HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-01530i ~~
0
._
~~-
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HARRISBURG DISTRICT
CERTIFICATE OF CONTENTS OF REMANDED RECORD
PA. R.A.P. 2571 AND 2572
THE UNDERSIGNED, Chief Clerk of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, the
said Court being a Court of Record, does hereby certify that annexed to the original
hereof is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record as remanded from said
Court, in the following matter:
Parts: 1 PART
Caption & Docket Numbers:
KENNETH W HALL AND LISA ANN HALL
V
WALTER L HUMPHREY
NO. 1087 HARRISBURG, 1998
(CUMBERLAND CO. N0. 98-IS30 CIVIL TERM)
In compliance with Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Prorcdde~~drrure 2571.
The date on which the record has been remanded is , ~d~,~.U_4 ~~"
An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed with the original hereof, and the
Clerk of Prothonotary of the lower court or the head, chairman, deputy or secretary of the
government unit is hereby directed to acknowledge receipt of the remanded record by
executing such copy at the place indicated and by forthwith returning the same.
~ a~,~
Chief Clerk -Harrisburg District
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
RECORD, etc. RECEIVED DATE
signature and title
~ ~
CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL, OF RECORD
UNUER
PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (c)
To the Prothonotary of 1•he Appellate Court to which tho
within matter leas been appealed:
_ SUPERIOR COURT OF PA
THE UNDERSIGNED, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
Of _ CUMBF.RI AND COUnty, the Said COUCt being a COU[t Of reCO[d,
do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy
of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the courC
as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits,
if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, iE any, and the
docket entries in the Following matter:
KENNETH W. HALL AND LISA ANN HALL
HIS WIFE
VS
WALTER L. HUMPHREY
98-1530
1087 HBG 98
The documents comprising the record have been numbered
from No. 1 to No. gt and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a
list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with
reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each dccument,
Che number of pages comprising the documenC.
The date on which the record has been transmitted to the
appellate court is in_ns_on
(Seal of Court)
An additional copy cf this certificate is enclosed. Pleasn
sign and date copy, thereby acknowledging receipt of r:his record.
RECORD RECEIVED:
RECORD FILED IN SUPERIOR COURT
OCT 2.91998
Date:
(signature & title)
HARRISBURG
1- P~e~-
Comnnmwcnhh of Pcnnsyh~nnin
County of Cumhcrlnrul ss:
N
I, ctiRmrR a_ r.O~G .Prothonotary
of the Court of Common I`Icns in and for sold
County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is u
fulh true and correct copy of the whole record of the
cnsc therein suucd, wherein
IQ7~~'lff 1d. HALL AND
LISA AMI HALL
PlnintifL and
GGtLTER L FHMPfIr~Y
Dcfcndnnt , as the same remains of record
before the said Court of No. _ of
96-1530 Tcrm. A, D. 19-.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hove hereunto set my bond and nffixcd the seal of said Court
this ~~ day of O[.RO~[i A, D„ 198-.
-~~~~~~ i 1'nnhonotuty
I, G170RCE E. HOPPER President Judge of the ~~%R
Judicial District, composed of the County of Cumhcrlnnd, do certify that
amTls R. rnrr•. , by whom the annexed record, ccrtificatc and
aUcstution were mode and given. and Who. In 1115 OWn prollcf handWflUng, thereunto subscribed his name
and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said County, was,at the time ofsodoing, and now is
Prothonotary in and for said County of ~~ in
the Commonwealth of Pcnnsylvtrnia,dtlly comrnissionedand yualificd toall of whoscacts assuch full faith
and credit arc and ought to be given as well in Courts ofjudicaturc as elsewhere, and that the said record,
ccrtificatc and nttcsuuion me in due form of Inw and mulklYty ~c~mner officer.
Preslacnl auapc
`"' " 1
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumhcrlnnd ss:
I, Q1R'14S R. LQ~ ,Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in
and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable t E. HOPPER
by whom the foregoing attestation was made, and who Itas!hcrcunto subscribed his name, was, at the time
of making thereof, and still is Presidcnt.ludge of thcCourt of Common Pleas. Orphan' Caurt and Caurt of
Quarter Sessions of tltc I'eacc in and for said County, duly Commissioned and yualificd; to all whose acts
:rs such full faith and credit arc and ought to be given, :rs well in Courts of judicature ns elsewhere.
IN TL•S'fIMONY WIIEREOF, I have hereunto
set my bond :rod nffixcd the seal of said Court this
13fi1H day of OCIOBFR A.D. 192.
CURTIS R. LONG
1~~~ __ _ _ I ~ Ih ur
.~ _ _.
KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL
~ VS
WALTER L. HUMPHREY
Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Plcns in and far the
county of CUMBERLAND in the Commonwcnlth of Pcnnsylvnnia
98- 1530 CIVIL
to No. 1087 HBG 98 'I'crm, 19 is contained the following:
COPY OF-_ APPEARENCE DOCKET ENTRY
SEE ATTACHED
1998-01530 HALL KENN~H W ET~AL (VS)-HUM~HRE~ WER L
Reference No..: Filed........: 3/19/195
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time....,..,.: 6:(
Jud ment.,....: 00 Execution Date 0/00 00(
Jude Assigned: HAYLEY EDGAR B Sat/Dis/Gntd.. 0/00/00(
Jury Trial....
Hi her Court 1
Hi~her Court 2
********i***i*****~#*~**k**i**•************#**A***~**~* Mk****i*•***i**AM***•Y
General Index Attorney info
HALL KENNETH W PLAINTIFF FLOWER JAMES D JR
10746 SPRING RIDGE ROAD
SHIPPENSBURG PA 17257
HALL LISA ANN PLAINTIFF FLOWER JAMES D JR
10746 SPRING RIDGE ROAD
SHIPPENSBURG PA 17257
HUMPHREY WALTER L DEFENDANT
1.3853 AZALEA CIRCLE NO 248
TAMP FL 33613
rrrra****~**~**~*r****r*~a*+*r~*r*~~*-w~**r****+***r~***+*~*r*r~rr~*~r*~*~***+
PAGEN * Date Entries
02-10 03/19/98 COMPLAINT - CUSTODY
O1 03/20/98 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 3/20/98 - IN RE COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY -
3%23/098 ACTION IS STAYED - BY EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPIES MAILED
11 05/22/98 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 5/22/98 - IN RE CUSTODY - ORDER ENTERED
3[20L98 IS VACATED - HEARING 6/10/98 1:30 PM CR 2 - BY EDGAR B
B YL Y J - COPIES MAILEDWS/p23/96
12-19 06%30%98 ORDERIOF COURTULEDATEDH6W30A98E- IN RE PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW
CAUSE - PETITION IS DENIED AS THE RECORD IS CLOSED - BY EDGAR B
BAYLEY J - NOTICE MAILED 7/2/98
20L`40'07/10/98 OPINION AND ORDER OF COUAT - DATED 7/10/98 - IN RE CUSTODY - BY
EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPIES MAILED 7/10/98
41-45 07/15/98 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT BY JAMES D FLOWER JR ESQ
46-49 07/15/98 WITHIPATROA P01732AYPLFFCOURT ORDEA PENDING APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE
50 07/17/98 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 7/16/98 - IN RE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF
551 MAILED07%17/98NDING APPEAL - DENIED - BY EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPIES
52 07%28%98 SURPERIORPCOURTEOF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO ~ 1087 HBG 98
54-60 08/10/98 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 8/10/98 - TRANSFER OF BRIANNA TO WALTER L
HUMPHREY IS TEMPORARILY STAYED - BY EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPIES
MAILED 8/10/98
61 08/1098 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 8/10/98 - HEARING ON THE PETITION FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF THE CUSTODY ORDER ENTERED ON 7/10/98 SHALL BE
CONDUCTED 8//11/98 9:15 AM CR 2 - BY EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPIES
62-63 08/11'/98 ORDERDOF/COURT - DATED 8/11/98 IN RE TRANSFER OF CUSTODY - BY
64-76 ~' ~~ B HAYLEY J - COPIES MAILED 8/12/98
77-91 EXHIBITS
c:lwpSfldgni,.phdlnW.e~wn ,lGh
3-zo-y8
KENNETH W, HALL and LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
IN THE COURTOF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 96 - !~ ju CIVIL TERM
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
ORDER OF COURT
~_
AND NOW, this 'C>~`a day of h'\n_~.c_(~. , 1998,
pending a decision on the Petition for Involuntary Terminatlon of Parental Rights of Walter L.
Humphrey, which was heard on February 18, 1998, and for which the record is still open, this
custody action IS STAYED. Temporary physical custody of Baby Girl Brianna shall be with
Kenneth W. Hall and L(sa Ann Hall. The Complaint and the Order shall be served on Walter L.
Humphrey. J ~
BY THE` COURT: ~
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Petitioners
Anne Shepard, Esquire
Court-Appointed for Walter Humphrey
Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire
Court-Appointed for Baby Girl Brianna
Walter L. Humphrey
13853 Azaela Circle, No. 24B
Tampa, FL 33613
nti+e~~fcc~( 3.:2 3/ S ~ .
FII.[D-QFFICC-
OF 71' P'0~1•!C~!OTMY
98 P11tR ?.0 Fi•1 2~ n0
(i~itviu:.~iL~'~'i11 {:.ou~rrrY
r~tl~us~ulnra!n
~-
e;\upSl WLrtlmlhallcuds~nl
KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL,
Pla(ntiffs,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 98 - CIVIL TERM
QRDER OF COURT
AND NOW, upon consideration of the attached Petition, it is hereby directed that
the parties and their respective counsel appear before ,
Esquire, the Conciliator, on the day of , 1998, at
o'clock _.m., in ,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 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.
All children age five or older shall also be present at the Conference. Failure to appear at the
Conference may provide grounds for the entry of a Temporary or Permanent Order.
BY THE COURT,
Custody Conciliator
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET
FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-3166
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990
The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is required by law to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For Information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations
available to disabled Individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must
be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the Court.
BY THE COURT:
z
r:lwptll~Aq.li.rdhallcua.nm
KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 98 - / S3U CIVIL TERM
COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY
1. The Plaintiffs are KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL, adult
individuals, residing at 10746 Spring Ridge Road, Shippensburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania.
2. The Defendant is WALTER L. HUMPHREY, an adult individual, residing at
13853 Azalea Circle, No. 248, Tampa, Florida 33613.
3. The proposed adoptee is a baby girl, BRIANNA WATKINS, who was born
July 27, 1997, in St. Petersburg, Florida, and who has been placed with Petitioners for adoption.
4. The Plaintiffs seek custody of BRIANNA WATKINS, presently residing with
them at 10746 Spring Ridge Road, Shippensburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, age 7 months
as of the filing of this Petition.
5. The child in question, BRIANNA WATKINS, was placed with Plaintiffs for
adoption on August 2, 1997. They have had continuous custody of her since that date, and they
have filed with the Orphans' Court Division of this Court, a Report of Intention to Adopt, on
August 28, 1997, to No. 109 Adoptions, 1997.
3
r:1w%p311sdry+14g11xltnnLe+xu .frr ~ ~ I111~
6. On July 29, 1997, the child's natural mother, ROSALYNE VAYENITA
WATKINS, signed a Surrender, Consent and Waiver of Notice, with the intention of placing the
child for adoption. A copy of said document is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
7. The aforesaid natural mother of said child represented to the Circuit Court
of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, that the natural father of said child
was FRANK E. QUARTERMAN, who also consented to the adoption of said child.
8. In a proceeding before the aforesaid Court, the Court found that the child,
BRIANNA LASHELLE WATKINS, born July 27, 1997, was within the jurisdiction of the Court,
and that the biological mother, ROSALYNE VAYENITA WATKINS, and the biological father,
FRANK E. GIUARTERMAN, had each placed said child for adoption on July 29, 1997.
9. Petitioners have learned that ADOPTION PLACEMENT, INC., the
intermediary, has been advised by ROSALYNE VAYENITA WATKINS, that the natural father of
the aforesaid child was not, in fact, FRANK E. OUARTERMAN, as she had originally
represented to the Court, but was instead the Respondent WALTER L. HUMPHREY.
10. A letter from the aforesaid Respondent WALTER L. HUMPHREY, dated
December 2, 1997, in which he asserts his paternity and his opposition to the adoption, is
attached hereto as Exhibit "C".
11. Petitioners are without sufficient information to make a determination as to
whether or not the aforesaid WALTER L. HUMPHREY is, in fact, the natural father of the child
in question.
2
y
e1Wp51\adgai~~dlwl@u•LCUn
12. If Plaintiffs are unsuccessful in obtaining a Decree for involuntary termination
of parental rights, a hearing on which Issue is pending before the Court, and if the Defendant,
WALTER L. HUMPHREY, is able to establish paternity of the child in question, either through
blood tests determinative of the issue, or through verdict of a Jury or other Order of Court,
Plaintiff's intend to pursue this Custody Complaint to obtain custody of the child in opposition
to any custody rights which Defendant may assert.
13. A custody action filed with the Orphans' Court Division of this Court to No.
109 Adoptions, 1997. By Order of Court dated February 25, 1998, this custody action was
stayed pending a decision on the Petition for involuntary termination of Defendant's parental
rights. Said custody action is substantially identical to this custody action.
14. The child was born out of wedlock. The child is presently in the custody of
Plaintiffs, KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL, who reside at 10746 Spring Ridge Rcad,
Shippensburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania.
15. During the child's entire life she has resided with the following persons and
at the following addresses: With Plaintiffs, KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL, at 10746
Spring Ridge Road, Shippensburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, since August 2, 1997, in the
care of Adoption Placement, Inc., of 2734 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 104, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida 33306, from July 29, 1997, until placement on August 2, 1997.
3
r:1wp511u1gtlhalhsllai.Lam
16. The mother of the child Is ROSALYNE VAYENITA WATKINS, whose current
address is unknown, and whose parental rights to the child have been terminated by Court
Order. Her marital status is unknown.
17. The father of the child is unknown, but two individuals have been identified
by the natural mother as putative fathers, and they are as follows:
A. FRANK E. QUARTERMAN, whose current address is unknown, and
whose parental rights to the child have been terminated by Court Order. His marital status (s
unknown.
B• WALTER C. HUMPHREY, an adult individual, residing at 13853
Azalea Circle, No. 248, Tampa, Florida 33613. His marital status is unknown.
18. The relationship of the Plaintiffs to the child is that of adoptive parent, acting
in loco parentis. The Plaintiffs currently reside together in their home with the child.
19. The relationship of the Defendant to the child is that of one of two putative
natural fathers. It is unknown with whom the Defendant currently resides.
20. Plaintiffs have not participated as a party or witness, or in any other capacity
in other litigation concerning the custody of the child in this or any other jurisdiction, except the
custody action filed to No. 109 Adoptions, 1997, referred to above.
21. The Plaintiffs have no information of a custody proceeding concerning the
child pending in a Court of this Commonwealth, or any other state, except the custody action
filed to No. 109 Adoptions, 1997, referred to above.
4
G
f:~N~,}I\gA~y~IL~l1INIICIM6fp11 ~ ~ '
22. The Plaintiffs do not know of any 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.
23. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by
granting the relief requested because shortly after the date of the child's birth she was placed
with them, and they have provided all of the love, nurturing, care and support for her, being the
only parents she has ever known.
24. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been terminated and
the persons who have physical custody of the child have been named as parties to this action.
No other persons are known to have or claim a right to custody or visitation of the child.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request this Court to grant primary physical custody
of the child to them.
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Attorneys for Plaintiff
C~
James D. Flower, Jr.
11 East High Street
arlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5513
I.D. No. 27742
Date: ~ -- I C~ - c] j-
5
7
~~ ~ c:lwppl\eJaplxe~hallcull.enu ~ ~_. _
II
I, KENNETH W. HALL, the undersigned, hereby verify that the statements made
herein are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 5 4904, relat(ng to unsworn faisiflcation to authorities.
K nneth W. Hall
Cate: ,'~-1(0 - 98'
8
P'°~
I, LISA ANN HALL, the undersigned, hereby verity that the statements made herein
are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made sub)ect to the
penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorfties.
~t ~ ,1 ~~.
Lisa Ann Hall
~ -~~ '~ ~
~n
~I~
.~ I,~
r .T
~ :~~ :~:
~
L~
' ~"
j
c
r__ a, ::5
-4~:!
~ ~ry,.~
~.iliu
,_ a 1Op-
~L
U m
vti
U
f
J
~J
~.
~~
r ~~ `~S
J "~~
r"1
KENNETH W. HALL and
LISA ANN HALL,
PLAINTIFFS
V.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF I
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 22nd day of May, 1998, the stay order entered in this custody
case on March 20, 1998, IS VACATED. Because of the information this court has as
a result of a collateral proceeding on a petition to involuntarily terminate parental
rights, this case will not be forwarded to a custody conciliator. A hearing on the
merits of the custody petition shall be conducted in Courtroom Number 2,
Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, at 1:30 p.m., Wednesday,
June 10, 1998.
By the Cc
f -"
Edgar B. yley, J,
James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Plaintiffs
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro se
13853 Alazea Circle
No. 24B
Tampa, FL 33613
;saa
~ i~4'
~~ II
.L
C 1 .,,`,.. ~,^.
1. ;~,:.,
,V1
r~,;t
U ~'
c:1wp,111adgnLwd~h.wraum~e9
~o-~~ 7Q
G -30.98
KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of , 1998, a Rule
is issued upon Defendant, WALTER L. HUMPHREY, to show cause, if any, why he should not
produce for the Court a copy of his Social Security disability determination setting forth the
nature of hls disability, or sign a Release permitting inspection of his file.
Rule returnable
days from service.
BY THE COURT:
J.
--1~ ,,,~~---
~ ~~ ~~
~vz~.5~
(~ ~} ,.
/2
V
i7~1 ^~•
ail ~f~;!~ n ~ ~,~/~Y
~~1) n,
~`.
~,'
~~
~~
r;~W~111~01I1~1II1M1~~I111WfAll~f.,h'I
KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
1~ ~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
PETI-PION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, FLOWER,
MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY, and aver the following:
1. At the recent hearing on this matter, Defendant testified that he received
income both from the United States Social Security Administration and also from the Veterans
Administration as a result of a total disability. He further testified that he had been disabled for
in excess of twenty years.
2. The undersigned has handled a number of Social Security disability cases,
and it seems highly unlikely that injuries to the knee and wrist would support the necessary
finding that the Defendant is unable to perform any job which is available in the economy.
3. The nature of Mr. Humphreys disability could well be material to the Court's
determination in this custody action, for instance, if the disability were mental health related, or
if in fact, the disability did not exist.
13
r:luptilulgaind.lu,uceua.,n1 ~ /,,,,
4. Pa.R.C,P. §1915.5 prohibits discovery in custody matters unless authorized
by special Orders of Court. Plaintiff believes that an examination of Mr. Humphreys Social
Security disability file will resolve any uncertainty relating to this Issue.
5. The undersigned has contacted the Social Security Administration, and they
have advised that there is a form Release, which if signed by Defendant, would permit Inspection
of his Social Security disability file. Additionally, for confidentiality purposes, the Social Security
Administration would only agree to send the appropriate form directly to the Court.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that a Rule be issued on Defendant
to show cause why he should not be required to either produce his Social Security disability
determination, setting forth the nature of the disability, or sign a Release to permit inspection of
his disability file.
