order always granted Craig two full weeks of visitation during the summer, and in all 13 years, he never exercised his right to that time. Robin expressed a concern that her Camp Hill neighbors have seen Craig driving around the house and at one point, being in the house and perhaps removing a leather jacket from it. Robin adamantly denied Craig's assertion that her custody preference is motivated by the financial impact of her losing primary custody. She further denied that she pursued Craig through Domestic Relations for child support even though he was only slightly late with one payment. She said Craig has been inconsistent with the child- support payments for many years. They agreed that the payment would be due on the 15th of the month, but often, it would arrive at the end of the month or slightly into the next month, Robin said, indicating that this was long before Craig became ill and lost his job. With regard to her immediately filing a support complaint after he lost his job, Robin said Craig lost his job in January of 2009 and she did not file with Domestic Relations until June 2009. She said she waited until June while she had less than 30 days notice of Craig's layoff that she had to secure health insurance, costing her an additional $250 out of her paycheck, and even though he had not paid regular child Confidential Page 13 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz support for six months after his layoff. In essence, while Craig is attempting to shade and color the issue of support, Robin said, never once has she raised child support as a factor in her custody preference, even though Craig has consistently does so and used it as leverage to guilt Kris. Robin also denied Craig's claim that putting Kris on her medical insurance only costs her $15 a month because she pays $250 for it. Craig has alleged that one of the reasons Kris wants to live with his father is that ever since Robin and Steve began living together, Kris has lost a great deal of attention from his mother. Robin said that this is absolutely not true. Interestingly, when Kris was asked by the Evaluator what quality of his mother's he would like to see change, he said that she can be overbearing and always wants to know where he is, and he would like her to back off a little. This statement somewhat belies Craig's assertion that Kris is suffering from a lack of attention from his mother. Craig reported that while he trusts Robin as a parent, he views her as a poor co- parent, noting that she never shared the children's report cards with him or advised him of upcoming medical appointments. He said he was shut out of information about the children. He believes that since Robin was raised by divorced parents and she had no contact with her biological father, she doesn't appreciate the importance of fathers in children's lives. In rebuttal, to Craig's assertions about Robin being a poor co- parent, Robin said sometimes she didn't show him the kids' report cards because they were utterly frightened of Craig and didn't like the way he lectured them. With regard to Craig's assertion that she doesn't value father's since she never saw hers after age 6, Robin tearfully stated that she saw her father consistently throughout her childhood and late adolescence on every other weekend, plus on vacations with him, his family, and her half-sister. Craig indicated that Robin's father was an abusive alcoholic, and Robin also denied this adamantly. She added that, with regard to accusing her of not valuing fatherhood, she has had the same stepfather for 38 years and they get along extremely well. Craig reported that Kris is complaining that he has to beg for new things and told his father that he is taking a backseat to his sister and that he can't be Number One in his mother's life because she was planning her wedding and doing whatever Steve's son was whining about wanting to do. In rebuttal, Robin said Kris does not have to beg for anything, and in fact, he had four new pairs of sneakers at the time. Additionally, Robin believes that Craig is raising this issue because McKenzie feels very strongly that her father never did anything for her but always for Kris. According to Robin, there is "no way" Kris would ever say that it's time for him to be Number One. According to both Robin and Steve, Steve's son does whine, but it has no bearing on whether or not Kris gets attention. Craig added that it's one thing if Robin wants to marry and leave town, but Kris should remain Number One. Robin thoroughly agreed and stated that Kris IS Number One. Craig said one of the worst results of Kris not getting enough of his mother's attention was that his grades are declining, meaning that Robin wasn't putting enough emphasis on his education. Robin said it was a known fact that the decline in Kris' grades had everything to do with the custody conflict, which she believes Craig put Confidential Page 14 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz him in the middle of. In fact, she said Kris told his principal when he was being disciplined for walking out of school that it was due to the stress he had about the custody conflict and worries about his father. Craig complained that Robin stops the kids from having any contact with him. He cited the example of being at a racing event where Robin, Steve and the kids were also in attendance and Kris feeling the need to sneak over to talk to his father. Robin said she would have no problem with Kris talking to his father, and that in fact, it was Craig who taught Kris to lie and deceive his mother, as evidenced in her being blindsided by the letter delivered to the custody conciliator. Regarding the assertion that Kris has an issue with Robin continuing to hold animosity toward Craig, Robin denied that there is any accuracy in this and that her animosities toward Craig were greatly in the background until his recent actions and especially how Kris has been put in the middle of their differences. In fact, she said there were multiple times over the years when neither of the kids wanted to visit their father and she would not allow them that choice. Regarding Craig's concern that she is perpetrating lies about his anger and the impact it has on the children, Robin cited the incident on Christmas Day 2008, when Kris called her because his dad became enraged when Kris found some gifts in the house. In addition, there was the incident where Kris was afraid to tell his father that he had lost the cell phone his dad bought for him. Craig denied that his use of alcohol was a problem throughout the entire marriage and specifically denied that he had ever laid a hand on Robin, was excessively violent toward her or ever cheated on her. In rebuttal, Robin gave examples of his physical violence and information to support that Craig cheated on her which will not be repeated in the report in the event that the children see the report. In response to Craig's assertion that he abstained from drinking for three years starting in 1990, Robin pointed out that he was arrested on a DUI in 1991. In addition, although Craig states he used alcohol toward the end of their marriage, which coincided with his mother's loss of her second husband and the institutionalization of her mentally retarded son, Robin said there were several years between his drinking and their marital problems and the death of his stepfather, which occurred in 1989. She said the institutionalization of Craig's mentally retarded brother had occurred several years prior to his stepfather's death virtually discrediting most of Craig's account of when he started drinking to excess. b. Father Very early in Craig's first interview with the evaluator, he cautioned a general rebuttal that anything Robin says in support of her desire to have Kris with her has been "made up" and "should be considered a grandiose illusion." In addition, the following responses to some of Robin's stated issues are from