Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-0254ELIZABETH JOHNSON GOTH, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant NO. 03 - .25-4/ CUSTODY COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY CIVIL TERM 1. The plaintiff is Elizabeth Johnson Goth, residing at 408 Pawnee Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050. 2. The defendant is Philip Cason Goth, whose definite residence is unknown to the plaintiff. To the best of the plaintiff's knowledge the defendant is residing in Cross Creek Townhouses, Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. The plaintiff seeks custody of the following children: Name Adrienne Elizabeth Goth Anna Leigh Goth Philip Andrew Goth Gretchen Alicia Goth Permanent Residence Age Cross Creek Townhouses 17 Hampden Township, PA Cross Creek Townhouses 15 Hampdeh Township, PA Cross Creek Townhouses 13 Hampden Township, PA 408 Pawnee Drive 7 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 The children were not born out of wedlock. Gretchen is presently in the custody of the plaintiff. Adrienne, Anna and Philip are currently with the defendant who, to the mother best of mother's knowledge, resides in Cross Creek Townhouses. During the past five years the children have resided with the following persons at the following addresses: 1.) Gretchen Name Address Date Elizabeth and Philip Goth 408 Pawnee Drive Jan. 1998 to Dec. 2001 Elizabeth Goth 408 Pawnee Drive Dec. 2001 to Present 2.) Anna Elizabeth and Philip Goth 408 Pawnee Drive Jan. 1998 to Dec. 2001 Elizabeth Goth 408 Pawnee Drive Dec. 2001 to Jan. 10, 2003 Philip Goth & Karen Savag e Cross Creek Jan. 10, 2003 to present 3.) Adrienne and Philip Elizabeth and Philip Goth 408 Pawnee Drive Jan. 1998 to Dec. 2001 Elizabeth Goth 408 Pawnee Drive Dec. 2001 to July 2002 Philip Goth Steelton, PA July 2002 to Oct. 2002 Philip Goth & Karen Savage Cross Creek Oct. 2002 to present The mother of the children is Elizabeth Johns Goth, currently residing at 408 Pawnee Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050. She is married to Philip Goth. The father of the children is Philip Goth, whose current definite current residence is unknown to the mother. She believes that he is living at the Cross Creek Townhouses in Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. He is married to Elizabeth Goth. 4. The relationship of plaintiff to the children is that of mother. The plaintiff currently resides with Gretchen Goth. 5. The relationship of defendant to the children is that of father. The father currently resides with Philip, Adrienne and Anna, along with his girlfriend, Karen Savage. 6. The plaintiff has not participated as a party or witness, or in another capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody of the children in this or any other court. 7. The plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the children pending in a court of this Commonwealth. 8. The plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the children or who claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the children. 9. The best interest and permanent welfare of the children will be served by granting the relief requested for reasons including, but not limited to, the following: a). The mother has been active in the care and nurturing of all four children, including providing for their physical, educational, emotional and spiritual well being. b). The father has not acted in the best interest of the children in ways, including, but not limited to, the following: 0 The father has not permitted the mother to see Adrienne or Philip since the children left the Pawnee Drive address in July 2002, and he has not agreed to cooperate with the mother or her counsel to have periods of custody where the children could be together at the mother's and at his residence. ii.) The father has not provided a contact telephone number for the children since July 2002. The father has advised Anna not to take medication as prescribed by her psychiatrist, leading to additional problems for Anna. Additionally, when father did not return Anna to mother on weekend of January 11, 2003, Anna was without her prescription and orthopedic brace. iv.) Father withdrew Philip and Adrienne from their school recommended counseling sessions when they went to live with the father in July of 2002. v.) The father refuses to tell the mother exactly where Adrienne, Anna and Philip are living. vi.) The father has his girlfriend living with him and the three children. c). The mother is the parent best able to facilitate contact with the other parent. 10. Each parent whose parental rights to the children have not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the children have been named as parties to this action. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests this Court to grant the following: 1.) Primary physical custody of Gretchen and Anna to the mother with the father having partial physical every other weekend. 2•) Primary physical custody of Philip and Adrienne to the father with the mother having partial physical custody of Philip every other weekend and two hours of custody with Adrienne every week. 3•) That the weekend custody arrangements be facilitated so that Anna, Philip and Gretchen are together every weekend. 4•) That all four children continue to attend their current schools with the exception of excused absences. 5•) That both parents share all medical information about each child with the other parent and that both parents abide by the medical and counseling arrangements made for the children. Plaintiff further requests any other relief that is just and proper. Respectfully submitted, th'O 6 C?9 Z & l Margaret M. Simok Attorney for Plaintiff Mid Penn Legal Services 8 Irvine Row Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 VERIFICATION The above-named PLAINTIFF, ELIZABETH JOHNSON GOTH, verifies that the statements made in the above Complaint are true and correct. Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: / a g J? e-,J 4 EL BETH 30 ON GOTH`, ELIZABETH JOHNSON GOTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PHILIP CASON GOTH • 03-254 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Friday, January 17, 2003 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. the conciliator, at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Thursday, February 13, 2003 at 2:00 PM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: /s/ Hubert X. Gilroy, -Es q. Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 0- ELIZABETH JOHNSON GOTH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 03-254 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant CUSTODY IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ORDER AND NOW, this day of January, 2003, a hearing on the within petition for special relief is set for Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 10:15 a.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA. BY THE COURT, Kevin Hess, J. MidPenn Legal Services ' S'A V1 7 -OS Philip C. Goth f} Defendant :rlm C3 ELIZABETH JOHNSON GOTH :COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff/ :OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. :NO. 03- d 5f CIVIL TERM PHILIP CASON GOTH Defendant :CUSTODY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF Petitioner, Elizabeth Goth, by and through her counsel, Margaret M. Simok of MidPenn Legal Services, states the following: 1. Petitioner is the above-named Plaintiff, Elizabeth Goth, herein referred to as mother, who currently resides at 408 Pawnee Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050. 2. Respondent is the above-named Defendant, Philip Goth, hereinafter referred to as the father, who currently resides somewhere in Cross Creek Townhouses, Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055. 3. The above-named parties are the natural parents of the following children: Name Birth Date Gretchen Alicia February 11, 1995 Philip Andrew February 14, 1989 Anna Leigh April 3, 1987 Adrienne Elizabeth May 29, 1985 4. A Complaint for Custody was filed contemporaneously with this Petition for Special Relief. 5. The father is not acting in the children's best interests for reasons including, but not limited to, the following: a. The mother entrusted Gretchen and Anna to the father for a weekend visit on January 10, 2003, and, at the father's instruction, Adrienne later called mother to advise her that the father would be keeping both Gretchen and Anna permanently. b. The father enabled Adrienne and Anna to break in the home at Pawnee Drive and remove belongings of Gretchen, Anna and the mother on January 12, 2003. The local police department witnessed the break-in and a report was made and complaint filed. c. The school district is reluctant to allow Gretchen to return to school until a court order is issued indicating what the custody arrangement is for Gretchen. d. Father had not permitted the mother to see Adrienne or Philip since the children left the Pawnee Drive address in July 2002. d. The father has advised Anna not to take medication as prescribed by her psychiatrist, leading to additional problems for Anna. Additionally, when the father did not return Anna to the mother on the weekend of January 12, 2003, Anna remains without her prescription and orthopedic brace. e. The father has not provided a contact telephone number for the children since July 2002. f. The father refuses to tell the mother exactly where Adrienne, Anna and Philip are living. 6. The mother has attempted to work with the father for the sake of the children; she is the parent who can best facilitate contact with the other parent.. 7. Without the court's intervention the children will be harmed by having their environment disrupted. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the following: a. That the Court enter an Order confirming that the mother have primary physical custody of Gretchen, who is currently with the mother. b. That the Court enter an Order requiring the father to return Anna to the mother and grant the mother primary physical custody of Anna. c. That the Court enter an Order requiring the father facilitate the return the belongings of Gretchen, Anna and the mother that were removed from 408 Pawnee Drive on January 12, 2003. d. That the Court enter an Order directing the father to not attempt to gain custody of Gretchen from her school or other activities, including but not limited to, Brownies, church and parties, until an order is issued in this matter. e. That the police be directed to serve and enforce the order. Petitioner also requests any other relief this court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Margaret M. Simok Attorney for Plaintiff/ Petitioner MIDPENN LEGAL SERVICES 8 Irving Row Carlisle, PA 17013 VERIFICATION The above-named PLAINTIFF, ELIZABETH JOHNSON GOTH, verifies that the statements made in the above Petition are true and correct. Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: / a?C3 EL BETH *HSON4aGOLTCH ELIZABETH JOHNSON GOTH Plaintiff V. PHILIP CASON GOTH Defendant THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Cumberland County, Pennsylvania NO. 03-ISCIVIL TERM :CUSTODY PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS To the Prothonotary: Kindly allow, Elizabeth Johnson Goth, Plaintiff, to proceed in forma pauneris. I, Margaret M. Simok, attorney for the party proceeding in forma au eris, certify that I believe the party is unable to pay the costs and that I am providing free legal services to the party. Margar M. Simok Attorney for Plaintiff MidPenn Legal Services 8 Irvine Row Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 ELIZABETH JOHNSON GOTH, Plaintiff V. PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 03-0254 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY IN RE: CUSTODY AGREEMENT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 2003, the parties having appeared in open court with counsel and agreed to the following temporary custody order: 1) Primary physical custody of Gretchen shall be with the mother, with the father having partial physical custody every other weekend commencing from 6:00 p.m. Friday until 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. 2) Primary physical custody of Philip, Adrienne and Anna is to be with the father, with the mother having partial physical custody of Philip and Anna every other weekend and two hours of custody with Adrienne every week. Those weekend visitations would also be from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. The parties have agreed that the receiving parent will be responsible for the pick-up of the children during the weekend visitation. And the other parent will VINt'? A? NI;N3d Alwa) ?d 1 Rd (C z tiur c0 NO. 03-0254 CIVIL TERM be responsible for returning the children home to the custodial parent. 3) That the weekend custody arrangements will be facilitated so that Anna, Philip and Gretchen are to be together every weekend. The visitation schedule is to commence this weekend, with Mr. Goth having custody of the children, including Gretchen, commencing Friday at 6:00 p.m. Consequently, that would mean that Mr. Goth would be responsible for picking the children up according to this arrangement this Friday. 4) That all four children continue to attend their current schools with the exception of excused absences. 5) That both parents share all medical information about each child with the other parent, and that both parents abide by the medical and counseling arrangements made for the children. The parties also agree that the children are to resume previously scheduled counseling sessions which had occurred in the past. The parties further agree to exchange their residence address and the home phone numbers of both parties so that the parents can have phone contact with the children. NO. 03-0254 CIVIL TERM Mr. Goth has agreed that Gretchen's physical items and personal belongings are to be returned to her, to occur this Sunday when she is taken back to Mrs. Goth. And that any personal items of the mother, Mrs. Goth, that are in the possession of Anna or any of the children will also be returned this weekend. By the Court, Kevizi A. Hess, J. Joan Carey, Esquire Margaret Simok, Esquire MidPenn Legal Services Francis M. Socha, Esquire For the Defendant f :bg FEB 2 0 2003 L ELIZABETH J. GOTH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP C. GOTH, : NO. 03 - 254 CIVIL Defendant : IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this Z y ' day of February, 2003, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, this court's order of January 22, 2003 is vacated and replaced with the following order: 1. The Mother, Elizabeth J. Goth, and the Father, Philip C. Goth, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Adrienne Elizabeth Goth, born May 29, 1985; Anna Leigh Goth, born April 3, 1987; Philip Andrew Goth born, February 14, 1989; and Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995. 2. The Mother shall enjoy primary physical custody of Anna and Gretchen. 3. Father shall enjoy primary physical custody Adrienne and Philip. 4. The parties shall alternate physical custody with the minor children on alternating weekends such that all four children are together. This provision is subject to the reluctance of Anna to go to visit her Father and Adrienne to go visit her Mother, with the parties required to attempt to resolve these issues through counseling or otherwise. 5. The parties shall themselves attend counseling sessions and also make arrangements for the children to attend counseling sessions. There shall be a number of goals of these counseling sessions including, but not limited to, attempting to address issues as to why some of the children may be reluctant to visit their parent, to encourage to be better able to communicate with each other and address custodial issues regarding the children, and any other matters that the counselor may identify as an important issue that should be addressed by the parties. Costs of these counseling sessions shall be shared equally between the parties. The individual who performs the counseling shall be agreed upon by legal counsel for the parties. If the parties cannot agree upon a counselor, they may contact the conciliator to work out an arrangement on designating a counselor. It shall be the responsibility of each 'J custodial parent to ensure that the children in their custody attend and meaningfully participates in all scheduled counseling sessions. 6. The parties shall meet with the conciliator again for a second custody conciliation conference on Friday, June 20, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. In the event legal counsel for the parties feel that the conciliator needs to address any issues in the meantime, legal counsel may contact the conciliator directly to schedule a telephone conference call conciliation between legal counsel for the parties. BY THE COURT, Kevin Al Hess cc: Margaret M. Simok, Esquire Francis M. Socha, Esquire > ? Avl ?? art -0_-3 J. ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff v , PHILIP C. GOTH, Defendant Prior Judge: Kevin A. Hess IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03 - 254 CIVIL IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Adrienne Elizabeth Goth, born May 29, 1985; Anna Leigh Goth, born April 3, 1987; Philip Andrew Goth born, February 14, 1989; and Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on February 13, 2003, with the following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Elizabeth J. Goth, with her counsel, Margaret M. Simok, Esquire; and the Father, Philip C. Goth, with his counsel, Francis M. Socha, Esquire. 3. The parties agree to the entry of an order in the form as attached. 2 ?(P( 03 DATE Hubert X. Custody C SEP U 5 2003 ELIZABETH J. GOTH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP C. GOTH, NO. 2003 - 254 CIVIL Defendant IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this -9" day of tz:a . , 2003, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, this court's order of February 24, 2003 is ratified subject to the following modifications: 1. The child Adrienne Elizabeth Goth is removed from the order in light of the fact that she has reached her majority. 2. The parties shall handle custody on holidays as follows: A. Christmas shall be divided into two segments, Segment A being from Christmas Eve at Noon until Christmas Day at Noon and Segment B being from Christmas Day at Noon until December 2& at Noon. The parties shall alternate those segments, with Father having Segment A and Mother having Segment B in 2003. B. Thanksgiving shall be divided into two segments, Segment A being Wednesday at Noon until Thursday at Noon and Segment B being from Thursday at Noon until Friday at Noon. The parties shall alternate those segments, with Father having Segment A and Mother having Segment B in 2003. C. The parent who has custody of the minor children on a weekend shall enjoy custody with the children on any Friday or Monday holiday that is connected to that weekend. D. Mother shall always have custody of the minor children on Mother's Day and Father shall always have custody of the minor children on Father's Day. The timeframe shall be from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. E. The Easter holiday shall be alternated with the timeframe being from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Easter 2004 shall be the Mother's holiday with the parties alternating thereafter. ,U.AI ?,?n???'?'??3?! 65 ?? ?}d ?- d? v^ htldlla?C ?r.? _ _ ?0 J47?'?i? a;..1 ?::. 3. Each parent shall receive three (3) weeks of consecutive vacation with the minor children during the summer months. For 2004, Mother's three weeks shall start the evening of June 20, 2004. The parties shall give each other reasonable notice as to when they intend to exercise their three weeks of custody. 4. For purposes of tracking the alternating weekend schedule pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the February 24, 2003 order, it is noted that the weekend starting August 22, 2003 is Father's weekend with the parties alternating thereafter. 5. This order is issued pursuant to an agreement reached by the parties. The parties may modify this order if they agree between themselves. Absent any agreement, this order shall control. cc: /F ncis M. Socha, Esquire /// oan Carey, Esquire RKs o q os -ca BY THE COURT, ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff v PHILIP C. GOTH, Defendant Prior Judge: Kevin A. Hess : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2003 - 254 CIVIL : IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Anna Leigh Goth, born April 3, 1987; Philip Andrew Goth, born February 14, 1989; and Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on August 21, 2003, with the following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Elizabeth J. Goth, with her counsel, Joan Carey, Esquire; and the Father, Philip C. Goth, with his counsel, Francis M. Socha, Esquire. 3. The parties agree to the entry of an order in the form as attached. ATE Hubert X. Gil y, Esquire Custody Co ciliator ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff V. PHILIP C. GOTH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 2003-254 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY IN RE: TEMPORARY ORDER MODIFYING VISITATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2003, we enter the following temporary order modifying the visitation schedule set forth in the most recent court order. The visitation schedule between mother and Philip Andrew shall be amended to provide the following: 1. She may visit with the child every other Saturday for a period of at least 3 hours, at a time to be agreed upon between the parties. We strongly suggest this visitation take place in a public place. 2. Philip Andrew shall communicate with his mother by e-mail for at least 15 minutes one day each week. The time shall be as agreed upon by the parties. If they cannot agree, the time shall be Wednesday from 8:00 until 8:15. The parties are directed to save the substance of the communication for review by the Court, if necessary. 3. Philip Andrew shall continue individual counseling with Dr. Larry Walker until discharged. 4. Philip Andrew and mother shall begin joint counseling with a counselor agreed upon by their attorneys. Contact with the counselor shall be made within 48 hours to schedule the first appointment at his or her first available date. 5. The portion of the counseling referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 that is not covered by insurance of either party shall be split between the parties. 5. This matter is to be scheduled for conciliation sometime during the week of December 15, 2003, to review the progress that's been made. Counsel for father shall contact Mr. Gilroy to arrange for the coijj;. ration. By ttKe Coar Francis M. Socha, Esquire 2201 North 2nd Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire dd 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 mae f:?,l,;n „? ??N,, . ,??7,+Sn?'"?a t. iif,-'f ' ?? -, '?-? R.. '{'. ??'; .,?, ??:J w; '::J ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff V. PHILIP C. GOTH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2003-254 IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this !/!day of December, 2003, Michael A. Scherer, Esquire, is appointed to represent the child, Philip Andrew Goth, in this matter, provided his fees are paid by Richard Santucci. P- Vlf ?•? D4`?r» B COU T, lt.. oCr?f.Ti++^ J. Michael A. Scherer, Esquire O'Brien, Banc & Scherer 17 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 /francis M. Socha, Esquire , 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 A- arbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070 b'??7hsw+v ?t1Nn,_r`, ?,,, ?: ? ad 1 mil "+. ,; Ic"??1C?v` „ ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff V. PHILIP C. GOTH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2003-254 IN CUSTODY MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD PHILIP ANDREW GOTH PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P 1915.11 AND NOW, comes the child, Philip Andrew Goth, by and through Michael A. Scherer, Esquire, and respectfully represents as follows: 1. Philip Andrew Goth, (who is known by "Andy" and shall be referred to as "Andy" herein), was born February 14, 1989, and is one of three children who is the subject of the above-captioned custody case. 2. The plaintiff is Andy Goth's natural mother. 3. The defendant is Andy Goth's natural father. 4. One of the other children involved in this custody case is Anna Leigh Goth, born April 3, 1987, and she has no contact with her father at this time and as such there is no need for her to be separately represented in this matter. 5. The remaining child in this matter is Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995, and she is in the primary physical custody of mother and visits with father without issue, and as such she is not in need of counsel in this matter. 6. Andy Goth confided in his maternal uncle, Richard Santucci, that he is having extreme difficulty with his parents in connection with the above-captioned custody case. 7. Richard Santucci contacted undersigned counsel approximately one month ago inquiring whether undersigned counsel could enter an appearance on behalf of Andy Goth. 8. Undersigned counsel assured Richard Santucci to be patient and that counsel for the parents would ensure that an Order was entered in this matter that would be in the best interest of Andy Goth and that Andy Goth's concerns would be addressed. 9. Since that time, an Order dated November 17, 2003 has been entered, which is attached hereto as "Exhibit A." 10. Since the November 17, 2003, Order has been entered, there have been disputes as to the parties as to what certain language in the order means and Andy Goth has been put in the middle of those disputes. 11. Undersigned counsel met with Andy Goth on December 9, 2003 with the permission of the natural father and Andy Goth would like to be represented in this matter so that his voice can be heard in this matter. 12. At present, the only information available to the court regarding Andy's views come from counsel who represent the parties in this matter. 13. Andy will be fifteen years old in February, 2004 and he is old enough that his views should be expressed in this matter through separate counsel. 14. Richard Santucci is willing to pay for undersigned counsel's fees in connection with this matter. 15. Undersigned counsel spoke with Francis M. Socha, Esquire, counsel for father, to inquire of father's position in this matter. Attorney Socha was going to respond to undersigned counsel's request to enter an appearance in this matter but has not replied to date. 16. Undersigned counsel has not been able to speak with Barbara Sumple- Sullivan, Esquire, counsel for mother, to determine mother's position regarding this motion. 17. A custody conciliation is set in this matter for December 18, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. WHEREFORE, Andy Goth respectfully requests that this Honorable Court appoint undersigned counsel as counsel for Andy Goth with undersigned counsel's fees to be paid by Richard Santucci. Respectfully submitted, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER Michael A. Scherer, Esquire I. D. # 61974 17 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 mas.d i r/domestic/goth/appointment. mot VERIFICATION The statements in the foregoing Motion are based upon information which has been assembled by my attorney in this litigation. The language of the statements is not my own. I have read the statements; and to the extent that they are based upon information which I have given to my counsel, they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. DATE: ?2 4 6 ip A. Goth ELIZABETH J. GOTH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP C. GOTH, 2003-254 CIVIL TERM Defendant IN CUSTODY IN RE: TEMPORARY ORDER MODIFYING VISITATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2003, we enter the following temporary order modifying the visitation schedule set forth in the most recent court order. The visitation schedule between mother and Philip Andrew shall be amended to provide the following: 1. She may visit with the child every other Saturday for a period of at least '3 hours at a time to be agreed upon between the parties. We strongly suggest this visitation take place in a public place. 