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
13y _ ~u~~, ~-
James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
11 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5513
I.D. #27742
3
/y
t;lwpjl NJggLwd.huxriua.pcl _.
VERIFICATION
We, KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL, Plaintiffs in the within action,
hereby verify that the statements made in the within Petition are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements here(n are made
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Kenneth W. Hall
Via,- ~~ ~-I~.~k
Lisa Ann Hall
Date: (n '-~•~~ ~O
4
l.~
r ~ (:
C?~
.~
'
' ,_
;~.
j, '~
. . J
- (~lf O1 t ?)
j
It ~ CV CL,...
~
~- -)
u, c^ +~
O C'~ CJ
.' j1;,
U
AUTHORIZATION FOR SOURCE TO RELEASE
INFORMATION TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
NAME A.ND
NAME AND ADDRESS Ili known) AT TIME DISABLED PERSON I DATE OF BIRTH DISABLED PERSON'S I.D. NUP
HAD CONTACT WITH SOURCE (include Z!p CodeJ fl/known and dl//arenf than SSN!
fGlnlc/lraflsnr No.!
/, APPROXIMATE DATES OF DISABLE[
~.r admission, treatment, discharge, etcl
r_.,
I hereby authorize the above-named source to release or disclose to the Social Security Adminlstratlon or State agency the
following Information for the perlodls) identified above:
1) All medical records or other information regarding my treatment, hospitalization, end/or outpatient care for my
Impairment(sl, including psychological or psychiatric impalrmentlsl, drug abuse, alcoholism, sickle cell anemia, or human
Immunodeficiency virus (HIV) Infection, including acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDSI, or tests for HIV;
~) Information about how my impalrmentlsl affects my ability to complete tasks end activities of dally living;
31 Information about how my Impairmentls) alfected my ability to work.
I authorize the use of a telefax or photocopy of this form far the release or disclosure of the Information described above.
1 understand that this authorization, except for action already taken, may be voided by me at anytime. If I do not void this
authorization, It will automatically end when a 11na1 declslon is made on my claim. If I am already receiving benefits, the
authorization will end when a final declslon fs made es to whether I can continue to receive benefits.
READ IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON REVERSE BEFORE SIGNING FORM BELOW.
SIGNATURE OF DISABLED PERSON OR PERSON RELATIONSHIP TO DISABLED DATE
AUTHORIZED TO ACTIN HISIHER BEHALF PERSON Ili other than self)
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
Code)
STATE
a parson
OF WITNESS
ZIP
Inb loan or I~ utll~lled ea to that panon9 Identity b requaatad below. Thla b not
not honor lhl~ euthod,etlen.
® RWuan,rq'aeaWpa (OVERT
~G
. ~
Explanation of Form SSA-827, Authorization For Source to
Release Information to the Social Security Admtntstration (SSA)
We are requesting that you authorize the release of information about your impairment to
us. Sources usually require this authorization before releasing information to us. Also, the
law requires this authorization for release of information about certain conditions.
You can provide this authorization by signing a Form SSA-827, Authorization For Source to
Release Information to the Social Security Administration (SSA), for each source identified
during your disability interview or during the processing of your claim. We must inform you
that because of various Federal disclosure laws, SSA cannot give an absolute pledge of
confidentiality regarding information submitted in connection with your claim.
PRIVACY ACT NOTICE
The Social Security Administration is authorized to collect the information on this form under ~
sections 2051a-, 2231d) and 16311e)(1) of the Social Security Act. The information on this ~.
form is needed by Social Security to make a decision on your claim. While giving us the -
Information on this form is voluntary, failure to provide all or part of the requested
information could prevent an accurate or timely decision on your claim and could result in
the loss of benefits. Although the information you furnish on this form is almost never used
for any purpose other than making a determination on your disability claim, such information
may be disclosed by the Social Security Administration as follows:
(1) To enable a third party or agency to assist Sociai Security in establishing rights to
Social Security benefits and/or coverage;
12) to comply with Federal laws requiring the release of information from Social
Security records (e.g., to the General Accounting Office and the Department of
Veterans Affairs); and
(3) to facilitate statistical research and audit activities necessary to assure the
integrity and improvement of the Social Security programs (e.g., to the Bureau of
the Census and private concerns under contract to Social Security). L,..i
We may also use the information you give us when we match records by computer. Matching
programs compare our records with those of other Federal, State, or local government agencies.
Many agencies may use matching programs to find or prove that a person qualifies for benefits
paid by the Federal government. The law allows us to do this even if you do not agree to it.
Explanations about these and other reasons why information you provide us may be used or
given out are available in Social Security offices. If you want to learn more about this, contact
any Social Security office.
Form SSA-827 18.941 Uea Prlor Edltione
~ U.9. LPOt 1999-797-490
1
AUTHORIZATION FOR SOURCE TO RELEASE
INFORMATION TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
NAME AND ADDRESS OF
y€,~,;.t,'~.~~INFORMATION'ABOU'f~DISABLED'PERSON=PLEASE~PRINT;:TYPE;~ OR: WRITE;CLEARLY }~:~" t~
NAME AND ADDRESS Ili known) AT TIME DISABLED PERSON DATE OF BIRTH DISABLED PERSON'S I.D. NUMBER
HAD CONTACT WITH SOURCE ll/1ClUdB Z/p Codal 111 known end dlllerenr rAen SSM
IGInlUPeflenr Ab.l
APPROXIMATE DATES OF DISA
admission, treatment, discharge,
GENERAL AND SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE MEDICAL AND OTHER INFORMATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT; THE PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE ACT, SECTIONS 623 AND 627; AND TITLE 38 U.S.C. VETERANS BENEFITS SECTION 4132.
1 hereby authorize the above-named source to release or disclose to the Social Security Administration or State agency the
following Information }or the period(s) identified above:
11 All medical records or other Information regarding my treatment, hospitalization, and/or outpatient care for my
impairmentlsl, Including psychological or psychiatric impairmentlsl, drug abuse, alcoholism, sickle cell anemia, or human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, including ocquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDSI, or tests for HIV;
2) Information about how my Impairmentls) alfects my ability to complete tasks and activities of dally living;
31 Informstion about how my Impairmentls) effected my ability to work.
Lf~
`" I authorize the use of a telefax or photocopy of this form for the release or disclosure of the inlormetian described above.
I understand that this authorization, except for action already taken, may be voided by me at anytime. It I do not void this
authorization, it will automatically end when a final decision is made on my claim. II I em already receiving benelits, the
authorization will end when a final decision is made as to whether I can continue to receive banelits.
READ IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON REVERSE BEFORE SIGNING FORM BELOW.
SIGNATURE OF DISABLED PERSON OR PERSON RELATIONSHIP TO DISABLEC DATE
AUTHORIZED TO ACT IN HIS/HER BEHALF PERSON (If other then eelll
STREET ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER IArae Codsl
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
u to
SIONATURE OF WITNESS
Uee PAor Editlone ® (OVEA)
1 ^/NWi,a a ,rytltl pya
Explanation of Form SSA-827, Authorization For Source to
Release Information to the Social Security Administration (SSA)
We ere requesting that ycu authorize the release of information about your Impairment to
us. Sources usually require this authorization before releasing information to us. Also, the
law requires this authorization for release of Information about certain conditions.
You can provide this authorization by signing a Form SSA-827, Authorization For Source to
Release Information to the Social Security Administration (SSAI, for each source identified
during your disability interview or during the processing of your claim. We must inform you
that because of various Federal disclosure laws, SSA cannot give an absolute pledge of
confidentiality regarding information submitted in connection with your claim.
PRIVACY ACT NOTICE
The Social Security Administration is authorized to collect the information on this form under
sections 205(a), 2231d) and 1631(e)(1) of the Social Security Act. The information on this
form is needed by Social Security to make a decision on your claim. While giving us the -
information on this form is voluntary, failure to provide all or part of the requested
information could prevent an accurate or timely decision on your claim and could result in
the loss of benefits. Although the information you furnish on this form is almost never used
for any purpose other than making a determination on your disability claim, such information
may be disclosed by the Social Security Administration as follows:
(1) To enable a third party or agency to assist Social Security in establishing rights to
Social Security benefits and/or coverage;
121 to comply with Federal laws requiring the release of information from Social
Security records (e.g., to the General Accounting Office and the Department of
Veterans Affairsl; and
(3) to facilitate statistical research and audit activities necessary to assure the
integrity and improvement of the Social Security programs (e.g., to the Bureau of
the Census and private concerns under contract to Sociai Security). ~,..~)
We may also use the information you give us when we match records by computer. Matching
programs compare our records with those of other Federal, State, or local government agencies.
Many agencies may use matching programs to find or prove that a person qualifies for benefits
paid by the Federal government. The law allows us to do this even if you do not agree to it.
Explanations about these and other reasons why information you provide us may be used or
given out are available in Social Security offices. If you want to learn more about this, contact
any Social Security office.
Form SBA•e27 (8.94) Uee Prlor Edltione >}0.5. WOi 1975-19/-490
,'
r'-,
AUTHORIZATION FOR SOURCE TO RELEASE
INFORMATION 70 THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
NAME AND ADDRESS OF
i"='~r i 1NFORMATION`ABOUT DISABLED'PERSON=PLEASEPRINT,`TYPE;'OR WRITE'.CLEARLY:~~k?~~i a;%!
HAD CONTACT WITH SOURCE //ncludo lip Cadel
DISABLED PERSON'S I.D. NUMBER
(l/ known rand d/r/e,ent then SSM
([/info/Patient Ab.1
.Nara APPROXIMATE DATES OF DISABLE[
f ~ admission, treatment, discharge, etcJ
SERVICE ACT, SECTIONS b23 AND b27; AND TITLE 38 U.S.C. VETERANS BENEFITS SECTION 4132.
I hereby authorize the above-named source to release or disclose to the Social Security Administration or State agency the
following information for the periodls) Identified above:
11 All medical records or other information regarding my treatment, hospitalization, andlor outpatient care for my
impairmentlsl, including psychological or psychiatric impairmentlsl, drug abuse, alcoholism, sickle cell anemia, or human
immunodeficiency virus (HIVI infection, including acquired immunodeficiency syndrome IAIDSI, or tests for HIV;
21 Information about how my impairment(s) affects my ability to complete tasks and activities of dally living;
31 Information about how my impairmentlsl affected my ability to work.
,,,.
I authorize the use o1 a telelax or photocopy of this form for the release or disclosure of the information described above.
I understand that this authorization, except for action already taken, may be voided by me at anytime. If I do not void this
authorization, it will automatically end when a final decision is made on my claim. If I am already receiving benefits, the
authorization will end when a final decision is made es to whether I can continue to receive benefits.
READ IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON REVERSE BEFORE SIGNING FORM BELOW.
SIGNATURE OF DISABLED PERSON OR PERSON RELATIONSHIP TO DISABLED DATE
AUTHORIZED TO ACT IN HIS/HER BEHALF PERSON Iii other then eelq
STREET ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER (Area Code)
CITY STATE 21P CODE
~~
..... .... ......... .
,~
Explanation of Form SSA-827, Authorization For Source to
Release Information to the Social Security Administration (SSA)
We ere requesting that you authorize the release of information about your impairment to
us. Sources usually require this authorization before releasing information to us. Also, the
law requires this authorization far release of information about certain conditions.
You can provide this authorization by signing a Form SSA-827, Authorization For Source to
Release Information to the Social Security Administration (SSA), for each source identified
during your disability interview or during the processing of your claim. We must inform you
that because of various Federal disclosure laws, SSA cannot give an absolute pledge of
confidentiality regarding information submitted in connection with your claim.
PRIVACY ACT NOTICE
The Social Security Administration is authorized to collect the information on this form under ^,
sections 2O6(a), 2231d) and 1631(e)11) of the Social Security Act. The information on this
form is needed by Social Security to make a decision on your claim. While giving us the
information on this form is voluntary, failure to provide all or part of the requested
information could prevent an accurate or timely decision on your claim and could result in
the loss of benefits. Although the information you furnish on this form is almost never used
for any purpose other than making a determination on your disability claim, such information
may be disclosed by the Social Security Administration as follows:
(1) To enable a third party or agency to assist Social Security in establishing rights to
Social Security benefits and/or coverage;
(21 to comply with Federal laws requiring the release of information from Social
Security records (e.g., to the General Accounting Office and the Department of
Veterans Affairs); and
(3) to facilitate statistical research and audit activities necessary to assure the
integrity and improvement of the Social Security programs (e.g., to the Bureau of
the Census and private concerns under contract to Social Security).
We may also use the information you give us when we match records by computer. Matching
programs compare our records with those of other Federal, State, or local government agencies.
Many agencies may use matching programs to find or prove that a person qualifies for benefits
paid by the Federal government. The law allows us to do this even if you do not agree to it.
Explanations about these and other reasons why information you provide us may be used or
given out are available in Social Security offices. If you want to learn more about this, contact
any Social Security office.
Form BSA•e27 (8.94) Uee Prior Edltlone fr 0.5. GPO: 7995-397-490
' ;
-,
KENNETH W. HALL AND
LISA ANN HALL,
PLAINTIFFS
V.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
DEFENDANT
7-1098
r°w
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW this lc'~ day of July, 1998, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Legal and physical custody of Baby Girl Brianna, born July 29, 1997, is
awarded to her father Walter L. Humphrey.
(2) The transition of the custody of Brianna to Humphrey shall take place as
follows:
(a) starting on Monday, July 27, 1998, if Kenneth W. Hall and Lisa Ann
Hall will cooperate, Humphrey shall spend time with Brianna in the Halls'
residence each day starting with two hours for the first two days, three
hours for the second two days, and five hours for the next three days;
(b) starting on Monday, August 3, 1998, Humphrey shall take Brianna
with him for three hours the first two days, five hours for the next two
days, and seven hours for the next three days;
(c) starting on August 10, 1998, Humphrey shall have physical custody
of Brianna and may take her with him to his home in Florida.
(3) If the Halls will not cooperate in allowing Humphrey to be with Brianna in
their home during the week of July 27, he shall have Brianna with him outside of the
20
. ,-.,
Halls' home for the same amounts of time as set forth above. Counsel for the Halls
shall notify Humphrey not later than July 20, of whether the Halls will allow him to
spend time in their home with Brianna pursuant to paragraph 2(a) during the week of
July 27, 1898.
(4) Kenneth W. Hall and Lisa Ann Hall shall have temporary physical custody
with Brianna in Florida or any other place Brianna lives for one week each year, and
in Pennsylvania for one week each year, the two weeks not to be consecutive. If the
Halls exercise such periods of temporary physical custody they shall make
arrangements with Walter L. Humphrey at least forty-five (45) days in advance. The
Halls shall provide all transportation.
(5) Walter L. Humphrey shall keep the Halls Informed of>any changes in
Brianna's address. ~/ J
By the
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire _~~ ~ea~ ~/~~~~
For Petitioners
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro se ,
13853 Azalea Cir. #24B - ~~ '"`'"'~ ~%
Tampa, Florida 33613
:saa
o~'
.,art': ;;F'::,r.~~y~!
,;
,.,
~~ ~ ~ Cti`~
., t, ~.
r ^ q''1 1 J
.~• , ',{
If ,
KENNETH W. HALL AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
'LISA ANN HALL, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PLAINTIFFS
V.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
DEFENDANT 98-1530 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: CUSTODY
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
BAYLEY, J., July 10, 1998:--
Plaintiffs, Kenneth W. Hali, age 33, and his wife, t.isa Ann Hall, age 35, have
been in loco aro antis to Baby Girl Brianna, born July 29, 1997, since August 2, 1997,
when the child was placed with them for adoption. Defendant, Walter L. Humphrey,
is the father of Brianna. On May 13, 1998, a decree nisi was entered denying a
petition filed by the Halls to terminate the parental rights of Walter L. Humphrey to
Brianna.' No post-trial motion was filed to the decree nisi. The Halls have now
proceeded on a petition seeking custody of Brianna, upon which a hearing was
conducted on June 10, 1996. They have standing pursuant to Mollander v. Chlodo,
450 Pa. Super. 247 (1996). Incorporated into this opinion as Exhibit "A," and made a
part hereof, is the opinion filed in support of the decree nisi dated May 13, 1998.
The evidence at the hearing on June 10, 1998, shows that the Halls are superb
1. 97-0109 Adoptions.
~~
98.1530 CIVIL TERM
care providers for Brianna, as well as for their other adopted child, Cassidy, age 7,
who was bom in Guatemala. Brianna has started to say a few rudimentary words.
She Is trying to walk. Lisa Hall is an office manager at the Chambersburg Hospital.
She has a flexible work schedule whereby she is available to attend to any spec(fic
needs of Brianna that may arise. Kenneth Hall is a truck driver for Giant Foods. His
schedule allows him to be home three days during each Monday through Friday
when he takes care of Brianna. The mother's sister babysits Brianna at other times.
The Halls live in a comfortable home in a rural area of Shippensburg. Brianna is
African-American. The Halls, who are Causation, have joined a support group and
have given much thought to the raising of children in amulti-cultural family.
Walter Humphrey, age 39, lives alone in Tampa, Florida. He is an African-
American as is the mother of Brianna. He has atwo-bedroom, two-bath apartment in
a complex in a good neighborhood. Humphrey was in the United States Army in
1977 and 1978. He was discharged from the Walter Reed Army Hospital in 1978 as
100% disabled due to knee and wrist injuries incurred in the service. He receives a
non-taxable veterans disability benefit of $1,900.00 per month and a $400.00 per
month social security disability benefit for an eye injury. He has not been employed
since his discharge from the Army.
Humphrey has been married twice. He has four children by his second wife,
from whom he was divorced in 1986. Andrea, age 20, is in the Air Force. Erica, age
18, is graduating from high school this year. Katrina, age 17, is in the eleventh grade.
-2-
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
Waiter, age 15, fs in the tenth grade. The three younger children live with their
mother in Florida. Humphrey separated from the mother in 1986, when their children
were ages e, 6, 5, and 3. He has always seen his children regularly. He has
provided support for them through an allotment on his VA benefits. Humphreys
mother, age 60, lives in Sarasota, Florida. He has a brother and two sisters nearby in
Florida and another sister who lives in Atlanta. He testified that he is close to all of
the members of his family.
As set forth in the opinion in support of the decree nisi, Humphrey was
expecting the mother of Brianna, with whom he lived between April e, 1996 and June,
1997, to have primary custody of their child, and for him to have periods of temporary
physical custody. When he found out that on November 17, 1997, the mother had
given Brianna for adoption in Florida, and that her parental rights had been
terminated, he immediately sought custody of the child from the Florida adoption
agency. The agency did not tell him where the child had been placed, which he did
not learn until January 22, 1998. Following the hearing in this court on February 18,
1998, on the petition of the Halls to terminate Humphreys parental rights, Humphrey
saw his daughter for the first time. The hearing in this custody case was conducted
on June 10, 1998, after which Humphrey also saw Brianna.