Craig's rebuttal session: Confidential Page 15 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz Robin had alleged that Craig prompted and coached Kris before and during the evaluation process, including assisting him in writing the letter to the custody conciliator, supporting him in not telling his mother directly about his wishes prior to the conciliation, and sending text messages advising Kris to erase all text messages sent on the day of Kris' first appointment with the evaluator, and as well, to "not mention that they had a phone call that day." Craig responded that Kris didn't tell his mother directly because he had gone to her and was rejected, not because of Craig supporting him on that. He did admit that Kris came to him multiple times, saying he wanted to live with him, and Craig reinforced to Kris that if he wanted that to happen, he was going to have to talk to his mother. It was Kris, according to Craig, who indicated that he was afraid of his mother and what her response would be. With regard to whether or not Craig coached and/or helped Kris write the letter with assistance from his attorney, Craig said that in fact, the initial advice for Kris not to tell his mother until the conciliation was from his attorney. In addition, Craig recalled taking notes on a tablet while sitting with his attorney, who outlined what Kris' letter should include, and Craig said he then provided those notes for Kris to use in writing the letter. Craig also mentioned that in his letter, Kris reinforced what he told Craig about his fear of being verbally abused from his mother if he told her in person. Craig was advised that Kris told the Evaluator that he felt "very bad" about using such strong words, and Craig was surprised. In explanations Craig stated that perhaps Kris had not said he feared being rejected and feared her response, but rather that Kris said, "I don't want to tell her because she'll ground me." According to Craig, this is what Kris meant by verbal abuse. With regard to his justification for texting Kris to not tell the evaluator that they had conversations on the day of Kris' first session, Craig initially indicated that this must have occurred in April following the conciliation, because Robin's attorney repeatedly accused him of colluding with Kris through text messages. As a result, Craig said, he did not want the evaluator to get any inkling of the possibility of collusion between him and Kris. The evaluator reminded Craig that these texts were sent in June, not April. Craig could not answer the question of why the texts had to be erased if they did not reveal collusion. Craig was then asked to respond to the allegation that his motivation for wanting custody of Kris was financial, being tied to the issue of child support, rather than being related to allegations he made that Robin was having difficulty in parenting Kris. This included Craig directly engaging Kris in feeling sorry for him financially; Craig accusing Robin of beating him down by seeking a Domestic Relations ruling on child support the first time his payment was late when records showed that he was late multiple times; and Craig stopped payments after being laid off from his job in January of 2009. In response, Craig adamantly denied that his child-support payments to Robin were late by any more than a week or so and that any assertion by her that there were arrearages was inaccurate. According to Craig, this is a way for Robin to divert her major issue --that being clearly that Robin could be required to pay support to him. He said he does not have an issue with child support because he has paid it for the last 12 years. With regard to whether or not he passed on adult Confidential Page 16 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz information about financial and child-support issues to Kris, at first, Craig denied this. Then he admitted he did tell Kris that he was "desperate" because he wants to be able to pay for a biopsy and make sure he no longer has bladder cancer, "but if your mom takes me to court and I have to pay more child support, I'm not gonna be able to do that." Regarding allegations of Craig's on-going anger directed at the children, despite being advised of a report of an argument with Kris Christmas of 2008, Craig reported that he could only recall one argument with his daughter regarding the Father's Day in 2009 and denied that either of his kids are currently having any difficulty with anger from him. Craig was asked to respond to the following rebuttals from Robin about statements he had made about her: -- Craig was advised in his rebuttal session that Kris' failing grades in 10th grade were directly related to his preoccupation and worry over his father's health and over the custody conflict, as reported directly by Kris to school officials. Craig challenged why he was not advised of this by school officials or Robin. Craig admitted that he had not contacted the school on his own to check on his son's progress in 10th grade, but explained that after years of being pushed to the background on such matters, he just "gave up." -- Craig was advised of the inaccuracy of hi s statement about Robin's relationship with her biological father. Craig's response was, "Then why did I never meet him?" It is notable that although there were many other specific issues listed by Robin, the level of defensiveness in Craig during his rebuttal session resulted in leaving some issues behind in order to deal with Craig's over-talking, distress and broad leaps in logic, such as his notion that he was being maligned and the evaluator may be believing the malignant messages from Robin. B. History of Mother's Current Relationship Robin Swartz and Steve Recchione moved to Tower City in June 2010 and were married a month later, in July 2010. They had met in July of 2008, when they were introduced by mutual friends. At that time, Robin had not had any serious relationships since the end of her relationship with Craig in 1997. She reported that instead, she cheerfully threw most of her energy into raising the children and surviving as a working single mother. When she and Steve met, he was divorced and had been single for a period of time, but not quite as long as Robin. Both reported that in the initial stages of their dating, they were clearly unsure about whether they were compatible, given that Steve had a more conventional marriage with a stay-at-home wife/mother and was not used to being with a woman who was independent and worked full-time. Robin admitted that her initial caution was the fact Confidential Page 17 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz that she had worked herself into such isolation and independence being a single mother, that she was having a hard time letting her guard down and allowing anybody into her life. Both reported that by their fourth or fifth date, they began talking about their prior relationships and their lives in general, and this served to connect them at an emotional level that has been very good for them. Since their initial meeting, Steve admits that it feels good to have a person in his life who is a contributor, while Robin admits that it is good to have someone in her life who can be helpful to her. According to Robin, the reason she became so isolated in the course of being a single mother was that she had low self-esteem, no self-respect and a lot of confidence issues at the end of her marriage to Craig, feeling that she had failed herself and her children miserably by not being able to make the marriage work. When Robin was able to open up to Steve, she was also able to see how lonely she was and how good it is to have somebody who bonds with her in the right way. According to Steve, with regard to being first put off by Robin's independence and her working outside the home, he ultimately found respect for what she was able to make of herself from the point of her divorce to now, and he has