2. Philip Andrew shall communicate with his mother by e-mail for at least 15 minutes one day each week. The time shall be as agreed upon by the parties. If they cannot agree, the time shall be Wednesday from 8:00 until 8:15. The parties are directed to save the substance of the communication for review by the Court, if necessary. 3. Philip Andrew shall continue individual counseling with Dr. Larry Walker until discharged. 4. Philip Andrew and mother shall begin joint counseling with a counselor agreed upon by their attorneys. Contact with the counselor shall be made within 48 hours to schedule the first appointment at his or her first available date. 5. The portion of the counseling referred to in "EXHIBIT All paragraphs 3 and 4 that is not covered by insurance of either party shall be split between the parties. 5. This matter is to be scheduled for conciliation sometime during the week of December 15, 2003, to review the progress that's been made. Counsel for father shall contact Mr. Gilroy to arrange for the con ?ation. By t-ke Cour Francis M. Socha, Esquire 2201 North 2nd Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 :mae CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 10 , 2003, I, Jennifer S. Lindsay, secretary to Michael A. Scherer, Esquire, did serve a copy of the Motion For The Appointment Of An Attorney For The Child Philip Andrew Goth Pursuant To Pa.R.C.P. 1915.11, by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the parties listed below, as follows: Francis M. Socha, Esquire 2201 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070 U j6J if S. ndsay c ? <'; Z?? ''7 - : _ ,.? m ?- r, ' ( ' ?? ? y - -: i ?l T _ -? ?? v { DE?j 2 3 2003 ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff v PHILIP C. GOTH, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 200f -1993 CIVIL IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this ;A #K day of December, 2003, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that the prior Order of Court in this case dated November 17, 2003 shall remain in effect subject to the following modifications: 1. For the Christmas holiday, all four of the parties' minor children shall be with Father from Noon until approximately 6:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve. At or about 6:00 p.m., the four children will then be in the custody of Mother until later that evening when Andy will return to the custody of Father. On Christmas Day, custody of Gretchen will be delivered to Father at Noon with Father having custody of Gretchen and Andy on Christmas Day until 6:00 p.m. At 6:00 p.m. custody of Andy and Gretchen will be delivered to Mother with Andy staying at Mother's overnight on Christmas Day until Noon on December 26. Andy shall return to the Father's custody at Noon on December 26`x. The parties may modify this schedule in any way that they agree as long as there is a mutual agreement between the parties. Absent any agreement, this Order shall control. 2. Mother's periods of temporary custody with Andy shall be expanded to at least 5 hours on alternating weekends and also to include other times as agreed upon by the parties. The parties are encouraged to work out an agreement between themselves that will facilitate Mother having more time with Andy as this case progresses after the holidays. 3. The parties shall submit themselves, the minor children and any significant other of the parties as determined by the evaluator to a custody evaluation to be performed by Dr. Arnold Shienvold. Cost of the evaluation shall be shared equally between the parties, with the parties having agreed that monies may be released from the parties joint assets currently held in escrow to pay for the cost of the evaluation. Upon conclusion of the evaluation and in the event the parties are not able to reach a permanent agreement on custody at that time, either party may request that this case be scheduled for a hearing before the court and may contact the conciliator directly to facilitate the scheduling of that hearing. 4. Legal counsel for the parties shall have a conference call with the conciliator on Friday, February 6, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. The purpose of the conference call is for the conciliator to monitor the custody situation and determine if the Order needs to be modified to reflect any change in circumstances that may have occurred since the date of this Order. 5. It is specifically ordered that neither parent shall make any comments to any of the minor children that are in any way disparaging of the other parent. It is also specifically noted that each parent has the responsibility to ensure that any adult living in the household with them also does not make any negative comments concerning the children's parents to the children. cc: Francis M. Socha, Esquire ?? eft Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esq re Michael A. Scherer, Esquire oil- o3 Edward E. Guido Ji 0 . ,.!' .`:" C, *7 ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff v PHILIP C. GOTH, Defendant Prior Judge: Edward E. Guido IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW o i--ISA : NO.299L= 1693 CIVIL : IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Anna Leigh Goth, born April 3, 1987; Philip Andrew Goth, born February 14, 1989; and Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on December 18, 2003, with the following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Elizabeth J. Goth, with her counsel, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire; and the Father, Philip C. Goth, with his counsel, Francis M. Socha, Esquire; and the minor child Philip Andrew Goth who was represented by Attorney Michael Scherer. 3. Pursuant to an agreement reached by the parties at a custody conciliation conference, the conciliator recommends the entry of an order in the form as attached. la ?z 0 DATE Hubert X. Gilroy, Custody Conciliate Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Petitioner V. PHILIP C. GOTH, Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-254 CIVIL IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ORDER 1. Petitioner is Elizabeth J. Goth, an individual residing at 502 Jacob Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050. 2. Respondent is Philip C. Goth, an individual residing at 1197 Cross Creek Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050. 3. Petitioner seeks shared legal and physical custody and to address immediate issues relating to the relocation, home, school, and medical issues of the following child: NAME Andrew Goth ADDRESS 502 Jacob Lane Mechanicsburg, PA and 1197 Cross Creek Drive Mechanicsburg, PA DOB 02/14/89 1 The child is currently in the shared physical custody of Mother and Father. Mother and Father reside at the addresses referenced above. During the last five years, the child has resided with the following persons and at the following addresses: PERSONS ADDRESSES DATES Mother, Father 408 Pawnee Drive June 8, 2000 to Adrienne E. Goth, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 December 25, 2001 Anna Leigh Goth and Gretchen A. Goth Mother, 408 Pawnee Drive December 25, 2001 to Adrienne E. Goth, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 July, 2002 Anna Leigh Goth and Gretchen A. Goth Mother, High Street July, 2002 to Adrienne E. Goth, Steelton, PA September, 2002 Anna Leigh Goth and Gretchen A. Goth Father and Father's 1197 Cross Creek Drive September, 2002 to significant other Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 April 3, 2005 Mother, Wayne Janis 502 Jacob Lane April 3, 2005 to Anna Leigh Goth, and Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 May 8, 2005 Gretchen A. Goth Father, Karen Savage* 1195 Cross Creek Drive May 8, 2005 to Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Present *Father is away during the week and the child is left with Father's significant other, Karen Savage. The Mother of the child is Elizabeth J. Goth currently residing at 502 Jacob Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 2 The Father of the child is Philip C. Goth currently residing at 1197 Cross Creek Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. The parties are currently divorced from each other. 4. The relationship of the Petitioner to the child is that of Mother. The Petitioner currently resides with Wayne Janis, Gretchen Goth, Adrienne Goth and Anna Goth. 5. The relationship of the Respondent to the child is that of Father. The Respondent currently resides with his girlfriend, Karen Savage. 6. Petitioner and Respondent had previously participated in a custody proceeding in this Court. A copy of the Custody Order dated December 29, 2003, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. 7. Petitioner has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the child pending in a Court of this Commonwealth. 8. Petitioner does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child. 9. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting the relief 3 requested because Petitioner can provide a stable, healthy, supportive and loving environment for the child. Since the last custody order, various changes have occurred in the custodial schedule of Andy. This has even included Andy residing full-time with his mother, the Petitioner. This custodial arrangement was disrupted when Petitioner was strict in responding to unlawful and inappropriate behavior of the child. The child then returned to his Father's home and has refused to see his Mother. It has been determined that Father might relocate Andy from the Central Pennsylvania area, including his removal from the Cumberland Valley School District where Andy has many individualized educational support. This is expected because Father has taken a new job. Efforts have been made to engage Father and Andy in a review of Andy's custody plan, including suggested continued sessions with Dr. Schneider, a meeting with counsel, etc. These requests have not been utilized by Father. Formal proceedings are required to allow for appropriate decision-making for Andy regarding his place of primary residence, school and other physical and legal custody issues. subma Dated: & - , 2005 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court I.D. No. 32317 4 DEV3 2003 ELIZABETH J. GOTH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP C. GOTH, NO. ?89r=-x8'93 CIVIL Defendant IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this )? day of December, 2003, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that the prior Order of Court in this case dated November 17, 2003 shall remain in effect subject to the following modifications: 1. For the Christmas holiday, all four of the parties' minor children shall be with Father from Noon until approximately 6:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve. At or about 6:00 p.m., the four children will then be in the custody of Mother until later that evening when Andy will return to the custody of Father. On Christmas Day, custody of Gretchen will be delivered to Father at Noon with Father having custody of Gretchen and Andy on Christmas Day until 6:00 p.m. At 6:00 p.m. custody of Andy and Gretchen will be delivered to Mother with Andy staying at Mother's overnight on Christmas Day until Noon on December 26"'. Andy shall return to the Father's custody _at Noon on December 26. The parties may modify this schedule in any way that they agree as long as there is a mutual agreement between the parties. Absent any agreement, this Order shall control. 2. Mother's periods of temporary custody with Andy shall be expanded to at least 5 hours on alternating weekends and also to include other times as agreed upon by the parties. The parties are encouraged to work out an agreement between themselves that will facilitate Mother having more time with Andy as this case progresses after the holidays. 3. The parties shall submit themselves, the minor children and any significant other of the parties as determined by the evaluator to a custody evaluation to be performed by Dr. Arnold Shienvold. Cost of the evaluation shall be shared equally between the parties, with the parties having agreed that monies may be released from the parties joint assets currently held in escrow to pay for the cost of the evaluation. Upon conclusion of the evaluation and in the event the parties are not able to reach a permanent agreement on custody at that time, either party may request that this case be scheduled for a hearing before the court and may contact the conciliator directly to facilitate the scheduling of that hearing. 4. Legal counsel for the parties shall have a conference call with the conciliator on Friday, February 6, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. The purpose of the conference call is for the conciliator to monitor the custody situation and determine if the Order needs to be modified to reflect any change in circumstances that may have occurred since the date of this Order. 5. It is specifically ordered that neither parent shall make any comments to any of the minor children that are in any way disparaging of the other parent. It is also specifically noted that each parent has the responsibility to ensure that any adult living in the household with them also does not make any negative comments concerning the children's parents to the children. 3. cc: Francis M. Socha, Esquire Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Michael A. Scherer, Esquire : Zjstji2Fwr?'2S "rvcdm, g f d -d sel rnS.± Awe P&. sala --un at Car, .. 69 F Edward E. Guido ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff . v . PHILIP C. GOTH, . Defendant Prior Judge: Edward E. Guido IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. OOt =-t@93r CIVIL IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Anna Leigh Goth, born April 3, 1987; Philip Andrew Goth, born February 14, 1989; and Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on December 18, 2003, with the following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Elizabeth J. Goth, with her counsel, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire; and the Father, Philip C. Goth, with his counsel, Francis M. Socha, Esquire; and. the minor child Philip Andrew Goth who was represented by Attorney Michael Scherer. 3. Pursuant to an agreement reached by the parties at a custody conciliation conference, the conciliator recommends the entry of an order in the form as attached. /?z /0? ?4 LA DATE Hubert X. Gilroy, E uire Custody Conciliat ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff V. PHILIP C. GOTH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 2003-254 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY IN RE: TEMPORARY ORDER MODIFYING VISITATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2003, we enter the following temporary order modifying the visitation schedule set forth in the most recent court order. The visitation schedule between mother and Philip Andrew shall be amended to provide the following: 1. She may visit with the child every other Saturday for a period of at least 3 hours at a time to be agreed upon between the parties. We strongly suggest this visitation take place in a public place. 2. Philip Andrew shall communicate with his mother by e-mail for at least 15 minutes one day each week. The time shall be as agreed upon by the parties. If they cannot agree, the time shall be Wednesday from 8:00 until 8:15. The parties are directed to save the substance of the communication for review by the Court, if necessary. 3. Philip Andrew shall continue individual counseling with Dr. Larry Walker until discharged. 4. Philip Andrew and mother shall begin joint counseling with a counselor agreed upon by their attorneys. Contact with the counselor shall be made within 48 hours to schedule the first appointment at his or her first available date. 5. The portion of the counseling referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 that is not covered by insurance of either party shall be split between the parties. 5. This matter is to be scheduled for conciliation sometime during the week of December 15, 2003, to review the progress that's been made. Counsel for father shall contact Mr. Gilroy to arrange for the con,?ation. By tie Court ward E. Guido, J. rancis M. Socha, Esquire 2201 North 2nd Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 mae 'rRJ .`° V-d W, Aa 0t an Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 ELIZABETH J. GOTH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Petitioner CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION -LAW PHILIP C. GOTH, NO. 03-254 CIVIL Respondent IN CUSTODY VERIFICATION I, Elizabeth J. Goth, hereby certify that the facts set forth in the foregoing PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ORDER are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: C , 2005 Q 4eEIith J. Goth J. Goth Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Petitioner V. PHILIP C. GOTH, Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-254 CIVIL IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this date, I served a true and correct copy of the PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ORDER, in the above- captioned matter upon the following individual, via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Francis M. Socha, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17108 Mr. Philip C. Goth 1197 Cross Creek Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 DATE: 2005 Michael A. Scherer, Esquire 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court I.D. 32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 (717) 774-1445 ? o Cl v v? .rte ?r? `1? ELIZABETH J. GOTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PHILIP C. GOTH DEFENDANT 03-254 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday, June 20, 2005 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Hobert X. Gilroy, Esq. , the conciliator, at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Thursday, July 14, 2005 at 9:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custodv orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: /s/ Hubert X. Grlro Es Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 '14 :C ifd 0Z 1;41i Su0 1 RtIV1C7u'', i1d NL d0 ?u13,IC?-???i?l ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff VS. PHILIP C. GOTH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 03-254 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY Defendant PETITION FOR RELOCATION AND COMES NOW, Philip C. Goth, by and through his attorney, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire, of Wiley, Lenox, Colgan & Marzzacco, P.C., and files the instant Petition for Relocation, and in support thereof, avers as follows: Petitioner is Philip C. Goth, (hereinafter referred to as Father,) who currently resides at 1197 Cross Creek Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 2. Respondent is Elizabeth J. Goth, (hereinafter referred to as Mother,) who currently resides at 502 Jacob Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 3. Father seeks modification of the custody Order dated December 29, 2003; specifically, Father seeks primary physical and shared legal custody of Philip Andrew Goth, born February 14, 1989, and intends to relocate to Littlestown, Pennsylvania. The child was born during the marriage. The parties are presently divorced. Father currently has physical custody of the child. 4. During the past five years, the child has resided with the following persons and at the following addresses: A. May 8, 2005 to Present 1197 Cross Creek Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Father and Karen Goth B. April 3, 2005 to 502 Jacob Lane Mother, Wayne Janis, May 8, 2005 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Anna Goth, Gretchen Goth C. September 2002 to 1197 Cross Creek Drive Father and Karen Goth April 3, 2005 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 D. July 2002 to High Street Father September 2002 Harrisburg, PA E. December 2001 to 408 Pawnee Drive Mother, Adrienne Goth, July 2002 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Anna Goth, Gretchen Goth F. June 2000 to 408 Pawnee Drive Father, Mother, Anna Goth December 2001 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Adrienne and Gretchen Goth 5. The Father of the child is Philip Goth, who current ly resides at 1197 Cross Creek Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. He is presently married. 6. The Mother of the child is Elizabeth Goth, who currently resides at 502 Jacob Lane, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. She is divorced. 7. The relationship of Petitioner to the child is that of father. Petitioner currently resides with the child, Andrew, and his wife, Karen. 8. The relationship of Respondent to the child is that of mother. Respondent currently resides with her boyfriend, Wayne Janis, and the parties' daughters, Gretchen and Anna Goth. Adrienne Goth lives in Bowie, Maryland for the summer. 9. Petitioner and Respondent participated in a custody proceeding in Cumberland County, docketed at 2003-254. The prior orders are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 10. On or about June 8, 2005, Plaintiff, Elizabeth Goth filed a Petition for Modification of Custody Order. A copy of this Petition is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. A Custody Conciliation Conference has been scheduled in this matter. The Conference is to be held on August 25, 2005, before Custody Conciliator Hubert X. Gilroy. 11. Petitioner does not know of any person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the children or who claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the children. 12. This order should be modified because it would be in the best interest and permanent welfare of the child to be allowed to relocate with Petitioner and his wife, Karen, to Littlestown, Pennsylvania. a. It is believed and therefore averred that Petitioner can provide a more stable, healthy and supportive environment for the child. b. The child has resided with Respondent for only one (1) month in the past three and one half (3 Yz) years. c. Petitioner has obtained new employment in Rockville, Maryland and seeks to relocate to Littlestown, Pennsylvania, a central location to his present residence, as well as Respondent's, and his employer in order to minimize the commute. d. Littlestown School District can provide the sane individualized educational support that the child has received at Cumberland Valley School District. e. The child will be able to participate in football and other athletic programs at Littlestown School District and is presently unable to participate with the Cumberland Valley football team. f. Each occasion that the child was visiting with Mother has ended in some confrontation or, on at least one occasion, the police were called to have the child removed from the home. The most recent occasion was May 8, 2005. g. The child is attending counseling with Carol Flory of Pennsylvania Psychiatric in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. h. The child and Mother met with Jim Eash of Dr. Scheinvold's office as required by the court order. i. The child met with Mother briefly on several occasions as required by the court order, though the meetings were not held in public places as required. Petitioner submits that relocation to Littlestown, Pennsylvania will not hinder an ongoing relationship or visitation between the child and Mother. k. The child is sixteen and one half (161/2) years old. The child is in agreement with relocating. 13. Each parent whose parental rights to the children have not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the children have been named as parties to this action. 14. Petitioner submits that relocation is in the best interest of the child and that Petitioner has met the standard as announced in Gruber v. Gruber, 583 A.2d 434 (Pa.Super. 1990). 15. A Conciliation Conference is presently scheduled for Thursday, August 25, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests This Honorable Court to modify the existing order because it will be in the best interest of the child to relocate with Father and his wife to Littlestown, Pennsylvania. Respectfully submitted, WILEY, LENOX, COLGAN & MARZZACCO By: "- 'r ?? Thom s M. Clark, Esquire ID # 85211 130 West Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 (717) 432-9666 Dated: I verify that the statements made in this Petition for Relocation are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 04904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 7 /ZCo ?O t7 Philip Goth CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this date, I served a true and correct copy of the Petition for Relocation, upon the following individual, via United States First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Michael A. Scherer, Esquire 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 WILEY, LENOX, COLGAN & MARZZACCO By: r /L- Thomas M. Clark, Esquire ID # 85211 Dated: 130 West Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 (717) 432-9666 ?- ,.] m ? t7 C j ? , n ` (_ ? ? V 1 d_ _ ? ' 1 : ? ?? G^? ry9 _ OQ ? ? ? ? ? ti ` ELIZABETH J. GOTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PHILIP C. GOTH DEFENDANT 03-254 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Thursday, August 04, 2005 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. , the conciliator, at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Thursday, August 25, 2005 at 9:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing, FOR THE COURT, By: /s/ Huberr .. Gilroy,-Esq. Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 ? .??5 -$ .,-, -, \?J ?? ?. i'. (i , ?C 'j b,,. -:gat JO ?.'t ;.'_??;j S' _i e? 6 RECEIVED AUC ? 6 2005P ELIZABETH J. GOTH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP C. GOTH, : NO. 03-254 Defendant : IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of , 2005, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report., it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A hearing is schelluled in Cou No. 5 of the Cumberland County Court House on the day of Q? _, 2005, at/ oU P.m. At this hearing, the Mother shall 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 the history of custody in this case, the issues currently before the Court, a list of witnesses who will be called to testify on behalf of each party, and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. This Memorandum shall be filed at least five days prior to the mentioned hearing date. 2. Pending further Order of this Court, this Court's prior Custody Orders entered in this case are ratified subject to the following modifications: a. The parties shall immediately make arrangements for the minor child Andy to participate in counseling with the purpose! of this counseling to address issues between Andy and his Mother, and to promote and facilitate a meaningful visitation arrangement between Andy and his Mother. The counselor shall involve the Mother in the counseling sessions and shall also involve the Father at the discretion of the counselor. The counselor shall submit to legal counsel for the parties a proposed visitation schedule as soon as possible in order to facilitate a schedule that will accommodate Mother and Andy prior to the hearing. Upon submission of such a schedule and in the event the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the attorneys for the parties may contact the Conciliator directly to administer that issue and file a supplemental recommended Order with this Court, if necessary. Cost of the counseling shall be shared equally between the parties after each party's insurance makes any applicable payment. b. The existing Order as it relates to Andy going to visit his Mother is temporarily suspended pending receipt from the counselor of a recommended visitation schedule. 3. In the event Father is unable to see his minor child Gretchen according to the existing schedule, or pursuant to an agreement reached between the parties, Father may request the Court to address that issue at the hearing scheduled above. 4. Both parties shall be subject to the contempt powers of this Court in connection with abiding by the existing Orders, and specifically with respect to Mother insuring that Gretchen visits her Father and Father insuring that Andy visits his Mother. 