We are satisfied that Humphrey genuinely wants to raise his daughter. He has
experience in raising his four children. He is capable of raising Brianna although he
does not appear to have the parenting insights of the Halls. As we noted in the
-3-
ay
.-~
98-1630 CIVIL TERM
r.y
opinion in support of the decree ~, both he and the Halls were the victims of the
mother's duplicity in giving up Brianna for adoption, and in having another man claim
that he was the child's father when she knew otherwise.
The Halls maintain that they should be awarded custody of Brianna in light of
the excellent parenting that they have provided ~ loco arg antis since August 2, 1997,
and based on Brianna's bond with them. They presented evidence that the failure to
establish a firm parental bond during the first eighteen months of a child's life can
create later psychological problems for the child. Bonding involves a child gaining
trust in an adult and knowing that the adult will be there for the child. It provides a
child with security, self-confidence and a sense of identity.2
In Hollander v. Chiodo, supra, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania stated:
In determining the appropriate standard for adjudication of
custody disputes between a parent or parents and a third party, our
Supreme Court adopted the carefully fashioned principles set forth by
this Court In re Custody of Hernandez, 249 Pa.Super. 274, 376 A.2d
648 (1977). Ellerbe v. Hooks, 490 Pa. 363, 416 A.2d 512 (1980).
In such cases,
The parties do not start out even; the parents have a'prima
facie right to custody,' which will be forfeited only if 'convincing
reasons' appear that the child's best interest will be served by an
2. At the close of the hearing, plaintiffs sought leave to reopen at a later date
to call a psychologist who was not available on June 10. Such testimony would be
cumulative. We accept the oxpert testimony that is in the record that changing
custody of Brianna to her father at this stage in her life will breach the bond that has
developed between her and the Halls, and that it could create later psychological
problems for her. We expedited hearings in both this case and on the Halls' petition
to terminate the parental rights of Humphrey. For both hearings Humphrey traveled
to Carlisle from Tampa, Florida. Prolonging a resolution of the Issues in this case is
not in the best interest of Brianna. The record is closed.
-4-
d.~
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
award to the third party, Thus, even before the proceedings start,
the evidentiary scale (s tipped, and tipped hard, to the parents'
side, What the Judge must do therefore, (s first, hear all evidence
relevant to the child's best Interest, and then, decide whether the
evidence on behalf of the third party Is weighty enough to bring
the scale up to even, and down on the third party's s(de.
(Hernandez) at 286, 376 A,2d at 654 (footnote omitted).
We agree that this approach is appropriate. Clearly these
principles do not preclude an award of custody to the non-parent.
Rather they simply Instruct the hearing Judge that the non•parent
bears the burden of production and the burden of persuasion and
that the non•parent's burden is heavy.
Id. at 367-369, 416 A,2d at 514. The Supreme Court soon thereafter
reiterated the standard in such cases was not to be construed as
precluding a custody award to anon-parent, absent a demonstration of
the parent's dereliction. We again emphasize that the standard seeks
only to stress the importance of parenthood as a factor in determining
the best interests of the child. However, other factors which have
sign(ficant Impact on the well-being of the ch11d can justify a finding in
favor of the non-parent, even though the parent has not been shown to
have been unfit.
Albright v. Commonwealth ex rel. Fetters, 491 Pa. 320, 326-329, 421
A.2d 157, 161 (1980).
Finally, this Court spoke again, enumerating the considerations
which weigh against the elevation of parenthood above all other factors
In custody determ(nation.
First, although parenthood is a highly Important factor, it
should not be accorded determinative weight in our decision.
Other factors, like the value of stability, are also to be accorded
great weight. Indeed, in Ellerbe itself the Supreme Court affirmed
the trial court's grant of custody to grandparents over a parent of
the subject child for the very reason that the child had developed
a stable relationship with the grandparents and had a stable
environment with them. The same basic situation was presented
in Albright, and once again the grandparents were given custody,
Second, the Hernandez standard is first and foremost an
allocation of the burden of proof to the third parties, but it does
not impose on them the burden of showing that the parent is
unfit. Thus, the issue centers on the child, and not on the parent.
Smarskl v. Krincek, 372 Pa.Super. 58, 76-78, 538 A.2d 1348, 1358
(1988).
-5-
cacti
,_..
-~
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
Vicki N., supra at 188.170, 649 A,2d at 710-711.'
'~ In Rowtea v. Rowlea, 542 Pa. 443, 688 A.2d 126 (1995), the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently considered the standard to be
applied in deciding a custody dispute between parents and third parties.
While the court unanimously reversed the custody determination, the
Court was divided three-three on reconsideration of the presumption of
parents' prima facie right to custody. Justice Flaherty, joined by
Justices Nix and Castile, would have 'abandon[ed] the presumption that
a parent has a prima facie right to custody as against third parties,' and
instead 'mandat[ed] that custody be determined by a preponderance of
evidence, weighing parenthood as a strong factor for consideration.'
Id. 444, 668 A,2d at 126 (emphasis in original).
In Hollander, a mother, age 17 and unmarried, placed her three-month•old
daughter for adoption with the Hollanders on July 14, 1992. The mother then moved
to Florida. Subsequently, she returned to Pennsylvania and filed a motion to revoke
her consent to an adoption which a trial court granted on May 24, 1993. On July 19,
1993, the Hollanders filed a petition for custody in their status as in loco arp antis to
the child. The trial court awarded custody of the child to the mother with periods of
partial physical custody in the Hollanders. The order was affirmed by the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania. The Court stated:
The trial court, in awarding custody to appellee, considered the
following:
I have considerable concerns about Regina. I don't mean
to be over familiar, Miss Chiodo. In terms of psychological
testimony from Dennis Vaughn and of the report of Doctor Addis
indicating that the relationship between Miss Chiodo and [M.C.]
may be one of sisters, sister [rather] than parent to daughter. I
have some concerns about the concerns Doctor Addis expresses
about the valid(ty of the psychological profile. I think Mr. Vaughn
also indicates that. I have some concerns about your maturity
-6-
a7
rte,
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
~'`g
palhthHsvinghsaid thatr on the plus sideplthink there~s also been
abundant evidence that you are motivated by care and concern
for [M.C.] and your genuine love for her, You have provided
apparently a place for her to live which is clean and safe, You
have undertaken efforts to educate yourself about parentingouskills
and the testimony of Miss Strayer that she has observed y
believe ten times, in the apartment and other times et the Family
Center and parenting appears to be appropriate and [M,C.]
appears to be safe and comfortable in your care, In addition,
although there are concerns that I have expressed about your
ability, it also appears that support services are in place to assist
you in your care of [M.C.], Weighing all of this it istmsicalinion
that the law of Pennsylvania requires that primary p y
custody by [sic] awarded to Regina Chlodo,
(N,T, at 273-274.)
After our review of the transcripts and analysis set forth by the trial
court, we find the court carefully balanced all of the relevant factors and
weighed the evidence present we do not f ndtthe tna Ic ourt's award of
Vlckl N., supra. Accordingly,
custody manifestly unreasonable.
In the case sub udice, Humphrey has the (1) means and an adequate home to
raise Brianna, (2) experience as a parent from his participation in raising his four
children, (3) genuine desire to raise his own child, (4) motivation of care and concern
for his child, and (5) capability of raising Brianna. Similar to the decision in
Mollander v. Chlodo, supra, we are satisfied that Humphrey, the father of Brianna,
should be allowed to raise her. Under Ellerbe v. Hooks, supra, he has a prima facie
right to custody. The wisdom for ma(ntaining that standard for the adjudication of this
type of custody case is evident. We are not satisfied by convincing reasons that
Brianna's best Interest will be served by awarding physical custody of her to the
family that was unable to adopt her. Furthermore, we reach the same conclusion
-7-
a8
Y
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
even if there is no presumption of Humphreys prima tacle right to the custody of
Brianna. While h(s parenthood is a strong factor in our consideration, that along with
all of the other factors set forth above satisfies us that it is In Brianna's best Interest
that her custody should be awarded to her father. Ulven the circumstances of the
Halls positive Involvement with Brianna to this date, we will award them some periods
of temporary physical custody. We will also transition the transfer of erianna's
custody to Humphrey which we believe Is in the child's best interest.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW this ~ t? day of July, 19913, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Legal and physical custody of Baby Giri Brianna, born July 29, 1997, is
awarded to her father Walter L. Humphrey.
(2) The transition of the custody of Brianna to Humphrey shall take place as
follows:
(a) starting on Monday, July 27, 1998, if Kenneth W. Hall and Lisa Ann
Hall will cooperate, Humphrey shall spend time with Brianna in the Halls'
residence each day starting with two hours for the first two days, three
hours for the second two days, and five hours for the next three days;
(b) starting on Monday, August 3, 1998, Humphrey shall take Brianna
with him for three hours the first two days, five hours for the next two
days, and seven hours for the next three days;
(c) starting on August 10, 1998, Humphrey shall have physical custody
-B-
aq
ti ~ f~
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
of Brianna and may take her with him to his home in Florida.
(3) If the Halls will not cooperate in allowing Humphrey to be with Brianna in
thelr home during the week of July 27, he shall have Brianna with him outside of the
Halls' home for the same amounts of time as set forth above. Counsel for the Halls
shall notify Humphrey not later than July 20, of whether the Halls will allow him to
spend time In their home with Brianna pursuant to paragraph 2(a) during the week of
July 27, 1998.
(4) Kenneth W. Hall and Lisa Ann Hall shall have temporary physical custody
with Brianna in Florida or any other place Brianna lives for one week each year, and
in Pennsylvania for one week each year, the two weeks not to be consecutive. If the
Halls exercise such periods of temporary physical custody they shall make
arrangements with Walter L. Humphrey at least forty-five (45) days in advance. The
Halls shall provide all transportation.
(5) Walter L. Humphrey shall keep the Halls informed of any changes in
Brianna's address.
_ ,~,
By the Court; /
Edgar B.~ay(ey, J.
James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Petitioners
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro se
13853 Azalea Cir. #24B
Tampa, Florida 33613 :saa
-9-
~~
n
IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
ADOPTION OF
BABY GIRL BRIANNA 97-0109 ADOPTIONS
IN RE: PETITION FOR INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION
OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
OPINION AND DECREE NISI
BAYLEY, J., May 13, 1998:-
On July 16, 1997, Rosalyne Vayenita Watkins and Frank E. Quarterman met
with representatives of Adoption Placement, Inc., in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Watkins
was pregnant, and she and Quarterman said that he was the father. Watkins said
that her due date was August 10, 1997. Watkins and Quarterman made
arrangements with the agency to have the baby adopted. Watkins gave birth to Baby
Girl Brianna in Florida on July 27, 1997. On July 29, 1997, Watkins signed a
consent surrendering the baby to Adoption Placement, Inc. On August 2, 1997,
Kenneth W. Hall and Lisa Ann Hall of Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, received Baby Girl
Brianna as the result of a placement by Adoption Placement, Inc., working through
Adoption Horizons in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. On August 25, 1997, an order
was entered in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Broward
County, Florida, terminating the parental rights of Watkins and Quarterman to Baby
Girl Brianna.
On November 17, 1997, Rosalyne Watkins called Adoption Placement, Inc.
She stated that she wanted her baby back. She was with Walter L. Humphrey who
told the representative on the phone that he was the father of Baby Girl Brianna and
>~xxtarr
31 ~-
,-.
n
97-0109 ADOPTIONS
that he wanted the baby. Walter Humphrey went to Adoption Placement, Inc. on
November 19, 1997. He again stated that he was the father of Baby Girl Brianna and
that he wanted the baby. The agency would not divulge the location of the baby to
Humphrey. However, it immediately notified Kenneth and Lisa Hall of the parental
claim made by Waiter Humphrey.
On December 5, 1997, the Halls filed this petition for involuntary termination of
the punitive parental rights of Walter L. Humphrey. An order was entered on
December 23, 1997, setting a hearing date on the petition for February 18, 1998. The
petition and the order were served on Humphrey on January 22, 1998. On February
13, 1998, the Halls filed a petition in this court seeking to adopt Baby Girl Brianna.
Hearings on the merits of the involuntary termination petition were conducted on
February 18 and May 11, 1998.
Walter Humphrey, age 39, lives in an apartment in Tampa, Florida. He is
single and unemployed. He draws military retirement and social security disability.
He has a daughter in the Army, age 20, and daughters, ages 18 and 17, and a 15-
year-old son none of whom live with him. Humphrey testified that Rosalyne Watkins
moved into his apartment in Tampa on April 8, 1996. She brought her two children
whose father is Frank E. Quartemtan. Quarterman and Watkins had maintained a
long-term relationship. Quarterrnan had left the state of Florida when Watkins moved
in with him. Humphrey recalls that Watkins became pregnant in November, 1996.
During her pregnancy, Humphrey took Watkins to a doctor for prenatal care. Her due
-2-
3~
^'~
97-0109 ADOPTIONS
date was in August, 1997.
/" ~
Humphrey testified that Watkins left him on June 19, 1997, stating that she
was retum(ng to live w(th Ouarterman in Louisiana. He testified that Watkins left him
after a Florida state agency removed her two children from their home and threatened
not to return them after she had spanked one of the children. Humphrey testified that
Watkins told him that he would be able to see their child and that she would accept
financial support from him. Humphrey also talked to Quarterman who told him that "I
could see the kid and I had nothing to worry about, that he was going to raise the
Infant as his own, and they [were] going to move to Louisiana." Humphrey testified
that Watkins did not provide him an address or telephone number to contact her in
Louisiana, and he did not know any of her relatives who he could have contacted.
Therefore, he was unable to contact Watkins even though he knew their baby would
be born around the beginning of August, 1997.
Humphrey testified that on November 17, 1997, Watkins contacted him and
told him of the birth of Brianna and that she had placed the child for adoption. It was
on that day that they called Adoption Placement, Inc. in Fort Lauderdale. He then
went to the agency office on November 19, 1997, seeking to have his child given to
him. An employee of Adoption Placement, inc., in Fort Lauderdale, and an
owner/attorney of the agency, testified that when Humphrey came to the agency on
November 19, 1997, he told them that he had contacted the mother to see the child,
and to get a picture of the child, because he was moving to Georgia. When the
-3-
33
/\
97-0109 ADOPTIONS
agency would not divulge the location of the placement of Baby Glrl Brianna,
Humphrey contacted an attorney in Florida on November 28, 1997. On December
2, 1997, through the attorney, Humphrey filed a vital statistics report in the state of
Florida that listed him as the father of Baby Girl Brianna. Humphrey testified that he
did not learn where his daughter had been placed until he was served on January
22, 1998, with the within petition and hearing notice for the Involuntary termination of
his punitive parental rights. As part of this proceeding blood tests were conducted.
Based on the genetic testing results, the probability of the paternity of Walter L.
Humphrey to Baby Girl Brianna is 99.99%.
DISCUSSION
All parties agree that the law in Pennsylvania is applicable to this petition
seeking to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of Walter L. Humphrey to Baby
Girl Brianna. The Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. Section 2101 et seq. provides at Section
2511(a)(6) that the rights of a natural parent to a child may be terminated on the
grounds that:
In the case of a new bom child, the parent knows or has reason
to know of the child's birth, does not reside with the child, has not
married the child's other parent, has failed for a period of tour months
Immediately preceding the fiNng of the petition to make reasonable
efforts to maintain substantial and continuing contact with the child
and has failed during the same four-month period to provide substantial
financial support for the child. (Emphasis added.)
Clear and convincing evidence is necessary to prove the statutory grounds to
terminate parental rights. In re Adoption of Atencio, 539 Pa. 161 (1994). In
-4-
3'~
i"1
97-0109 ADOPTIONS
Atenclo, the Supreme Court o} Pennsylvania stated that clear and convincing
evidence is "[testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable
a trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance of the truth of precise
facts in Issue." We find that Walter L. Humphrey is the father of Baby Girl Brianna.
The time sequence in the case is:
Watkins starts to live with Humphrey April 8, 1998
Watkins became pregnant November, 1996
Watkins left Humphrey June 19, 1997
Baby Girl Brianna was born July 27, 1997
Watkins' parental rights are terminated
in Florida August 25, 1997
Watkins told Humphrey of the birth and the
placement of the child for adoption
and they called Adoption Placement,
Inc. stating that they wanted
Baby Girl Brianna November 17, 1997
Humphrey went to Adoption Placement, Inc.,
to claim Baby Girl Brianna November 19, 1997
Humphrey contacted an attorney in Florida
Humphrey filed a vital statistics form
in Florida claiming he is the
father of Baby Girl Brianna
The petition for involuntary termination of
Humphreys punitive parental
rights is filed in Pennsylvania
-5-
November 26, 1997
December 2, 1997
December 5, 1997
3S
~..
97.0109 ADOPTIONS
Humphrey is served with petition and
learns for the first time the
location of Baby Girl Brianna
in Pennsylvania
The first hearing is conducted on the
petition for involuntary termination
January 22, 1998
February 18, 1998
Reviewing the prerequisites for the termination of parental rights under the
Adoption Act at 23 Pa.C.S. Section 2511(a)(6), Humphrey (1) knew that his child
would be bom around the beginning of August, 1997, (2) did not reside with his child,
and (3) did not marry his child's mother, Rosalyne Watkins. As to the fourth
requirement, the failure of a parent for a period of four months immediately preceding
the filing of the petition for involuntary termination to make reasonable efforts to
maintain substantial and continuing contact with the child, that four-month period
ran from August 6, 1997, to the date of the filing of the petition for involuntary
termination on December 5, 1997.
In T.J.B. v. E.C., 438 Pa. Super. 529 (1995), M.J.C. was born on August 13,
1993. On August 16, the child was placed with the Totaro's, the proposed adopting
parents. The mother claimed that appellee was the father of the child. He refused to
decide whether he would consent to an adoption until blood tests were taken. In
early November, 1993, the results of blood tests showed that appellee was the father
of M.J.C. On December e, appellee acknowledged paternity for the first time. He
sought to meet M.J.C. and told the Totaro's that he would not consent to an adoption
unless he received some later access to M.J.C. On December 13, the Totaro's filed a
-6-
3~
Y
P1
97-0109 ADOPTIONS
petition pursuant to the Adoption Act at 23 Pa,C,S, § 2511(a)(t3), to Involuntarily
terminate appeliee's parental rights to M,J,C, The petition was not served on
appellee until February 3, 1994, Following a hearing, the trial court denied the
petition to involuntarily terminate appellee's parental rights from which the Totaro's
filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania,
The Superior Court noted that "(OJnly when an Involuntary termination of the
parent's parental rights to a child occurs will the consent of that parent not be
required for a valid adoption to occur," The Court concluded that the Totaro's had
not proven by clear and convincing evidence that tho parental rights of appellee
should have been terminated. It noted that the Issue was whether appellee made
reasonable efforts to maintain continuing and aubstantlal contact with M.J.C. during
the four months between M.J.C.'s birth and the Illing o} the petition to Involuntarily
terminate his parental rights, The court stated;
Appellee's first efforts to maintain continuing and substantial
contacts with M.J.C, occurred in September 1993 when he began the
process to determine his patemiry of M.J,C. Appellee hired an attorney,
Mr. Cunilio, to represent him and protect his parental rights to M.J.C. in
case it was proven that M,J,C, was his child. Subsequently, appellee
paid for all the necessary tests to determine the likelihood of his
paternity of M.J.C. These tests were conducted on appellee and E.C.
on September 20, 1993 and on M.J.C. on September 22, 1993. Finally,
within one month of receiving the results of the paternity tests, appellee
expressly stated, via the December e, 1893 letter, that he wanted to
establish a visitation schedule with M.J.C. or he would file for custody.