stated that he likes being with someone who isn't so dependent. The couple became engaged on 11 / 14 / 08 and began living together in August 2009. When Steve and Robin got married, it was Kris who walked his mother down the aisle. In addition, they finished building their home near Tower City and have started living there. Finally, Steve and Robin were asked what they are the most likely to argue about, and both said the kids. They said their biggest problem is that Steve has raised his kids to keep fairly strict boundaries and to take responsibility for those boundaries, while Robin has allowed her children to enter her room, take things that are there and use them. Both are struggling to accommodate the other's style, and Robin admitted that this was one of the ways that she was forced to manage being a single mother, requiring the kids to get things they need on their own, and therefore, allowing them to have free run of the house to get those things. Steve is especially frustrated because he gets along very well with his ex-wife, with whom he has two children, one 25 and one 14. The 14-year-old is Dustin, who spends time with Steve every other weekend. Actually, Steve said, on paper, Dustin spends every other weekend with him, but in reality, Dustin is able to spend as much time as he wants with his father, because Steve and his ex-wife get along well enough to negotiate those arrangements. Steve reported that he and his ex-wife were also able to work out their own child-support agreement and have never had any difficulty working out issues. Child Perceptions Kris was interviewed by the evaluator twice independently for one hour each time. In addition, Kris' school and medical histories were reviewed. Finally, a phone Confidential Page 18 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz consultation was conducted with Kris' therapist, Victoria A. Whitcomb, M.S., LPC, RPT-S, of Strickler and Whitcomb of Mechanicsburg. 1. Kristopher Swartz, Age 16, DOB 7/24/94 Kris is the 16-year-old natural child of Robin and Craig Swartz. He is the second child, having an older sister - McKenzie -- whose custody is not in question because she is 18. The interviews were conducted to assess Kris' preferences with regard to his primary custody during the school year, because his mother remarried and moved to Tower City in Schuylkill County. Regardless of whether Kris moves to Tower City with his mother or stays in this area with his father, he will be changing schools, because Father does not live in Kris' current school district. Kris readily admitted that he was nervous about his interview with the evaluator and has been distressed long before the custody conciliation conference in March of 2010, when he refrained from telling his mother directly that he wanted to leave her primary custody to live with his father, but rather, informed her through a letter delivered to the conciliator during the conference. Kris admitted two regrets regarding the fact that he did not let his mother know for at least eight months about his intent to express a desire to change his custody. He said his first regret was the fact that he underestimated his mother's ability to hear him and give his wishes some consideration. Secondly, he deeply regretted having put a sentence in the letter stating that he was fearful of telling his mother his custody preference because he might suffer verbal and mental abuse as a result. Kris denied that he has ever been fearful of any such thing and admitted that this was an attempt, in part, to sway the conciliator's thoughts on his custody. Kris admitted that his real fear in telling his mother was a combination of not wanting to hurt her feelings and nervousness that she would immediately be against his wishes and spend a great deal of energy trying to convince him otherwise. Kris admitted that what he really wanted to say was that he was afraid his mother would be emotional at first and disagree a lot. When Kris was asked what he had been told by both of his parents about the nature of these interviews, he reported that both parents told him to simply talk about his feelings and not to worry about either one of them. He said this was especially emphasized by his mother. With regard to any evidence that Kris had been coached about his responses during the evaluation, it is notable that he admitted that the letter he wrote for the custody conciliator was suggested by his father, and in part, was structured by his father's attorney. Kris said the attorney provided him with a 3"-by-5" note card of the salient points that needed to be included in his letter. Nonetheless, Kris stated that the intent to change his primary custody from his mother to his father was clearly his and that he did not want to give the impression that he had been coerced into stating a custody preference that he didn't want. When asked to support his custodial preference to begin living primarily with his father, Kris admitted to being very reticent about revealing certain information to the evaluator. He was informed his privacy would be guarded on any information he did not want to be shared. Certain information has been removed at Kris's request and will Confidential Page 19 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz be shared with Court only if necessary. At the time that Robin and Steve told Kris last summer that they were moving to Tower City and building a house in that area, Kris began feeling strongly that he did not want to move away from the area that he knew, where he had friends and where things were familiar to him. Kris said it was then that he approached his father, suggesting that he might want to live with him. According to Kris, this is a big change, since he has consistently lived in his mother's primary custody since his parents' separation when he was 2 years old, spending every other weekend with his father. Kris said his father's response to moving in with him was to advise him that if he wanted a change in his custody, he was going to have let people know - including his mother - in order to make it happen. According to Kris, the primary reason he wants to move in with his dad is that instead of attending Williams Valley Junior-Senior High School in Schuylkill County, he would transfer to Northern High School in Northern York County School District, which is near the West Shore School District he has been attending while in his mother's custody. For Kris, although he is still changing schools, it will be to a school where he knows people and he will live in an area where he can readily associate with his current friends. Kris reported that his mother and Steve's new house is in an area that is "too quiet" and is mostly farm country. While he added that his father lives in Dillsburg, which is also farm country, it is "very close to civilization," while the location of the house in Schuylkill County is "not near anything." Additionally, Kris emphasized that he would have more job opportunities in Dillsburg, given that with "close civilization," there would be plenty of places, such as Quiznos and Subway, where he could get a job. Kris adamantly denied that his desire to move in with his father is in any way related to relationship issues with his mother. In fact, he stated that if his mother had not moved, he undoubtedly would want to remain in her primary care. In addition, he emphasized that while he is stating that he wants to live with his father, he does not want to give the impression that he wants his living arrangement to be "sealed in cement," and instead, because of the close proximity of his parents' houses (about 42 miles apart) he intends to spend significant amounts of time with his mother, including during the school year, especially since his mother will be driving into the Harrisburg area every day for work. Kris added that he will be driving soon, and he plans on being able to transit easily between the two houses. He