5. In the event Father desires to pursue visitation with Gretchen, and Gretchen relates to the Mother that she does not want to visit with the Father, that fact shall be communicated immediately to Father's attorney. Father shall have the option of initiating counseling with Gretchen in order to facilitate a relationship between Father and Gretchen. The provisions of the Order relative to Father visiting with Gretchen shall be suspended during such time similar to what the suspension is above relating to Andy. The counselor for Gretchen will advise the parties of a proposed visitation schedule with Father. In the event that schedule cannot be agreed to by the parties, the Conciliator will also address that prior to the hearing for a recommended modification of the Order pending the hearing. Edward E. Guido, Judge Cc: VBf rbara Sumple-Sullivan , Y fomas M. Clark, Esquire ,,,)Jfehael A. Scherer, Esquire 0q,01 i? t£'8 Hv I£Ol1yHE d `Hi JO ??iaC~C1?ll? ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff v PHILIP C. GOTH, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 03-254 : IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: Honorable Edward E. Guido CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Philip Andrew Goth, born February 14, 1989 Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on August 25, 2005, with the following individuals in attendance: The Father, Philip C. Goth, with his counsel, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire The Mother, Elizabeth J. Goth, with her counsel, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan Michael A. Scherer, Esquire represented the minor child, Philip Andrew Goth 3. After a lengthy Conciliation Conference and after consultation with Judge Guido, the Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: Hubert X. Gilro , Esquire Custody Con ' for Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court 432317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff (Petitioner) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PHILIP C. GOTH, Defendant (Respondent) CIVIL ACTION LAW NO. 03-254 IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF Petitioner is Plaintiff, Elizabeth J. Goth, an individual residing at 502 Jacob Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 2. Respondent is Defendant, Philip C. Goth, an individual residing at 27 Wheaton Drive, Littlestown, Adams County, Pennsylvania 17340. 3. The parties were married on August 11, 1979 and divorced April 5, 2005. 4. Petitioner and Respondent are the natural parents of four (4) children, two (2) of which are still minor children: Philip Andrew Goth ("Andy"), born February 14, 1989 and Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995. The parties other two (2) daughters, who reside with Petitioner when not in college, have reached their majority. 1 On June 13, 2005, Petitioner filed a Petition for Modification of the December 29, 2003 Custody Order as it relates to Andy. 6. On August 1, 2005, Respondent filed a Petition for Relocation of Andy from his home in Mechanicsburg and the Cumberland Valley School District. On August 25, 2005, the parties attended a Custody Conciliation Conference with Custody Conciliator, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire. Relocation of Andy to Littlestown, Adams County, was permitted. After consultation with the Honorable Judge Guido, an Order was entered which required immediate scheduling of counseling sessions for Andy and Petitioner. 8. The August 30, 2005 Order also scheduled a full hearing for October 13, 2005. Said Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 9. Immediately upon the conclusion of the August 25, 2005 conciliation, there were issues with the scheduling of counseling sessions. 10. Following the Custody Conciliation, Petitioner contacted Dr. Schneider and Petitioner and Andy were placed on his calendar for a counseling session on September 7, 2005. Dr. Schneider was previously involved with the parties and was suggested by the Conciliator. The Conciliator indicated that Dr. Schneider would be his choice, absent mutual agreement 2 otherwise. 11. Instead of using the available September 7, 2005 session with Dr. Schneider, Respondent suggested Petitioner and Andy use Adams Hanover Counseling Services. Upon inquiry, Petitioner found that this practice group did not have any openings (at either their Hanover or Gettysburg offices) and Petitioner and Andy were simply placed on a waiting list. 12. Recognizing geographical location as an issue, Petitioner then suggested using counselor, Sally Rooney, since Rooney's office was located between Andy and Petitioner's residence and would not cause either a travel burden. She also secured an appointment for counseling with Sally Rooney on September 7, 2005. Respondent declined to have Andy attend this counseling. 13. After rejecting Dr. Schneider, Rooney and finding no available appointments at Adams Hanover Counseling, Respondent then indicated that he then wanted to use a second counselor, being Dr. Bowman in Hanover, Adams County, Pennsylvania. 14. On September 7, 2005, when the parties could not agree on a counselor, the parties' counsel then participated in a conference call with Custody Conciliator, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire, in an attempt to receive some guidance from Conciliator Gilroy. 15. Following the conference call, Petitioner concurred with the use of Dr. Bowman to end the resistance of Respondent, even though this meant there was a lack of full insurance coverage for Petitioner's visits and the parties would have to start from the beginning since Dr. Bowman knew nothing of the past and present custody proceedings. 16. After agreeing to use Dr. Bowman's services, Respondent, on September 8, 2005, advised that there were approximately nine (9) appointments available within that week and suggested that Andy and Petitioner attend a session on September 13, 2005. 17. Petitioner replied that she could not attend a session on September 13, 2005 due to a previously scheduled hospital procedure but requested alternate dates that week. 18. In response, Respondent replied that since Andy was still available for the September 13, 2005 appointment, he should attend alone and Petitioner could schedule her own appointment for a time that suits her. Andy attended alone. 19. Petitioner then contacted Dr. Bowman's office to reschedule the session and Petitioner scheduled another appointment for September 14, 2005 with Andy. 20. When Andy and Petitioner attended their first session of counseling on September 14, 2005, Dr. Bowman made it very clear that he needs to see Andy and Petitioner every week. 21. The next week, Petitioner and Andy were scheduled to attend a session with Dr. Bowman on September 21, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. 22. Petitioner's counsel received a call at 11:28 a.m. on September 21, 2005 from Respondent's counsel that Andy would not be attending the session that day, allegedly due to an exam at school being scheduled. 23. Petitioner's counsel contacted Petitioner upon receipt of the message from Respondent's counsel. Petitioner was currently en route to the session. 24. Petitioner immediately called Dr. Bowman's office and rescheduled the cancelled appointment for the next day, or on September 22, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. 25. On September 21, 2005, at 2:08 p.m., Respondent's counsel was advised of the rescheduled appointment for September 22, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. 26. Petitioner received a call at approximately 8:00 a.m. on September 22, 2005 from Dr. Bowman's office advising that Andy was not going to attend the September 22, 2005 rescheduled appointment alleging short notice. 27. Respondent, through counsel, then proposed September 27, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. as a counseling date. However, this time was the same date and approximate time of the previously scheduled support appeal hearing for the parties before Master Rundle. 28. Respondent has now notified Petitioner's counsel that he only wants Andy to attend bi-weekly sessions with Petitioner and Dr. Bowman. 29. Efforts to secure regular counseling, as required by the Court Order and specific directive of Judge Guido, have failed and have been blocked by Respondent. 30. Respondent's actions are making this current custodial situation impossible for Petitioner and Andy and he continues to hinder the relationship between Petitioner and Andy. 31. Petitioner has made several compromises and arrangements in her schedule to allow for counseling to work and to create a better relationship with Andy. Petitioner has tried to accommodate Andy's school schedule and has agreed to use a counselor close to Andy's residence. 32. Despite these efforts, only one (1) session for counseling has occurred since the conciliation on August 25, 2005. 33. Petitioner requests an Order be entered as follows: a. To require Andy to attend at least one (1) weekly session with Dr. Bowman and Petitioner at a time fixed by Dr. Bowman; b. To require Respondent pay all costs and expenses incurred by Petitioner for preparation of this Petition and all legal costs incurred by Petitioner in coordination of counseling and other fees and expenses; C. To hold Respondent in contempt for any further violation of the Order for noncompliance with the counseling Order and directive. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests an Order be entered granting the relief requested as set forth in the proposed order. DATE: September 27, 2005 Bar'ba-a Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court I.D. 32317 Attorney for Petitioner RECEI`iED AUC ? 5 2005P ,,, ELIZABETH J. GOTH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP C. GOTH, NO. 03-254 Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of ' , 2005, upon consideration of the attached Cu"dy Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A hearing is scheduled in Courg"m No. 5 of the Cumberland County Court House on the l31`` day of jj//Av`? _, 2005, at / 64 P.M. At this hearing, the Mother shall be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties shall rile with the Court and opposing counsel a Memorandum setting forth the history of custody in this case, the issues currently before the Court, a list of witnesses who will be called to testify on behalf of each party, and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. This Memorandum shall be filed at least five days prior to the mentioned hearing date. 2. Pending further Order of this Court, this Court's prior Custody Orders entered in this case are ratified subject to the following modifications: a. The parties shall immediately make arrangements for the minor child Andy to participate in counseling with the purpose of this counseling to address issues between Andy and his Mother, and to promote and facilitate a meaningful visitation arrangement between Andy and his Mother. The counselor shall involve the Mother in the counseling sessions and shall also involve the Father at the discretion of the counselor. The counselor shall submit to legal counsel for the parties a proposed visitation schedule as soon as possible in order to facilitate a schedule that will accommodate Mother and Andy prior to the hearing. Upon submission of such a schedule and in the event the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the attorneys for the parties may contact the Conciliator directly to administer that issue and file a supplemental recommended Order with this Court, if necessary. Cost of the counseling shall be shared equally between the parties after each party's insurance makes any applicable payment. b. The existing Order as it relates to Andy going to visit his Mother is temporarily suspended pending receipt from the counselor of a recommended visitation schedule. 3. In the event Father is unable to see his minor child Gretchen according to the existing schedule, or pursuant to an agreement reached between the parties, Father may request the Court to address that issue at the hearing scheduled above. 4. Both parties shall be subject to the contempt powers of this Court in connection with abiding by the existing Orders, and specifically with respect to Mother insuring that Gretchen visits her Father and Father insuring that Andy visits his Mother. S. In the event Father desires to pursue visitation with Gretchen, and Gretchen relates to the Mother that she does not want to visit with the Father, that fact shall be communicated immediately to Father's attorney. Father shall have the option of initiating counseling with Gretchen in order to facilitate a relationship between Father and Gretchen. The provisions of the Order relative to Father visiting with Gretchen shall be suspended during such time similar to what the suspension is above relating to Andy. The counselor for Gretchen will advise the parties of a proposed visitation schedule with Father. In the event that schedule cannot be agreed to by the parties, the Conciliator will also address that prior to the hearing for a recommended modification of the Order pending the hearing. Edward E. Guido, Judge Cc: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan Thomas M. Clark, Esquire Michael A. Scherer, Esquire ELIZABETH J. GOTH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP C. GOTH, : NO. 03-254 Defendant : IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: Honorable Edward E. Guido CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Philip Andrew Goth, born February 14, 1989 Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on August 25, 2005, with the following individuals in attendance: The Father, Philip C. Goth, with his counsel, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire The Mother, Elizabeth J. Goth, with her counsel, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan Michael A. Scherer, Esquire represented the minor child, Philip Andrew Goth 3. After a lengthy Conciliation Conference and after consultation with Judge Guido, the Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: Hubert X. Gilro , Esquire Custody Con ' ator Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court 432317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff (Petitioner) V. PHILIP C. GOTH, Defendant (Respondent) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW NO. 03-254 IN CUSTODY VERIFICATION I, Elizabeth J. Goth, hereby certify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Petition for Special Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 'c?) V ?ABETH G TH Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 ELIZABETH J. GOTH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff (Petitioner) CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION LAW NO. 03-254 PHILIP C. GOTH, Defendant (Respondent) : IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, BARBARA SUMPLE-SULLIVAN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that on this date, I served a true and correct copy of the Petition for Special Relief, in the above-captioned matter upon the following individual(s), via facsimile and by regular United States first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas M. Clark, Esquire Michael A. Scherer, Esquire Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire The Wiley Group 19 West South Street Broujos & Gilroy, PC 130 W. Church Street, Suite 100 Carlisle, PA 17013 4 North Hanover Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 Carlisle, PA 17013 DATE: September 27, 2005 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court I.D. 32317 Attorney for Petitioner c r? ? f7lr p, e N O ? Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff (Petitioner) V. PHILIP C. GOTH, Defendant (Respondent) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW NO. 03-254 IN CUSTODY RULE AND NOW, this 30t day of Ova 2005, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief, a RULE is issued on Defendant, Respondent, to show cause, if any, why the Court should not grant the relief requested. The Rule is returnable within N days from the date of service hereof. 10"1 BY THE C W Judge r C'1, V,, N"J, I? 0 C]? IH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ELIZABETH GOTH, Plaintiff * NO. 03-254 CIVIL TERM VS. PHILIP GOTH, * CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant RETURN OF SERVICE On the S'R{ day of October, 2005, I, David Rudy, Process Server, served QnIC¢g zz p ,)pyn , with a Subpoena to Attend and Testify by W 0d.t6 Tv (manner of service) at ? S SJbg72", J at 5-oqo ?> m. (time of service). I verify that the statements in this return of service are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 10 -S'-G S DAVID 0 Y ;, c> ? -? ?? ? .? -r C?, -r, c 'r?'? ..;a ..r, x ?.?. --?' ? ? ? _.?_? ??. ? °, . ti. .. ? i ?t. . `* e' ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff V. PHILIP-C. GOTH, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW r ' NO. 03-0254 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2005, based upon an in chambers conference with counsel, we enter the following order with regard to the parties' child Andy: 1. The child and mother shall counsel with Dr. Bowman at the following times: October 18 at 11:00 a.m., November 1 at 11:00 a.m., November 15 at 11:00 a.m., November 29 at 11:00 a.m. 2. The child shall visit with mother on the following dates from 1:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m.: October 15, October 29, November 12 and November 26. 3. The child shall also visit with mother on Thanksgiving Day from noon until 4:00 p.m. 4. It shall be father's responsibility to see that the child attends the counseling sessions as well as visitation with mother. Transportation shall be the responsibility of father and/or child. 5. In all other respects, the prior custody orders entered in this matter shall remain in full force and effect. 6. The hearing scheduled for today is continued to November 28, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. ?a,o? 1 ??? ?1? 1 C? =?? ?4`?ti 'l ?i a.,? ?°Uu t , iL ?;J ?Ci'1' ,,a'"J`,,1`3 ????-? Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire For Plaintiff Thomas M. Clark, Esquire For Defendant Michael A. Scherer, Esquire For Philip Andrew Goth Sheriff prs ELIZABETH J. GOTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PHILIP C. GOTH : NO. 2003-0254 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1" day of DECEMBER, 2005, upon request of the parties the hearing scheduled for November 28, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. is continued until MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2005, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom # 5. Edward E. Guido, J. Barbara S umple- Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, Pa. 17070 Thomas M. Clark, Esquire 2 South Second Street 2"d Floor Harrisburg, Pa. 17101 Michael A. Scherer, Esquire 17 West South Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 sld r., n?.,,. Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff, V. PHILIP C. GOTH, Defendant, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW NO. 03-254 IN CUSTODY PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE Please withdraw my appearance on behalf of ELIZABETH J. GOTH in the above-captioned matter. Dated: ? wIr Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court I.D. 32317 PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE Please enter my appearance Pro Se in the above-captioned matter. Dated: /07 '30 • 0 A? Elizabeth J. oth, Pro Se 502 Jacob Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 ELIZABETH J. GOTH, Plaintiff V. PHILIP C. GOTH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-254 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, BARBARA SUMPLE-SULLIVAN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certifythat on this date, I served an original and two (2) copies of the foregoing, PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE AND PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE in the above-captioned matter upon the following individual via facsimile and by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas M. Clark, Esquire The Wiley Group 130 W. Church Street, Suite 100 Dillsburg, PA 17019 DATED: Michael A. Scherer, Esquire 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court I.U. No. 32317 r`' C;% ?-? n ,,Ct C -i c.- -:? i ?_. ?? ?' ?? t'^` ..1?,-i: ?' iA7 C'- r_ . ,40? ELIZABETH J. GOTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF / CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PHILIP C. GOTH NO. 2003-0254 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this I" day of DECEMBER, 2005, upon request of the parties the hearing scheduled for November 28, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. is continued until MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2005, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom # 5. Guido, J. Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, Pa. 17070 Thomas M. Clark, Esquire EDWARD E. GUIDO JUDGE ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE p ARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013.3387 v3? TRUE WPY FROM PrOM 14 TuMmony whereof, I here unto sat aw pit 02,0 5? w?:?,(Ai I SEND FOR CARRIER ENDORSEMENT \ F homas M. Clark, Esquirr? w T 2 South Second Street 211d Floor -' 1 A INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS ' Harrisburg, OS O ATTEMPTED SUCH NUMBER/ STON 0 REET OTHER S ? NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED -A2 T - UNABLE TO FORWARD , ELIZABETH J. JANIS (formerly GOTH) Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. PHILIP CASON GOTH Defendant/Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. aS:-D 3--2X* CIVIL TERM CUSTODY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF NOW COMES, Plaintiff/Petitioner, Elizabeth J. Janis, formerly Elizabeth J. Goth, and respectfully requests that Defendant/Respondent, Philip Cason Goth, return their minor child, Gretchen Alicia Goth, DOB 2-11-1995, immediately to the Plaintiff's home, and for reasons therefore states: 1. On February 24, 2003, an order of the court, signed by Judge Hess, gave primary physical custody of minor child Gretchen Alicia Goth to Plaintiff. Attached see Exhibit A. 2. Since April 2005, Defendant has not exercised any of his visitation rights with minor child. 3. Defendant now resides in Littlestown, Pennsylvania, Adams County. 4. On August 11, 2008, Gretchen communicated that she wanted to see her father. Plaintiff consented with the understanding that Gretchen would remain with Plaintiff for just two days, and then be returned to Plaintiff's home. 5. Plaintiff has been unable to contact either Defendant or minor daughter since August 11, 2008, thus interfering with established mother-daughter relationship. 6. Defendant has communicated to Plaintiff via family members that he is seeking custody of minor daughter. 7. Defendant refuses to return minor daughter to Plaintiff. Attached see Exhibit B. 8. Minor child is enrolled in the Cumberland Valley School District where Plaintiff resides. Classes are due to commence August 27, 2008. 9. Defendant has attempted on numerous occasions to communicate directly with Plaintiff regarding parenting issues. All attempts have been rebuffed or ignored by Defendant. 10. Plaintiff has demonstrated that she is the party who can best facilitate contact with the other parent, thus facilitating the parent-child relationship. 11. Without the court's intervention, Gretchen will be harmed by the interference with the mother- daughter relationship and also be at risk with the change of environment. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that your Honorable Court: 1. return minor child to Plaintiff immediately; 2. order counseling in mother's area of residence for minor child. Respectfully submitted, Eli th J. Janis 502 Jacob Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 648-6491 )G"(kt-bit 11,4 ' FEB 2 0 2003 L ELIZABETH J. GOTH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP C. GOTH, NO. 03 - 254 CIVIL Defendant IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this Z y " day of February, 2003, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, this court's order of January 220 2003 is vacated and replaced with the following order: 1. The Mother, Elizabeth J. Goth, and the Father, Philip C. Goth, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Adrienne Elizabeth Goth, born May 29, 1953; Anna L410 Goth, born April 3, 1957; Philip Andrew Goth born, February 14, 1989; and Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995. 2. The Mother shall w Joy primary physical custody of Anna and Gretchen. 3. Father shall enjoy primary physical custody Adrleew and Philip. 4. The parties shall alternate physical custody with the minor children on alternating weekends such that all four children are together. This provision is subject to the reluctance of Anna to go to visit her Father and Adrienne to go visit her Mother, with the parties refired to attempt to resolve these issues through counseling or otherwise. S. The parties shall themselves attend counseling sessions and also make g, F 1,1 for the children to attend counseling sessions. There shall be a number of goals of these counseling sessions W*ding, but not limited to, attempting to address issues as to why some of the children may be reluctant to visit their parent, to eucauage to be better able to communicate with each other and address custodial issues regarding the children, and any other matters that the counselor may identify as an important issue that should be addreawd by the parties. Costs of these ammmling sessions shall be shared equally between the parties. The individual who performs the counseling shall be agreed upon by legal counsel for the parties. If the parties cannot agree upon a counselor, they may contact the conciliator to work out an arranges on designating a counselor. It shall be the responsibillty of each custodial parent to ensure that the children in their custody attend and meaningfully participates In all scheduled counseling sessions. 6. The parties shall meet with the conciliator again for a second custody conciliation conference on Friday, June 20, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. In the event legal counsel for the panics feel that the conciliator needs to address any issues in the meantime, legal counsel may contact the conciliator directly to schedule a telephone conference call conciliatim between legal counsel for the parties. BY THE COURT, Kevin Al Hess a: Margaret M. Siunok, Esquire Francis M. Socha, Esquire > .lue J. X 7 Beth Johnson Janis From: Goth, Philip [pgoth@davisconstruction.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 10:41 AM To: bethie.j@comcast.net Subject: Gretchen's clothes Please assemble gretchens clothes. She wants all of them. I have made arrangements for a neutral party to pick them up Saturday. He is available any time during the day. Please decide upon a time and let me know by a return email. Gretchen has also requested that you package her school supplies for her. They are in her new back pack and in one of her drawers, the first drawer of her vanity. Please set everything outside as we do not wish to have any disturbances. I do need a time for this to take place.. Thanks b C7 n q 4-? 6 AUG 14 2008 q ELIZABETH J. JANIS, Plaintiff VS. PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-- 03-2S - CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ORDER AND NOW, this day of August, 2008, a hearing on the within petition for special relief is set ford aOZ , 2008, at in Courtroom Number. Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA. BY THE COURT, Elizabeth J. Janis Plaintiff YK C. Goth Defendant " 0661 u?] Q?y p01A)EIL, Esc J IN3d L ? :01 pile 61 l' ' A'd1Gx }Au 33=:1:4 t 3 ;'I! LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 Attorney for Philip Cason Goth ELIZABETH J. JANIS, Plaintiff V. PHILP CASON GOTH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-254 CIVIL TERM DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SPEICAL RELIEF AND NOW, comes Defendant Philip Cason Goth, by and through his counsel, the Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C., who hereby files the instant Response to Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Denied. It is denied that since April 2005 Father has not exercised any of his visitation rights with minor child. By way of further response, Mother has failed to respond to Father's requests to exercise his visitation rights, despite Gretchen's expressed desire to not only see her Father, but to live with her Father. Since April 2005, Father has visited with Gretchen through the assistance of other family members. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on August 11, 2008, Gretchen communicated that she wanted to see her father and that Plaintiff consented. It is denied that Plaintiffs consent was conditioned on Gretchen being returned home at the expiration of two days. By way of further response, Mother's consent was given at the request of Cumberland County Children and Youth Services (CCC&YS), who had an open case file concerning Gretchen due to previous report(s) related to Mother's alcohol abuse and treatment of Gretchen. Said request was made after an altercation between Mother and Gretchen on August 11, 2008, which resulted in Gretchen being transported to a local crisis center by a family member due to concerns of harm. CCC&YS were given Mother's consent to engage in a safety plan in which Mother would vacate custody. Gretchen has been in Father's custody since August 11, 2008, were Father believed she was to remain until a permanent custody hearing was held. An agent of CCC&YS has visited Father's residence. Father is a ready, willing, and able parent. Gretchen has expressed a continued desire to remain in Father's custody and attend Littlestown School District. 5. Denied in part, admitted in part. It is denied that Plaintiff has been unable to contact Father since August 11, 2008, as evidenced by the email attached as Exhibit B to Mother's Petition for Special Relief. By way of further response, said email invites a response from Mother, and Mother has failed to respond. It is admitted that Plaintiff has been unable to contact Gretchen as, given Mother's recent behavior, Gretchen currently has no desire to communicate with her Mother. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is denied that Father has purposefully communicated to Plaintiff via family members. It is admitted that Father has diligently been working with CCC&YS in an attempt to gain primary custody of Gretchen prior to the 2008-2009 school year, which he strongly believes is in Gretchen's best interest, as well as Gretchen's desire. 7. Admitted. Father has reason to believe that Gretchen's safety may be endangered if he returns Gretchen to Mother's custody, and believes he is acting in conformity with the advice rendered by CCC&YS. 8. Admitted. By way of further response, both Gretchen and Father desire Gretchen to be enrolled in Littlestown School District for the 2008-2009 school year, which begins on August 27, 2008, and are requesting Mother's immediate cooperation in enrolling Gretchen and in allowing Gretchen to retrieve her personal items from Mother's residence, including but not limited to those items specifically set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. It is denied that Mother has demonstrated that she is the party who can best facilitate contact with the other parent. By way of further response, Mother has continuously and purposefully interfered with Father's relationship with Gretchen, as well as Father's relationship with the parties' other children. 11. Denied. It is admitted that without the court's intervention, Gretchen will be harmed. It is denied that said harm would stem from an interference with the mother-daughter relationship or that Gretchen would be at risk with the change of environment. By way of further response, the change of environment to Father's home was made at the recommendation of CCC&YS as part of a safety plan for Gretchen. Wherefore, Father respectfully requests this Honorable Court to: 1. Deny Mother's Petition for Special Relief; 2. Amend the current custody order to: a. award Father primary physical custody of Gretchen; and b. deny Mother contact with Gretchen either directly or through third parties until and only in the manner recommended by the counselor selected for Gretchen. 3. Order Mother to cooperate in enrolling Gretchen in school and retrieving her items as set forth more specifically in Paragraph 8 above; 4. Order Mother to cooperate in enrolling Gretchen in counseling, which shall be arranged by Father, and neither party shall attend and/or participate in Gretchen's counseling unless requested by Gretchen and/or her selected counselor; 5. Order Mother to seek any treatment that the Court finds appropriate; and 6. Order any further relief that the Court finds appropriate. Date: Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Peter J. Russo, Esquire I.D. No. 72897 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire I.D. No. 200139 EXHIBIT A Required documents for enrollment in Littlestown School District: 1. Proof of attendance from previous school, report card, withdrawal form; 2. Birth Certificate; 3. Immunization Records; 4. Social Security Card; and 5. Custody Order. Gretchen's personal items: 1. All clothes, shoes, and accessories from home, including jewelry, purses and handbags; 2. Contact lenses, and other cosmetic/toiletries from bathroom, closet and shower; 3. Medications, including inhalers and allergy medication; 4. School supplies; 5. Field Hockey and Lacrosse equipment, including, cleats, duffle bags and sticks; 6. Trophies and picture frames from shelves; 7. Vera Bradley lunch bag and backpack; 8. Ipod cord that was by the computer; and 9. Ipod dock that was in Gretchen's room. VERIFICATION 1, Philip Cason Goth, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document(s) are true and correct. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: /AD is- Philip --z aso th LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 Attorney for Philip Cason Goth ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. PHILP CASON GOTH, Defendant NO. 03-254 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ashley R. Sipe, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: US Mail and Electronic Mail addressed as follows: Elizabeth J. Janis 502 Jacob Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 bethie.j@comcast.net Date: & Zb Ashley R. Si , Parale al f?r rv. r l f 9 ;: ELIZABETH J. JANIS, Plaintiff V. PHILP CASON GOTH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-254 CIVIL TERM ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL Kindly enter my appearance as counsel on behalf of Philip Cason Goth, Defendant in the above matter. Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Peter J. Russo, Esquire I.D. No. 72897 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire o??- 08 I.D. No. 200139 Date: cx? r 07 F t ? Cg's co At N ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. NO. 03-254 CIVIL TERM PHILP CASON GOTH, Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Amber L. Southard, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Complaint for Custody documents upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: US Mail addressed as follows: Elizabeth J. Janis 502 Jacob Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Amber L. Southard Date: ?'s?21 ?CS ??r C7 C ^' 0 :ter' --? Z-n Mr- -o m l?.. 3 , . 4 C 1'I Y D A LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 Attorney for Philip Cason Goth ELIZABETH J. JANIS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. PHILP CASON GOTH, Defendant NO. 03-254 CIVIL TERM PRACEIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly file the attached document, entitled AMENDED VERIFICATION ATTACHED TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLATINIFF'S PETITION FOR SPEICAL RELIEF As the original verification in the original pleading was a copy. Date: Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Peter J. Russo, Esquire I.D. No. 72897 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire I.D. No. 200139 VERIFICATION I, Philip Cason Goth, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document(s) are true and correct. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 6,L-2 //(D 8 Philip ason th LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 591-1755 Attorney for Philip Cason Goth ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. NO. 03-254 CIVIL TERM PHILP CASON GOTH, Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ashley R. Sipe, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Praceipe upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: US Mail and Electronic Mail addressed as follows: Elizabeth J. Janis 502 Jacob Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Date: ao?. Ashley e, Parale 1 C) t-3 c Ti p a ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP CASON GOTH, ; Defendant NO. 03-254 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2008, after a hearing on Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief and Defendant's Response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Mother's Petition for Special Relief is DENIED; 2. The Custody Order dated February 24, 2003, and any amendments thereto shall be further amended to temporarily award Father primary physical custody of Gretchen Alicia Goth; 3. Mother shall cooperate in enrolling Gretchen in Littlestown School District for the 2008-2009 school year; and 4. The Father is directed to file a petition to modify custody within 30 days. BY THE COURT, A. Hess, J. /Ourtney K. Powell, Esq. 134 Sipe Avenue Hummelstown, PA 17036 Attorney for Plaintiff Xfizabeth J. Saylor, Esq. 5006 E. Trindle Road Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Defendant J -?..., -, ;? _n .-? ,_ -? ?, ?s ?? GJr '?? ?? , ?:?. ?`? _'? ?,?? }?,> v':: LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: Isaylor0worlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant NO. 03-254 CIVIL TERM PETITION FOR MODIFICATION Petitioner, Philip Cason Goth, by and through his counsel, The Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C., states the following: 1. Defend ant/Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as Father, resides at 27 Wheaton Drive, Littlestown, PA 17340. 2. Plaintiff/Respondent, hereinafter referred to as Mother, resides at 502 Jacob Lane, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. 3. The above-named parties are the natural parents of Gretchen A. Goth, born February 11, 1995, hereinafter referred to as Child. 4. The current Custody Order, dated August 25, 2008, is attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. 5. The August 25, 2008, Order of Court temporarily modifies the prior Order of Court dated January 22, 2003, which is attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. 6. The August 25, 2008, Order of Court, entered following a hearing upon Mother's Petition for Special Relief, in pertinent part, grants Father temporary primary physical custody. 7. The most recent Order was created to temporarily resolve problems that arose regarding Mother that caused the involvement of Cumberland County Children and Youth Services. 8. It is in the Child's best interest to continue to be in the primary care of her Father for reasons including, but not limited to, the following: a. Mother's behavior sets a bad example for the Child and is not in the Child's best interest; b. Mother consumes alcohol on a regular basis, sometimes excessively, and transports the Child following consumption; c. Mother addresses the Child inappropriately; d. Mother's home is ridden with conflict; e. Mother frequently vacates the home for periods of time; f. Mother has deliberately and significantly interfered with Father's relationship with the Child; g. The Child's relationship with her Mother is severely strained; h. Father is able to provide a more safe, loving and stable home environment for the Child; i. Father's wife and the parties' other daughters are both willing to help with any needs that may arise while Gretchen is in Father's care and custody; 2 j. The Child strongly desires to continue to live primarily with Father. 9. Plaintiff is represented and counsel did not concur with our relief requested in this Petition. 10. The Honorable Judge Kevin A. Hess and the Honorable Judge Edward E. Guido have entered previous Orders in this matter as follows: a. Judge Hess, August 25, 2008, Order of Court, entered following a hearing upon Mother's Petition for Special Relief regarding custody of the parties only minor child, Gretchen and awarding Father temporary primary physical custody of Gretchen; b. Judge Guido, December 1, 2005, Order of Court, grant of hearing continuance upon request of the parties; c. Judge Guido, October 13, 2005, modifying previous custody orders regarding the parties' then minor son's counseling and visitation with Mother; d. Judge Guido, October 3, 2005, Rule to Show Cause on Defendant upon Mother's Petition for Special Relief regarding counseling of the parties' then minor son; e. Judge Guido, August 30, 2005, Order of Court, entered following Mother's Petition for Modification and Father's Petition to Relocate, and regarding scheduling of upcoming hearing and ratifying the prior Court Orders concerning Mother's visitation 3 and counseling regarding the parties' then minor son, and Father's visitation with Gretchen, who is the subject of this action; f. Judge Guido, December 29, 2003, Court Order, entered following the parties agreement made before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire, Custody Conciliator, modifying the November 17, 2003, order regarding the Christmas holiday schedule, Mother's period of temporary custody with the parties' minor son, the parties submission to a custody evaluation and no disparaging remarks; g. Judge Guido, December 11, 2003, Order of Court, appointing attorney for the parties then minor son, with enumerated contingencies; h. Judge Guido, November 17, 2003, Order of Court, In Re: Temporary order Modifying Visitation regarding Mother and the parties then minor son, and ordering individual and joint counseling; i. Judge Hess, September 5, 2003, Order of Court, entered following the parties agreement made before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire, Custody Conciliator, regarding the removal of the parties oldest child, leaving three minor children, and modifying the February 24, 2003, Order of Court to include the enumerated vacation and holiday schedule; 4 j. Judge Hess, February 24, 2003, Order of Court, entered following the parties agreement made before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire, Custody Conciliator, regarding the custody of the parties' four minor children, and awarding both Mother and Father primary custody of two of their four minor children; k. Judge Hess, January 22, 2003, Order of Court, entered following an agreement reached by the parties regarding the custody of the parties' four minor children, and awarding Father primary custody of three of the four minor children. WHEREFORE, Father respectfully requests the following: a. That Father continue to have primary custody of Gretchen; b. That Gretchen continue to attend Littlestown School District; c. That Mother be granted periods of visitation and/or partial physical custody as often and in a manner directed by Gretchen's counselor; d. That Mother be ordered to not consume alcohol prior to transporting the Child; e. That the receiving party be responsible for providing transportation responsibilities for custody exchanges; f. Any other relief this Court finds just and proper. 5 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Peter J. Russo, Esquire ID No. 72897 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire ID No. 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Ph: 717-591-1755; Fx: 717-591-1756 6 EXHIBIT A ELIZABETI-1 J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND. COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant - . : NO. 03-254 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25"' day of August, 2008, after a hearing on Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief and Defendant's Response .thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that; I. Mother's Petition for Special Relief is DENIED, 2. The Custody Order' dated February 24, 2003, and any . amendments thereto shall be further amended to temporarily award Father primary physical custody of Gretchen Alicia Goth; 3. Mother shall cooperate in enrolling Gretchen in Littlestown School District for the 2008-2009 school year; and 4. The Father is directed to file a petition to modify custody within 30 days. BY THE COURT, A. Hess, J. Courtney K. Powell, Esq. 134 Sipe Avenue Hummelstown, PA 17036 Attorney for Plaintiff Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esq. 5006 E. Trindle Road Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Defendant k Test. and &- ?W ?, I Item W ft X4 my hand ,rr n of said Ccv Pa. r EXHIBIT B O F? ELIZABETH JOHNSON GOTH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW 03-0254 CIVIL TERM PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant IN CUSTODY IN RE: CUSTODY AGREEMENT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 2003, the parties having appeared in open court with counsel and agreed to the following temporary custody order: 1) Primary physical custody of Gretchen shall be with the mother, with the father having partial physical custody every other weekend commencing from 6:00 p.m. Friday until 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. 2) Primary physical custody of Philip, Adrienne and Anna is to be with the father, with the mother having partial physical custody of Philip and Anna every other weekend and two hours of custody with Adrienne every week. Those weekend visitations would also be from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. The parties have agreed that the receiving parent will be responsible for the pick-up of the children during the weekend visitation. And the other parent will AlTh NO. 03-0254 CIVIL TERM be responsible for returning the children home to the custodial parent. 3) That the weekend custody arrangements will be facilitated so that Anna, Philip and Gretchen are to be together every weekend. The visitation schedule is to commence this weekend, with Mr. Goth having custody of the children, including Gretchen, commencing Friday at 6:00 p.m. Consequently, that would mean that Mr. Goth would be responsible for picking the children up according to this arrangement this Friday. 4) That all four children continue to attend their current schools with the exception of excused absences. 5) That both parents share all medical information about each child with the other parent, and that both parents abide by the medical and counseling arrangements made for the children. The parties also agree that the children are to resume previously scheduled counseling sessions which had occurred in the past. The parties further agree to exchange their residence address and the home phone numbers of both parties so that the parents can have phone contact with the children. C) G NO. 03-0254 CIVIL TERM Mr. Goth has agreed that Gretchen's physical items and personal belongings are to be returned to her, to occur this Sunday when she is taken back to Mrs. Goth. And that any personal items of the mother, Mrs. Goth, that are in the possession of Anna or any of the children will also be returned this weekend. By the Court, Joan Carey, Esquire Margaret Simok, Esquire MidPenn Legal Services Francis M. Socha, Esquire For the Defendant ,ems •??-?e-- /- .????3 :bg l7 D !dIM't111"??? ?Gq ?n 11 0 ?0 :1 Nd ez it cQ VERIFICATION I, Philip Cason Goth, verify that the statements made in the forgoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1 understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Dated: 2 / g ?© g C(4 J Phi ip C on Goth 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ashley R. Sipe, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Petition for Modification upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: US Regular Mail and addressed as follows: Courtney Powell, Esquire 134 Sipe Avenue Hummelstown, PA 17036 Ashley R. Sipe, Paralegal Date: 8 J l , • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ashley R. Sipe, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Petition for Modification upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: US Regular Mail and addressed as follows: Courtney Powell, Esquire 134 Sipe Avenue Hummelstown, PA 17036 Date: R j 10 1C)15 Ashley . Sipe, P alegal w r _ ?` OD ;? ELIZABETH J. JANIS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PHILIP CASON GOTH DEFENDANT 2003-254 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Tuesday, September 16, 2008 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. , the conciliator, at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Friday, October 03, 2008 at 9:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: /s/ Hubert X. Gilroy. Es q. Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 'b J P 8Z `Z Wd 91 d3S SOR A8VIQ v0HU'06d i, ?o X?140-{tjfd i ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP CASON GOTH, NO. 2003-254 Defendant IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this 21 day of October, 2008, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that the prior Orders of Court are vacated and the following TEMPORARY Order is entered: The mother, Elizabeth J. Janis, and the father, Philip C. Goth, shall have shared legal custody of Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995. 2. The Father shall have primary physical custody of the minor child. The Mother shall have periods of temporary physical custody of the minor child as follows: A. Every week for a period of three (3) hours on Saturday or Sunday from noon until 3:00 p.m. The day of Saturday or Sunday shall be agreed upon by the parties in advance and the parties, if they agree, may modify the time and change the schedule from noon to 3:00 to another three-hour time frame. When Mother has custody, custody shall be exercised in the presence of an individual who is agreed upon by the parties through their legal counsel. B. Mother shall also have temporary custody at such other times as agreed upon by the parties. 4. The child shall continue in counseling with Deborah Asper and the parents shall also continue to participate in that counseling. Ms. Asper shall give legal counsel for the parties periodic progress reports and she shall also make further recommendations with respect to expanding Mother's periods of temporary custody. The parties shall follow the recommendations of Ms. Asper with respect to custody. However, in the event either party disagrees with those recommendations, that party may have their counsel contact the custody Conciliator directly to have a new custody conciliation conference scheduled. 5. The counselor shall also address expanding time for the Mother on the upcoming holidays. If that matter cannot be resolved, legal counsel for the parties may contact the custody Conciliator to schedule a telephone conference call and the custody Conciliator may recommend a further Order to this Court with respect to holiday visitation. 6. During the time that Mother is only enjoying three (3) hours of custody with the minor child, Father shall handle transportation for exchange of custody. At such time as Mother's periods of temporary custody are expanded, the parties will re-evaluate transportation for exchange of custody. 7. Both parties are specifically directed to not discuss the custodial issues with the minor child or to discuss any of the counseling issues directly with the minor child except in the presence of the counselor. Additionally, both parties are directed to not have any ex parte communications with the counselor unless initiated by the counselor herself. 8. In the event any custodial issues arise that need to be addressed by the Court, legal counsel for the parties may contact the custody Conciliator via a letter and request a conciliation that may be a telephone conference or an in-person custody conciliation. The Conciliator may submit further recommended Orders to this Court as appropriate. cc: ? izabeth J. Saylor, Esquire ourtney K. Powell, Esquire lO?? l !U8 BY THE COURT, OCT g p pppg ELIZABETH J. JANIS, Plaintiff vs. PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant Prior Judge: The Honorable Kevin A. Hess IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2003-254 IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on October 17, 2008, with the following individuals in attendance: the mother, Elizabeth Janis, with her counsel, Courtney K. Powell, Esquire, and the father, Philip Goth, with his counsel, Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to an entry of an Order in the form as attached. Date: October a 0 , 2008 Hubert X. Gil/y, Esquire Custody Co iliator 0 Z .01 wv I Z 130 OOOZ LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: Isaylor@pjdaw.com ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. : NO. 2003-254 PHILIP CASON GOTH, IN CUSTODY Defendant PETITION FOR COURT APPROVAL TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT AND NOW, comes The Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C., attorneys for the Defendant, Philip Cason Goth, (hereinafter "Counsel") and files this Petition for Court Approval to Withdraw, and in support thereof, states the following: 1. Counsel was retained by Mr. Goth who currently resides at 27 Wheaton Drive, Littlestown, PA 17340, on or about August 20, 2008. 2. Counsel filed a Petition for Modification on behalf of Defendant on or about September 12, 2008. 3. The matter was thereafter scheduled for a Conciliation before Hubert Gilroy, Esquire on October 17, 2008. 4. The Order attached hereto as Exhibit A was thereafter entered. 5. In or around March of 2009, Plaintiff, through her counsel, requested a Conciliation to address outstanding issues. 6. The Conciliation was scheduled for April 16, 2009, before Hubert Gilroy, Esquire. 7. Recently, Defendant notified Counsel that he no longer wants to be represented by the undersigned Counsel in the above captioned matter due to outstanding and increasing legal expenses and financial limitations. 8. Defendant confirmed his desire to attend the scheduled Conciliation pro se and further provided his contact information to be shared with opposing counsel and requested the contact information for both opposing counsel and the assigned conciliator. 9. Immediately thereafter, Defendant signed the attached praecipe to enter his appearance pro se, further establishing his desire. A copy of said Praecipe is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, the original of which is being filed simultaneously herewith. 10. Petitioner has served a notice of the within petition on the party in the manner provided by Rule 440. A copy of the notice and the original certificate of service is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. 11. Opposing counsel, Courtney Kishel Powell, Esquire, has indicated that she does not oppose the undersigned counsel's Petition to Withdraw. 