Therefore, we hold that appellee's actions during the four months
prior to the filing of appellants' petition to Involuntarily terminate hla
parental rights to M.J.C, constituted reasonable efforts to malntaln
continuing and subalantlal contacts with M.J.C. (Emphasis added.)
n
97-0109 ADOPTIONS
In the case sub 'ul dice, even though Humphrey knew that his child would be
bom around the beginning of August, 1997, he made no immediate effort to contact
his child. He had been told that the mother and Quarterman were living in Louisiana.
Whether we accept his testimony that he did not know where to contact them and
that Watkins finally contacted him, or if based on the testimony of what the
owner/attomey and the employee of Adoption Placement, Inc., said Humphrey told
them on November 19, 1997, we were to conclude that he finally contacted Watkins,
the fact remains that he made no effort to have any contact with his child until
November 17, 1997. [ither way, it was that day that the mother told him that she had
placed her daughter with Adoption Placement, Inc. It was the placement that
Humphrey objected to, not the mother raising the child. Therefore, on November 17,
which was the first time he teamed of the placement, he sought to claim his child by
calling the agency. He went to Adoption Placement, Inc, two days later on November
19, to seek contact and to press his claim as the father. However, he was denied any
information as to where his child was located. He contacted an attomey on
November 26. On December 2, he filed a vital statistics form in the state of Florida
claiming that he was the child's father. He did not team of the placement in
Pennsylvania until he was served with the petition for involuntary termination on
January 22, 1998. The first hearing on the petition was conducted less than a month
later on February 18, 1998.
On these facts, as in T.J.B. v. E.C., supra, we find that Humphrey, starting on
-8-
38
/"1
97-0109 ADOPTIONS
November 17, 1997, which was within lour months prior to the }iling o} this petition for
involuntary termination on Decembor 5, 1997, mado roasonable efforts to maintain
cont(nu(ng and substantial contact with Brlanna.' In our making this determination,
counsel for the Hells and Baby Glrl Brlanna argue that we should consider Section
2511(b) of the Adoption Act that provldos "The court In terminating the rights of a
parent shell give primary consideration to the dovelopmental, phys(cal and emotional
needs and welfare of the child." Thls provision has been Interpreted to mean that
once it has been determined that the statutory requirements far the Involuntary
termination of parental righis exist, then the court must be further sat(sfied before
ordering termination that It will serve the needs and welfare of the child. In ra E.S.M,
424 Pa. Super. 298 (1993). In the prosent case, no statutory requirements for the
term(nat(on of Humphreys parental rights to Baby Girl Brianna have been met.
Therefore, Section 2511(b) does not apply.
In conclusion, there Is no clear and convincing evidence that the prerequisite
for terminating Humphreys parental rights under Section 2511(a)(5) of the Adoption
Act has been met. Therefore, the following decree is entered.
1. As to the fifth requirement to terminate parental rights under Section
2511(a)(t3), that a parent during the four-month period prior to the filing of the
involuntary termination petition falls to provide substantial support for his child, there
was no way Humphrey could provide such support because he was not told where
Brlanna had been placed. Obviously, both Humphrey and the Halls were the victims
of the mother's duplicity that led to these c(rcumstances.
-9-
39
~ ('1
V
97-0109 ADOPTIONS
DECREE NISI
AND NOW, this _~ day of May, 1998:
(1) The petition to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of Walter
Humphrey to Baby Girl Brfanna, born July 27, 1997, IS DENIED.
(2) This Decree Nisi shall be governed by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 227.1. I
By the
James D. Flower,.Jr., Esquire
For Petitioners
Anne M. Shepard, Esquire
For Walter Humphrey
Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire
For Baby Giri Brianna
:saa
-1 a
~'
y0
e:\wp111uH~dladhdllgq.ed.ro~
7-/.~-98
KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
. CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs, in this action, hereby appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, from the following
Order entered in this matter. An Order dated July 10, 1998, granting legal and physical
custody of Baby Girl Brianna to Defendant, WALTER L. HUMPHREY.
This Order has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached copy of
the docket entry to 98-1530 Miscellaneous Term.
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ames D. Flower, Jr.,~ Esquire
~1 East High Street
l arlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5513
I.D. #27742
y/
c:\wp11\edgrtlm\hail4ppenl.mt /,
KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL,
Plalntifls,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT
A Notice of Appeal having been filed in this matter, Lorraine Troutman, the Official
Court Reporter, is hereby requested to produce, certify and file the transcript in this case in
conformity with Rule 1922 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Attorneys for Petitioners
ames D. Flower, Jr.; Esquire
~1 East High Street
arlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5513
I.D. #27742
y2
cawps~aa.pu~,a~u~~~ap~Ka~.o.a ~
KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
PROOF OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this ~S '~~c day of July, 1998, I, JAMES D. FLOWER, JR.,
Esquire, of the law firm of FLOW RE MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY, Attorneys, hereby
certify that I have filed the Notice of Appeal Under Rule 905 and have served copies thereof,
along with the Request for Transcript and this Proof of Service, this day, upon the following:
The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
By delivery by hand
Lorraine Troutman, Official Court Reporter
By delivery by hand
Richard Pierce, Court Administrator
By delivery by hand
Walter L. Humphrey, Defendant
13853 Azalea Circle, No. 24B
Tampa, Florida 33613
By depositing in first class mail, postage prepaid, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Attorneys for Petitioners
ey
ames D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
1 East High Street
ariisle, PA 17013
17)243-5513
.D. # 27742
y3
PYS510 Cumberl~li County Prothonotary's O9~!',~ce Paqe
~_vil Case InGUiry
1998-01530 HALL KENNETH W ET AL (VS) HUMPHREY WALTER L
Reference No..: Filed........: 3/19/1998
Case Typpe.....: COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time.........: 16:09
Jud ment. 00 Execution Date 0/00/0000
Jude Aeai.gnad: BAYLEY EDGAR B Sat/Dia/Gntd.. 0/00/0000
Jury Trial....
Hi her Court 1
Hi~her Court 2
******************************************************* ************************
General Index Attorney Info
HALL KENNETH W PLF Ii:T.?'F FLOWER JAMES D JR
10746 SPRING RIDu'"~ ROAL'
-SHIPPENSBURG PA 17257 - -
HALL LISA ANN 9'_.AINTIFF FLOWER JAMES D JR
10746 SPRING RIDGE ROAD
SHIPPENSBURG PA 17257
HUMPHREY WALTER L DEFENDANT
13853 AZALEA CIRCLE NO 24B
TAMPA FL 33613
************************k**trkAA***A************#********************************
* Date Entries *
******************'k***'k~***.tv*'A**tt:t*********************************************
03/19/98 COMPLAINT - CUSTODY
03/20/98 ORDER OF COUR^ - DA'PnD 3!10198 - IN RE COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY -
CUSTODY kCTIU:C IS STAYED - HY EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPIES MAILED
05/22/98 ORDER9OF COURT - DATED 5/22/98 - IN RE CUSTODY - ORDER ENTERED
3/20/98 IS VACATED - HEAkI:Qi G/`0/98 1:30 PM CR 2 - BY EDGAR B
BAYLEY J - CO9IEe; MP.ILED 5//7.3/98
06/29/98 PETITION FOR RULE '1'U SHOW CAUSE
06/30/98 ORDER OF COURT - HATED 6/30/98 - IN RE PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW
CAUSE - PET1'i'iU1J A:J UI;NT?sD n5 '~'Ml; kECORD IS CLOSED - BY EDGAR B
BAYLEY .T - NOTICE D'.rAILE{) 711/98
07/10/98 OPINION nND U:~UI:k UI;' I:UUkri' -• Ui~'1''c:ll i/10/98 - IN RE CUSTODY - BY
EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPIES MAILED 7/10/98
*#***************ktr*****+i**#qtt****'F*********************************************
* ::u c;:~4! Information
* Fees & Debits ~^e~ Bal ~~m;;cs/9d~ End Bal
************a******************* *******+ ****** *******************************
COMPLAINT ;,~. '0
~ 3:,.00 .00
TAR ON CMPI,T .SC .50 .00
SETTLEMENT '.JO 5.00 .00
JCP FEE 5.!)G _t.00 .00
CUSTODY FEE 4.:0 1.00 .00
CUSTODY FE{i-CO 1.t)0 1.00 .00
50.0 50.50 .00
*******%**%*M''R %'R'n"w SfX%%':•:. :: :f-w .: :J'w :: w'R :t'.'l.'S1 •w'•A :r 1.••w'T':f i~ A%*%%N** ***************************
* End of Case In:orma :.:.,-,r, *
*************:tk***:t****k*s'<*k C:r:~.f*7•.v***ki:i:'k4******** **#************************
TfiU~C C<31+Y FF~C?t9 CiCC;4P.D
m Testimony a~harect, I t.ero onto cat my i{and
and the seai ct said Cc,{~r' a4 Cariislo, Pa.
This.1~ ~ day of L _ 19~
Prothonotary
yy
171
O`
~,~
0
al
w
r ` °i
_ :-
i...
1_ .
~~
/
;L LL.
/ ~ J
1 ~L~i
t .I
~ X111 ~~
iCltl
u. m
Q~ `
V
~'
~, °
v. y
~ ~
m
~~
r\wp51\u1q.IL~Ahdpgry~.vl.m1 ^
KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
~\
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
APPLICATION FOR STAY OF COURT ORDER
PENDING APPEAL
IN ACCORDANCE WITH Pa.R.A.P. § 1732
AND NOW, come Plaintiffs and make the following application:
1. On July 10, 1998, an Order was entered by the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley,
awarding legal and physical custody of BABY GIRL BRIANNA to her father, WALTER L.
HUMPHREY, with certain periods of temporary physical custody of Plaintiffs.
2. As of the filing of this Application, Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal to
the above referenced Order.
3. Plaintiffs desire that the status quo be preserved, with the child in question
residing primarily with them.
4. Plaintiffs believe that it will be in the best interests of the child in question to
remain with them pending appeal, for the reason that they are the only parents that she has
known to date, that it will be traumatic to the child for her to be separated from them, that the
breaking of the bond between Plaintiffs and the child could create later psychological problems
for her.
y~
r.1wp511eJq~1ludhnlPnrye•al. nd
i~
5. The issuance of a stay will not be substantially prejudicial to the Defendant
who had been willing all along for another individual, the child's natural mother, to have primary
custody of her, with only very occasional visits by Defendant Intended.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court issue a stay of its Order
of July 10, 1998, pending resolution of the appeal to the Superior Court of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
lames D. Flower, Jr.,
1 East High Street
arlisle, PA 17013
717) 243-5513
I.D. #27742
y
• c;\wpSI WL~NImlhell4~rymd.ma /~
/^,
VERIFICATION
The undersigned, JAMES D. FLOWER, JR., avers that the facts set forth in the
foregoing application, are based upon information supplied to me by Plaintiffs and my awareness
of the procedural status of this case, that the facts set forth herein are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief, and are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
By C.~ r
~ ~ ames D. Flower, Jr.,
1 East High Street
arlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5513
I.D. #27742
y~
;,
;:~ :,, :_
,. .
~ .-
~~,:_
~_~~. ~ ';
~~,
u_ ~
~,
r:~
KENNETH W. HALL and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF I
LISA ANN HALL, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PLAINTIFFS .
V. .
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
DEFENDANT 98-1530 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 16th day of Juiy, 1998, based on the best interest and welfare
of Baby Girl Brianna, the within application for a stay of the order of July 10, 1998, IS
DENIED.
-. ~
By, the
Edgar B. Bayley,
James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Plaintiffs
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro se
13853 Alazea Circle
No. 24B
Tampa, FL 33613
:saa
~,;.~~ yl~~l9 ~,
~~°~ ,b . ~f',
~o
~,,
w
KENNETH W. HALL and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
LISA ANN HALL, OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
v.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant 98-1530 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
f
`-~
Proceedings were held before the
HONORABLE EDGAR B. BAYLEY, J.,
Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania,
in Courtroom Number Two,
June 10, 1998.
APPEARANCES:
JAMES D. FLOWER, JR., ESQUIRE
For the Commonwealth
WALTER L. HUMPHREY, PRO SE
~ -, ,
~<
_ -
_
,_ -
;,-;
-;i
ri
~~
~.. ~ i
-_ ~;~
..
w
.y
PLAINTIFF~S•
LISA A. HALL
Direct Examination by Mr.
Flower
4
Cross-Examination by Mr. Humphrey 15
KENNETH W. HALL
Direct Examination by Mr.
Flower
16
Cross-Examination by Mr. Humphrey 16
LLOYD T. ZIMMERMAN
Direct Examination by Mr.
Flower
19
Cross-Examination by Mr. Humphrey 22
j~YDIA V. WITCOMB
Direct Examination by Mr. Flower 23
Cross-Examination by Mr. Clawges 27
KIMBERLY C. GREENAWALT
Direct Examination by Mr. Flower 29
PAULA ANDERSON
Direct Examination by Mr.
Flower
33
Cross-Examination by Mr. Humphrey 34
CYNTHIA B. VRIENS
Direct Examination by Mr. Flower 35
Cross-Examination by Mr. Humphrey 41
PLAINTIFF RESTS
DEFENDANT~S•
45
WALTER L. HUMPHREY
Examination by The Court 45
Cross-Examination by Mr. Flower 56
:~
yr
:Y
1 June 10, 1998
2 Carlisle, Pennsylvania
3
4 (Whereupon, the proceedings were held at
5 1:43 a.m.)
6 THE COURT: This is on what?
7 MR. FLOWER: This is on the custody matter
8 between my client, the Halls, and the natural father of this
9 young lady, of the child.
10 THE COURT: Halls petition for custody?
11 MR. FLOWER: Halls petition for custody,
12 Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: What is the jurisdictional basis?
14 MR. FLOWER: Jurisdictional basis is that the
15 child is here, and has been here for more than six months.
16 The child -- and this is the appropriate jurisdiction under
17 the uniform --
18 THE COURT: What~s the basis, jurisdictional
19 basis, for the Halls to secure custody?
20 MR. FLOWER: The Halls standing is the fact
21 that they have -- they are adoptive parents. They have been
22 given custody of the child as adoptive parents.
23 In the preliminary adoption matters where we
24 attempted to terminate parental rights of the child, this
25 Court issued an order giving them temporary rights. They
3
V
Y
v
1 are loco parentis, and they have standing under the case law
2 to seek custody.
3 THE COURT: Because they~ve had the child,
4 loco parentis, is that the basis of it?
5 MR. FLOWER: Yes, it is, Your Honor. They
6 have been in loco parentis.
7 THE COURT: All right. I will take
8 testimony. You are going to represent yourself?
g MR. HUMPHREY: I have no one else,
10 Your Honor. I tried every attorney in the phone book.
11 Basically they seem to be busy. Donut want to bother with
12 it. I am here by myself.
13 THE COURT: Okay. Have a seat. Go ahead.
14 MR. FLOWER: Mrs. Hall, please take the
15 stand.
16 Whereupon,
17 LISA A. HALL,
18 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
19 DIRECT EXAMINATION
20 aY MR. FLOWER'
21 Q Mrs. Hall, would you give your full name,
22 please?
2g A Lisa Ann Hall.
24 Q What is your address?
25 A 10746 Spring Ridge Road, Shippensburg,
4
V
:.
1 Pennsylvania.
2 Q Who resides with you in that household?
3 A My husband, Kenneth Wayne Hall, and my son
4 Cassidy, and our daughter Hecky.
5 Q What do you do for a living, Mrs. Ha117
6 A I am office manager for the Behavioral Health
7 Services at Chambereburq Hospital.
g Q How long have you worked in that capacity?
9 A I have bean at the hospital for 15 years.
10 Q How many days a week do you work?
11 A I work five days a week, but my hours are
12 very flexible, and i am able to work at home a lot and I
13 can -- I work basically around the care of the children so I
14 can be home. i go in early a lot of times and my husband
15 works in the evening, so he's there with the children during
16 the day, and then when -- so we don't have to have the
17 children in child care.
18 Q Okay. Now, have you -- has the flexibility
19 in your job changed since Bethany came to live with you?
20 A Yes. Whenever we first went and got her. in
21 Florida, I took a three-month leave of absence so I could be
22 with her to bond, and then when I went back to work, my
23 position changed where my hours were more flexible, which is
24 what I really wanted so I could be home with her more and my
25 son.
5
,.
1 Q How about Ken, has his job changed at all as
2 a result --
3 A Yes. He worked for Giant Foods ae a truck
4 driver for about three and a half years, and then he decided
5 that he wanted to become self-employed as a truck driver,
6 and he did that for, like, three or four months; and he
7 decided to go back to Giant Foods because that job took him
8 away from the family a great deal, and he wanted to be home
9 with the family, the children. And because of his hours
10 now, he is able to be home with the children and care for
11 them during the day, three days a week, while I am at work
12 so we donut require child care. Only two days out of the
13 week my sister cares for the children.
14 Q okay. What~s your sisters name?
15 A Paula Anderson.
16 Q And is she here today?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Now, you called the young lady in question
19 here Bethany; is that right?
20 A Yes, that~s what we call her.
21 Q And what is her date of birth?
22 A July 27th, 1997.
23 Q All right. So she is how old now?
24 A She is ten and a half months.
25 Q Now, can you describe developmentally what
6
1 stage she is?
v
Y
2 A She calla me momma, and calls my husband
3 daddy. She pattycakes, and about a week and a half she took
4 her firs t st eps.
5 Q About a week and a half ago?
6 A Yeah.
7 Q So ehe is walking now.
e A if you coax her, yeah, but she does take
9 steps on her own and she stands by herself.
10 Q Okay. And how about speaking? She calls
11 you?
12 A She calls me momma and my husband daddy. She
13 calls my dad and my husband's dad pap-pap. She knows us by
14 that.
15 Q Any other words?
16 A She tries to say dog because we have two
17 dogs.
18 Q Okay. Now, when she came to you, when you
19 first received custody of her, you were intending to adopt
20 her; is that correct?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And how old was she at that time?
23 A When we first -- we went to Florida and when
24 we first got her She was six days old.
25 Q Okay. What was her medical condition at that
7
i time7
W
:~
2 A She was three weeks premature. She weighed
3 five pounds, seven ounces. She was rather small.
4 Q And how ie she doing medically now?
5 A Fine. She is very healthy. Her last
6 check-up, her nine-month check-up she weighed 17 pounds, 10
7 ounces.
8 Q Is she over any medical problems she had as a
9 result of be ing slightly premature?
l0 A She has no medical problems, yes -- no.
11 Q Now, you and your husband are both of the
12 Caucasian ra cial background?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And what is your religious background?
15 A We attend Mt. Rock Brethren in Christ church.
16 Q And Bethany is of the African American racial
17 background; is that correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And you have another child Cassidy; is that
20 correct?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And how old is Cassidy?
23 A Seven.
24 Q How does he get along with Bethany?
25 A Very well. He adores her.
8
v
Y
i•
1 Q Now, is -- was Cassidy naturally born to you
2 or adopted?