reported that he would otherwise miss spending time with his mother, Steve, his older sister and stepbrother. With regard to how Kris' relationship with his father might be motivating him to request a change in custody, Kris admitted that having lived in his mother's primary custody for almost 13 years, he has been growing distant from his dad, including the fact that he withdrew from baseball, which was the one area where they related well. Kris said that while it is true that his father had a drinking problem and anger issues at the time of his parents' separation, that has not been the case for a number of years. Kris is dismayed at the fact that both of his parents are making comments about the other, with his mother reminding him about his father's anger and his father giving him significant suggestions that his mother is motivated by a financial Confidential Page 20 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz need to continue getting child support from his father, which would not happen if he lived primarily with his dad. Regarding his father's past behaviors, Kris has emphasized to his mother that she should believe more in the fact that people can change. Kris admitted that his older sister was upset at first with his custody preference, especially because it was hard for her to see how sad their mother was, but now that their mother is doing better, he and his sister hardly ever talk about the situation. With regard to any resolution of the very emotional issues between Kris and his mother after the conciliation conference, Kris reported that two weeks ago, he and his mother had a long talk and he has seen a noticeable difference in her willingness to be open and loving with him without the tension that previously existed. In fact, he reported that his mother said to him, "I want you to know that as far as I'm concerned, the letter [delivered to the conciliator] is in the past, and let's just wait and see what happens." Kris' only concern with what his mother said is that he believes she is still relying on the evaluation to direct him to live with her. According to Kris, what he learned in the long talk with his mother was that what made her the saddest was the fact that he felt he could not talk to her. The evaluator asked Kris why it was that he had never asked for extended time with his father prior to now. Kris admitted that in the past, his father worked a lot -- sometimes from 5 a.m. until 11 p.m. Due to the fact that his father lost his job when the economy changed and decided to go back to school to become a photographer; he now has plenty of time, so Kris said he and his father already are relating more than they had been. He indicated that while there had been an argument between his father and McKenzie because she accepted work hours on Father's Day instead of planning to spend time with him, his sister has made up with Dad and has maintained her custody time with him, other than one weekend right after the incident. However, Kris felt that McKenzie probably spends time consistently with their father because "she gets to do things at Dad's that she can't with Mom." Kris was asked to describe each of his parent's styles with regard to raising him. He described his father as a person who gives permission until such a time as Kris proves that he's not responsible. Conversely, he described his mother as "over-caring" and protective to the extent that she checks in on him too much, sometimes texting him every hour that he is out. Kris described his mother as really caring and the person who's always been there for him. He proudly told the story that he and his mother talk about, where she had fallen in the basement when she was pregnant with him, causing significant complication in the pregnancy. She told Kris that both she and he fought for his survival, which created the close bond they have had ever since. Kris described his father as caring but without showing it so overtly. He believes that his dad is able to be his friend in addition to being his parent. Kris reiterated that he knows his father had issues with drinking and anger in the past, but at the present time, Kris can't think of any of behaviors on his father's part that need to change. Kris said the only behavior on his mother's part that may need to change is her over- protectiveness, especially as he gets older. Confidential Page 21 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz 41 With regard to Kris's relationship with his stepfather, Steve, Kris described him as a kind and caring person who is fun to be around and from whom he has learned many things. Kris noted that one thing about Steve that perhaps should change is that he should ease off a little when issues arise. Finally, Kris was challenged about issues that have been mentioned by both parents. Significantly, Robin believes that Kris remains fearful of his father, citing the incident when Kris lost the cell phone Dad had bought him and went to great lengths to avoid telling his father. Kris admitted that this was one of those issues where his father had given him freedom and he had not been responsible; and therefore, he admitted that he was concerned. However, Kris denied that it was because he was fearful of his father's anger. Instead, he said it was because he knew he had disappointed his father. Kris reported that when he told his father, he was okay with it. Because Kris gave the evaluator specific information about child-support issue between his parents, with his father stating that his mother is repeatedly taking him back to court for no reason, Kris was asked if he was hearing any such information from his mother, and he denied such. Because of hearing from only one side, he admitted that he may not fully understand what's happening with the financial situation. He did say, however, that he was upset about a therapy session with Victoria "Vicki" Whitcomb, M.S., LPC, RPT-S, of Strickler and Whitcomb of Mechanicsburg, who had been his therapist approximately a year ago, when he had some anger issues. Kris admitted that he had significant success in his work with Vicki and also admitted that anyone who knew him would agree that he had changed for the better. However, shortly after the conciliation conference, his mother arranged a session for him, after which he expressed anger about the fact that Vicki had reminded him about his dad being "a drunk." In addition, Kris felt Vicki was angry at him for writing the letter to the conciliator instead of talking directly to his mother and challenged him with the notion that he may not realize that his mother is going to have to pay his father child support if he lives with his father. Kris was not only angry, but shocked, at Vicki's approach, since this was not the way they had related in the past. He indicated that she may not be informed about the support issues and added his father had paid his mother child support for a number of years, so why would it be a problem for her to have to pay him? Kris summarized the custody conflict by saying that he knows what his custody preferences are, and he knows that it is a challenge for both of his parents. At this time, he said, his greatest preference is for his parents to return to getting along the way they used to and for everybody to accept what it is that he is asking for and "let the world keep spinning." In a phone consultation 7/15/2010 with Ms. Whitcomb, she reported that Kris first session with her was on 7/24/08, and the referral for her services came from Mother, secondary to a hearing before District Justice Charles Clement. Kris was referred to therapy because it was the second time he was before the DJ; the first time having been for setting a fire in the woods with two friends and the second incident being related to shoplifting. According to Ms. Whitcomb, she sent permission slips and received back permission slips from both Mother and Father, but only Mother was Confidential