11. The Honorable Judge Kevin A. Hess and the Honorable Judge Edward E. Guido have entered previous Orders in this matter as follows: a. Judge Hess, August 25, 2008, Order of Court, entered following a hearing upon Mother's Petition for Special Relief regarding custody of the parties only minor child, Gretchen and awarding Father temporary primary physical custody of Gretchen; b. Judge Guido, December 1, 2005, Order of Court, grant of hearing continuance upon request of the parties; c. Judge Guido, October 13, 2005, modifying previous custody orders regarding the parties' then minor son's counseling and visitation with Mother; d. Judge Guido, October 3, 2005, Rule to Show Cause on Defendant upon Mother's Petition for Special Relief regarding counseling of the parties' then minor son; e. Judge Guido, August 30, 2005, Order of Court, entered following Mother's Petition for Modification and Father's Petition to Relocate, and regarding scheduling of upcoming hearing and ratifying the prior Court Orders concerning Mother's visitation and counseling regarding the parties' then minor son, and Father's visitation with Gretchen, who is the subject of this action; f. Judge Guido, December 29, 2003, Court Order, entered following the parties agreement made before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire, Custody Conciliator, modifying the November 17, 2003, order regarding the Christmas holiday schedule, Mother's period of temporary custody with the parties' minor son, the parties submission to a custody evaluation and no disparaging remarks; g. Judge Guido, December 11, 2003, Order of Court, appointing attorney for the parties then minor son, with enumerated contingencies; h. Judge Guido, November 17, 2003, Order of Court, In Re: Temporary order Modifying Visitation regarding Mother and the parties then minor son, and ordering individual and joint counseling; i. Judge Hess, September 5, 2003, Order of Court, entered following the parties agreement made before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire, Custody Conciliator, regarding the removal of the parties oldest child, leaving three minor children, and modifying the February 24, 2003, Order of Court to include the enumerated vacation and holiday schedule; Judge Hess, February 24, 2003, Order of Court, entered following the parties agreement made before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire, Custody Conciliator, regarding the custody of the parties' four minor children, and awarding both Mother and Father primary custody of two of their four minor children. WHEREFORE, the Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant its Petition to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Date: y d y LAW O ES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Petitioners Peter J. Russo, Esquire ID No. 72897 E lizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire ID No. 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 PH: 717-591-1755 FX: 717-591-1756 EXHIBIT A OCT E020Mr/ ELIZABETH J. JAMS. Plaintiff VS. PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant Prior Judge; The Honorable Kevin A. Hess IN uu., COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2003-254 IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on October 17, 2008, with the following individuals in attendance: the mother, Elizabeth Janis, with her counsel, Courtney K. Powell, Esquire, and the father, Philip Goth, with his counsel, Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to an entry of an Order in the form as attached. Date: October , 2008 ?y t Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Custody Conciliator ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP CASON GOTH, NO. 2003-254 Defendant IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this Z1 day of October, 2008, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that the prior Orders of Court are vacated and the following TEMPORARY Order is entered: 1. The mother, Elizabeth J. Janis, and the father, Philip C. Goth, shall have shared legal custody of Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995. 2. The Father shall have primary physical custody of the minor child. The Mother shall have periods of temporary physical custody of the minor child as follows: A. Every week for a period of three (3) hours on Saturday or Sunday from noon until 3:00 p.m. The day of Saturday or Sunday shall be agreed upon by the parties in advance and the parties, if they agree, may modify the time and change the schedule from noon to 3:00 to another three-hour time frame. When Mother has custody, custody shall be exercised in the presence of an individual who is agreed upon by the parties through their legal counsel. B. Mother shall also have temporary custody at such other times as agreed upon by the parties. 4. The child shall continue in counseling with Deborah Asper and the parents shall also continue to participate in that counseling. Ms. Asper shall give legal counsel for the parties periodic progress reports and she shall also make further recommendations with respect to expanding Mother's periods of temporary custody. The parties shall follow the recommendations of Ms. Asper with respect to custody. However, in the event either party disagrees with those recommendations, that party may have their counsel contact the custody Conciliator directly to have a new custody conciliation conference scheduled. The counselor shall also address expanding time for the Mother on the upcoming holidays. If that matter cannot be resolved, legal counsel for the parties may contact the custody Conciliator to schedule a telephone conference call and the custody Conciliator may recommend a further Order to this Court with respect to holiday visitation. 6. During the time that Mother is only enjoying three (3) hours of custody with the minor child. Father shall handle transportation for exchange of custody. At such time as :Mother's periods of temporary custody are expanded, the parties x% ill re-evaluate transportation Cor exchange of custody, 7. Both parties are specifically directed to not discuss the custodial issues N% ith the minor child or to discuss any of the counseling issues directly with the minor child except in the presence of the counselor. Additionally, both parties are directed to not have any ex parte communications with the counselor unless initiated by the counselor herself. 8. In the event any custodial issues arise that need to be addressed by the Court, legal counsel for the parties may contact the custody Conciliator via a letter and request a conciliation that may be a telephone conference or an in-person custody conciliation. The Conciliator may submit further recommended Orders to this Court as appropriate. BY THE COURT, V 48M-?.2_ a_ 14 v in A. Hess, Judge cc: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Courtney K. Powell, Esquire TRUIZ COPS! FkUM hL;'GORU tR Tow, i-??rrf whered. I Mm unto set my hak atad K 4 of ?-,'#d Ow0t 81 Caillsfe, Pn x' »ySs.#wy EXH . LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: Isaylor _pirlaw.com ELIZABETH J. JANIS$ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. NO. 2003-254 PHILIP CASON GOTH, IN CUSTODY Defendant PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE Kindly withdraw my appearance as counsel on behalf of Philip Cason Goth, Defendant in the above-captioned matter. Law O s of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 5006 E. Trindle Rd, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Peter J. Russo, Esquire I.D. No. 72897 y ?? ^ 0 '9 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Date: I.D. No. 200139 PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE Kindly enter my appearance Pro Se inthe above -captioned matter. Philip C. Goth, Pro Se 27 Wheaton Drive Date: 3 ?? % `? Littlestown, PA 17340 J ? EXHIBIT C LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: Isaylor O,pjdaw.com ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. NO. 2003-254 PHILIP CASON GOTH, IN CUSTODY Defendant NOTICE OF PETITION FOR COURT APPROVAL TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT To: Philip Cason Goth PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, per your request, the undersigned counsel is filing the attached petition to withdraw its appearance as your counsel in the above stated matter. Date: Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Peter J. Russo, Esquire I.D. No. 72897 .. Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire I.D. No. 200139 ELIZABETH J. JANIS, Plaintiff V. PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2003-254 IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Amber L. Southard, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Notice of Petition for Court Approval to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: US Mail addressed as follows: Philip Goth 27 Wheaton Drive Littlestown, PA 17340 Defendant Courtney Powell, Esquire 134 Sipe Avenue Hummelstown, PA 17036 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: 9 109 ''/ 41,d - Amber L. Southard, Paralegal ~ . % JENNIFER C. MACLAY, Plaintiff V. NATHAN A. MACLAY, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-FC-002175-03 IN CUSTODY HON. JUDGE DORNEY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this day served a true and correct copy of the Petition for Court Approval to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant upon the following persons, in the manner indicated: FIRST CLASS MAIL Philip Goth 27 Wheaton Drive Littlestown, PA 17340 Defendant Courtney Powell, Esquire 134 Sipe Avenue Hummelstown, PA 17036 Counsel for Plaintiff Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 E High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Conciliator LAW OFFICE OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Y 'C'? - v ? Eli abet J aylor, Esquire M FICE OF VF PROTH 'NOTARY 2009 APR -9 PPS 3: 28 l 'iv'f !+`!y LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: IsaylorApirlaw.pom ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. NO. 2003-254 PHILIP CASON GOTH, IN CUSTODY Defendant PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE Kindly withdraw my appearance as counsel on behalf of Philip Cason Goth, Defendant in the above-captioned matter. Law O s of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 5006 E. Trindle Rd, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Peter J. Russo, Esquire I.D. No. 72897 0,9 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Date: y I.D. No. 200139 PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE Kindly enter my appearance Pro Se in abov -captioned mutter. Philip C. Goth, Pro Se 27 Wheaton Drive Date: 3 /3 ®`? Littlestown, PA 17340 ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. NO. 2003-254 PHILIP CASON GOTH, IN CUSTODY Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Amber L. Southard, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Praecipe to Withdrew and Enter Appearance upon the person (s) and in the manner indicated below: Service by First-Class Mail, Postage Prepaid, and Addressed as Follows: Courtney Powell, Esquire 134 Sipe Avenue Hummelstown, PA 17036 Counsel for Plaintiff Courtesy Copies to: Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Deborah Asper Wellspan Behavioral Health 40 V-Twin Drive, Suite 202 Gettysburg, PA 17325 Amber L. Southard, Paralegal Date: q h /0q RLED- FF OF T PROTHONOTARY 2 APR --9 PM 3 28 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: Isaylor@pjdaw.com APR o s zoos q ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. NO. 2003-254 PHILIP CASON GOTH, IN CUSTODY Defendant IN RE: PETITION FOR COURT APPROVAL TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13' day of 2009, upon consideration of the Petition for Court Approval to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant, and all other matters of record, the request of Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire, of the Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. for Court Approval to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant, in the above-captioned matter, is hereby GRANTED. BY THE COURT, J. aw Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Petitioner S 1 Q?" v? LLOJ- d aHI 3l1 ?f ip Goth 27 Wheaton Drive Littlestown, PA 17340 Defendant J96urtney Powell, Esquire 134 Sipe Ave Hummelstown, PA 17036 Counsel for Plaintiff Iert X. Gilroy, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 E High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Conciliator L\ APR 3 0 200962 ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP CASON GOTH, NO. 2003-254 Defendant IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this / Z day of May, 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, this court's prior order of October 21, 2008 is vacated and the following TEMPORARY custody order is entered: 1. The mother, Elizabeth J. Janis, and the father, Philip C. Goth, shall have shared legal custody of Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995. 2. The Father shall have primary physical custody of the minor child. 3. The Mother shall have periods of temporary physical custody of the minor child as follows: A. On Sunday, April 19, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.; on Saturday, May 2, from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.; on Sunday, May 10, from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.; on Saturday, May 16, from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.; on Sunday, May 24, from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. and on Saturday, May 30, from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. 4. Unless agreed otherwise by the parties, the receiving parent shall pick the child up such that the mother shall pick the child up at the beginning of the custody and the father shall pick the child up at the end of the custody. It is noted that this pick up arrangement shall be switched on Saturday, May 2, with father delivering the child at the beginning and mother delivering the child back to the father. 5. The parties shall meet again for another custody conciliation conference on Thursday, June 4, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.. 6. The Children's Advocacy Clinic of Penn State University Dickinson School of Law is appointed as guardian ad litem for the minor child, Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995. As guardian ad litem, the Children's Advocacy Clinic will represent the minor child's best interest. This order authorizes the guardian ad litem to have access to the child's educational records, medical records, mental health/counseling records and any possible records from a County/child welfare agency, if the agency has been involved with the child. The Children's Advocacy Clinic shall serve in this capacity at no charge to the parties or to Cumberland County. The parties and their attorneys shall cooperate with The Children's Advocacy Clinic in connection with any requests for information, request for meetings/interviews for the parties and the minor child, or any home visits. County. The parties and their attorneys shall cooperate with The Children's Advocacy Clinic in connection with any requests for information, request for meetings/interviews for the parties and the minor child, or any home visits. 7. In the event the mother desires to have a custody evaluation commenced, the mother may proceed with scheduling that evaluation at her own expense and the father shall cooperate with respect to the evaluation in attending any sessions the evaluator desires to meet with the father and also insuring that the minor child attends any evaluation sessions. At some point in the future, mother may request this court to assess father costs in connection with the evaluation if the court deems such an assessment is appropriate. 8. The minor child may continue in her existing counseling with Deborah Asper, with the understanding that the counselor has the ability to share with legal counsel for the parties, or the parties themselves if they do not have counsel, information relating to the ongoing case and the minor child. Additionally, Miss Asper is specifically authorized without any further release of information documentation or other documentation to discuss the situation with Gretchen with The Children's Advocacy Clinic appointed above. 9. When the minor child is in the custody of the other parent, the non-custodial parent shall not interfere with the other parent by unreasonable contact with the child through unreasonable telephone contact, texting or other similar matters. BY THE COURT, cc: rtney K. Powell, Esquire / rr- Philip C. Goth Car, es WM t LS?L s/? ??vg VO, Q ELIZABETH J. JANIS, Plaintiff VS. PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant Prior Judge: The Honorable Kevin A. Hess IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2003-254 IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on April 16, 2009, with the following individuals in attendance: the mother, Elizabeth Janis, with her counsel, Courtney K. Powell, Esquire, and the father, Philip Goth, who appeared Pro Se. 3. The parties had a prior custody conciliation back in October and the recommended order was for the minor child to see the mom for three hours per week and also to have some counseling in the interim. Unfortunately, the counseling has not proceeded as expeditiously as the conciliator thought may happen in this situation. After a lengthy custody conciliation conference and after the conciliator considering the positions of all parties involved, the conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: April 7 , 2008 Hu X. Gilroy, Esquire Custody Conciliator 4 JUN 12 2000 ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP CASON GOTH, NO. 2003-254 Defendant IN CUSTODY PRIOR JUDGE: The Honorable Kevin A. Hess COURT ORDER AND NOW, this day of June, 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A hearing is scheduled in Court Room No. 4 of the Cumberland County Courthouse on the V*f day of 2009 at c?,'v a.m. At this hearing, the mother shall be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Legal counsel for the parties, or the parties themselves if they do not have legal counsel, along with the guardian ad litem for the minor child, shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a memorandum setting forth the history of custody in this case, the issues currently before the Court, a summary of each parties position on these issues, a list of witnesses who will be called to testify on behalf of each party and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. This memorandum shall be filed at least five days prior to the mentioned hearing date. 2. Pending further Order of this Court, this Court's prior Order of May 12, 2009, is ratified subject to the following additional provisions: A. Father shall notify mother via email within five days of receipt of this Order as to the location and address and phone number (if available) of where he will be vacationing with the minor child later in June. B. The father shall insure Gretchen initiates a phone call to her mother at least two times a week to have Gretchen speak with her mother, and the father shall insure that Gretchen shall follow up with those calls, leave a message and consummate communications at least two times per week. C. Father shall advise mother within five days of this Order with respect to the schedule, as he understands it at this time, for the minor child during the summer to include a sports activities, vacations or other pertinent matters. 3. Pending the hearing scheduled above, mother's periods of temporary physical custody of the minor child shall be as follows: A. From 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. on the following days: Saturday, June 13 Sunday, June 28 Saturday, July Saturday, July 25 Saturday, August 8 Saturday, August 22 4. Consistent with paragraph seven of the May 12, 2009, Order, mother has retained Interworks to do a Custody Evaluation. Both parties are scheduled for an initial conference on July 1, 2009. Both parties are directed to cooperate with respect to this evaluation and also the father as the primary custodian shall insure that the minor child shall participate in the evaluation as directed by Interworks. 5. The parties shall also facilitate having a psychological and psychiatric exam performed for the minor child at Wellspan. 6. The parties shall also continue to cooperate with the guardian ad litem consistent with paragraph 6 of the May 12, 2009 Order. Along those lines, the guardian ad litem is requested to maintain close contact with the minor child, monitor visitation pending the hearing and, as appropriate, recommend to the Custody Conciliator any expanded visitation for vacation or otherwise that may be in the best interest of the minor child pending a hearing. BY THE COURT, Kevin A ess, Judge cc: ZOn ur tney K. Powell, Esquire ase Collins, Esquire ? Mr. Philip C. Goth les L ! CP U 1 I OF 71.1 6 '???Y 2009 JUN 16 Fri 12, 3 7 ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP CASON GOTH, NO. 2003-254 Defendant IN CUSTODY PRIOR JUDGE: The Honorable Kevin A. Hess CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on June 4, 2009, with the following individuals in attendance: The mother, Elizabeth Janis, with her counsel, Courtney K. Powell, Esquire, and the father, Philip Goth, who appeared Pro Se, and Chase Collins who appeared on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Clinic of PSUDSL which is guardian ad litem for the minor child. 3. This is an extremely difficult case with many complicating factors. The primary issue is a concern as to the child's desire and welfare relative to visiting with the mother. Despite a number of efforts, the parties have hit an impasse with respect to scheduling expanded time for the mother. Understandably, the mother is frustrated on that particular issue and is requesting that a hearing be scheduled. In the meantime, there will be a number of evaluations scheduled that may have an ultimate bearing on what the Court decides to do in this case. However, the parties need to get before the Court for a hearing to address mother's desire to have a more meaningful visitation schedule with the minor child. 4. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: Jun b 9 2009 Hubert i roy, Esquire Custody Conciliator Courtney Kishel Powell, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 81509 James Smith Dietterick & Connelly, LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Petitioner ELIZABETH J. JANIS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff/Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 2003-254 PHILIP CASON GOTH, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant/Respondent : IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff/Petitioner, Elizabeth J. Janis, by and through her counsel, Courtney Kishel Powell, Esquire, and the law firm of James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP, and files this Petition for Special Relief and in support thereof avers the following: The Petitioner is Elizabeth J. Janis, Plaintiff in the above-captioned action, (hereinafter referred to as "Mother"), who currently resides at 502 Jacob Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 2. The Respondent is Philip Cason Goth, Defendant in the above-captioned action, (hereinafter referred to as "Father"), who currently resides at 27 Wheaton Drive, Littlestown, Pennsylvania 17340. 3. The parties are the parents of four children; however, only one child is still a minor, namely, Gretchen Alicia Goth, who was born February 11, 1995. 4. The parties are currently scheduled for a custody hearing before Your Honor on September 4, 2009, however, the present custody dispute initiated one year ago in August, 2008. Factual and Procedural History 5. Prior to August, 2008, the parties were operating under a Custody Order dated February 24, 2003, that awarded Mother primary physical custody of the minor child, and Father was given periods of partial physical custody every other weekend. A copy of the Order is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A". 6. On August 13, 2008, Mother filed a Petition for Special Relief to enforce the provisions of the Custody Order of February 24, 2003, because Father refused to return the child to Mother. Your Honor had scheduled a hearing on the Petition for on August 22, 2008. 7. Following an in-chambers interview with the minor child on August 22, 2008, Your Honor issued an order temporarily awarding primary custody of Gretchen to Father. Father was ordered to file a Petition to Modify the Custody Order within thirty (30) days. A copy of that Order, dated August 25, 2008 is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B". 8. On September 12, 2008, Father filed a Petition to Modify the Custody Order, and a conciliation conference was initially scheduled for October 3, 2008. The conference; however, was continued until October 17, 2008. 1St Conciliation Conference on October 17, 2008 9. On October 17, 2008, the parties were present before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire for a custody conciliation conference. 10. At that time, the parties reached an agreement giving Father primary physical custody of Gretchen, while Mother would have regular weekly supervised visits with the child for three (3) hours. 11. The parties also agreed to keep the child in counseling with Deborah Asper, MSW at 2 Wellspan, to assist Gretchen in resolving the relationship difficulties she had with Mother. The counselor was ordered to give periodic updates as to the progress of the counseling session, and "make further recommendations with respect to expanding Mother's periods of temporary custody." A copy of the Temporary Order, dated October 21, 2008 that memorialized the parties' agreement, is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "C". 12. From August 2008 until the custody conciliation conference in October, 2008, Father did not allow Mother to have any contact with the minor child. However, after the custody conference, Mother saw the minor child every week for three (3) hours as directed by the Order. 2nd Conciliation Conference on April 19, 2009 13. Despite the language in the Order, Ms. Asper failed to provide periodic updates on the progress of Gretchen's counseling sessions. In fact, Gretchen was not attending the counseling sessions on a consistent basis, but averaged only one meeting per month from October, 2008 through February, 2009. 14. Because Mother's ability to improve her relationship with Gretchen was dependent upon Gretchen's active participation in the counseling sessions, their relationship did not improve as Mother had hoped. 15. In addition, because Gretchen was not attending counseling sessions as expected, Mother was precluded from expanding her periods of custody with Gretchen. 16. Father refused to give Mother any addition periods of visitation over and above the three (3) hours ordered by the Court. Mother was even barred from spending additional time with the child on her birthday. 17. At Mother's request, a second conciliation conference occurred on April 16, 2009. 18. At the custody conference, Mother's periods of custody were expanded from three (3) hours to eleven (11) hours each week, and no longer required supervisors. A temporary schedule was set from April 19, 2009 through May 30, 20091 and a follow up conference was scheduled for June 4, 2009. A copy of the Court Order, dated May 12, 2009 is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "D". 19. In addition to the above, Mother requested a custody evaluation with Deborah L. Salem, CAC, LPC at Interworks. The custody conciliator directed both parties to contact Interworks and start the custody evaluation process. The Court Order dated May 12, 2009, specifically ordered Father to cooperate with Mother in obtaining the evaluation by attending any sessions the evaluator requested and ensure the minor child also attended such sessions. See Court Order dated May 12, 2009. 20. Following the custody conference, Mother contacted Interworks and did the initial intake process. After doing so, she was informed that Father needed to contact them to schedule an initial meeting before the sessions could begin. Mother advised Father of this via email and requested that he schedule his meeting. 21. Father did not schedule an appointment with Interworks as directed before the follow up conference on June 4, 2009. During that six week period, he made one attempt to call Interworks and left a message. He later advised the conciliator that he did not receive a return call, but he did not make any effort to follow up with them. 22. Heather Duncan, B.S., at Interworks, advised the undersigned counsel that Father The Order inadvertently excluded one week of visits with the minor child, despite having specifically discussed that particular weekend at the conciliation conference. Father refused to give Mother custody of the child because it was not specifically provided for in the Order. Mother was not given any additional period of time to make up for her missed visit with the minor child. 4 left a message on April 21, 2009. His call was returned the following day on three (3) separate occasions; however, the phone rang three (3) times and then went dead. A copy of the email correspondence undersigned counsel received from Ms. Duncan was introduced at the conciliation hearing, and is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "E". 