3 A He was adopted as well.
4 Q When was he adopted?
5 A He was born October 4th, 1990.
6 Q And where was he born?
7 A He was born in Guatemala.
e Q How would you describe his racial background?
9 A He is hispanic.
10 Q Darker skinned than you or not?
it A Yes, he is darker than us, yes. He is sort
12 of a brown.
13 Q Did you attempt to adopt any other children?
14 A We attempted to adopt another child prior to
15 Cassidy from Guatemala, and while the adoption was going --
16 THE COURT: I donut see how this is relevant.
17 Next question. The question is what is in the bast interest
18 and welfare of this child now.
19 ~Y MR. FLOWE R'
20 Q Mrs. Hall, have you tried to deal with the
21 challenge of raising a child of a different racial
22 background than you?
23 A Yes, we have. We had some experience with
24 our son Cassidy. In school he came across situations where
25 children asked him why he was different. And we have dealt
9
Y
r
1 with those. And we encourage him to come to us so we can
2 talk about the situation and help him to deal with it.
3 And weave also, with him, his culture, we
4 have -- there~s -- we have numerous friends that have
5 adopted children from Central America as well. And with
6 Bethany what wa have tried to do is establish a network of
7 resources just in our community. Wa have contacted numerous
8 African American families in our community, and they have
9 been so warm and welcome and have been so supportive to us.
to They have welcomed us to their homes. We visited with one
11 couple and they invited us to their church.
12 Q What are their names?
13 A The Tuckers are the one couple and Reed is
14 one of the other couples names.
15 Q They live where?
16 A The Tuckers live right -- maybe two miles
17 from where we live. And those were the ones that we had
18 visited with, and they are the ones who invited us to their
19 church, and they invited us to family gatherings as well.
20 We also live close to the Shippensburg
21 University and checked into multi-cultural affairs
22 department there. They have a variety of programs. They
23 have the Big Brother/Big Sister program that when she
24 reached a certain age, she could be matched with an African
25 American big sister. They have Martin Luther King, Jr.
l0
.~
v
1 celebration. They have a Woman of Color Conference that is
2 yearly and also support groups.
g We have also checked in -- with Cassidy we
4 have books that we have already, Why Am I Different, that
5 kind of thing. Those books we would use with her as wall.
6 There's a -- we found out that there is a
7 museum in Baltimore, Maryland, it's called Great Blacks in
8 Wax museum. That would be something that would be another
9 option.
10 But we've tried to establish or instill in
11 our son that he is special. He is special -- all people are
12 the same inside, but we try to make him aware that he will
13 have to confront situations where people will judge him on
14 his appearance.
15 Q Right. Are you willing to grapple with the
16 challenges of having someone of a different race in your
17 family?
18 A Yes.
1g Q Are there any contacts which, either through
20 photographs or whatever, which Cassidy has retained from
21 Guatemala?
22 A Yes, we write back and -- before we were able
23 to get him he was with a foster mother, and we write back
24 and forth to her. She sends him birthday cards and
25 Christmas presents.
11
w
Y
1 And wa also have a picture of his birth
2 mother, which he has seen, and wa have told him about where
3 he came from. We think that's very important because that's
4 a part of who he is.
5 Q Mrs. Hall, there are a series of photographs
6 which have been marked here 1.-A, 1-B, 1-C, would you --
7 THE COURT: Just tell me generally what they
8 are, not specifically.
9 MR. FLOWER: All right.
10 BY MR. FLOWE R•
it Q Tell the judge generally what these
12 photographs show.
13 A They are photos of our home, the outside of
14 our home, and also the various rooms inside of the home.
15 Q Are there photographs of your two children
16 playing together?
17 A Yeah, there are some photographs of Cassidy
18 and Bethany playing together.
19 Q And this is -- this shows the interior of the
20 home too?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And does it show Bethany's bedroom?
23 A Yes, it's right there.
24 Q Okay. That's labeled as Bethany's bedroom.
25 2 will show you what's marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2.
12
Y
r
1 Would you identify this, please?
2 A This is the letter from our family physician
3 whose cared for Bethany from birth.
4 Q All right. And does he speak in this letter
5 of your ability as parents?
6 A Yea.
7 Q Now, you understand that this is a proceeding
8 to determine what~s in the best interest of Bethany and who
9 she should live with?
10 A Yes.
11 Q You understand that?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And you understand that if the judge decides
14 to grant you primary physical custody, that certainly the
15 natural father, Mr. Humphrey, would have opportunities to
16 spend time with his daughter. Do you understand that?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Do you feel that you can openly cooperate and
19 help keep that contact with her father?
20 A Yes.
21 Q How would you describe your neighborhood?
22 A Our neighborhood -- we live about two miles
23 from Shippensburg town. Our town is a small town. We live
24 in the rural area. We live in the country.
25 Q Are there any family members who live near
13
1 you?
•
,j
2 A Yea, we have an aunt and uncle that live
3 near. And grandmother, Ken's parents, live just a couple
4 houses up the road.
5 Q Ken is your husband?
6 A Yes. And my family lives about 30 minutes
7 away. My parents and my sisters and Ken's brother lives
8 fairly close also.
9 Q Aside from your sister, Paula, are there
10 other family members, besides Paula and Ken, are there other
11 family members who occasionally watch Bethany?
12 A Occasionally Ken's parents watch her and
13 Cassidy as well, and my other sister Lori Ebersole and my
14 parents. That's basically it.
15 Q okay. Would you describe briefly what your
16 relationship is with Bethany?
17 THE COURT: Well, you've been her mother.
18 Right?
19 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
20 THE COURT: I understand that.
21 MR. FLOWER: Okay.
22 THE COURT: Next question.
23 MR. FLOWER: No further questions, Your
24 Honor.
25 THE COURT: Do you have any questions?
14
v
1 MR. HUMPt{REY: Yea.
2 CROSS-EXAMINA
3 BY_MR. HUMPHREY:
4 Q Yes, Miss Hall, by reason of background and
5 culture -- as raising a kid in your background and once a
6 kid gate a certain age and stop going to something of life
7 as being degraded in school and so forth, once the kid come
8 to mommy and say, Mommy, these things, why are the kids
9 calling me this and calling me that? And how do you feel
10 about that? Are you willing to take on those types of
11 responsibility to --
12 A Yes, we have done that with our son. He's
13 come to us and said, you know, children have asked me why I
14 am different, and he doesn't -- we have helped him know what
15 to say and how to handle it. We tried to build in him a
16 self-esteem that -- we are very open. We want him to come
17 to us.
18 Q Won't that bring a psychological effect on
19 kids as we see today --
20 THE COURT: You have to ask a question, not
21 raise a statement. Do you have any questions?
22 MR. HUMPHREY: Okay.
23 BY MR. HUMPHREY:
24 Q Miss Hall, say, as time do proceed and years
25 go by as we know who the father is, and we know how this all
15
v
1 came about, how do you feel in your heart if you wanted to
2 do the right thing and give one child back to the proper
3 parent and raise it in a proper culture?
4 A I wa nt what's beat with for her. That's what
5 I want. I don't kn ow what that means, but I want what's
6 best for her, 'caus e I will give my life for her.
7 THE COURT: Any other questions?
8 MR. HUMPHREY: No other questions.
9 THE COURT: Anything else?
10 MR. FLOWER: Nothing Your Honor.
it THE COURT: Ma'am, you may step down. Next.
12 MR. FLOWER: Mr. Hall.
13 Whereupon,
14 KENNETH W. HALL,
15 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
16 DIRECT EXAMINATION
17 BY MR. FLOWER'
18 Q Mr. Hall, would you have give your full name,
19 please?
20 A Kenneth Wayne Hall.
21 Q You are married to Lisa Hall; is that right?
22 A Yes, I am.
23 Q And you have taken Bethany into your home as
24 her father?
25 A Yes.
16
v
i
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
forgot to ask her,
THE
THE
MRS
THE
COURT:
how old
WITNESS
COURT:
. HALL:
COURT:
Tell me one thing because I
are you?
I am thirty-three.
How old are you, ma'am?
Thirty-five.
okay. Go ahead.
BY MR. FLOWER '
Q Mr. Hall, what are you doing as a living now?
A I drive truck for Giant Foods.
Q And your wife talked a little bit about this,
did you make an adjustment in terms of your schedule when
Bethany came to live with you?
A Yes. Back in November I wanted to be
self-employed driving truck, and it didn't work out with me
being home wi th the family as much as i wanted, and I went
back to Giant Foods.
Q And why did you do that?
A To be home with the family more.
Q And you heard your wife's testimony. Is
there anything in your testimony that you would disagree
with or add t o?
A No, she said pretty much the way I feel.
Q Is there anything else that you Peel you
could add?
A No, other than we love her dearly.
17
Y
1 MR. FLOWER: That's all I have.
2 THE COURT: Any questions?
3 MR. HUMPHREY: Yes, I have, Your Honor.
4 CROSS-EXAMINATION
5 BY MR. HUMPHREY•
6 R Mr. Hall, how do you feel about -- as a
7 father -- cultural difference?
8 A I just agree with what my wife said. We help
9 them through everything. If they come and ask us, we will
10 try to them help them through things.
11 Q Mr. Hall, are you willing to take on the
12 responsibility as a kid reaches a certain peak and age in
13 life to come and say, Father, why are these kids don't like
14 me? How come my hair is not like your hair, my skin is not
15 like your skin?
16 A Yes, we have gone through that with our son
17 already. He's asked us those questions already. We try to
18 answer them to the best of our ability.
19 Q Mr. Hall, when you feel that a father,
20 biological father can show his daughter more love than a
21 stepfather and mother?
22 A Not really. You know, my son's adopted, and
23 I love him like he was my natural child.
24 Q But wouldn't you feel real blood lines makes
25 a difference in life as you see it today?
18
r
1 THE COURT: You are working with the wrong
2 judge. i have an adopted daughter and natural son, and I
3 know there is no d ifference. Next question.
4 MR. HUMPHREY: Mr. Hall, when a daughter
5 comas up, and its time to go to the prom and, say, buying
6 her nice things and dating boys as we see in modern times,
7 are you willing to take on that responsibility too?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.
9 MR. HUMPHREY: I have no further questions.
l0 THE COURT: What grade is Cassidy in?
11 THE WITNESS: He will be going into second
12 this fall.
13 THE COURT: Just finished first?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 THE COURT: Where was that?
16 THE WITNESS: Nancy Grasson Elementary School
17 in Shippensburg.
18 THE COURT: Anything else?
19 MR. FLOWER: Nothing else, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: You may step down.
21 MR. FLOWER: Pastor Zimmerman.
22 Whereupon,
23 LLOYD T. ZIMMERMAN,
24 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
25
19
1 DIRECT EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. FLOWER :
3 Q Pastor Zimmerman, would you give your full
4 name.
5 A Lloyd Thomas Zimmerman.
6 Q Are you a pastor of the church that the Halls
7 attend?
8 A Yes.
9 Q What~s the name of that church?
l0 A Mt. Rock Brethren in Christ church in
11 Shippensburg, PA.
12 Q And did your church have an involvement with
13 the adoption that the Halls wish to take place here?
14 A Well, we helped them, I think, in every way,
15 monetarily, e motionally, because it really is a long,
16 drawn-out pro cess sometimes. We were there for them through
17 both of their adoptions.
18 Q How would you characterize the degree of
19 support for the adoption in your congregation?
20 A Very high. Very high, indeed.
21 Q Do you feel that your church members are
22 available to help with problems that the Halls may have with
23 raising their daughter?
24 A I think not only are they willing, they~ve
25 already proven that through many demonstrations of support
20
1 and help.
2 Q And do you recall when Cassidy came to live
3 with the Halle?
4 A Yes, I do.
5 Q What do you recall about hie initial
6 adjustment from coming to Guatemala to coming to live with
T this family?
8 A I remember that he was a very frightened
9 little boy, that was just seemingly frightened about
10 everything. And I watched him overtime, through the nurture
li of the Halls and their love -- which I think is a primary
12 issue -- I saw that little boy be transformed into a very
13 confident little boy at this point, who literally has now
14 gotten up in front of the church, and sang in front of the
15 church, and has been a part of the church and is in Sunday
16 school. When he first came he was very, very, very timid.
17 But I think through the Halls' love, that fear in him has
18 left and he feels very confident.
19 Q Pastor Zimmerman, what denomination is your
20 church?
21 A Brethren in Christ, and if you want an
22 elaboration on that. It ie Anabaptist, not anti-baptist,
23 but A-n-a baptist denomination. And we are very much
24 connected with the Mennonites, and people who really believe
25 that coloz• doesn't matter.
21
Y
1 We truly do want to aee a color blind
2 society, that would be one of the tenants of our church
3 against -- the song that the children sing, Red and Yellow,
4 Black and White, they are precious in his eight. We don't
5 really think there should be any discrimination of any kind.
6 And we believe people are all the same inside, they are
7 spritual people.
g MR. FLOWER: No further questions, Your
9 Honor.
10 THE COURT: Any questions?
11 CROSS-EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. HUMPHREY•
13 Q Pastor, you said that your congregation --
14 does it consistent of multi-culture, you say?
15 A Well, it doesn't -- it is primarily one
16 culture, but we have other people from Central America. If
17 you are going to ask whether we have blacks, we do not at
18 this time, but there have been blacks who have attended the
19 church.
20 MR. HUMPHREY: No further questions.
21 THE COURT: Sir, you may step down.
22 MR. FLOWER: If it's not inappropriate, Your
23 Honor, I would like to be able to excuse Pastor Zimmerman.
24 (Whereupon, Pastor Zimmerman exited the
25 witness stand.)
22
1 MR. FLOWER: My next witness is Lydia
2 Whitcomb.
3 Whereupon,
4 LYDIA V. WITCOMB,
5 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
6 nTRECT EXAMINATION
7 BY MR. FLOWER'
g Q Miss Witcomb, would you give your full name?
g A Lydia Virginia Witcomb.
l0 Q Where do you reside?
11 A I reside in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.
12 Q Where do you work?
13 A At the Chambersburg Hospital, Summit Health
14 System.
15 Q Are you Lisa Halls immediate supervisor?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Now, Mrs. Hall indicated that she had some
18 flexibility in her work in order to help flexibly care for
19 Bethany; is that correct?
20 A Yes, she does. She was titled, was the
21 departmental secretary for many years, but I guess the
22 timing of their adoption of Bethany was coincidental. We
23 had been working towards a promotion because we were
24 expanding our services, and we needed to have flexibility of
25 hours to accommodate our needs, and it was something she
23
' 1 wanted any way, I knew that. She has worked for us over 10
2
• years on behavioral health.
3 At any rate, the promotion was in process at
4 the time that they received the call that there was a child,
5 and they went to Florida to adopt her. And at that time she
6 took a three-month family leave, and by the time she
7 returned, the promotion had taken place while she was
8 actually out.
9 It worked out really well for her, I guess,
10 in that once she returned to work, she is now salaried
11 versus an hourly employee, meaning, ehe doesn~t clock in and
12 out. So that the nature of her job allows her to take a
13 fair portion home with her because a lot of it is background
14 paperwork, and manuals and sort of -- that sort of thing, so
15 its really no problem.
16 And I guess my philosophy with her and every
17 employee, we are able to do that with, I think, that makes a
18 more productive employee because there is always conflict
19 between people who have young children, and I raised a child
20 myself, so I know that your priorities often are not at work
21 when you have a sick child or, you know, there is a problem
22 with child care and you need to be available.
23 So she~s called and said, Cassidy is sick or
24 Bethany was up all night. I am going to stay home this
25 morning. Hut she checks her voice mail from home, and we
24
1 communicate all day some days that way.
. 2 Q Okay. Miss Witcomb, I am going to change
3 gears and ask you what your educational background and
4 professional background is.
5 A I am a clinical specialist in behavioral
6 health, adult psychiatric nursing.
7 Q Okay. And what academic degree do you hold?
8 A Master of Science Degree.
9 Q And was there a particular focus within the
10 Masters of Science Degree?
11 A Yes, there was, on psychiatric and mental
12 health.
13 Q Okay. Was that a nursing degree?
14 A And nursing, yes.
15 Q All right. Now, have you had an opportunity
16 to study in the course of your academic studies or in the
17 course of your professional life the effects of separation
18 of children from adults that those children have bonded to?
19 A To be a specialist in treating adults, and
20 for many years -- I guess about eight years before I assumed
21 a full-time administrative position -- I was doing therapy
22 with families, adolescents, adults; but part of treating
23 adults is understanding human growth and development and all
24 of that psychology of development from birth on because that
25 often contributes to the onset or the adult problem. So,
25
1 yes, separation is -- and trust and the development of all
2 of that -- are you asking me to elaborate?
3 A Yes.
4 THE COURT: Well, I want to hear a question.
5 What's the specific question?
6 MR. FLOWER: All right.
7 BY MR. FLOWER•
8 Q Can you discuss in general the effect the
9 separation of a child Bethany's age from an individual she
10 has bonded with, such as the Ha11s7
11 A It potentially could have devastating
12 effects. I, of course, can't say with 30o percent certainty
13 because a lot of that depends on the individual too. But it
14 is established that critical periods of personality
15 development is the first 18 months of life, and actually up
16 to three years because that is the time where basic trust is
17 formed, and a child who cannot develop that basic sense of
18 trust in an adult, and you need to bond with a parent or
19 parent figure to do that, can often have profound
20 personality problems throughout their life or conduct
21 disorders or difficult with relationships with others.
22 And that young age is very critical because
23 early separations and sudden losses, when there's no other
24 adult that they've bonded with or they can't with be with
25 another adult they can have a close tie with can create
26
1 great insecurities, and I have seen adults still struggling
2 with that, that have had a sudden loss through a car
3 accident or a death or some other traumatic situation.
4 Q That can then in part come back from
5 separation early in life?
6 A Definitely separation early in life. That's
7 why, kind of, you watch children through their normal
8 development. That game peek-a-boo is very significant
9 because if you watch a child, you are teaching them that --
lo you are teaching them just a little bit about separation,
11 even in a simple thing like peek-a-boo. Yes, somebody is
12 gone for a moment, but then you come back, and that
13 re-assures them. And basically, that experience is just --
14 she said, Lisa said that --
15 THE COURT: Wait. Ask another question.
16 .THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
17 MR. FLOWER: I think that's all of the
18 questions I have.
19 THE
20 MR.
21
22 BY MR. HUMPHREY•
23 Q You
24 small age from an
25 end? The adult or
COURT: Any questions?
HUMPHREY: Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
said that separation from a child at a
adult would be crucial. Crucial on which
the child? Isn't a child steady growing
27
1 in fundamental stages in life?
2 A A child, up to the first 18 months of life,
3 developmentally, at least psychologically, is learning to
4 gain a sense of trust in the world, and they need to bond
5 with, usually its a parent figure, often a mother, could be
6 a father, but they need to bond very closely with an adult
7 and learn that that adult will be there for them and over
8 gradual periods of time the adult can disappear and come
9 back, and that allows a person to gain a sense of identity,
l0 a sense of self-confidence, and the ability to begin to
11 separate later in life and learn to be independent. And
12 when that~s disturbed and a child never gains that sense of
13 security, they often have trouble functioning later in life.