Page 22 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz A engaged in Kris' therapy. Ms. Whitcomb said she encouraged Kris to invite his father into the therapy experience, but Kris reported that his father refused to attend. Following the initial session, there were 21 session from July 24 to Dec. 23 of 2008, 15 of which of were strictly for Kris, three involving both Kris and Mother and three for Mother alone, to assist her in how to manage Kris. With regard to Ms. Whitcomb's overall assessment of Kris, she indicated that his therapy specifically focused on difficulties he was having in his relationship with his father, and in addition, his symptoms of failing grades, anger, distraction and procrastination. She ruled out attention-deficit difficulties, and Kris' provisional diagnosis was depression. Ms. Whitcomb said Kris reported a combination of worrying about his father, while at the same time, not wanting to spend significant time with him. She said Kris reported that this was due to the fact that his father was often angry and that there were also times that Kris was concerned with his father's drinking and its impact on Kris, especially if his father was driving. The therapist recalled that Kris gave examples of Father drinking and driving from when Kris was about 12 years old. Ms. Whitcomb said there was improvement in Kris over time and in addition, improvement for Robin, whom Victoria perceived as enabling Kris to keep information from father. Ms. Whitcomb's expressed concern about whether or not Kris was being forthright. She indicated that he was very good at giving an answer initially that was not truthful, and then with probing, was able to give a more honest answer. She said Kris had a style of covering over information, combined with symptoms of minor anti- social behavior, such as shoplifting and one incident of fire-setting. Particularly, Ms. Whitcomb was asked about the session with Kris on March 1, 2010, which was scheduled within a few days of the custody conciliation. The therapy session was scheduled by Robin upon her shock that Kris -- who had theretofore never spoken to her about his custody preference -- provided a letter to the conciliator indicating that he wanted to live with his father. Ms. Whitcomb was advised of Kris' allegation that she yelled at him, referred to his father as a drunk and asked Kris if he understood how much child support his mother was going to have to pay because of his actions. Ms. Whitcomb adamantly denied that any such dialogue occurred, and in fact, indicated that she was literally shocked by Kris' position of wanting to be in his father's custody. She said she challenged him on his custody preference by using his statements from his past therapy sessions. Ms. Whitcomb said she told him that much of what was going on with him and his depression was related to repressed anger at the way his father treated him. It was Kris who described his father as having drinking problems, not Ms. Whitcomb, and while she was reminding him of his pervious views of his father, she did not in any way intend to be disparaging or give her personal views. Kris's medical history is unremarkable, with the exception of non-specific allergies, especially occurring in the summer and mostly sparked by cut grass and pollen. Kris is not required to see a specialist, and his pediatricians are Jones Daley and Caldren. Confidential Page 23 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz With regard to his allergies, when they flare up, he is advised to take over-the-counter medication, specifically Zyrtec. According to Kris, he has had no serious accidents or illnesses, with the exception of stitches in his left hand and a broken right hand. With regard to Kris' social and educational background, he completed 10th grade at Cedar Cliff High School in the West Shore School District this past June. With regard to his academic performance, Kris failed three subjects this year, and if he were to return to Cedar Cliff, he would be retaking many 10th-grade classes, including History, Social Studies and English. Information was previously provided that Kris had advised school officials that he was preoccupied with his father's health, and as well, the custody conflict. With regard to his general preferences in terms of academics, Kris reported that he has consistently excelled in math and science and has consistently done poorly in social studies and practical English, i.e. grammar and sentence construction. He admitted to doing well in literature and liking to read; he just doesn't like English grammar. While Kris admitted that in 10th grade, his marks were certainly affected by his family situation, he also admitted that he seemed to be focused more on his social life. He denied that he has ever had behavioral problems or any significant peer-related issues in school. With regard to any plans Kris may have for his future, he reported that because of his preference for math and science, he would like to go to college and have a career related to computers. He reported that he has always had a fascination and skill with all kinds of technology. He has considered joining the Air Force and studying avionics, although he is unsure about that. With regard to his friends, Kris noted that during his freshman year, he changed the pattern of his friendships. He also changed his attitude toward seeking out friends, recalling that during the 9th grade, he was still the kind of adolescent who went home after school and waited for his mother to come home. Suddenly, in 10th grade, he realized that he wanted to be more involved with his friends and recalled beginning to tell his mother that she needed to be less doting with him and not send as many text messages or check in with him so often. With regard to the types of friends Kris has, he admitted to not wanting to be mainstream whatsoever, indicating that quest for popularity and the fascination with gossip and people being involved in your life was something that he was never interested in. With regard to any history of being teased and/or self-esteem issues related to friendships, Kris reported that between 5+h and 7th grades, he was the shortest boy in his class and often was teased and felt self- conscious and insecure. In the summer between 7th and 8th grades, Kris had such a major growth spurt that his foot size went from a 5 to an 11. When Kris entered 8th grade in the fall, all issues related to his physique were resolved, and in fact, according to Kris, he has some difficulties in the opposite direction, with many of his associates and friends relying on his size and using his name when there is likely to be a fight or his friends need to defend themselves. Kris reported that he does not want to be pulled into matters that don't concern him; however, he does like the fact that other kids and some of his friends see him as someone who has their back. With regard to dating and relationships with girls, Kris admitted that there is a girl he currently hangs out with but the move to Tower City will make it difficult for him to spend time with her. Confidential Page 24 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz Kris was asked about the differences in the schools he would be attending, depending on whose custody he will be in. He reported that unfortunately, he cannot continue to attend Cedar Cliff even if he lives in this area with his father because his father lives in Northern High School's district. Kris is most comfortable with this option, since he has a friendly relationship with some kids who go to Northern. If Kris were to be in his mother's custody, he would attend Williams Valley High School, which he refers to as "a small country school." According to Kris, he is not interested in attending Williams Valley since "small is nothing I'm used to." With regard to Kris' interests and activities, while he is athletic, he has a bent for extreme sports, having