3'a Conciliation Conference on June 4, 2009 23. When the parties attended the third custody conciliation on June 4, 2009, Chase Collins appeared on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Clinic of the Penn State University Dickenson School of Law, who was appointed Gretchen's Guardian Ad Litem. His recommendation was that the parties undergo a full custody evaluation, and have the child undergo psychiatric and psychological testing. 24. Since the custody evaluation process could not begin until Father scheduled his initial meeting, the undersigned counsel scheduled Father's appointment with Interworks at the conference. Father's appointment was scheduled for July 1, 2009, which he advised was acceptable. 25. At the conclusion of the conciliation conference, an Order was issued giving Father primary custody of the child, but Mother's visits were decreased to eleven (11) hours every other week. The parties were ordered again to get a custody evaluation, and were also ordered to obtain a psychological and psychiatric evaluation for the child. A copy of the Court Order dated June 16, 2009, is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "F". 5 Petitioner's Request to Order Father To Cooperate with the Custody Evaluation Process And Require Father to Schedule all Appointments with Interworks within Ten (10) Days 26. Paragraphs one (1) through twenty-five (25) are incorporated herein by reference. 27. Despite the recommendation of the Guardian Ad Litem, Father made it clear that he was not interested in having a custody evaluation. 28. Both parties were scheduled for their initial meeting with Interworks on July 1, 2009. 29. Mother attended her session as scheduled. Father cancelled his appointment the night before; however, rescheduled the meeting for a later date, and subsequently kept that meeting. 30. On July 27, 2009, Ms. Salem wrote a Memorandum advising the parties that she will not be able to conduct a full custody evaluation in time for the September 4, 2009 trial, as there were several problems in proceeding with the custody evaluation. A copy of the Memorandum is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "G". 31. Father has advised Ms. Salem that he does not have the flexibility to schedule meetings during the day because he works full- time. In addition, Father has suggested that the staff should travel to his location in Adams County to accomplish the evaluation, rather than have him travel to Ms. Salem's office in Harrisburg. 32. It is believed and therefore averred that Father has no incentive to move the custody process forward since he has primary physical custody of the child, and Mother's time is severely limited. 33. It is believed and therefore averred that Father will continue to delay the custody trial and evaluation process if given the opportunity. 6 34. It is further believed and averred that Father will only do what he is ordered to do by this Court, and will not take any additional steps to foster Mother's relationship with the child independent of the Court. 35. To avoid further delay of these custody proceedings, Mother respectfully requests this Court order Father to schedule all of the necessary appointments with Interworks for himself and for Gretchen within ten (10) days of signing an Order, and that all appointments required for the evaluation occur prior to December 1, 2009 so that the evaluation can be completed in a timely fashion. 36. To ensure that Father keeps those appointments, Mother further requests this Court to penalize him $250.00 for each session that Father, Gretchen or any of his witnesses cancels once they are scheduled. Petitioner's Request to Order Father To Pay One-Half of the Custody Evaluation Expense 37. Paragraphs one (1) through thirty-six (36) are incorporated herein by reference. 38. According to the Court Order dated May 12, 2009, Mother was responsible for paying the initial custody evaluation fees, with the understanding that she could petition the Court at a later time requesting Father be assessed a portion of the expenses. [See Order dated May 12, 2009.] 39. This provision was put in place because Father was adamant that he was not paying for the custody evaluation, even though it is strongly needed, and recommended by the Guardian Ad Litem. 7 40. Pursuant to Ms. Salem's Memorandum, Mother has had difficulty paying the full fee for the custody evaluation. Ms. Salem cannot proceed with the process until she receives full payment upfront. 41. Father has advised Ms. Salem that he has at least ten (10) additional witnesses that she must interview as part of the custody evaluation process. [See Memorandum in Exhibit "G".] 42. The evaluation expenses are based in part on the number of individuals that are interviewed. 43. Although Father has questioned Ms. Salem's impartiality because the fees were to be paid by Mother, Father has told Ms. Salem that he will not move forward with the evaluation process unless all the fees associated with interviewing his ten (10) witnesses are paid in full by Mother. [See Memorandum in Exhibit "G".] 44. At this time, Mother is unable to pay the entire fee associated with the custody evaluation process. She is unemployed and is enrolled at Kutztown University earning her Master's Degree in social work. 45. Father has a full-time job earning at least $80,000.00 per year, so Father has sufficient resources to pay for the much needed and highly recommended custody evaluation. 46. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1915.8, a Court may order the parties to participate in an evaluation by an appropriate expert, and may allocate the costs of the evaluation as it deems appropriate. 47. Mother respectfully requests this Court order Father to pay one-half of all expenses associated with obtaining a custody evaluation from Interworks, and pay said monies directly to Interworks by September 15, 2009. Petitioner's Request to Order Father To Obtain the Psychiatric and Psychological Evaluation As Recommended by the Guardian Ad Litem 48. Paragraphs one (1) through forty-seven (47) are incorporated herein by reference. 49. The Court Order of June 16, 2009 requires the parties facilitate a psychological and psychiatric evaluation for the minor child at Wellspan. 50. Since Father has primary physical custody of the minor child, and Mother only sees the child one day every other weekend, it is more conducive for Father to facilitate both evaluations. 51. Despite being ordered to have the evaluations done June 4, 2009, Gretchen's appointment is scheduled for September 3, 2009, one (1) day prior to the scheduled custody trial. 52. The results of the psychiatric and psychological testing will obviously not be available in time for the trial on September 4, 2009. 53. It is believed and therefore averred that Father deliberately delayed scheduling of the evaluation so the custody trial would need to be postponed. 54. In addition, Father has advised that he will not proceed with the court-ordered psychiatric and psychological testing, unless Mother agrees to pay one-half of the expense. 55. Mother respectfully requests this Court order Father to take Gretchen to the appointment scheduled for September 3, 2009, so that Father is precluded from delaying these proceedings. Petitioner's Request to Continue the Custody Trial Scheduled for September 4, 2009 56. Paragraphs one (1) through fifty-five (55) are incorporated herein by reference. 9 57. It is apparent that the custody evaluation and the testing for the child will not be completed prior to the trial scheduled for September 4, 2009. 58. Assuming no delays, Ms. Salem will be able to complete the evaluation in four (4) to six (6) months. 59. It is believed and therefore averred that the evaluations are critical in determining what is in the child's best interest. 60. Mother respectfully requests this Court reschedule the custody trial for sometime after December 1, 2009. 61. In addition, since the current custody order does not address Mother's periods of custody beyond August 22, 2009, and Father has a history of not permitting Mother to have periods of custody beyond what is specifically outlined in an Order of Court, it is respectfully requested that this Court impose an interim Order outlining Mother's periods of custody with the child until trial. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Mother respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant her Petition for Special Relief, and specifically order the following: a.) The trial scheduled for September 4, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. be rescheduled for sometime after December 1, 2009; b.) Father to schedule all of the necessary appointments with Interworks for himself and for Gretchen within ten (10) days of signing the Order, and require that all appointments be completed by December 1, 2009; c.) Require Father to keep all scheduled appointments with Interworks, and financially penalize him $250.00 for each session he, Gretchen or any of Father's witnesses miss; 10 d.) Father to pay one-half of all expenses charged by Interworks to complete the evaluation and pay those fees by September 15, 2009; e.) Father to ensure Gretchen makes her appointment on September 3, 2009 for her psychiatric and/or psychological evaluation, and authorize the release of the results to Mother's attorney, the child's Guardian Ad Litem, and Deborah Salem within thirty (30) days of receiving notice that it is complete. f.) Award Mother periods of partial custody between August 22, 2009 and trial. Respectfully submitted, Dated: By: JAMES, SMITH, DIETTERICK & CONNELLY, LLP Courtney Kishel well Attorney I.D. #81509 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Petitioner, Elizabeth J. Janis 11 VERIFICATION I, Elizabeth J. Janis, verify that the statements made in the foregoing pleading are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: ? ®' Q I L El' eth J. Janis EXHIBIT "A" ?7C?/,sV I C. f ?/? ? FEB 2 0 1003 L ELIZABETH J. GOTH, : IN TAE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP C. GOTH, : NO. 03 - 254 CIVIL Defendant : IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this Z Y "day of Febnmry, 2003, upon considerattan of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, this court's order of January 22, 2003 is vacated and replaced with the following order: 1. The Mother, Elizabeth J. Goth, and the Father, Philip C. Goth, shall wJoy shared legal custody of Adrienne Elizabeth Goth, born May 29, 1905; Anna Leigh Goth, born April 3, 1987; Philip Andrew Goth born, February 14, 1989; and Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995. 2. The Mother shall egJoy primary physical custody of Anna and Gretchen. 3. Father shall achy. primary physical custody Adrienne and Philip. 4. The parties shall alternate physical custody with the minor children on alte<ua ing wed such that all four cbildrei are together. This provision is subject to the reluctance of Anna to go to vidt her Father and Adrienne to go visit her Mother, with the parties required to attempt to resolve these issues through ding or otherwise. 5. The parties shall themselves attend counseling sessions and also make arrang1 1 0ats for the children to attend counseling sessions. There shall be a number of goals of these counseling sessions including, but not limited to, athrnpdng to address issues as to why some of the children may be reluctant to visit their parent, to encourage to be better able to communicate with each other and address custodial lasues regarding the children, and any other matters that the counselor may identify as an important issue that should be addressed by the parties. Costs of these counseling scions shall be shared equally between, the parties. The individual who performs the counseling shall be agreed upon by legal counsel for the parties. If the parties cannot agree upon a counselor, they may contact the coeadBator to work out an arrangement on designating a counselor. It shall be the respomsibillty of each castodiai parent to unsure that the children in their custody attend and meaningfully participates in aII scheduled cow sessions. 6. The parties shall meet with the conciliator again for a second custody conciliation conffamm on Friday, June 20, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. In the event leW counsel for the parties feel that the ooh needs to address any issues in the Vie, legal conned may contact the conciliator dirwdy to schedule a telephone conference call conclliadon between legal counsel for the Parties- BY THE COURT, Kevin Al. Hew cc: Margaret M. Smok, FAqulm F rands M. Socha, Esquire } ir?ti.? ?.QaoL 3 • a-4 -a3 J. EXHIBIT "B" i ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant NO. 03-254 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25"' day of August, 2008, after a hearing on Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief and Defendant's Response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Mother's Petition for Special Relief is DENIED; 2. The Custody Order dated February 24, 2003, and any amendments thereto shall be further amended to temporarily award Father primary physical custody of Gretchen Alicia Goth; 3. Mother shall cooperate in enrolling Gretchen in Littlestown School District for the 2008-2009 school year; and 4. The Father is directed to file a petition to modify custody within 30 days. BY THE COURT, A. Hess, J. Courtney K. Powell, Esq. 134 Sipe Avenue Hummelstown, PA 17036 Attorney for Plaintiff Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esq. 5006 E. Trindle Road Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Defendant EXHIBIT "C" e OCT Z 0 2004 V ELIZABETH J. JANIS, Plaintiff Vs. PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant Prior Judge: The Honorable Kevin A. Hess IN "THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2003-254 IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on October 17, 2008, with the following individuals in attendance: the mother, Elizabeth Janis, with her counsel, Courtney K. Powell, Esquire, and the father, Philip Goth, with his counsel, Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to an entry of an Order in the form as attached. Date October . - 2008 Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Custody Conciliator ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP CASON GOTH, NO. 2003-254 Defendant IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this day of October, 2008, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that the prior Orders of Court are vacated and the following TEMPORARY Order is entered: The mother, Elizabeth J. Janis, and the father, Philip C. Goth, shall have shared legal custody of Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995. 2. The Father shall have primary physical custody of the minor child. The Mother shall have periods of temporary physical custody of the minor child as follows: A. Every week for a period of three (3) hours on Saturday or Sunday from noon until 3:00 p.m. The day of Saturday or Sunday shall be agreed upon by the parties in advance and the parties, if they agree, may modify the time and change the schedule from noon to 3:00 to another three-hour time frame. When Mother has custody, custody shall be exercised in the presence of an individual who is agreed upon by the parties through their legal counsel. B. Mother shall also have temporary custody at such other times as agreed upon by the parties. 4. The child shall continue in counseling with Deborah Asper and the parents shall also continue to participate in that counseling. Ms. Asper shall give legal counsel for the parties periodic progress reports and she shall also make further recommendations with respect to expanding Mother's periods of temporary custody. The parties shall follow the recommendations of Ms. Asper with respect to custody. However, in the event either party disagrees with those recommendations, that party may have their counsel contact the custody Conciliator directly to have a new custody conciliation conference scheduled. 5. The counselor shall also address expanding time for the Mother on the upcoming holidays. If that matter cannot be resolved, legal counsel for the parties may contact the custody Conciliator to schedule a telephone conference call and the custody Conciliator may recommend a further Order to this Court with respect to holiday visitation. 6. During the time that Mother is only enjoying three (3) hours of custody \vith the minor chi Id, Father shall handle transportation for exchange of custody. At such time as Mother's periods of temporary custody are expanded. the parties will re-evaluate transportation for exchange of custody. 7. Both parties are specifically directed to not discuss the custodial issues with the minor child or to discuss any of the counseling issues directly \yith the minor child except in the presence of the counselor. Additionally, both parties are directed to not have any ex parte communications with the counselor unless initiated by the counselor herself. In the event any custodial issues arise that need to be addressed by the Court, legal counsel for the parties may contact the custody Conciliator via a letter and request a conciliation that may be a telephone conference or an in-person custody conciliation. The Conciliator may submit further recommended Orders to this Court as appropriate. BY THE COURT, 'K'evin A. Hess, Judge cc: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire Courtney K. Powell, Esquire V : COPY ;"lo N ()RU r ,& 1 here unto set MY hanc tart ii;t vM? 6?i i '1 NM htafti ,S.;% Pa. ? ?td!?l . ? 45 x?ii jl ? ?• ?....« . EXHIBIT "D" ELIZABETH J. JANIS, Plaintiff vs. PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant Prior Judge: The Honorable Kevin A. Hess IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2003-254 IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on April 16, 2009, with the following individuals in attendance: the mother, Elizabeth Janis, with her counsel, Courtney K. Powell, Esquire, and the father, Philip Goth, who appeared Pro Se. 3. The parties had a prior custody conciliation back in October and the recommended order was for the minor child to see the mom for three hours per week and also to have some counseling in the interim. Unfortunately, the counseling has not proceeded as expeditiously as the conciliator thought may happen in this situation. After a lengthy custody conciliation conference and after the conciliator considering the positions of all parties involved, the conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: April , 2008 Hu X. Gilroy, Esquire Custody Conciliator APR 3 0 2009 ,?'? ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP CASON GOTH, NO. 2003-254 Defendant IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER. AND NOW, this day of May, 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, this court's prior order of October 21, 2008 is vacated and the following TEMPORARY custody order is entered: 1. The mother, Elizabeth J. Janis, and the father, Philip C. Goth, shall have shared legal custody of Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995. 2. The Father shall have primary physical custody of the minor child. 3. The Mother shall have periods of temporary physical custody of the minor child as follows: A. On Sunday, April 19, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.; on Saturday, May 2, from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.; on Sunday, May 10, from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.; on Saturday, May 16, from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.; on Sunday, May 24, from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. and on Saturday, May 30, from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. 4. Unless agreed otherwise by the parties, the receiving parent shall pick the child up such that the mother shall pick the child up at the beginning of the custody and the father shall pick the child up at the end of the custody. It is noted that this pick up arrangement shall be switched on Saturday, May 2, with father delivering the child at the beginning and mother delivering the child back to the father. 5. The parties shall meet again for another custody conciliation conference on Thursday, June 4, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.. 6. The Children's Advocacy Clinic of Penn State University Dickinson School of Law is appointed as guardian ad litem for the minor child, Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995. As guardian ad litem, the Children's Advocacy Clinic will represent the minor child's best interest. This order authorizes the guardian ad litem to have access to the child's educational records, medical records, mental health/counseling records and any possible records from a County/child welfare agency, if the agency has been involved with the child. The Children's Advocacy Clinic shall serve in this capacity at no charge to the parties or to Cumberland County. The parties and their attorneys shall cooperate with The Children's Advocacy Clinic in connection with any requests for information, request for meetings/interviews for the parties and the minor child, or any home visits. County. The parties and their attorneys shall cooperate with The Children's Advocacy Clinic in connection with any requests for information, request for meetings/interviews for the parties and the minor child, or any home visits. 7. In the event the mother desires to have a custody evaluation commenced, the mother may proceed with scheduling that evaluation at her own expense and the father shall cooperate with respect to the evaluation in attending any sessions the evaluator desires to meet with the father and also insuring that the minor child attends any evaluation sessions. At some point in the future, mother may request this court to assess father costs in connection with the evaluation if the court deems such an assessment is appropriate. 8. The minor child may continue in her existing counseling with Deborah Asper, with the understanding that the counselor has the ability to share with legal counsel for the parties, or the parties themselves if they do not have counsel, information relating to the ongoing case and the minor child. Additionally, Miss Asper is specifically authorized without any further release of information documentation or other documentation to discuss the situation with Gretchen with The Children's Advocacy Clinic appointed above. 9. When the minor child is in the custody of the other parent, the non-custodial parent shall not interfere with the other parent by unreasonable contact with the child through unreasonable telephone contact, texting or other similar matters. BY THE COURT, ._1 //,M , _j 0_ dvi-j-) evin A. Hess, Judge cc: Courtney K. Powell, Esquire Mr. Philip C. Goth 4, 1 N& d A CAW Z', . 9f EXHIBIT "E" Courtney K. Powell From: Inter Works [Frontdesk@interworksonline.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:14 AM To: Courtney K. Powell Subject: Janis v Goth Courtney, Your client contacted me 4/20/09 regarding a custody evaluation; I did the intake and informed her I would need to hear from Mr. Goth before scheduling. On 4/21 Mr. Goth left a message on our phone line. I attempted to return the call on 4- 22-09 three separate times 12:05pm, 1:05 pm & 1:15pm the phone line would ring three times then go dead. As of today I still have not heard back from Mr. Goth. Heather Sorry about the delay in sending you this email. Deborah L. Salem, CACO, LPC Clinical Director Anthea L. Stebbins, MSW,LSW Heather Duncan, BS Case Manager Interworks 4331 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-236-6630 717-236-6677 (fax) This email contains PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only for the use of the recipient named above. The information may be protected by state and federal laws, including, without limitation, the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), which prohibit unauthorized disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use or dissemination of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email at the address provided above and delete this message. Thank you. EXHIBIT "F" ELIZABETH J. JANIS, Plaintiff VS. PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2003-254 IN CUSTODY PRIOR JUDGE: The Honorable Kevin A. Hess CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: I . The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on June 4, 2009, with the following individuals in attendance: The mother, Elizabeth Janis, with her counsel, Courtney K. Powell, Esquire, and the father, Philip Goth, who appeared Pro Se, and Chase Collins who appeared on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Clinic of PSUDSL which is guardian ad litem for the minor child. 3. This is an extremely difficult case with many complicating factors. The primary issue is a concern as to the child's desire and welfare relative to visiting with the mother. Despite a number of efforts, the parties have hit an impasse with respect to scheduling expanded time for the mother. Understandably, the mother is frustrated on that particular issue and is requesting that a hearing be scheduled. In the meantime, there will be a number of evaluations scheduled that may have an ultimate bearing on what the Court decides to do in this case. However, the parties need to get before the Court for a hearing to address mother's desire to have a more meaningful visitation schedule with the minor child. 4. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: Jun b , 2009 Hubert i roy, Esquire Custody Conciliator JUN 1 '2 2009 ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PHILIP CASON GOTH, NO. 2003-254 Defendant IN CUSTODY PRIOR JUDGE: The Honorable Kevin A. Hess COURT ORDER AND NOW, this day of June, 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A hearing is scheduled in Court Room No. 4 of the Cumberland County Courthouse on the ' ? day o 2009 at 9,20 &m. At this hearing, the mother shall be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Legal counsel for the parties, or the parties themselves if they do not have legal counsel, along with the guardian ad litem for the minor child, shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a memorandum setting forth the history of custody in this case, the issues currently before the Court, a summary of each parties position on these issues, a list of witnesses who will be called to testify on behalf of each party and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each. witness. This memorandum shall be filed at least five days prior to the mentioned hearing date. 2. Pending further Order of this Court, this Court's prior Order of May 12, 2009, is ratified subject to the following additional provisions: A. Father shall notify mother via email within five days of receipt of this Order as to the location and address and phone number (if available) of where he will be vacationing with the minor child later in June. r B. The father shall insure Gretchen initiates a phone call to her mother at least two times a week to have Gretchen speak with her mother, and the father shall insure that Gretchen shall follow up with those calls, leave a message and consummate communications at least two times per week. C. Father shall advise mother within five days of this Order with respect to the schedule, as he understands it at this time, for the minor child during the summer to include a sports activities, vacations or other pertinent matters. 3. Pending the hearing scheduled above, mother's periods of temporary physical custody of the minor child shall be as follows: A. From 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. on the following days: Saturday, June13 Sunday, June 28 Saturday, July 1, Saturday, July 25 Saturday, August 8 Saturday, August 22 4. Consistent with paragraph seven of the May 12, 2009, Order, mother has retained Interworks to do a Custody Evaluation. Both parties are scheduled for an initial conference on July 1, 2009. Both parties are directed to cooperate with respect to this evaluation and also the father as the primary custodian shall insure that the minor child shall participate in the evaluation as directed by Interworks. 5. The parties shall also facilitate having a psychological and psychiatric exam performed for the minor child at Wellspan. 