14 Q Would you say that a child, once reached age
15 of five or six, had the tendency developing more or less at
16 a younger age from 10 months?
17 A I am not sure I understand your question.
18 Q From the stage from l0 months, which is --
19 from five years in developing life, will she basically know
20 everything what you are saying from those periods of time of
21 the 30 months to once she reaches five?
22 A Know everything? I still am not sure I
23 understand your question, but a child certainly is not fully
24 developed at five. She hopefully would have a much better
25 sense of who she is and own identity and sense of security
28
,._ - -~~-
1 by five, but five is still pretty young to have developed
2 that to the stage you do when you are an adult. That's
3 usually 18 to 20 or so with people really learning to move
4 away.
5 MR. HUMPHREY: I have no further questions.
6 THE COURT: Anything else?
7 MR. FLOWER: No redirect, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Ma'am, you are excused.
9 MR. FLOWER: Next witness is Kim Greenawalt.
10 Whereupon,
11 KIMBERLY C. GREENAWALT,
12 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
13 DIRECT EXAMINATION
14 BY MR. FLOWER•
15 Q Mrs. Greenawalt, would you give your full
16 name, please?
17 A Kim Carol Greenawalt.
18 Q Where do you live, ma'am?
19 A Newburg, Pennsylvania.
20 Q And do you have any adopted children?
21 A Yes, I have three.
22 Q What are their ages?
23 A I have a seven-year old and six-year-old
z4 twins.
25 Q And where are they from originally?
29
1 A They were all born in Guatemala.
2 Q Do you know the Halls?
3 A Yes, I do.
4 Q Do your families ever have occasion to gat
5 together?
6 A Yes, quite often.
7 Q Have you had occasion to observe Bethany and
e Cassidy together?
9 A Yes, I have.
l0 Q How would you characterize their
it relationship?
12 A They are very close. Cassidy is very good
13 with his sister.
14 Q Do you have gatherings with a larger number
15 of families that have adopted children?
16 A Yes, we do.
17 Q Could you describe those gatherings?
18 A Well, there is several families in our area
19 with internationally adopted children, and we usually try at
20 least once a year to get together for picnics and invite
21 everybody with their children so that their children can
22 play and interact.
23 And there's also families through adoption
24 support group that we both belong to, and we have functions
25 throughout the year; and that's, again, all with different
30
1 children of different races and adopted children.
2 Q What kind of support group -- the social
3 group that you have, about how many families might attend
4 those?
5 A Um, let me see.
6 Q Just an approximate amount?
7 A Eight, ten sometimes. it varies.
8 Q And how many internationally adopted children
9 tend to b e in that group?
30 A Well, everybody has at least one. Some
11 families have two or three, so 15 maybe, sometimes more.
12 Q And aside from Guatemala and African
13 American, are there other racial groups that are represented
14 there?
15 A We do have friends with an Asian child, well
16 several f riends with Asian children, and different South
17 American countries, Peru and several with Guatemalan
18 children too.
19 Q In that group, do you discuss the problems
20 that you have with international adoptions?
21 A Yes, we do.
22 Q And do you support each other within those
23 problems?
24 A Yes, we do.
25 Q Lets qo to the support group that you
31
...
-;;C
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
mentioned. How often does that meet?
A Well, we have functions three times
throughout the year, in the spring, summer and at Christmas.
We have functions with them where all of the families get
together.
Q What's the purpose of that support group?
A To be able to talk to other families and
discuss any problems that may arise with their children with
being of the different race or different culture, and it's
certainly not something that you can just talk to other
families about. They wouldn't understand exactly, and it's
just to exchange ways you've handled problems and --
Q Can you give examples of problems that you
might discuss?
A Well, as they mentioned, when the children
are in school, if other kids ask them why their skin color
is different or why they don't look like mom and dad. Just
helping them to cope to have a right answer to say, but
still be very self-confident and have a lot of self-esteem
and know that they are special and loved.
MR. FLOWER: That's all I have on direct,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any questions?
MR. HUMPHREY: No questions.
THE COURT: Ma'am, you may step down.
32
1 MR. FLOWER: I call Paula Anderson.
2 Whereupon,
3 PAULA D. ANDERSON,
4 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. FLOWER'
7 Q Mies Anderson, would you give your full name,
8 please.
9 A Paula Dawn Anderson.
10 Q And where do you live?
11 A 233 Social Island Road, Chambersburg,
12 Pennsylvania.
13 Q Now, are you Lisa Halls sister?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And are you the person who most often takes
16 care of Bethany and Cassidy when Lisa and Ken are not
17 around.
18 A Yes.
19 Q Can you explain that?
20 A On occasion, if something would come up, and
21 they would need me the third day, then I would watch them
22 the third day.
23 Q When you say them, you mean Cassidy and
24 Bethany?
25 A Yes.
33
1 Q So you~ve had a lot oP opportunities to see
2 Bethany and Cassidy gat together?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q How would you characterize their
5 relationship?
6 A Well, they get along wonderfully. He is like
7 the doting big brother. He just loves her so much. You can
8 just tell he gives her toys and plays with her. He just
9 loves her.
10 Q And, of course, you~ve seen your sister and
31 brother-in-law with Bethany, have you not?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And how would you characterize their
14 relationship?
15 A My sister and brother-in-law love Bethany so
16 much that they would gladly give theirs lives. if she would
17 be in trouble, they would do anything possible for her.
18 MR. FLOWER: No further direct, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Any questions?
20 CROSS-EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. HUMPHREY:
22 Q Miss Anderson, why would you say give your
23 life for a child?
24 A If by chance something would happen to
25 Bethany, that a truck was going to run over her, my
34
1 sister-in-law and brother-in-law would gladly step in front
2 of the truck, than have her be run over, that~s what I mean.
3 MR. HUMPHREY: No further questions,
4 Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: You may step down.
6 MR. FLOWER: I call Cindy Vriens.
7 Whereupon,
g CYNTHIA B. VRIENS,
g having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
10 nTRECT EXAMINATION
11 BY MR. FLOWER•
12 Q Mrs. Vriens, would you give your full name,
13 please.
14 A Cynthia Barnes Vriens.
15 Q Okay. Are you acquainted with the Hall
16 family?
17 A I am.
18 Q How did you -- first of all, let me ask you,
19 What you do for a living?
20 A I am the executive director of Adoption
21 Horizons in Carlisle.
22 Q And how did you first become acquainted with
23 the Hall family?
24 A I actually met them many years ago in 1989
25 when they came to us for assistance with completing a home
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
study prior to the adoption of their first son Cassidy?
Q And did you help them complete that adoption?
A i did, indeed, and I supervised the placement
when Cassidy came home, and have been in touch with them
ever since. And then they came back to have a second home
study done several years ago with an update that was
completed in the spring of last year, prior to the placement
of Bethany.
Q I am going to show you what we have marked as
Plaintiffs Exhibit 3, can you identify that Mrs. Vriens?
A That is the most recent home study that was
completed and approved for the Halls.
Q That was the a home study that you did in
anticipation of their adoption of Bethany. Am i Correct?
A Right.
Q You wrote that?
A I did.
Q And what did you -- what contact with the
family or investigation did you do before you wrote that
home study?
A In 1989, prior to the first adoption, we
completed educational classes with the Halls that focused on
issues both short-term and long-term in adoption. We
concentrated on issues that would be relative to the
immediate post-placement period, including health issues and
36
1 the like.
2 We also looked at trans-racial adoption
3 issues. So they had gone through the classes as wall as a
4 thorough individual home visit prior to Cassidy~s arrival;
5 and then when they were interested in adopting a second
6 time, we met individually on several occasions to not only
7 update the original home study, but also to discuss how soma
8 of those issues were playing out further now that they ware
9 more experienced parents.
10 Q Now, have any of the facts in that home study
11 changed significantly?
12 A Not to any great significance. Again, as
13 already stated earlier, Lisa has been promoted and so forth,
14 but the main facts still remain current.
15 I had caused two, of course, post-placement
16 visits with the Halls since the time that Bethany has come
17 home, and therefore were able to keep that information
18 current.
19 Q Can you describe particularly the
20 post-placement visits and what you~ve learned as a result of
21 of them?
22 A In many ways I didn~t learn anything
23 tremendously new because I already knew that the Halls were
24 very, very competent parents. Z had seen that with Cassidy,
25 and I simply continued to see it in their raising of
37
1 Bethany.
2 She was born prematurely, a rather small
3 child, and since the time that she has come home, she has
4 not only thrived, she has developed into a delightful, happy
5 responsive, little girl, who in my opinion has clearly
6 bonded to both Kenny and to Lisa.
7 She has received very adequate medical care.
8 Sha is loved and cherished by members of her extended family
9 and within her church community, as well, where ehe has been
to well-received.
11 Q And in the course of the adoption
12 preparation, they said that they had Bethany since about six
13 days old; is that your recollection?
14 A That's correct.
15 Q And you said that you, in the course of
16 either this home study or a prior one, helped the Halls deal
17 with trans-racial adoption issues?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Can you describe what you mean by that term?
20 A I think any of us who are Caucasian parents,
21 adopting children of other races, must be prepared for the
22 fact that although for us, color is obviously not an issue,
23 we love and adore our children, at the same time being
24 realistic enough to know that not everyone will share that
25 view, and it is important to prepare children for what they
38
1 may incur in life.
2 Some oP those issues had been addressed.
3 promoting a healthy sense of self-esteem, creating a strong
4 sense of self within the child. And its also a job that
5 cannot be done alone. And the Halls talked about the
6 importance of reaching out for other kinds of supports,
7 other kinds of services in order to help do that job.
e They have done it by looking at individuals
9 within their community who have been more than willing to
10 support them and to support Bethany both now and in the
11 future. They have done it by looking for cultural resources
12 within their community, a university town.
13 They have done it by reaching out and
14 building a network of friendships that include individuals
15 of different races, as well as individuals who have adopted
16 children of other races.
1~ So they have really not only, in my opinion,
18 recognized that these issues exist, but recognize that they
19 will continue to be open to any sources of support to do the
20 bast that they can by their children.
21 Q What is your highest academic degree?
22 A Masters in counseling.
23 Q As an individual trained in adoption, do you
24 have any concerns about the results of this child being
25 separated from the Halls and primary custody is given to the
39
..
1 natural father?
2 A I am concerned that at this age Bethany has
3 established a strong and trusting bond with these parents.
4 These are the parents that she has known since birth. And
5 in interrupting that trust and the development of that trust
6 that -- as very well put earlier -- did interrupt the very
7 important development of a life-long ability to trust and
8 spread that trust to other relationships.
9 I am concerned of the affects on Bethany. I
30 am also concerned of the effects on Cassidy. As another
11 adopted child who has witnessed this, and in his young
12 ability to understand has been very frightened about the
13 possibility of losing his sister, the personal and perhaps
14 the scareyness of, Could that happen to me? And finally, I
15 am concerned because we know so little of where Bethany will
16 be returned to if, indeed, that was the other option.
17 Q Now, as the before we learned that
18 Mr. Humphrey was the natural father when this adoption was
19 moving forward, were you, in fact, recommending that the
20 adoption take place?
21 A Yes, I was. And I still am.
22 MR. FLOWER: That~s all I have on direct,
23 Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: Questions?
25 MR. HUMPHREI': Yes.
40
1
2 ~ MR. HUMPHREY•
9 Q You say Cassidy will be affected by this?
4 A Yee.
5 Q Would the adult be affected by this?
6 A I'm sorry? Which would be affected more?
7 Q Yes. Because little kids, they make friends
8 and they forget and so forth.
g A But Bethany is much more than just a friend
to to Cassidy. Bethany is his sister in every way, shape and
11 form. And for him to lose his sister would be as deeply
12 affected as if he lost a sister to death, and in his mind in
13 knowing that another parent came and took her would only, I
14 think, raise for him not only the issues of having lost
15 someone so important to him, but also the threat of the
16 possibility, however remote, that that could also happen to
17 him because he's not old enough to understand all of those
18 issues.
19 Q You said the Halls did go through a process
20 at first through this ordeal?
21 A I'm sorry? Excuse me?
22 Q They did go through a process? What was
23 that, two years ago or something?
24 A The entire process?
25 Q Yes.
41
1 A The original process, the classes would have
2 stretched over approximately a month followed by individual
7 in-home visits and assessments. There were written
4 assignments. There are also, under law, many requirements
5 including child abuse and criminal history checks. For the
6 first adoption that included an F.B.I. fingerprint check, it
7 includes physicals, personal reference letters, verification
8 of income. Its a substantially long process.
9 The time frame that that took to complete, I
10 would say, approximately six months, although I donut truly
11 recall at this point from 1989. in the more current home
12 study, we met on several occasions and the same paperwork,
13 minus the F.B.I. fingerprint check, because this was not an
14 international adoption, was all completed again. so that it
15 was very current and up to date.
16 Q So how would you feel about the father in the
17 matter of this?
18 A The birth father, the biological father?
19 Q Yes.
20 A I think that for any adopted child they need
21 to understand where it is that they have come from, what the
22 circumstances are, to the best that they can in any
23 developmental level. And it is up to every adoptive family
24 to help them to look at those issues again within what
25 ability they have to understand it at each stage. So
42
1 obviously you start very small and very general and build it
2 to a point whe re they have a fuller understanding.
3 But I think being also aware that adopted
4 children need to feel okay about their biological parents as
5 much as their adoptive parents. They need to know that they
6 are a piece of f of that rod too, if you will pardon that old
7 phrase, that that~s an important understanding, unlike years
8 ago when these things simply were not talked about. Today
9 adoptions are very, very different circumstances where those
SO circumstances are addressed and discussed openly.
11 MR. HUMPHREY: No further questions,
12 Your Honor.
13 MR. FLOWER: No redirect, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: You are excused, ma~am.
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
16 MR. FLOWER: Your Honor, that concludes the
17 witnesses we have here.
18 I should add that we did contact a clinical
19 psychologist, Harvey Payne, P-a-y-n-e, whose practice
20 includes dealing with issues of the effects of early
21 separation of children from parents or others acting in
22 parental role, loco parentis, with them later in life.
23 We had asked Dr. Payne to attend and he
24 indicated that he was not able to attend today, but would be
25 available to do an analysis of the family and the bond, and
43
1 would be trilling to testify in court at a later date as to
2 the effects of this kind of separation and what they could
3 be on the child. We would like to offer that.
4 THE COURT: You are offering for him to do an
5 analysis of both Family situations. Fathers also?
6 MR. FLOWER: I hadn~t thought of that, Your
7 Honor, but I think we could expand it to that.
S THE COURT: Okay.
9 MR. FLOWER: But I think that the thing about
SO his particular qualifications is his awareness and his
it treatment of children who have had the early separation that
12 has been discussed today, and the affect that that had on
13 the child in adulthood.
14 THE COURT: So you are resting. Let me ask
15 you this, are you going to call father here as-on-cross --
16 MR. FLOWER: No.
17 THE COURT: -- and develop testimony as to
18 his situation?
19 MR. FLOWER: Thera are questions I want to
20 ask him, but unless he is not planning to testify -- no,
21 unless he can assure me that he is going to testify, I would
22 call him on cross, otherwise I would simply cross examine
23 him after hers testified.
24 THE COURT: Well, he is going to testify.
25 MR. FLOWER: Okay. Then I wont call him
44
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
as-on-cross.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. FLOWER: But we would like to offer
Dr. Payne and propose to the Court that the record remain
open if the Court feels that~s useful.
THE COURT: Why is he not here today?
MR. FLOWER: His schedule doesn~t permit it.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. FLOWER: We rest then with in a proviso,
and we move for admission of our exhibits 1, 2, and 3.
THE COURT: Do you wish to testify?
MR. HUMPHREY: Yes, sir.
Whereupon,
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
EXAMINATION
HY THE COURT:
Q Tell me your name.
A Walter L. Humphrey.
Q I am going to ask you a series of questions
here so that I can get this stuff on track that I need and
then I will let you expand on that. I have some of this in
my other record, but I need a complete record in this case.
What is your age?
A Thirty-nine.
45
i Q And what~s your current address?
2 A 13853 Azalea Circle, 24-B, Tampa, Florida
3 33613.
4 Q 33613?
5 A Correct.
6 Q What type of a home is that?
7 A That would be in an apartment.
e Q Okay. Describe it to me.
9 A It~e two bedroom, two bath, two swimming
30 pools, a gym.
11 Q In a complex?
12 A Yes, a Complex. Fishing.
13 Q And is it in Tampa itself, in the city?
14 A City of Tampa, right around the corner of
15 Pete Sanford~s .
16 Q Describe the neighborhood, generally.
17 A Upper class.
18 Q Do you live with anybody?
19 A No, I donut.
20 Q Do you have children?
21 A Yes, I do.
22 Q Tell me their names and their ages?
23 A Andrea Humphrey, 20; Erica Humphrey, 18;
24 Katrina Humphrey, 17; Walter Humphrey, III is 15.
25 Q And tell me where those children are and who
46
1 they live with?
2 A They live in Tampa, in Brandenton.
3 Q All of them?
4 A Yea, with their mother.
5 Q And what's her name?
6 A Darlene Lavinia Humphrey, my ex-wife.
7 Q When were you married and when were you
8 divorced?
9 A I was married --
lo Q Just give my the year.
11 A 1978.
12 Q And divorced when?
13 A 1986.
14 Q Walter is in what grade?
15 A Walter is in tenth.
16 Q Is it Katrina?
17 A Katrina is in eleventh.
18 Q What's Erica's status?
19 A Erica, she just about to come out this year.
20 Q Graduating this year?
21 A With extra credits. Correct.
22 Q And what's Andrea's status?
23 A Andrea is in New Mexico, air force.
24 Q Did the children all live with you and your
25 wife until you were divorced?
47
1 A Correct. They all lived with me.
2 Q When were you separated?
3 A We were separated in Brandenton, Florida.
4 Q When? What year?
5 A X86.
6 Q Same year as divorce?
7 A Same year as divorce.
e Q And they~ve all lived with their mother
9 since?
to A They all live with their mother. Correct.
11 Q Do you have a relationship with those
12 children?
13 A Yes, I do. I see them every other week.
14 Q And has that been the case in the past?
15 A Yes, it always has been. I always keep
16 contact.
17 Q Do they stay with you when you see them?
18 A Well, on, the weekend but now they have jobs
19 so they come by and see me. They are teenagers.
2~ Q Okay. Were you ever married before?
21 A Once.
22 Q No children?
23 A Just one, Brianna.
24 Q You were married once before the mother of
25 your children ?
48
1 A No. Correct.
2 Q No children by that marriage?
3 A No others.
4 Q And is the only other child that you have
5 besides those five children, Brianna7
6 A Right. Outside of the marriage.
7 Q okay. Are you currently working?
e A I am a Disabled American Veteran.
9 Q What branch of the service were you in?
l0 A Army.
11 Q What years?
12 A Like in '76, '77.
13 Q What years were you in --
14 A '77 to about '78.
15 Q '77 and '78?
16 A Yes, sir. I had an injury.
17 Q What type of an injury as a result of your
18 disability?