spent many years skateboarding and now being involved in BMX bike racing. With regard to Kris' mental-status exam, he reported that on any given day, his primary feeling fluctuates between contentment and boredom. Kris said he feels "crappy, pressured and torn apart" when thinking about the custody conflict. Kris admitted that some of his feeling pressured has resolved since the conciliation conference and the fact that everyone knows what his preferences are. With regard to anger, Kris recalled the last time he was very angry being when he cut his hand open skateboarding. He reported being mostly angry at himself. He recalled that he was in therapy for anger issues beginning in July of 2008 with Victoria Whitcomb and indicated that there were two incidents leading up to his therapy: one where he set a fire in the woods with his friends and another where he shoplifted from Sears. Since that time, Kris reported, he has learned to cope with his anger through his athletics. He said that any time he wants to dispel his anger, he goes out biking and it is really effective for him. With regard to significant sadness, Kris reported having a dog that is 15 years old (almost his age) and has developed a tumor and is very sick. He recalled that one night recently, because the dog had hip problems, it appeared that it might be the end for her, and he recalled being excessively sad to the point of sobbing. With regard to experiences of fear, Kris remembered being fearful in the emergency room after cutting his hand in the skateboarding accident because they had to make the cut deeper in order to clean it out. He reported that he was not so much afraid of the pain as he was that he might lose his hand. He recalled feeling panicky and then reassured when he knew this was not the case. According to Kris, another minor example of feeling somewhat anxious for him was an incident where he was swimming in Tower City in the evening and heard a ruffling in the trees and wondered, "What's out there?" According to Kris, he is not used to living in a rural area, which he believes was at the root of his anxiety. With regard to any symptoms of depression, Kris denied such. He did recall feeling significant stress over his arguments between his mother and father when he was younger, and to some extent, regarding the current conflicts in his family life. In comparing his feelings now to what they were several months ago at the time of the conciliation conference, Kris reported that lately, he is feeling close to everyone and feeling good about himself. He said he learned a lesson and does not want to ever again keep things bottled up inside him. He admitted that he still does a little, but not so much. Confidential Page 25 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz Facts with Clinical Impressions The most obvious question asked by this evaluation is what custody arrangement would be in the best interest of Kris Swartz. While the stated preferences of a 16 year old are often considered sufficient to give strong consideration to them, in this natter other areas as well as Kris's position were considered even more important. The co- parenting relationship especially the one that transpired as a result of Mothers announcement that she was remarrying and moving to Tower City was also significant. However, most significant to the standard used in custody recommendations, the best interest of the child, was the considerable coaching of Kris by his father that rendered some of Kris's perceptions of the custody strain and Kris's role in its resolution inaccurate. Related to Kris, when all of his responses are viewed as a total pattern, it is clear that he is a 16-year-old conflicted adolescent caught in a custody conflict between his parents. Kris expressed some support for his preference to stay with his father for the school year, making a major change in his primary custody for the past 12 years, in more typical adolescent ways relating to his peer relationships and his familiarity with the community surrounding where his father lives making the school change a little more palatable living with father over mother. Kris further alluded to being able to do more things living with his father while his mother is more protective and guarded with him. At Kris' request information related to freedom versus protection in parenting was left out of the report. Kris had significantly more ambivalence about his family preferences as it related to his custody. Kris admitted, without reservation, that if his mother wasn't moving he would be remaining in her primary care and not making a bid to live with his father. Kris did say it would be an opportunity for him and his father to spend more time together since he lived with his mother for the past 12 years. While knowing that living with his father would give Kris his desire regarding his presumed comfort with school and peers, Kris also stated that he had no intention of spending all of his time with his father and, because his mother drove into the area every day of the week for work, he planned on spending a lot of time with her in Tower City even though he would attend Northern High School. Through information reported by Kris and then validated by both of his parents, it is apparent that he has received a disturbingly significant amount of adult information from his father used to sway Kris' custody preference or embolden his adolescent reasons for considering a transfer of his custody. Also very disturbing is that most, if not all, of the information was inaccurate. This was especially true about information his father shared with him about child support and his mother's motivations for going to Domestic Relations. Some of Kris's information shared with the evaluator was left out of this report at Kris's request however, the level of information he had was inappropriate and inflaming to his relationship with his mother and challenged her character in Kris' eyes. Other information that Kris obtained from his father related to how child support payments required by father interfered with father's ability to pay Confidential Page 26 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz • for important screenings which not only caused considerable concern to Kris about his father's health but also was admittedly part of his motivation for pushing to stay with his father. Finally, information provided to Kris by his father about the higher quality of Northern High School over Williams Valley Junior Senior High School was not accurate when compared to the National Education Statistics for No Child Left Behind. In fact the Reading levels of high school students were two points higher (67% versus 65%) for students going to Williams Valley Junior Senior High School than high school students at Northern High School. The capabilities in mathematics were 13 points higher (67% versus 54%) in students from Williams Valley over Northern. Kris and Craig told the Evaluator almost exactly the same litany of reasons why living in Tower City would be a culture shock for him. Perhaps most disturbing to the Evaluator were text messages sent between Craig and Kris (discovered and provided by mother looking at Kris' cell phone). They are utterly and clearly an indication that Craig was colluding with Kris against his mother in a manner more like a peer than a father, and in ways that directly instructed Kris to be deceptive with his mother and the Evaluator placing a burden on Kris to be even more squarely in the middle of the parental conflict. The text messages (only a few that were found) coupled with father assisting Kris in not telling his mother about his custody preference and, instead, assisting him in writing a letter to be given to the conciliator, constitutes serious violations to fair proceedings related to custody in a child's best interest. More importantly, they put Kris in an untenable position for which, at least early on, Kris