6. The parties shall also continue to cooperate with the guardian ad li tem consistent with paragraph 6 of the May 12, 2009 Order. Along those lines, the guardian ad litem is requested to maintain close contact with the minor child, monitor visitation pending the hearing and, as appropriate, recommend to the Custody Conciliator any expanded visitation for vacation or otherwise that may be in the best interest of the minor child pending a hearing. BY THE COURT, evin A. Hess, Judge cc: Courtney K. Powell, Esquire Chase Collins, Esquire Mr. Philip C. Goth "RU'E' COPY FROM RECORU 16.,nv.z.m 3 t-,ore f,1 here unto set my New V?jid Se", d said Co W, Carkie, P.. EXHIBIT "G" I N TEK,-WyRK5 Clinical Director Deborah L. Salem, CAC, L PC VV / Associates Anthea L. Stebbins, LSW Heather Duncan, BS 4331 North Front St Harrisburg PA 17110 Tel 717-236-6630 0 Fax 717-236-6677 frontdesk@interworksonline.com DATE: 07/27/09,. h =, r .ti tb.?J R?? t 4 ? ` a ` r nt t --- TO: Courtney K. Powell, Esq. Phillip Goth, pro se x .d„ J, FROM: Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC L m.weasnwce?. ? Clinical Evaluator ------ .......... ` RE: Janis v Goth Dear Attorney Powell and Mr. Goth: On 07/20/09 I received a phone call from Chase Collins of the Dickinson Law Advocacy Center asking if I would have the custody evaluation on this family done by the September 4th hearing date. I advised him that while I was not trying to be cryptic or pelt evasive, I would be issuing a statement shortly and could at least tell him unequivocally that the evaluation would not be done by September 4, 2009. He indicated that he had received information that only one session had been held for each parent and that there may be some financial difficulty although he did not indicate from where he got his information. (It is noted that his information was inaccurate; at the time he called, no financial issues were affecting the completion of the evaluation; and the process was well under way beyond one session per parent.) At this time, I regret to inform you that the evaluation regarding the custody of Gretchen Goth has been forestalled indefinitely. There have been problems regarding the ® scheduling of this matter from its inception. The finances appeared to be the central issue A for Mrs. Janis and one of the central issues for Mr. Goth. As you know, Mrs. Janis has been temporarily assigned full responsibility for the entire fee in May, 2009 but with the + possible ability to get portions of the payment back from Mr. Goth at a future time. Mr. Goth also presented other issues related to scheduling in addition to finances. Specifically related to Mrs. Janis's part in the evaluation needing to be forestalled, her ability to gather all of the funds necessary to meet my criteria for a retainer has been difficult and fraught with many problems especially with the timing of my receipt of agreed upon funds. While the majority of the initial problems have been corrected by Mrs. Janis, there is now the matter of the remaining funds that are necessary before the evaluation can move forward since while I often make payment arrangements for large retainers, whenever problems ensue, I resort back to my contracted preference of 1, payment in full to proceed. It should be noted that despite her issues getting the total fee r,y Confidential Page 1 7/27/2009 to me, Mrs. Janis, followed through with tl requested paperwork, and has expanded her scheduled. ree scheduled appointments, completed all availability so that sessions could be easily With regard to financial matters, Mr. Goth first began questioning my staff about issues related to whether Mrs. Janis made payment in full and attached his willingness to schedule appointments to her payment. He was ultimately told that if my office was calling to schedule, it was an indication that we were ready to move forward and no other information about payment would be given. Mr. Goth then made a request for additional services to be added to the evaluation. In a phone message left by Mr. Goth on 07/13/09 (with a noticeably audible female voice in the background adding comments for Mr. Goth on what to say), he indicated that he possibly had up to ten additional persons he wanted added to the evaluation process that "had to be paid in full" by Mrs. Janis before he would move forward with appointments. It took two additional phone calls after that message before I personally called Mr. Goth to advise him that while I understood his desire for a thorough evaluation, I was ultimately in charge of deciding who would be added to the process and that I would gladly discuss any requests for such with him and add persons if deemed necessary at his next appointment. Third Mr. Goth first told my Clinical Case Manager and then me later that he "has done research" showing that the person who pays for an evaluation is the person who gets the "favorable outcome." He was reassured that this was not the case. In his conversation with me, be advised me that although he was unable to pay for the evaluation, he was cautious about the evaluation outcome because Mrs. Janis was paying for it. In matters not related to finances, Mr. Goth also questioned why we were not coming to his location to complete sessions to prevent him from taking time away from his daughter to come to us. He also wanted to know why he couldn't take his psychological tests at home or have them sent to him so that he could be saved the time and travel. He indicated that he would have to travel a total of four hours round trip to attend a session because he lives "10 minutes below Gettysburg" but that road construction slowed the trip. I assured him that I would work with him to combine sessions in any way possible that would save him time. However, I also advised him that there was no way we were traveling to him and no way he would be permitted to take psychological tests outside of our setting. He asked if there was some resource he could check to see if what I told him was true about the protocol for psychological testing. The differing issues for which Mr. Goth needed either reassurance or clarification resulted in a significant loss of time in scheduling appointments for him since, as stated, he would not schedule unless given the information and the explanations he requested. This combined with the financial constraints and problems for Mrs. Janis created a "high maintenance" environment for me and my staff as well as the slowing of a process that leaves the burden of the continued family conflict in the lap of Gretchen Goth who, as I understand it from paperwork reviewed, had been talking in the recent past of being suicidal. I know the parents were court directed to get a psychiatric and psychological evaluation for Gretchen separate from the custody evaluation as well as continued counseling for her. While I have no information about whether Gretchen has had the Confidential Page 2 7/27/2009 evaluations or counseling, from a clinical standpoint, I hope so since, indeed, while we wait for the custody evaluation to move forward Gretchen's well being should remain central to everything. I have been given reassurances by Mrs. Janis that she is working diligently to have the necessary funds available as quickly as possible. I also hope that Mr. Goth's various resistances to scheduling his first appointment with me were finally dissipated through multiple phone calls and with his agreeing to meet with me on August 5, 2009--a session that will now be forestalled until I receive the remaining funds for my services. I hope this information will help the court understand the multiple reasons why the evaluation process has not proceeded on a standard path. Sincerely, Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC Clinical Evaluator Confidential Page 3 7/27/2009 ELIZABETH J. JANIS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 2003-254 PHILIP CASON GOTH, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Courtney Kishel Powell, Esquire, of James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP, attorney for the Plaintiff, Elizabeth J. Janis, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing Petition on the following on the date and in the manner indicated below: U.S. MAIL, FIRST CLASS, PRE-PAID Philip C. Goth 27 Wheaton Drive Littlestown, PA 17340 Chase D. Collins Certified Legal Intern The Dickinson School of Law Children's Advocacy Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013-2899 Dated: L By: Attorney I.D. #8 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 JAMES, SMITH, DIETTERICK & CONNELLY, LLP FILLI,,- OF 71-17 F" 'r'°" ?TAPY 2069 AUG 2 ! F'i-i 54 r' . 'Ti > k J'1 ? ??`G Off` ??? as 7770 {Ztl? aayv?? ELIZABETH J. JANIS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 2003-254 PHILIP CASON GOTH, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this aS74day of August, 2009, upon consideration of the attached Petition for Special Relief, filed by Plaintiff, Elizabeth J. Janis, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that a hearing on this matter is scheduled for V4 day of 2009, at 9 % 30 a.m./p:rrr before the Honorable Kevin A. Hess, Cumberland County Courthouse, Courtroom No. Y--, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By the Court, Hess, Judge stribution: :?-Vhilip urtney Kishel Powell, Esquire, P.O. Box 650, Hershey, PA 17033 C. Goth, pro se, 27 Wheaton Drive, Littlestown, PA 17340 l?o ids mc?il4c?, 8?as fog y OF THE Sri,yrY 2009 AUG 25 PH 12: 00 Cum6i. ; .> t ?t_,°.r'>>., .?--,UNTY rPENNSYI `Jrh„ 4;k kdc-,. -My 24, 2009 Elizabeth J. Janis, Plaintiff V. Philip C. Goth, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COOMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2003-254 CIVIL ACTION-LAW IN CUSTODY IN RESPONSE TO THE ACTION BROUGHT BY THE PLAINTIFF FOR PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF Reference shall be made to the Plaintiffs petition for special relief. The foregoing shall serve as the counter claims and remarks by the Defendant. The item numbers within the petition for special relief shall be referenced as follows: 1. True 2. True 3. True 4. Denied, the child, Gretchen, at the age of 13 at the time, was brought to the father on August 11, 2008 through Cumberland County Children and Youth Services (CCCYS) as a result of neglect and emotional abuse on the part of the mother. 5. True 5. Denied, The father was granted custody of the child on August 11, 2008 by CCCYS 7. True 8. True 9. True 10. True 11. True 12. Denied, Father allowed contact, however Gretchen refused to have contact. The child needed time away from the mother to work through issues which had developed prior to CCCYS involvement. 13. Denied, Due to illnesses by Ms. Asper, counseling sessions were cancelled. Further father had a full time contract job at the time and could not get Gretchen to sessions other than evenings. 14. Denied, several occurrences of the mother speaking disparagingly against the father and stepmother caused stress to Gretchen. 15. Denied, Counselor, Deb Asper, did not believe it to be in the Gretchen's best interest to expand visitation 16. Denied, Father asked Gretchen if additional time was a preference. Father allowed however Gretchen refused. Further the order by the court to have the visitation sessions supervised was rarely followed, rarely were supervisors present. Occasionally the son, Andy, would be present. Often times this was requested by the father of Andy. 17. True 18. True 19. True 20. True 21. Denied, Interworks failed to return fathers telephone call so that appointments could be scheduled 22. Denied, Interworks made no further effort to return the fathers phone call or to even leave a voice mail message 23. True 24. True 25. True 26. 27. True 28. True 29. Denied, the father had to cancel his appointment due to a job interview which took place out of town. The appointment was rescheduled 2 business days hence. 30. Denied, it is the defendant's desire that the defendant's letter of response to Ms. Salem's letter be heard by the court. See Defendant's EXHIBIT A, attached. 31. Denied, father requested, did not suggest 32. Denied, Three (3) subsequent appointments were scheduled by father with Interworks. Interworks cancelled all appointments 33. Denied, Interworks memorandum stated that payment must be made in full prior to the evaluation process starting 34. Denied, Gretchen's preference is to follow the court order 35. Denied, father is agreeable to this, however father does not believe that he is the one who should be evaluated due to the circumstances involving why Gretchen was brought to the father. Reference CCCYS involvement. 36. Denied, work responsibilities/emergencies, Gretchen's school and activities, unrepentant illness and circumstances beyond the fathers control need to be taken into consideration 37. 38. Agreed 39. Denied, Guardian Ad Litem only recommended psychological evaluations and psychiatric evaluations. The mother has been the moving party with respect to custody evaluations. Further, father does not have the financial resources to pay for evaluations due to recent unemployment history. 40. Agreed 41. Agreed 42. Agreed 43. Denied, this is per Salem's policy not the father's demands 44. Denied, mother chooses to be unemployed. It is strongly believed that she has not sought employment. The father questions why she even volunteered to pay the full amount of the evaluations in May 09 since her circumstances of employment have not changed. She has been collecting unemployment since 10/07. 45. Denied, fathers income is set at $80,000 per year as of 7/24/09 46. Denied, father opposes the financial impact of what is deemed unnecessary on the part of the father, as the father did not initiate or appeal to the courts to transfer custody until being notified by CCCYS that the child was no longer able to cope with the mother's lifestyle, mental abuse, and neglect. 47. Denied, father refuses to pay any costs of evaluations. Father recently became reemployed after a three (3) month layoff. The layoff was due to economic reasons. Further due to the state of the economy the father's income has been severely impacted due to the construction industry's inability to recover. Still the possibility exists that unemployment can occur in a short time due to the construction industry being hit hardest by the economy. Father did not request the evaluations, mother did. Father is still trying to recover financially after his latest layoff. Banks rarely approve personal loans without two years of employment with the same employer. 48. 49. Denied, Psychiatric evaluation has been scheduled with Wellspan. Wellspan will not perform psychological testing for custody matters. This is their policy. 50. Denied, father has agreed and continues to agree to do so. 51. Denied, this appointment was the earliest available appointment time with Wellspan. Father requested to be placed on Wellspan's cancellation list 52. Agreed 53. Denied, this appointment was the earliest available appointment time with Wellspan. Father requested to be placed on Wellspan's cancellation list 54. Denied, this position is also the same position of the Guardian Ad Litem 55. Denied, father will make sure that Gretchen is taken to the appointment. 56. 57. Denied, this appointment was the earliest available appointment time with Wellspan. Father requested to be placed on Wellspan's cancellation list 58. Agreed 59. Denied, Gretchen was taken from mother by CCCYS due to neglect/abuse. She is approaching 15 years old and wants to remain under her fathers care. She has adjusted quite well to her new school and has made many nice new friends. She is very involved in athletics and had straight A's in 8d' grade last year. 60. Agreed 61. Denied, father has followed the order. Father permits mother to have periods of custody as has been ordered since last interim order. It is Deb Asper's recommendation that Gretchen have minimal visitation in accord with the court order. a.) Agreed b.) Denied, Interworks cancelled the appointments, three (3) in number, due to non payment by the mother. Should Interworks remain as the custody evaluator father will follow through with scheduling appointments. c.) Denied, an absurd request as father works full time and Gretchen has school and athletic commitments. Further, due to sickness an appointment may have to be missed d.) Denied, father refuses to pay any costs of evaluations. Father recently became reemployed after a three (3) month layoff. The layoff was due to economic reasons. Further due to the state of the economy the father's income has been severely impacted due to the construction industry's inability to recover. Still the possibility exists that unemployment can occur in a short time due to the construction industry being hit hardest by the economy. Father did not request the evaluations, mother did. Father is still trying to recover financially after his latest layoff. e.) Agreed f.) Agreed, as long as the present arrangements remain meaning alternating Saturdays beginning September 5. This is per the interim order. Re ectfully submitted, Philip C. oth 27 Wheaton Drive Littlestown, PA 17340 717-433-8499 Defendant, pro se VERIFICATION I, Philip C. Goth verify that the statements made in the foregoing pleading are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. 1, 1 Date: B f 3 t l d 9 Philip C. th August 24, 2009 Philip C. Goth 27 Wheaton Drive Littlestown, PA 17340 Deborah Salem, CACD, LPC Interworks 4331 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 RE: Janis vs. Goth Memo from Deborah Salem dated July 27, 2009 Dear Ms. Salem: 1 am writing you in response to your memo dated July 27,2009. 1 have read and re-read your memo and feel that I have been unfairly labeled as uncooperative. As a preamble to this letter of response to your letter I wish to tell you that when one goes through a traumatic experience in life you become gun-shy and generally untrusting. When you find out that your house is going into foreclosure with 4 children living under that roof while fearing that they are going to be out on the street because their mother didn't pay the mortgage for months while intercepting the mail, which I had no knowledge of, causes one to lose trust. 1 was told while I worked my tail off, to provide a roof over my family's heads, that the bills were caught up (my ex-wife "took care" of the bills). Through having no knowledge of her not doing her part toward meeting our mutual obligations I know what she is capable of. Even though she said told the conciliator she was going to pay for the evaluations i was doubtful. So here we are in a holding pattern. Paragraph one of your letter, where you mention that "at the time no financial issues were affecting the completion of the evaluation and the process was well under way" makes no sense. Your office initially told me that the fees had to be paid in full in order to proceed. When 1 questioned again if the fees were paid in full your office did indeed tell me that the fees were paid in full. Paragraph two of your letter tries to explain that the finances are the central issue which 1 can believe. Ms. Janis was not assigned temporary responsibility for the entire fee. Both court orders place the entire burden on her. She never wanted anything but to pay the entire fee and appeared very confident in front of the conciliator that she would pay the entire fee. Further it was my impression that since Janis was the moving party and she wanted the evaluation she would be responsible for the fees in their entirety. Further, you had mentioned scheduling problems from its inception. Please let me point out that three appointments scheduled by myself were postponed by Interworks, the 2 hours exam, the in- home visit and the initial interview with you. Paragraph three of your letter again states that the contract states that payment in full must be made prior to proceeding. When I questioned if payment had been made in full your office said that it had. I further pointed out that I didn't wish for this to be a start and stop scenario due to payment in full not being made. Further, despite not making payment in full as stipulated, you state that Janis followed through with three appointments, inferring that i did not. Reference paragraph three above. You also state that she has expanded her availability inferring that I have not. Please be mindful that I have a new full time job. Janis chooses not to work therefore she has the time to be flexible with times etc. You personally stated to me on the phone that your office would be flexible with my schedule due to my commitments. Paragraph four of your letter states that I questioned whether or not payment had been made in full, a valid question understanding the terms of custody evaluations. Again your office stated that payment had been made in full. Obviously payment had not been made in full or Interworks would not have ceased the evaluation process. My request for added services, namely Interworks interviewing key witnesses for this case was valid in as much that the initial paperwork provided by your office stated that this could be accomplished. And since Janis was the moving party and insisted on evaluations and agreed to pay for them I felt my request was valid. When we spoke and you advised me that you would be the decider as to who would be interviewed 1 was agreeable. You should recall this. It is true that I have had and still have misgivings regarding who gets the better treatment when payment is made by one party or when that party makes the request to use a certain evaluator such as the matter we have presently. You see I was never given that opportunity to recommend an evaluator. What I was doing is expressing my concerns to you. It is generally true, however, through my research that the payer gets the more favorable outcome. Paragraph five of your letter which explains locations of testing was another question. At the time I was unemployed and concerned over gas expense and time. As you know with the road construction along rt. 15 in Camp Hill lengthy delays is the norm which is why a one hour sessions would take four hours out of my day. Believe it or not when I was unemployed I was extremely busy seeking employment opportunities which became my job, although without compensation. I also remember asking you where it is documented that tests must be taken at the office of the evaluator. You merely said that this is normal protocol. Paragraph six of your letter unfairly slants the reasons for the delay to the evaluation toward my questions. These again were merely questions and not issues. You even stated earlier in your memo that non-payment was the reason your efforts were postponed to continue with the evaluations. The fact remains that I cancelled one appointment, scheduling it 2 business days post and Interworks cancelled the three appointments, mentioned earlier in this letter, until payment issues were resolved by Janis. Further, for your information Gretchen was speaking of suicide when she was living with Janis while being neglected and emotionally abused by her mother. This occurred over a year ago. That is when CCC&Y was brought in to evaluate the situation and ultimately award me the child. I am sure that you have read the history of this case. Gretchen has been under my care since August 11, 2008 and is doing extremely well. She is happiest in Uttlestown, has adjusted very well, had straight A's in school last year and is quite active in sports. She has made very nice friends who we entertain at our home regularly. Gretchen's well being has been my focus since she was very young and that will not change, rest assured. Paragraph seven of your letter states that there have been reassurances by Janis that she is working to have the funds available as soon as possible. In normal circumstances funds do not suddenly appear. People such as you and I have to work to pay our obligations. Please understand that I cannot be party to payment for your services as 1 have limited resources due to my recent layoff. I am trying to catch up with bills and my own obligations and that will take considerable time. You write that 1 had resistances to scheduling my first appointment. What you term as resistances were merely questions that no one could address in your office until you spoke to me directly. As you remember I was set to go forward at that point with everything including the three appointments and further appointments. In summary, what I see is that the central theme to proceeding with the evaluations is non- payment by Janis. I would hope that you understand that is why I asked you in the beginning if the funds had been paid in full. Did you know that she had a SO`" birthday party and had 70 guests? 1 would guess that this would be quite an expense with the obligation of paying your fees looming. Do you know that she is $1000.00 in arrears for child support payments for Gretchen's financial care? Do you know of her criminal background, namely Insurance Fraud, numerous forgeries-some on closed accounts, theft by deception, and stealing $1000 from the Hampden Elementary PTO Scholarship Fund? Finally 1 would like to have you forward your insurance certificate for professional liability insurance to me. I would like to have this for my records. Thank you for your understanding of my situation and my concerns expressed. Very truly yours, Phil Goth OF TH"E T r MARY' 2009 AUG 31 M 12: 4 8 ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-254 CIVIL PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this 21* day of September, 2009, the court being satisfied to proceed to an adjudication of the merits of this case without the necessity of a custody evaluation, trial herein is set for Friday, December 18, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA. The court notes that this is the earliest possible date for a day- long hearing. The child, Gretchen, and/or the parties shall continue any ongoing counseling or therapy. The custody order of June 16, 2009, shall remain in effect with leave to counsel for the plaintiff to submit a proposed order for expanded weekend visitation commencing in mid October. BY THE COURT, Couney Kishel Powell, Esquire For the Plaintiff , Philip C. Goth, Pro Se Defendant ./Chase Collins Children's Advocacy Clinic Guardian Ad Litem :rlm yn!R- t LC Kevin ,A. Hess, J. `?q 91T, Ri FC, r _. OF THE ..., a ?,,? TAJRY 2009 SEA' Z 1 Pill 1.0 8 CUM, 3n j 4,. ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-254 CIVIL PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this 2& ` day of October, 2009, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that pending the custody trial of December 18, 2009, plaintiff, Elizabeth J. Janis' period of custody of the minor child, Gretchen, shall be expanded to include the following: a. October 31, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. through November 1, 2009, at 6:00 p.m.; b. November 14, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. through November 15, 2009, at 6:00 p.m.; C. November 26, 2009 (Thanksgiving Day) from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; d. November 28, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. to November 29, 2009, at 6:00 p.m.; and e. December 12, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. through December 13, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. Because the defendant's request for a continuance speculates as to an outcome that may not occur, and because a schedule should be established for the holidays before Christmas, and because this matter has been pending long enough, the request for continuance of the trial scheduled for December 18, 2009, is DENIED. BY THE COURT, ? Courtney Kishel Powell, Esquire For the Plaintiff -,-Philip C. Goth, Pro Se Defendant ? Chase Collins Children's Advocacy Clinic Guardian Ad Litem Am KWOM OF THE AAY 209 0CY 26 AM la 48 ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 03-254 CIVIL PHILIP CASON GOTH, Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this -67-? day of January, 2010, the agreement of the parties as announced in open court on December 18, 2004, and attached hereto, is herewith made a final order of court. This order is entered with the understanding that the custody exchange times on Sundays shall be at 6:00 p.m., and with the further understanding that the mother shall have three weeks of custody in the summertime. BY THE COURT, -,? X-7-Z,4 Kevin . Hess, J. Courtney Kishel Powell, Esquire For the Plaintiff Jordan Cunningham, Esquire For the Defendant ? Chase Collins Children's Advocacy Clinic Guardian Ad Litem :rim n G1'? t £.S' rna.c a c+? 