19 A Knee injury and wrist injury.
20 Q What do you draw disability pay?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 Q Benefits?
23 A Yes, sir.
24 Q How much?
25 A 100 percent.
49
1 Q Pardon?
2 A 100 percent?
3 A Yes.
4 Q What is the amount of the benefit the dollar
5 amount?
6 A The dollar amount? Wall, 1900.
7 Q A month?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Taxable or nun-taxable?
10 A Non-taxable.
11 Q Any other source of income?
12 A I receive social security.
13 Q Disability?
14 A Yes, sir.
15 Q The dollar amount of that?
16 A About 4.
17 Q 4007
18 A Yes, sir.
19 Q Per month?
20 A That~s for an eye injury. I had a nerve
21 burst in my eye, an optical nerve or something like that.
22 Q Is that non-service connected?
23 A They tried to figure out exactly how that
24 happened, yes.
25 Q When did you go on military disability?
50
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
A Inside of the military. The year I was in.
Q 1978?
A Yas, sir.
Q Have you been on disability ever sinco7
A Correct.
Q You were discharged from the service when?
A I was discharged from Walter Reed in D.C.
Q What year?
A That was about that year.
Q 1978?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you ever had any other gainful form of
employment as a civilian after you got out of the service?
A Plenty jobs. My dad was a contractor, hers
deceased now, building houses. I did that work for him and
my uncles as a business contractor privately.
Q When is the last time you had gainful
employment of any type?
A Well, I had worked with Sears. I worked with
the city as a meter reader.
Q When was the last time?
A Well, my last employment was military --
R If you worked with Sears, you were earning
money for them?
A That was coming up through college.
51
1 Q I am talking -- you must have misunderstood
2 me. After you received your disability and out of the
3 service have you had any other form of gainful employment?
4 A No, I have not.
5 Q Have you made any preparations of any type
6 for the time you would have your daughter with you in Tampa?
7 A Yes, sir. I made all of the preparations
8 possible there that I could.
9 Q Tall me what those are.
10 A Such as me being there with her 24 hours. A
11 baby-sitter when i go to the gym. I spend a lot of time at
12 McDeal (phonetic), such as volunteer work, and then at
13 Brandenton High School. I work there with the kids doing
14 football. Basically I would have a baby sitter and an extra
15 room for her.
16 Q Have you made any arrangements in your
17 apartment for having a seven-month-old child.
18 A Yes, I did.
19 Q Tell me about that.
20 A I have a bed with the necessary things that
21 she would need.
22 Q For example?
23 A Stroller, clothing, food, medical care,
24 dental.
25 Q Are you at all involved in any way with the
52
1 natural mother of this child now?
2 A The natural mother told me this. No, I am
3 not, air.
4 Q Ara you involved in any way with another
5 woman?
6 A One was good enough, sir.
~ Q You say you are not now involved with a
8 woman?
g A No, sir, I am not. I am not being funny or
10 nothing.
11 Q What would be your thought as to what I
12 should do now in this custody case and why?
13 A Well, sir, basically --
14 Q And let me expand on that, having been, one,
15 established that you are the father of the child; and two,
16 that the Halls cannot adopt here. That has been legally
17 established.
1g That being the case now, what I ask you, what
19 would be your thoughts as to what I should do in this
20 custody case, given what the law of Pennsylvania is, which
21 is what is in the best interest of the child?
22 A Right, sir, what is in the best interest of
23 the child bei ng that I am the biological father. I would
24 like to have my daughter come up very good, strong,
25 educated, as a matter of fact, I am right across from the
53
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
college U.S.F. I am planning on getting a home.
Q Well, I am talking about what happens now is
it your thought, you should take this child back to father
and have her all of the time, or whether the child should be
here with the Halls and see her for at least a period oP
time before you take her back, whatever. That~a the type of
thing Ism looking for.
A She should ba with me, sir.
Q You want to take her back?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you feel the Hal].s should have any contact
with her at all?
A I would send them pictures if they want to
have contact.
Q I am talking about physical contact.
A Yes, sir, I would let them have physical
contact.
Q Back here in Pennsylvania?
A Yes, sir.
Q Anything else you want to tell me?
A Sir, I have been through a lot of an ordeal
here. A lot of stress. I was shocked, like any father,
basically, would have gave up on this matter and said the
heck with it.
I, basically as a Humphrey, my dad raised me
54
1 right and my mother raised me right. You go the extra mile
2 for your kids, your blood. We are a tight-knit family, and
3 we love -- I love my kids, all of my kids, and I teach my
4 kids the same way as my father basically taught me.
5 Q Do you have, besides your children from your
6 ex-wife, do you have other family of yours in the area of
7 Tampa?
e A Yes, sir.
g Q Tell me about that. Who and where?
10 A I have a brother in Carolwood (phonetic). He
11 is a personalized trainer. He is basically working with
12 celebrities. I have other friends and socialists there, and
13 the church that I go to, The Bible Base.
14 Q Are your parents living?
15 A My parents live in Sarasota. My mother. My
16 father is deceased.
17 Q Your mother lives in Sarasota. How old is
18 she?
19 A My mother is 60.
20 Q Any other brothers or sisters?
21 A I have one -- I have a brother and sister in
22 Atlanta, they are both in school in Atlanta.
23 Q Do you see them?
24 A Yes, I do, sir. I travel up there once every
25 other month or so. I have a sister in Miami.
55
1 Q Do ycu aee her?
2 A Yes, sir. I go and visit her. She lives in
3 Fountain Blue. And I have one sister in Brandenton,
4 Florida.
5 Q Do you see her?
6 A Yes, sir, I do. Tina Riaz.
7 THE COURT: Questions?
8 CROSS-EXAMINATION
9 BY MR. FLOWER •
10 Q Mr. Humphrey, the judge asked you what
11 preparations you have made in your home. You said that
12 there is a bed for your child?
13 A Correct. A baby bed and basically a walker
14 and stroller when I take her out and so forth.
15 Q When you say a baby bed, what do you mean?
16 A You know, a big bed you put a baby in at
17 night.
1s Q You mean a crib?
19 A A crib. Correct.
20 Q And you have the walker and stroller already
21 there in your apartment?
22 A Correct.
23 Q You have seen her physically once; is that
24 correct?
25 A Correct. once with a meeting with the Halls
56
1 and you.
2 Q That was after one of the earlier hearings in
3 the adoption case. Correct?
4 A Right. Miss -- my attorney didn~t show up
5 Mrs.
6 Q Shepherd?
7 A Mrs. Shepherd. She didn~t show up.
8 Q You were there and the natural mother was
9 there. Correct?
10 A Correct. The natural mother was there.
it Q How long do you recall that meeting being?
12 A That meeting was tearful and painful to me.
13 Q You didn~t cry?
14 A I bottle my emotions inside.
15 Q You are not suggesting to the Court that you
16 cried at that meeting?
17 A Pardon?
18 Q You are not suggesting to the Court that you
19 cried at that meeting, are you?
20 A I cried inside. I had to leave because I was
21 crying. I wanted to take my daughter with me. I was crying
22 inside.
23 THE COURT: When was that? Was that this
24 year?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
57
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
THE
drew blood that dad
THE
THE
THE
COURT:
WITNESS:
f•
COURT:
WITNESS:
COURT:
Do you know when? What month?
The meeting, that~s when we
So it was after my last hearing?
Right.
Okay. Go ahead.
BY MR. FLOWER'
Q All right. Mr. Humphrey, I asked you how
long that was. My recollection was that it was about 10
minutes; is that about right, as you recall?
A Well, I think it was a little longer than
that.
Q How long do you think ft was?
A Because Mrs. Hall was sitting down, and I
think you were there, and then you left. And I picked my
daughter up and held her. And I told the mother to take a
picture. And basically, I held her some more, and I tried
to talk to her. She was playing with her little dinosaur.
And apparently ahe started hollering, you know, screaming,
and that was it.
q My question was, About how long you think the
meeting was? Do you have an estimate of time?
A Probably 15 minutes.
Q Okay. You did hold her briefly, did you not?
A Yes, I did.
58
1 Q And how did she react to that?
2 p Well, at first she was calm. She was real
3 calm. I held her and kissed her.
4 Q And then she started to fuss?
5 A And then she looked at Miss Hall, and she
6 started crying and hollering. And so i gave her back to
7 Misa Hall.
8 q Now, in terms of your children, after you and
g your wife separated they were always with your wife as the
l0 primary custodian; is that correct?
A No, they was with me apparently -- my kids --
11
12 are you saying after we separated?
13 Q After you and your wife separated.
14 A Correct.
15 Q Is it accurate that your children were in the
16 primary custody of your wife?
17 A They were in the custody of me. She had
18 deserted.
19 Q She had what?
A My ex-wife had deserted, you know, left? You
20
21 know, like someone gets tired of marriage --
22 Q She had deserted you?
23 A Yeah.
24 4 And was that your ex-wife Darlene Lavinia
25 Humphrey?
59
1 A Right. She was basically young, and certain
2 things she wanted to see outside. She didn't want the
3 old-Fashioned world.
4 Q Okay. But at this time the children that are
5 still in school, at least Katrina, Walter and possibly -- is
6 it Erica, were still in school, did you say?
7 A Correct. She is.
8 Q Are they living with their mother?
9 A They aren't staying with their mother. Erica
to stays with her boyfriend.
it Q Then in terms of Katrina and Walter, how long
12 have they been living with their mother?
13 A Well, Katrina and Walter have been living
14 with their mother since we went to court, and basically I
15 let her have custody of the kids because I didn't like
16 threats.
17 Q When did you go to Court? Do you recall?
18 A It was back in '80 something.
19 Q Was it around '86, about the same time as
20 your divorce?
21 A About that time.
22 Q Okay. So for some period of time between the
23 separation and the divorce apparently a period of months the
24 children are with you?
25 A Correct. They had stayed with me. Right.
60
1 Q For how many months?
2 A They stayed with me for about four or five
3 months because she would come back and leave, and coma back
4 and leave, and I couldn't put up with that.
5 Q Okay. So that was a time when she did not
6 have all of her belongings out of the house. She would
7 still come back from time to time?
e A Right. Come back and -- right. In and out.
9 Q Do you pay support for the children?
10 A Correct. It's taken out of my check.
11 R Now, have you brought any relatives along
12 with you to this hearing?
13 A Relatives, basically they were working. No,
14 I didn't, sir. No, I didn't.
15 Q Okay. After you knew that Bethany was going
16 to be born, and you knew that your -- that the -- I'm sorry.
17 I am missing her name, but the natural mother was going to
18 give birth, you and she discussed things, did you not?
19 A Yes, we did.
20 Q And you were content to have her raise the
21 child and live in her home with her boyfriend; is that
22 correct?
23 A At the time that she was staying with me --
24 Q Yes.
25 A -- at the time she was staying with me she
61
.. G:fti :-T_~l
1 did say she was going back to her boyfriend, who ehe had two
2 other kids from, and that she was going to raise it.
3 Q Okay. And you accepted the fact that she
4 would be raising the child?
5 A That I would keep in contact, and she would
6 keep in contact with me, ae she said, and let me know where
7 my kid was at.
8 Q You accepted the fact that she would raise
9 the child with you having the opportunity to visit; is that
l0 fair?
11 A Right. Correct. To visit and see my
12 daughter.
13 Q Although, in fact, you did not make an
14 attempt t o contact her or to see the child until after the
15 adoption plac ement took place; is that correct?
16 A Well, the kid was supposed to have been born.
17 Q The kid what?
18 A My daughter was supposed to have been born
19 August -- the middle of August. Apparently she was born
20 before th en. She was born in July. So I didn~t know
21 exactly.
22 Q When she was born? You didn~t know exactly
23 when she was born is that what you are saying?
24 A Not until that date.
25 Q Do you have any concerns at all that it may
62
1 have a negative effect on your daughter being separated from
2 the Halls who have acted as parents since they~ve had her?
3 A Negative effect on my daughter --
4 Q Yes.
5 A -- the Halls?
6 No, no negative effect as a child because
7 kids they have the tendency of growing up, and adults have
8 the tendency of feeling hurt and pain. And children, they
9 make friends. You could put them together and play no
10 matter what color they are, but it would take an adult to
11 separate them as you separate apples and oranges or any
12 other thing.
13 Q How do you mean to separate them?
14 A Well, kids can play and come along. Did you
15 ever see kids play?
16 Q You bet.
17 A Racists, they have nothing bothering them
18 until an adult will tell them this and that thing. Adults
19 will be hurt or children will not be hurt. Children will
20 grow up.
21 Q Your feeling is that if your biological
22' daughter were separated from the Halls, it would hurt the
23 Halls, but it wouldn~t hurt your daughter in any way?
24 A It wouldn't hurt me. It would hurt the
25 Halls, and it probably would hurt my daughter too, but kids
63
1 have the tendency, after a period of time, time would heal
2 all wounds. They would develop and grow. You know as the
3 preacher would say. The church I come from says, time heals
4 all wounds.
5 Q Can you describe how you feel about your
6 daughter?
7 A Well, I love my daughter. The little
8 pictures I took, you know, I look over those pictures. I
9 show them to all of my relatives and friends. They just
to cant wait, you know, they seen the pictures and seen how
it pretty she looked and cute and --
12 Q These are the pictures that were taken at
13 that one meeting where you saw her?
14 A Correct.
15 Q You remember going to see the folks at the
16 adoption agency in Florida?
17 A Correct.
18 Q okay. And you talked to them on the
19 telephone. Do you remember that?
20 A Correct.
21 Q And then you saw them in person, Mrs. Lopez
22 and Maryann Scherer. Do you remember that?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And they testified to the Court that you had
25 advised them on the telephone and in person that you wanted
64
1 to have your daughter back, that there were loving
2 grandparents willing to raise her. Do you recall telling
3 them that?
4 A I told them that I wanted my daughter back,
5 that she would have a fleet of relatives, nieces, aunts and
6 grandparents, who cant wait to see her and that, basically,
7 loving and caring. That was on the telephone conversation.
8 Ie this what you are saying?
9 THE COURT: He is saying something else, but
10 you are telling me that~s what you as I said. Right? Is
11 that what you told the adoption people, sir? Is that what
12 you say you told the adoption people?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes.
14 THE COURT: I understand because that came up
15 in the conflict of the last hearing.
16 MR. FLOWER: Nothing further, Your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Okay. You may step down, sir.
18 THE COURT: Do you have any other witnesses?
19 MR. HUMPHREY: Pardon?
20 THE COURT: Do you have any other witnesses?
21 MR. HUMPHREY: No, I donut, sir.
22 THE COURT: Okay. Have a seat. Any other
23 testimony?
24 MR. FLOWER: No other testimony, Your Honor,
25 except Dr. Payne.
65
1 THE COURT: So you have the offer of
2 Dr. Payne that i have to decide on? Right? Off the record.
3 (A discussion was held off the record.)
4 (Argument off the record)
5 THE COURT: I will take it under advisement.
6 I will have something down shortly, and I will have
7 something down shortly especially in regards to whether I
8 open the record for the doctor.
9 While Mr. Humphrey is here, be sure there is
3o a good visit now with his daughter before he heads back to
11 Florida. And as soon as I have something down, I will send
12 it down to you in Florida.
13 MR. HUMPHREY: Okay.
14 MR. FLOWER: Your Honor, in terms of my
15 update of the cases, my only concern is I do have a case
16 listed for trial next week in York County.
17 THE COURT: As soon as you get them to me,
18 any follow-up, get them to me.
19 MR. FLOWER: Okay, Your Honor. Thank you.
20 (Whereupon, Court was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.)
21
22
23
24
25
66
I hereby certify that the proceedings are
contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on
the above cause and that this is a correct transcript of the
same.
` (~
A.hJ'~GlM~a
ozraine K. Troutman, RPR
Official Court Reporter
The foregoing record of the proceedings on the
trial of the within matter is hereby approved and directed
to be filed.
T,,~M ~ L 19451 ~/vG7 ~/~C~ ~
Date ~_~--`-_-~ dgar B. B ley, J.
Ninth Judicial District
67
i~ I"`t
07/27/98 SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
1351 OFFICIAL DOCKET
DOCKET -- 01087HBG98
FULL CAPTION
OO1T KENNETH W HALL AND LISA ANN HALL
V
002E WALTER L HUMPHREY
COUNSEL TITLE FOR MAIL
27742 JAMES D FLOWER JR OO1T Y
11 EAST HIGH STREET
CARLISLE, PA 17013-6510 717-243-5513
Y4580 WALTER L HUMPHREY PRO SE 002E Y
13853 AZALEA CIRCLE #24-B
TAMPA, FL 33613
.~
CONSOLIDATED DOCKET NUMBER
BACKGROUND DATA
TRIAL COURT RECORDS
CATEGORY:
COURT NAME:
COUNTY:
JUDICIAL DISTRICT:
CASE TYPE/CHARGE:
TRIAL COURT CHARGES:
JUDGE(S):
DISPOSITION TYPE:
DISPOSITION DATE:
APPEAL FILE DATE:
DISPOSITION ENTERED:
TRIAL CRT DOCKET NO.:
OFFENSE TRACKING NO.:
CV
CIVIL
CUMBERLAND
09
CUSTODY/VISITATION
BAYLEY, E
ORDER ENTERED
07/10/98
07/15/98
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
STATUS INFORMATION
08/10/98 DOCKETING STATEMENT DUE
08/24/98 LOWER COURT RECORD DUE
DOCKET ENTRIES FOR
07/27/98 NOTICE OF APPEAL OO1T
07/27/98 DOCKETING STATEMENT EXITED OO1T
07/27/98 MOT FOR STAY OO1T
PENDING APPEAL PURSUANT TO PA.R.A.P. 1732
T=APPELLANT E=APPELLEE *=COURT APPOINTED
.sz
,~ ~ ~
•~' Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Office of the Prothonotary
Fulton Building
9TH Floor
200 North Third Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
(717) 772-1294
July 27, 1998
Notice of Appeal Docketing
Superior Court Docket No. Assigned
01087HBG98
PROTHONOTARY
Cumberland COUNTY
Cumberland Cty. Courthouse
Carlisle, Pa 17013
RE: Hall, K V Humphrey, W
You are hereby advised that the attached docket
information has been entered into the superior court records
in a case in which you appear as an officer of the court.
Please review this information carefully and notify this
office immediately if you believe correction(s) are in order.
Thank you.
David A. Szewczak
Prothonotary
,5'3
~ t-
. ~2
w.. r^ ~,T
J.,
c;
°" =~'
ii:
~`~ Cl /~
~- fV ~Z
n
~
~
r_- ~ i
n
a
.
iU ~ v
`. , ~
KENNETH W. HALL and
LISA ANN HALL,
PLAINTIFFS
V.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
DEFENDANT
s-io - 98
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 1998, a hearing on the within petition for
enforcement of the custody order entered on July 10, 1998, shall be conducted in
Courtroom Number 2, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, at 9:15
a.m., Tuesday, August 11, 1998.
James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Plaintiffs
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro se
13853 Alazea Circle
No. 24B
Tampa, FL 33613
Y ~..~
:saa
S ~/
~uyar o. oayiey, ~.
rl.~~~-o~r~c; ~rA~Y
~,. ~•~; , ;,,, ~ n t:, •P
+'
y5 nuc i o -,rt u ~ n5
CUtl,~Elh.SYl.'N P,q~IY
.. _. _ ..:
...