was confessing his guilt to his mother. The lack of communication and the over-all co-parenting dysfunction, manifested most in apparent animosity in both parents toward the other which has re-emerged from dormancy with the conflict over Kris' custody which began to brew in early 2009. Kris described the impact of the parental conflict well when he stated that his most important preference was for his parents to return to getting along the way they used to and for everybody to accept what it is he's asking for and let "the world keep spinning." With regard to Robin's contribution to the co-parenting dysfunction, it is evident and factual that Robin is accustomed to being the primary custodian of the children. This led to her underestimating Kris' reaction to her moving which then resulted in her shock, sadness, and sense of betrayal about Kris' expressed desire to live with Craig and the way she learned about it. Robin's overall general disrespect for Craig and the way he handled putting Kris in the middle of their conflict spilled over for a brief time to her relationship with Kris which was repaired significantly over the course of the evaluation process. Prior to a conflict as great as Kris' custody, Robin was able to let her feelings about Craig go unexpressed especially with the children. However, while frightened for Kris's welfare, and threatened by the possible loss of Kris to unfair tactics, Robin also allowed her animosity toward Craig to be expressed in front of Kris. Robin also displayed positive co-parenting attributes. For example, even when she Confidential Page 27 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz w Craig's positive co-parenting attribute was to be the safe parent with whom Kris could discuss the option of remaining closer to the community where he lived and went to school before his mother moved. Unfortunately, Craig usurped the opportunity for Kris to consider all of his options instead helping him go underground with his wishes and thoughts and then giving Kris too much adult information which unfairly skewed the process in a direction that encouraged Kris away from considering other options. The most congruent aspect of Craig's position was his support of Kris' option to live with him instead of moving farther away from his friends and familiar territory. His incongruence's appeared when offered the chance to give rebuttal to information provided by Robin and to respond to the Evaluator's questions about evidence of his colluding with Kris. Instead of describing his position, he became over-compensating, angry, and projected blame onto Robin accusing her of maligning him to the Evaluator and being financially motivated to do so. But, the essence of his reporting to the Evaluator was, in fact, to malign Robin and keep financial matters central having taught Kris to believe that Robin's motivation was to take more and more money from Craig. Also, on more than one occasion Craig brought the interview conversation to the fact that Robin would have to pay him child support and, after all, he had done it for 12 years--why not her. In the final analysis, Craig could not offer one unchallenged reason for him having custody that related to Kris's well being except to support Kris's desire to stay closer to friends and be in a little more familiar territory. Robin offered several reasons to support her strong opinion that Kris' welfare and well being were better served by moving with her and facing the challenge of changing schools and communities so as to form his own opinion of Tower City rather than using biased information. Sadly, the ways in which Kris was given skewed perceptions of his mother's intentions, his father's financial and health needs, and the area where his mother was moving overshadow an understanding of what may have occurred with Kris' preferences if he had not been given information early in the process of him accepting his mother's announced move. By mother's report, Kris was looking forward to the move early on, while father reports that early on Kris came to him with the suggestion that he live with his father. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know Kris' preferences absent the overshadowing influence and in his reporting, those influencers were in the center of his stated preferences. In addition, it is difficult to understand the impact of his parent's needs as seen strictly through Kris' eyes on his preferences and absent the other influences since Kris showed some signs of wanting to protect each of them. Kris' ambivalence about his family preferences, indicating that he will be spending significant time with his mother during the school year and wouldn't be changing his custody if she were not moving is indicative of the central impetus for Kris wanting to change his custody being a desire to seek adolescent comfort for the anxiety of change that accompanies any switch in peer and school relationships for someone his age. It is also indicative of Kris' wish he could keep his home life and family relationships the same. While Kris believes he will make a comfortable transition to Northern High School and get to see Confidential Page 29 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz i friends from Cedar Cliff by remaining in his father's custody, he is as unaware of the truth of that and will be moving from Camp Hill to Dillsburg-- two areas that are also very different but that give Kris the illusion that he will be less disturbed by this change than the one to Tower City. In summary, combining Kris' clear preference for home life with his mother and peer life with his father, it is the Evaluator's clinical opinion that had the matter of Kris' transition related to his mother remarrying and moving been handled without conflict and pressure that rescued Kris' conflicted feelings, it is wholly possible that Kris would have successfully made the transition to Tower City--with the accompanying anxiety that is a natural part of change. It is further the Evaluator's clinical opinion that it is wholly possible that Kris' could have expanded his relationship with his father in a way that was not overshadowed by each of them using the other's needs to get what they wanted. It was evident that Kris could relieve his anxiety about a move and ambivalence about leaving his mother's primary care by justifying that he was helping his father with his health and his finances. Craig could relieve his anxiety that he was at a decided disadvantage in a custody dispute given the history of his custodial contact with the children by magnifying and holding central Kris' stated preferences and minimizing the purity of Robin's motivations and her contribution to Kris' care and nurturance over the years. Finally, the impact of the custody conflict on Kris was apparent. His emotions and distress were palpable to the Evaluator. In addition, his switches from sincerity to being overtly dishonest in his reporting to the Evaluator showed clearly the areas where he was the innocent, and at times, not so innocent victim of his father's coaching. The most honest needs or perceptions about his needs shown by Kris to the Evaluator were the following: Kris' needs relieved of the duty to carry out the parental conflict; l: Kris cares about both f his parents; J- His parent s love for him is apparent to Kris; -4 Kris wants his parents to stop fighting over him; -t- Kris wants to spend significant time with his mother and he wants his father to accept that; T- Kris wants to help his father through a hard time and he wants his mother to accept that; '- Kris believes attending Northern School District will be better than Williams Valley because he knows a few people there; -4 Kris is interested in feeling the kind of freedom he thinks his father will give; -1 Kris wants ample opportunity to have the kind of family feeling and emotional support he gets from his mother, her husband, his sister and step