1 MS. POWELL: Good afternoon, Your Honor. 2 Thank you for being patient. We've been successful in 3 working out an agreement between the parties and the 4 guardian ad litem. 5 THE COURT: You are more than welcome. Let 6 me interrupt you. I'm delighted to see that you've been 7 working and negotiating and trying to reach an amicable 8 solution to this case which is invariably better than 9 anything that I could force on the parties. So with that 10 interruption, go ahead. 11 MS. POWELL: Your Honor, as we go through 12 this I want to make sure everybody is on the same page, so I 13 will be stopping after every provision and paragraph to make 14 sure nobody else has anything else to include. 15 By mutual agreement, the parties have agreed tc 16 the following custody order: 17 1. They will share legal custody of the parties' 18 minor child, Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11th, 1995. 19 2. Father will continue to have primary physical 20 custody of the minor child. Mother will have periods of 21 partial custody every other weekend from Saturday at 9:00 22 a.m. to Sunday -- we are going to fill in the time in a 23 minute for a Sunday exchange. The every other weekend 24 visitation will commence the weekend of Christmas and rotate 25 thereafter. 1 1 On the every other partial custody weekend mother 2 will also have custody from Friday after school through 3 Saturday. So she will have essentially a full weekend and 4 then a partial weekend. 5 The holidays schedule -- does anyone have any 6 changes to that as it's written? 7 MR. CUNNINGHAM: No, and I'll make a comment 8 later. 9 MS. POWELL: The very first Friday will begin 10 Christmas night, which is next Friday, and it will rotate 11 thereafter. The holiday schedule by agreement of the 12 parties will be for Christmas of 2009 mother will have the 13 child from 12:00 noon Christmas Day until December 28th at 14 6:00 p.m. Father will have custody from 12:00 p.m. 15 Christmas Eve to 12:00 p.m. Christmas Day. 16 Beginning in 2010, mother will have Easter, which 17 will be from Saturday preceding the holiday through Monday 18 at 6:00 p.m. Memorial Day weekend will be the same, 19 Saturday through Monday at 6:00 p.m. Pick up time for both 20 of those Saturday's will be at 9:00 a.m. 21 Father will have July 4th holiday and Labor Day 22 weekend. The parties will share Thanksgiving on a rotating 23 basis. For 2010 Father will have the earlier part of the 24 day. The exchange time will be at 3:00,p.m. and mother will 25 have from 3:00 p.m. Thanksgiving day until Friday at 6:00 2 1 p.m. 2 THE COURT: And then in 2011 that will 3 reverse or not. I'm sorry. I thought you said alternating, 4 but I might have misheard. 5 MS. POWELL: We didn't get that far. 6 THE COURT: Well, we can worry about it in 7 2011. g MS. POWELL: We can say if the parties cannot 9 reach something with the parent coordinator -- 10 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Just rotate it. 11 MS. POWELL: Okay. We're going to rotate it. 12 MR. GOTH: Keep in mind that, you know, she's 13 going to be sixteen in two years so a lot of this can 14 change. 15 THE COURT: Sure. 16 MS. POWELL: The parties agree to rotate it 17 for the following year. The next paragraph. The parents 18 have agreed to elicit the help of a parent coordinator. 19 They have agreed to John King, Esquire, to do the parent 20 coordination which we understand is an approved coordinator 21 by the Court. Mr. King will address issues relating to the 22 parties' communication and cooperation with respect to the 23 custody schedule and will deal with conflict issues as they 24 arise between the parties. 25 MR. CUNNINGHAM: We had discussed the costs 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of it. If there is a perceived health and safety issue, that could also be directed towards Mr. King for his input, remediation, and recommendation. MS. POWELL: That's fine. THE COURT: Okay. We can add that. MS. POWELL: The parties understand that the parents coordinator can make decisions with respect to the conflict and which can be then reviewed by the Court if there is an appeal process essentially. The payment will be split on a fifty fifty basis unless the parent coordinator chooses to assess costs in another appropriate manner based on fault of the parties or however they deem appropriate. The payment must be made within thirty days of the session, paid in full, so that we don't have a problem with the parent coordinator. The next issue, within ten days from today's date, mother will provide father with information regarding the orthodontia covered expenses from the insurance that she carries for the child. Thirty days from today's date father will initiate and schedule the child for orthodontia treatment and begin that process. The child will continue to see Deb Asper at Wellspan who is the child's counselor. Father will schedule meetings every thirty-day period from the previous scheduled session -- within a thirty-day period of the previous 4 1 scheduled session. 2 THE COURT: I'm not sure I understood that. 3 MS. POWELL: If the child's appointment is 4 scheduled for January 15th, then the next scheduled 5 appointment should be within thirty days of that 6 appointment. To say every month may be a problem, so we 7 want to make sure that it is consistent every thirty days 8 that there is a session. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 MS. POWELL: Or on an as needed basis as 11 determined by Gretchen or the parents. In addition, mother 12 shall engage in reunification counseling on her own during 13 her own scheduled periods of custody to rebuild the 14 relationship between mother and the child. She will be 15 solely responsible to pay the expense of that and it will be 16 a licensed counselor of mother's choosing. In the event 1,7 that Gretchen decides not to continue with the counseling 18 session, she has the ability to express her desire with her 19 counselor, Deb Asper, who will then -- I'm sorry. Strike 20 that. Which could then be worked out with the parent 21 coordinator. 22 The parent coordinator will be allowed to address 23 issues regarding any additional time requested by mother for 24 special occasions but not have the ability to change the 25 overall schedule as outlined herein without the parties' 5 1 agreement. 2 I don't have anything else. Does anybody 3 have anything else? 4 MS. JOHNSTON-WALSH: If you could add a 5 provision that says that the child -- if any party or 6 household member is consuming alcohol to the point of 7 intoxication that the child be allowed to contact a person 8 to come and pick her up and take her to the other parent's 9 residence. 10 MS. POWELL: Essetially remove her from the 11 situation. 12 THE COURT: Mr. Cunningham, did you have 13 anything else. 14 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, I just want the record 15 to reflect, Your Honor, that there is a concern that Mr. 16 Goth has, and I don't want it lost in the fog of the 17 transcript, so I'll put it right out on the table. 18 There is a concern that an individual in mom's 19 home has had, in the past, a problem with alcohol. He has 20 addressed that problem, Your Honor. He's done the correct 21 things to address that problem. In the past it was an 22 issues, an issue the little girl, young woman, raised and 23 dad has a concern about it. That's why we put in the 24 provision about if the daughter feels that she is 25 threatened, not just because the parties are having a 6 1 marital disturbance, but that disturbance arose out the use 2 of alcohol. And we don't want to have Gretchen put in a 3 good situation where she manipulates the situation. But if 4 she has real concerns about her safety and welfare as a 5 result of the use of alcohol, the idea was she could call 6 any one of her two sisters. They then would either come and 7 take her out of the situation or if they were not in the 8 area or unavailable, have some responsible adult come and 9 take the child out of the situation and then that further 10 visitation for that weekend would be canceled. And it then 11 would allow mother to address the situation and if mother 12 didn't appropriately address the situation, then that would 13 be a situation that we could refer to the parent coordinator 14 for his review, consideration, and ultimately make a 15 recommendation to the Court. 16 And you didn't mention we still have one 17 outstanding issue, and that is the summer vacation. i8 MS. POWELL: I didn't get there. You're 19 right. I do want to add to what Mr. Cunningham said and 20 say, Your Honor, the child is essentially hypersensitive to 21 the use of alcohol. And so I would ask that just the 22 provision of the order say that when the child is in either 23 party's custody, if it comes to the point where it's an 24 issue, the child has that remedy. The other thing I did 25 neglect to add with respect to the counseling sessions for 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Asper, is that father will bear the expense for the counselor, Deb Asper. Mom is not responsible for that. She is solely responsible for the counseling involving her reunification with the daughter. THE COURT: Incidentally I had been made aware of this alcohol issue previously. I assume you all know that? MS. POWELL: Yes. THE COURT: I don't want to engage in any ex-parte communication, but Ms. Asper did -- and I think she sent everybody a copy of the letter to me dated December 1st. You all have that? MS. POWELL: Yes. THE COURT: So I'm aware of that situation. MS. POWELL: The two issues, Your Honor, that the parties have deferred to you again include the exchange times for the normal Sunday exchange and the summer schedule as Mr. Cunningham has indicated already. If Your Honor would like five minutes of argument from both sides? THE COURT: Yes, I think that would be fine. I understand your position, and I'm not going to guarantee that I'm going to sit here then and spout something off the top of my head. I will have what's been said thus far transcribed so that I can turn it into a court order and in the course of doing that I will fill in these two blanks 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that we're talking about. As I say, whether I'm going to do it right here and now or later remains to be seen, so let's start about Sunday. MS. POWELL: My client would request to do the exchange time at 7:00 p.m. Father does provide transportation -- does the pick up time. Actually I should say that the party receiving custody does the pick up time, so my client would like additional time in the Sunday evening hours because essentially to maximize the time with her child. She is not asking for the moon and stars. She only sees her daughter every other weekend. They do live forty-five minutes away from each other, so an additional hour my client feels is appropriate and is not really asking for a whole lot. My client does have the ability to give the child time to do her homework so schooling is not an issue. There are obviously no sporting events that would interfere with an hour exchange time between six and seven. They're asking for it be kept at 6:00. THE COURT: And would the thought be that she would have some sort of evening meal. MS. POWELL: Sure. Absolutely. Following the dinner. THE COURT: That would sort of accommodate a dinner time. MS. POWELL: With respect to the summer 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 schedule, my client is asking for three weeks during the summer. As it stands right now, the child attends Littlestown School District. Their school ends June 4th barring any snow days added on to the end of that calendar year. They do commence school the week before Labor Day, so there's approximately 11 to 11 and a half weeks during the summer. The child has already expressed an interest to go to a basketball camp in State College which both parents have agreed the child can attend. My client would like three weeks out of the summer, one in June, one in July, and one in August. The child is involved in extra-curricular activities so the concern for August is that it may interfere with sports-related activities and practices, but if we push it towards the first or second week in August, that concern should be alleviated. The parties have agreed that the week's vacation -- THE COURT: Let me interrupt you there. If sports activities is a problem, what is to prevent the understanding that the mother will simply have custody and will assure participation in the activities just as the father would? That would just happen to be one of the weeks where she probably wouldn't be out of town. MS. POWELL: That's correct. If the child has practice or some scheduled extra-curricular activity, my 10 1 client has already indicated she would be making sure that 2 the child gets to and from that during her week. I do not 3 think it would be an issue, however, if we did it in the 4 beginning of the first or second week in August. I don't 5 think practices start until the third week in August. 6 THE COURT: And how does she propose that the 7 weeks be selected, give some sort of advance notice to him? 8 MS. POWELL: Yes, Your Honor, and frankly my 9 client is rather flexible. My client has articulated a 10 desire to have the week of June 11th to the 18th for the 11 week in June. July is flexible. August would be, you know, 12 the first or second week, but there is no designated period 13 of vacation time. 14 THE COURT: Wouldn't it make more sense to 15 simply say that she needs to give him at least 90 days or 16 180 days or whatever notice of the three weeks in the 17 summer? 18 MS. POWELL: That would be definitely doable. 19 Father has expressed one week in July he will be going to 20 the beach. We don't know the specifics of that, and I would 21 ask that dad give us the dates on that schedule, and my 22 client can work around that. 23 But father's pushing for two weeks in the summer. 24 My client would prefer three. This is essentially the issue 25 that Your Honor is being asked to decide. My client was not 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 afforded summer vacation last year because of the custody order in place at the time. As Your Honor is well aware, there's a lot of history here and without really making too much of the record, my client is making progress towards mending the relationship with her daughter. We have continued to expand her time. We are in the process of doing that now with the current order. My client would like to have uninterrupted time during the summer when she is not a busy social teenager with extra-curricular activities. That's all we have. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Cunningham and then we'll let Mr. Collins if he cares to address these issues. MR. CUNNINGHAM: Just one housekeeping issue so that we're clear on this. In 2010 the Easter and Memorial Day holidays that you mentioned, that is being taken on one of her regularly-scheduled weekends. Is that correct? MS. POWELL: For 2010 they are both on her weekends, yes. MR. CUNNINGHAM: And in 2011 we will work that out. MS. POWELL: We don't know. MR. CUNNINGHAM: All right. Your Honor, the first issue being between six and seven, for the past three 12 1 months it's been at 6:00, and it's worked out. The travel 2 time from Littlestown to mom's address is about 50, 55 3 minutes. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So the problem is you're coming back at eight, 8:15. It's a school night, and while this child is fifteen years old or will be fifteen years old, it kind of -- I understand the concept that she could have dinner at mom's house at 7:00, but the issue is that you put Dad then in a situation where he's leaving at six, picks up at seven, gets back at 8:15, 8:30, and they've been able to work through that process where they get back at seven. It's just it's been that way. It's been consistent, and with this couple it has worked. And the resistance is the timing of it. It's just better to get back at seven than it is at eight, and it's an issue that these two parties just can't make a determination on and consistency and the history just says 6:00 works. So it was thrown to you to make a determination. THE COURT: And I will promise to resist the temptation that would occur to any judge in this situation not to make it 6:30, and I promise I won't do that. MR. CUNNINGHAM: We tried that. MS. POWELL: But we're not opposed to Your Honor doing it. MR. CUNNINGHAM: With regard -- 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: But you do say that 6:00 has been pretty much the pattern here before? MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, for the past three months. Right. The two weeks versus the one week. I did bring this up with counsel. There is a concept that daughter is going to work this year for the Littlestown School District. They have a program that the students wash the buses before the annual inspection of the buses. And whether she gets that job or any other job, dad feels it would be a good thing for his 15-year-old to have a job and to make a little bit of money so she has her own money. Obviously mom has a right and daughter should be with mom for a period of time. The resistance is that the history of the case, they're getting into now maybe a more permanent situation where there's more regularity. The guardian ad litem has some real concerns that there's really nothing going on between mom and daughter when visitation is going on. Daughter watches TV, mom isn't interacting with daughter. That's a concern. Hopefully they'll be able to do something over the next several months maybe to begin to bring that relationship back together. But as it is now, dad feels that after having talked with daughter and the rest of the family and to be candid with the Court I asked daughter how she felt about 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it, and she said, Hey, as long as mom got me to the practices when I was with her, you know, that would be okay. I don't want to bring in ex-parte comments made outside which are hearsay, but you've got dad who has legitimate concerns. If you would have asked dad a day ago, he would have said nothing. You know, I don't think she should even go because I have these concerns, but with the things that we have built into this order and with the involvement of the parent coordinator, he's moved from that position, and to his credit I think he's moved. So that and being able to have a job and being able to say this young lady is available for whatever it is, five or six weeks worth of work, he has all those concerns. I think they're legitimate. I don't think he's trying to be in any way punitive to mom, and it -- she is a 15 year old and she has her friends, and those friends happen to be in Littlestown. So with all that said, it's left to you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I will transcribe everything that has been said. I don't want to cut anybody off, but it would be strange to me that given the fact that so many more important issues have been resolved that the guardian would take a position on these two relatively minor matters, but if you do for some reason, let me know. MR. COLLINS: Your Honor, the guardian ad 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 litem has no position with regard to those issues. The only thing that I would be willing to add is that the decisions that are made here today don't interfere with Gretchen's sports schedule. She is deeply committed to those and takes great pride in those. THE COURT: And I'm sensing there's general agreement about that, and that's a good thing. MR. COLLINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. CUNNINGHAM: Your Honor, I just pointed out, the standard language with regard to -- MS. POWELL: Disparaging remarks and parent alienation. THE COURT: I would have to dig out an order. Anybody want to fax me some appropriate language about that? MS. POWELL: Well, I think we can -- I don't know that it's included in any other order, but I'm sure I can definitely do that. THE COURT: I don't know if it's included in any order in this case, but I just don't happen to have one of those sitting on my desk at the moment. MR. CUNNINGHAM: We'll provide language to you. THE COURT: Some language that's suitable to everybody concerned and I'll be happy to make it a part of 16 i the order. Unless there's anything else, we'll be 2 adjourned. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. POWELL: Thank you very much, Your Honor. 17 ELIZABETH JANIS, Plaintiff v. PHILIP C. GOTH, Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET N0.03-254 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW /CUSTODY PRAECIPE Please withdraw the appearance of Cunningham & Chernicoff, P.C. on behalf of the Defendant, Philip C. Goth, such withdrawal be made pursuant to the directive of Defendant, Philip C. Goth, who intends to proceed Pro Se in this matter. CUNNIN CHERNICOFF, P.C. Date: Z v By: . Cunningham, Esquire PA preme Court I.D. No. 23144 P.O. Box 60457 Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457 Telephone : 717-23 8-6 5 70 F:\Home\AI-IEWITT\DOCS\G-I\GOTH, PHILIP\Praecipe to withdrawal 072310.wpd Cam' ~ Y r~ ~: ~ .~ ~ Lt ~/ C^ '~ F CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that do the ~~day of July 2010, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing in the captioned matter, by facsimile and by placing the same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, iry Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Courtney Kishell Powell, Esquire .flames Smith Dietterick Connelly, LLP 134 Sipe Avenue Hummelstown PA 17036 Facsimile: 717-53 3-7771 Nadya J. Chmil Certified Legal Intern Dickinson School of Law Children's Advocacy Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013-2899 ~` ELIZABETH J. JANIS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~' 2003-254 CIVIL ACTION LAW PHILIP CASON GOTH DF...FF.NDANT 1N CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Friday, July 30, 2010 ,upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. ,the conciliator, at 4th Floor ,Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 __ at 10:30 AM for aPre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 4$ hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR. THE COURT, By: !s/ Hubert X. Gllro Es . Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabied individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. r7 v - .... -- - Cumberland County Bar Association `-- ° =-~ `' ~,~, ~ b ~~-,~ . ~~ tad ,~ 32 South Bedford Street ~ ; -; . Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 E `~, i i dry ~ J© C'aC~ ~~~~ 4I'elephone (717) 249-3166N~ • V ~ 4 ~ ~ o ~' ~ , t0.GeC~ 1+1 ~1! ~ ~ tC. ., to c_ o ~ ~ -~~ ~.a•~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ '. r' „1 ._ Christine Taylor Brann, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 82204 James Smith Dietterick & Connelly, LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Respondent ELIZABETH J. JANIS Plaintiff/Respondent v. PHILIP CARSON GOTH Defendant/Respondent a~lo ~~ 3 ~~ i~=Sy IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN CUSTODY NO. 2003-254 CIVIL TERM PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO GUARDIAN AD LITEM'S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff/Respondent, Elizabeth J. Janis, (hereinafter referred to as "Mother"), by and through her attorneys, Christine Taylor Brann, Esquire, of James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP, and files this Answer to Guardian ad Litem's Petition to Modify Custody as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part and denied in part. While it is admitted the parties have previously agreed to the appointment of John F. King, Esq., as Parenting Coordinator, as presented in Paragraph 12 of the proposed Order of Court, it is denied that the parties are no longer in agreement to the appointment of the parenting coordinator. To the contrary, Mother believes it is in the best interest of the minor child to continue working with John F. King, Esq., as Parenting Coordinator. 6. No response required. 7. Admitted. WHEREFORE, Mother respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant Guardian ad Litem's Petition to Modify the current Custody Order, with the exception of Paragraph 5, and schedule a Custody Conciliation Conference, in order to resolve the issues in dispute. Respectfully submitted, JAMES, SMITH, DIETTERICK & CONNELLY, LLP Dated: `~ • ~ ' ~Cj!(~ By: ~-- ~J-~,_- 'stine Taylor Br squire Attorney I.D. #8220 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Respondent 2 VERIFICATION I, Elizabeth J. Janis, verify that the statements made in the foregoing pleading are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~ G ~ ~ El' a eth J. Janis ELIZABETH J. JANIS Plaintiff/Respondent v. PHILIP CARSON GOTH Defendant/Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW 1N CUSTODY NO. 2003-254 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christine Taylor Brann, Esquire, of James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP, attorney for the Plaintiff/Petitioner, Elizabeth J. Janis, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing Answer to Guardian ad Litem's Petition to Modify Custody on the following on the date and in the manner indicated below: VIA U.S MAIL. FIRST CLASS. PRE-PAID Nadya J. Chmil, Certified Legal Intern Children's Advocacy Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq. Cunningham and Chernicoff 2320 North 2"d Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 JAMES, SMITH, DIETTERICK & CONNELLY, LLP Dated: ~~~ By: ~ Christine Taylor Brann, uire Attorney LD. #82204 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 (717)533-3280 Attorneys for Plaintiff ,~ l OCT 01 ZU1U ELIZABETH J. JANIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION -LAW 9 ~, ~~~1 g E ~ PHILIP CASON GOTH, NO. 2003-254 G,,o~~oa°,~o Defendant IN CUSTODY Q~O~ Og 0• COURT ORDER ~ AND NOW, this y~ day of October , 2010, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, the prior orders of court entered in this case are vacated and the following order is entered: 1. The mother, Elizabeth J. Janis, and the father, Philip C. Goth, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995. 2. The mother shall enjoy primary physical custody of the minor child. 3. The father shall enjoy periods of temporary physical custody of the minor child at such times as agreed upon by the parties and the minor child. 4. The Children's Advocacy Clinic of The Dickinson School of Law Penn State University shall continue as guardian ad litem subject to the understanding that they will be involved at the request of the daughter and they will remain available to Gretchen in the event she wants them to be involved in this situation. BY THE COURT, ~~ Kevin A ess, Judge cc: ,~Gourtney K. Powell, Esquire ~ristin Frantz, Certified Legal Inter ~Ir. Philip C. Goth ~ 1 ELIZABETH J. JANIS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. PHILIP CASON GOTH, . Defendant Prior Judge: The Honorable Kevin A. Hess CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 2003-254 IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Gretchen Alicia Goth, born February 11, 1995 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on September 30, 2010 with the following individuals in attendance: The mother, Elizabeth Janis, with her counsel, Courtney K. Powell, Esquire, and the father, Philip Goth, who appeared Pro Se, and the Court Appointed guardian ad litem which is the Kristin Frantz and Lucy Johnston Walsh of the Children's Advocacy Clinic. 3. There is a lot going on this case since the Court held a hearing last December. However, the bottom line is that the minor child has returned to live with the mother. The father is, understandably, frustrated with these proceedings and the recent relocation of the daughter. However, she is fifteen years oid at this point and the parties are not desirous of or in a position to be litigating the case further. 4. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: October ~r~, 2010 Hubert X. Gi roy, squire Custody Conciliator