brother. The needs in Kris apparent to the Evaluator by his history with family relationships and his past difficulties with anger and acting out are as follows: 4- Kris needs guidance and direction that is honest, moral and not motivated by other things; Confidential Page 30 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz • Lew Kris was giving her inaccurate information provided to him by Craig, she did not retort with her side of matters even though the emotionally volatile invitation was there. While missing the mark by allowing some of her disdain for Craig and her disappointment in Kris to show, it was also notable and laudable that Robin opened the lines of communication with Kris and tried to be open to what he was saying. She did so because she knew Kris needed that and because she was seeking a remedy for the sadness and over-caution she felt at first thinking that if she tried to question Kris or discipline him she would lose him. Her major motivation was seeing the conflict in Kris play out with his changing moods, difficulty sticking to the same information and preferences, and his preoccupation with the custody conflict. Robin's stance in the custody conflict, while at times imperfect, was congruent with a normal range of responses during high conflict situations. Her overall style with Kris was a positive indication of her ability to keep Kris' needs central to a situation that could result in a significant loss for her. Were it not for Robin's knowledge of Kris' past perceptions of his relationship with his father and her knowledge of the depth to which Kris was being given inaccurate information, she may have had more inclination to support Kris custody preference. The situation as it is does not allow Robin to agree to Kris' expressed preference since it is not well reasoned or fairly determined. Craig's contribution to the co-parenting strain is the documented ways that he has allowed his personal and financial resentment toward Robin to be a strong underlying motivation to securing custody of Kris. While the Evaluator does not doubt Craig's sincerity about his love and attachment to Kris, there is significant doubt about his ability to parent a 16 year old who has already shown signs of defiant anger and minor difficulties with the law that were discovered through therapy to be the result of unprocessed family emotions. Craig's willingness to allow Kris to collude with him; to give inflaming half truths and untruths to Kris about the child support issue; and to directly instruct Kris to be deceptive to his mother and in the evaluation process are not minor oversights but rather a conscious attempt to guarantee his own gain in securing custody of Kris. While having no difficulty supporting Kris' expressed desire to change his custody, Craig, in part intentionally and in part inadvertently, used Kris as the tool to secure advantage in the custody conflict. Craig can partially justify his position by stating that if Kris wanted to change his custody then, at his age, he would have to participate in telling his mother. The Evaluator agrees with this. But he also allowed Kris to withhold information from his mother; be the one to shock his mother with a letter penned by Kris; gave Kris the impression that there was a specific construction necessary for the letter; gave Kris the impression that Craig's attorney outlined the necessary construction; and gave Kris the impression that he had to make the choice to fight for his right to be in his father's custody or it wouldn't happen. Craig then placed Kris squarely in the thick of the conflict using Kris' letter as his means for announcing his own intent to challenge Robin's bid for primary custody of Kris rather than going to Robin himself or asking Robin to meet with him and Kris. Confidential Page 28 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz 4 Kris needs discipline and structure yet a loosening of the reigns as his age requires and based on his past anger and acting out; -4. Kris needs relieved of the feeling that he is responsible for matters related to child support or his parents well being; 4- Kris needs to know that his parent's being divorced and disagreeing, not his desires, are not the cause of a choice that needs to be made about his custody; I- Kris needs to know that any way that he consciously colluded to be deceptive about his part in the conflict over his custody preferences was wrong and something he should not have been encouraged about; --4 Kris needs to be free from conflict that is not his so that he can focus on his education; enjoy his last years of high school, enhance his peer relationships, and move into young adulthood. The recommendations set forth below are provided to the Court in an effort to wade through the over-shadowing issues and look directly at what will benefit Kris. The recommendations give Kris some of what he desires and while denying those things that he has been encouraged to want but that may not lead to success for him. Recommendations 1. Robin Recchione and Craig Swartz will share the legal custody of Kristopher Swartz; 2. Mother will have primary custody of Kris and he will attend school in the Williams Valley School District; 3. During the school year, Father will have partial periods of custody 3 out of 4 weekends (not three weekends per month, but a rotation of three weekends on, then one weekend oft). For the first and third weekends, the weekend can be from Friday after School until Monday morning drop off at school if father is able to transport Kris on Monday mornings. On the second weekend it will be defined as Friday after School until Sunday at 7 PM. Anytime a school holiday (not to include major holiday breaks) is attached to father's weekend, his custodial time will expand to 7 PM the evening before Kris returns to school ; 4. During the school year, the relinquishing parent will provide transportation; 5. During the Summer Kris's custody will be shared equally between his parents on a week on week off basis with exchange days being a weekday selected by the parents such that mother can drop Kris off at father's on her way to work and pick Kris up on her way home after work to begin her custodial time; 6. A standard shared holiday schedule can be incorporated into this order along with other standard clauses for vacations and creating a conflict free zone for Kris; Confidential Page 31 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz 7. This skeleton set of recommendations can be adjusted by the parties and their respective counsel and with the aid of this evaluator if specifically requested. It is important to note that additional assistance by the evaluator could result in additional fees, but only if it is necessary for the evaluator to conduct additional face-to-face sessions. It is further noted that the evaluator will be available to respond to questions about the way to carry out these recommendations for a period of up to two months from the date of this report without the need for additional face-to-face interviews. After a period of two months, it may be necessary to update the family assessment at an additional cost to the parties. Respectfully submitted, Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC Clinical Evaluator Date of Dictation: 08/06/10 Date of Transcription: 08/ 10/ 10 Date of Final Edit: 08/ 12/ 10 Confidential Page 32 8/13/2010 Swartz-Swartz ROBIN S. (SWARTZ) RECCHIONE, Plaintiff V. F. CRAIG SWARTZ, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 1998 - 541 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of attached document was served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and addressed as follows: Andrew C. Sheely, Esq. 127 South Market Street P. O. Box 95 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 IRWIN & McKNIGHT, ]?.C. By: M Ss A. McKnight, III, 6 West Pomfret Street C ' le, PA 17013 (717) 353 Supreme Date: August 17, 2010 25476 4