1
~'
. '~' ~ ~
W ~.//Gut~~'Plaintiff
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
/~^u ~~~ NO. 96- CIVIL TERM
~(Q?i ~ , Defendant CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, upon consideration of the attached complaint, it is
hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel
appear before , the conciliator, at
on the day of ,
1996, at .m., for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At
such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in
dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow
the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a
temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide
grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order.
By the Court,
Custody Conciliator
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU
DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
.OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
COURT ADMINISTRATOR, 4th FLOOR
CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (717) 240-6200
30
~S
j. GI2F/L~ ~ ~G
~ d ~
1~ ~ r ti/ ~~ ~4i~~J~~
_._.
u-2 L~` C~z «~
~222~C~ ~ ~ _ _.
~, ~ G ___
-~. ~ .8-~- . ~ _
~ Z~ ~ 5~2~
l __
~~~ un~~
~~~'l'~
__ ,, w
~~
,~
-_-- .~
~,
a~~,0 .
~ ~~ ~ Gi-Pn _ Z~~.P
~~
,~
~~ _
__
v ~ /Ll I / p
5L
r"1
CUMUERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
N0. 9G- CIVIL TERM
IN TIIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
v.
Plaintiff
Defendant
CUSTODY
h
COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY
1.
/38 ~ 3
The Plaintiff is
A ~ ..
2. The Defendant is
3. Pla
residing at
3 Cn ~.'~
residing at
seeks (custody)(partial custody)(visitation)
of the following child(ren):
NAME PRESENT ADDRESS AGE
Q ~~~ ~
.~e.,~~, a~`J.P~idu..L
The child(ren) wC~/was not born out of wedlock.
The child(ren) is presently in the custody of
~, who resides at /~ 7T ~0 '
During the past five years, the child(ren) has resided with
the following persons and at the following addresses:
LIST ALL PERSONS ADDRESSES DATES ~
The mother of the child(ren) is
26
J 7
1 . _.
:,b ::
~ ~
currently residing at
Sho is (singlo)(married)(divorced).
The father of the child(ren) is
currently residing at / ~J "' ~ ~'
He is (single)(married)(divorced). 33 ((~/3
_~J,,.- 4~/ /The relationship of Plaintiff to the child(ren) is
~G6~X~.eX /'/Z•. __ The Plaintiff currently resides with:
NAME RELATIONSHIP
_ ~ (X//~~
5. The relationship of Defendant to the child(ren) is
~D~[/~ r The Defendant currently resides
with: `
NAME RELATIONSHIP
6. Plaintiff ha (has not) participated as a party or
witness, or in another capacity, in other litigation concerning
. the custody of this minor child(ren) in this or another court.
_ ~~
The court, ter-u and number, and its relationship to this action
r ~ ~/ / _ ~
~ c~~~- 4
Plaintiff (has)(has no) information of a custody proceeding
concerning the child(ren) pending in a court of this
z7
5 $'
~~
Commonwealth. The court, term and number, and its relationship
to this action is:
Plaintiff knows (does not know) of a person not a party to
the proceedings who has physical custody of the child(ren) or
claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the
child(ren). The name and address of such person is:
7. The best interest and permanent welfare of L•he
child(ren) will be served by granting the relief requested
because:
8. Each parent whose parental rights to the child(ren) have
not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of
the child(ren•) have been named as parties to this action. All
other persons, named below, who are known to have or claim a
right to custody or visitation of the child(ren) will be given
notice of the pendency of this action and the right to intervene:
NAME 11 ~~ ~~ ADDRESS
~2{9.fA ef,~9~ ~r~ 7Y~~
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this court to grant
custody)(temporary custody)(visitation) of the child(ren) to the
Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
Date ~Pla ntl fnti f
28
~9
BASIS OF CLAIM
''
I'1
I verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true
and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made
subject to the penalties of is Pa.C.S. §A90A relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
Plaintiff
29
GO
-ld 98
~ i~
KENNETH W. HALL and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF I
LISA ANN HALL, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PLAINTIFFS
V.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
DEFENDANT 98-1530 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 1998, Walter L. Humphrey having failed to
comply with the transition provision in the custody order dated July 10, 1998, and the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania in an order dated August 3, 1996, in which it denied
an application of Kenneth W. Hail and Lisa Ann Hall for a stay, having provided this
court with specific authority regarding enforcement of the custody order, IT IS
ORDERED that the transfer of Brianna to Walter L. Humphrey is TEMPORARILY
STAYED.
By the
Edgar B.
James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Plaintiffs
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro se
13853 Alazea Circle
No. 246
Tampa, FL 33613
:saa
._ Cu~~e~,. r,~~~:.11«C., 8~~a~q~
~&~
LL
-~, .-~
~n
c C
.~~
n
~~ -'
~ i i =:-
c~:
r. •~~ , ~ a
-, `r
~
" ~ ~i
i
~
;
~~ ;;
~ i
u
nci
r
Q ~ U
~,,. u
i~ ~ x~~~-`~vG
KENNETH W. HALL end : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
LISA ANN HALL, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PLAINTIFFS .
V.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
DEFENDANT 98-1530 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 11th day of August, 1998, this matter having been called on a
petition of Walter L. Humphrey for enforcement of an order dated July 10, 1998, and
consistent with an order of the Superior Court dated August 3, 1998, on the appeal of
Kenneth and Lisa Hali from this court's order of July 10, 1998, and upon relation by
all parties that the transition period for the transfer of the custody of Brianna set forth
in the order of July 10, 1998, has not yet occurred, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Paragraph 2 of this court's order of July 10, 1998, and this court's
enforcement order dated August 10, 1998, are vacated and replaced with this order.
(2) Starting on Tuesday, August 11, 1998, Walter L. Humphrey shall spend
time with Brianna in the residence of Kenneth W. Hall and Lisa Ann Hall each day
starting with two hours for the first two days, three hours for the second two days,
and five hours for the next three days.
(3) Starting on Tuesday, August 18, 1998, Walter L. Humphrey shall take
Brianna with him for three hours for the first two days, five hours for the next two
days, seven hours for the next three days.
(4) Upon completion of all of the aforesaid transition periods, Walter L.
Humphrey. starting on Tuesday, August 25, 1998, shall have physical custody of
G~
~~ '' ~ ~
Brianna and may take her with him to his home in Florida.
(5) If at any time during the transition period set forth in paragraph 2, the Halls
will not allow Walter L. Humphrey to be with Brianna in their home, he shall have
Brianna with him outside the Halls' home for the same amount of time as set forth
therein.
(8) All other terms and provisions of this court's order of July 10, 1998, shall
remain in full force and effect and this enforcement provision for the transition period
is incorporated into said order.
(7) For all periods of Walter L. Humphreys contact with Brianna for the
purposes of the entire transition period set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3, said periods
shall commence at 1:30 p.m. each day.
By the
Edgar B.
James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Plaintiffs
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro se
13853 Alazea Circle
No. 246
Tampa, FL 33613
:saa
-2-
~3
FlLED-Or'FIC[
sri ruc i i r-i~ s: ~Q
e:1wp5I1~J~r1ianlhelllhrief A
KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
BRIEF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
This Brief is prepared in response to Judge eayley's request that we provide
updated cases on the issue of the standard which third parties must meet to be successful in
gaining custody of a child in their care.
The standard governing custody disputes between parents and third parties was
enunciated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Ellerbe v. Hooks, 490 Pa. 363, 416 A.2d 512
(1990). That case involved a dispute between a maternal grandmother and a father over
custody of an eleven year girl who had lived with her grandmother since she was less than two
years old. The Court held that a natural parent has optima /acie right to custody of the child
although the presumption may be overcome by convincing reasons that the child's best interests
would be served only by an award to a third party. This test, as discussed in this case and in
other cases following it, amounts to a rebuttable presumption that the parents should have
custody. The Court distinguished this from the test necessary to justify termination of parental
rights which it indicated must rest on "a demonstration of unfitness or disinterest..." Indeed, there
is no indication in that case of any unfitness or profound flaw on tho part of the father. The
Court emphasized that the touchstone in all custody cases is the best interests of the child, and
observed that in some cases it will be in a child's best interests to have custody awarded to a
nonparent.
~y
.r.~_,. _..~ .
c:1wp511algdGw~~hnll\Inicf
The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court that awarded custody to the
grandmother stating that "at the time o/ the hear/ng in this case, Car/a, then eleven years old,
had been liv/ng with her grandmother since she was /ess than two years old. Carla had
developed stab/e and happy re/at/onships with her grandmother, with neighborhood Ir/ends and,
Importantly, at school. In these circumstances, we are unwilling now to d/sturb the tr/al court's
Order granting custody of Car/a to her grandmother." It is important to note that this opinion was
not based to any extent upon any negative attribute of the father, but solely on Carla's stab(lity.
In the instant case, although Bethany is much younger, she has spent essentially all of her life
with the Halls and they are the only parents that she has ever known. We submit that the
argument in favor of keeping her with the Halls where she is in the midst of a loving happy
family, with plenty of support from extended family and church, rather than thrusting her into the
arms of a biological father who is essentially a stranger to her, is even more compelling than the
case of an eleven year old girl who had lived with her grandmother for the past nine years.
Significantly, Justice Flaherty wrote a dissenting opinion in Ellerbe arguing against
a presumption in favor of the parents' right to have custody. In Rowles v. Rowles, 542 Pa. 443,
668 A.2d 126 (1995), then Chief Justice Flaherty wrote the opinion of the Court specifically
abrogating Ellerbe v. Hooks Supra., in which he quoted his concurring opinion in Ellerbe as
follows:
(The majority's) approach should be replaced with a rule which would simplify and
clarify application of the best interest standard. By clearly eliminating the
presumption per se, and mandating that custody be determined by a
preponderance of the evidence weighing parenthood as a strong /actor for
consideration, custody proceedings would be disentangled from the burden of
applying a presumption that merely beclouds the ultimate concern in these cases:
caupS llaJ~ytiiaPLnltllnial
determinatlon of what affiliation will best serve the child's Interest, Including
physical, emotional, intellectual, moral and spir(tual well being,
Justice Flaherty wroto that for the reasons stated in the quote set forth above'1ve
now abandon the presumption that a parent has aprima /acle right to custody as against th/rd
parties, and /ollowed the rule enunc/ated in the last paragraph of the above quotat/on."
Unfortunately, since this decision was a divided decision with three Justices joining in Justice
Flaherty's decision and three Justices Joining in a concurring opinion written by Justice
Montemuro, which disagreed that "the presumption of parental privacy /n custody act/ons should
be abolished" the Rowles decision appears not to be binding, and the law would still appear to
be as set forth in Ellerbe v. Hooks Supra. In Rowles the Court found in favor of the mother
rather than the maternal grandparents who had been caring for the children for almost two and
one-half years, but a major factor was that the mother had maintained daily contact with the
children, routinely spending several hours in the grandparents home after work until bedtime,
and they frequently visited with her for overnight visits.
In Mollander v. Chiodo, 450 Pa.Super. 247, 675 A.2d 753 (1996), the Court
considered the issue of custody of a young child born April 4, 1992, as between her natural
mother and two adoptive parents. The Court found first of all that the adoptive parents had
standing to assert their right to custody by virtue of being in loco parentis. The Court further
reviewed the decision in Rowles, and found that it was a plurality decision and not binding on
the Superior Court, while acknowledging a possible trend toward elimination of a natural parent's
presumptive right to custody. The Court noted that a nonparent did not have to show that a
:i
G~
r:1up711ulygfadhalllbnef
parent was unfit (n order to gain custody of the child, but for the nonparent there is the burden
of production and persuasion. In Mollander the Court found in favor of the natural mother, citing
a number of factors, including the Court's conviction that she was motivated by care and
concern and genuine love for the child, that she had provided a clean and safe place to live, that
she had made efforts to educate herself concerning parenting skills, that her parenting skills with
the child had been under observation approximately ten times and parenting appeared to be
appropriate, and that the child seemed to be safe and comfortable in her care.
The most recent case which we have located is the Superior Court case of Siliies
v. Webster, an as yet unreported Pennsylvania Superior Court case cited to Pa.Super.
_, A.2d , 1998 WL300513. In that case, the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh
County dismissed the custody action based upon the lack of standing of preadoptive parents
to pursue such an action. The Superior Court reversed after a thorough opinion which
discussed the standing of adoptive parents in custody cases. The Court specifically held that
'prospective adoptive parents have the right to maintain a custody action." Quoting from In Re:
Mitch, 524 Pa. 621, 571 A.2d 384 (1989), the Court said:
(P)rospective adoptive parents, unlike foster parents, have an expectation of permanent
custody which, though it may be contingent upon the agency's ultimate approval, is
nevertheless, genuine and reasonable. Because of this expectation of permanency,
prospective adoptive parents are encouraged to form emotional bonds with the child from
the first day of the placement. By removing the child from the care of prospective
adoptive parents, the agency forecloses the possibility of adoption...because prospective
adoptive parents, unlike foster parents, suffer a direct and substantial injury when an
agency removes a child from them, we see no reason why in law or policy we should limit
their standing to sue for custody.
4
~~
c:1wp514A~pILnlh~illlnlcl
In Sllfies, the Superior Court's decision was limited to the Issue of standing, and
the case was remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings. (A copy of this
decision is attached hereto.)
Although the Bowles case was a plurality decision, and the Superior Court appears
to have been right in determining that the plurality decision fn Bowles is insufficient to overturn
the Supreme Court's decision in Ellerbe, the pr/ma /acie right to custody of a natural parent
appears to be hanging by a thread and the language in the most recent cases strongly suggests
that the tide is flowing in favor of elimination of the presumption. The presumption, although not
dead, appears to be moribund.
Plaintiffs maintain that they have rebutted the presumption by the evidence. They
are the only parents whom Bethany has ever known. They stand ready to care for her,
supported by an extensive network of family and church members. They have worked hard to
address the issues of interracial families. We presented testimony from an adoption professional
with counseling qualifications and a hospital administrator with mental health training and
education, that the effects of separation of a child from those she has known as her parents can
be serious and long lasting. When the Halls received Bethany, she was still delicate as a result
of premature birth, and with their care, she has thrived. With the indulgence of the Court, we
are prepared to present psychological testimony from a psychologist who has made a special
study of this area concerning the issues that can result from such an early separation.
In contrast with Plaintiffs, Mr. Humphrey was more than willing to have the natural
mother raise Bethany, with only a general understanding that he would haee the right to see her
S
Gg
a:1wpS1~+Agnl~+dh+iU6,kf
from time to time. He testified that he was contacted by the natural mother and had no way
of contacting her. This Is clearly contradicted by the Attorney and Executive Director for the
Florida Adoption Agency, who testified that he clearly told to them that he had contacted the
mother, and, significantly, that he told them that there were loving grandparents to raise the
child. Although the details are unclear, he seems to have had a limited role in raising his own
children after a separation from their mother. He appears not to have worked far twenty years
as a result of a puzzling disability. There is a great deal that we do not know about Mr.
Humphrey and the kind of home that he would provide for Bethany. The fact that he was willing
to have someone else raise his child, and that his real objection to the Halls doing so is that they
do not share a blood relationship with the child, is very significant.
Considering the facts of this case, and the trauma that it would inflict on this child
to be taken from the Halls, we submit that Plaintiffs have met the difficult burden set forth in
Ellerbe and should be entitled to primary physical custody of this child.
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
_r /I /W`~o y ~ v (X A 1
dames D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
11 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5513
I.D. #27742
G
G~
pG
u
d
s
7
w
a
a
a
0
O
a
~~
'l:
m
~ c
1 p C
If M ~
3 .~
~ a
~ ~ a
Ll.~
4
0
~.
a
Z
~^j~
R
v,
W
y
a
U
F
~~
~, ~
~. ~
3~°g
v ~ •~
~~
L•
~'~
V i
~~s
6 a '{`
S ~~ 3
E b
E B u
8"~
a ~ ~
4
~ ~3
z
's'
a
6
a
a `" a
C < 6
z ,~
. ~ C F
m
'r mNk7
3~Z3
~<z
v, e
W N
Dish
N ."d. V:
Vl
a
W
V
Z
F
~~~~~
~~~•~~~@
.5 .c ~ ~u :y~ if d
%' °
5_ ,~
~ a a
h ~ 5 b _
b d
t, ~ 4 o~L4 h Q .p
• c _,:2
E~ o~~,~ c
a
5c~'9`oG"9~
'~ ~ ~ o u u
5 „
a u ~ '~ m m
~ :5 ~ 'a a b
o E a ~
E a n
E ~ m o.o ~
C ~ .U ~ O G a
'- u mini a~
~'~3 ~~•~
'~ ~ '" a
~ •s a ~,~.~~, a
h~~ ap ~pO~
~~~ Wi7. 4l~3
~'~~8~~ E
4
~, ~' a ~
s .~ ~ ~
m ~ m
v a E s ~
g~d ti~
's ~ 3 ~
O a o~ V. y?.
.~ ~ ~ X03.5
L 7 m
>, o a u a m
~$ ~ W•5 g'~
=~~ ~~ 0.E
~~~ ~~
ti g '-
c~~~~
~~ ~o b a~
~ tl;~,E~~
rj ~. " ffN~~
a N L~ N ~ N
.~ ~~~~~.
r 4 G'C~ O L
O .d .O .L` ""' ~ t.
a
~ ffi ~ ~~•~ ~
~ ~! •~? ~ a
3 ~ ~
.~~~~ ~ a
O ~
E ~ `~ o~3n
V o.5 b oC7 e%i
d . n ~ ~ ~ < 7p h
'S ~ 04~ ~ O W N
~, ~ a, ~ a,
g~~~ a
=w=.~'~
`~ o o ~ .5
n. ~ U ~' o~
u u o c
~ ~
~. 05
U r3 ~, ~ a
U° -; o i'y
~ .$ u '$ °'
ei u ~ W
~ ~ •~
°,~, G.` a rn 5
.p a. ~
U Ls! o
Y G Y ~ ~+ rn O. ~'
s `o w ~ ~w ~
° fci Jol,~ ~
d ~ 4 ~ ~ Z
o O +'`
~
z ~
u E
~
~
a
Z ~' Z e~ W ~' a. ~ a~ 0 0
~ ~
~ W
S3:4
~r
f
G ~ .;~ z o
U ~
y
U ~.. O
~= ai y U •~ d
5 'S
•5 a ~'~ W
U ~' .
~ c~
E,o EO ~ b ~' ~ E s
~: '~ ~-. L'J O y
o
u O CJ
`~ O Z ~
o 'g"'
L
a'S ,
a ~
Li
o- q
q
= u ~' 25
~
<~j <y Rl O O u n
~a~~'
~~~~•~A
a ~
3~~~0~
ti ~
~~3~~~
g o~ ~ ap'~
•~ ~ ~ ~ O
y
.o §•5g `°
~'° ~~~
a rn''a'~
~~ W ~ ~s
o ~
S`~~~+~o
H - ~
~4 ~.~
~~ ~~ ~
p O ` y L
o •° ~ '2 v
d
u.5 ~,.Jg
~ o~'~~~
H f--' b ~ qC Cm
• ~ ~ C Q C L
~ ~ ^ ~ ~ S
•s=~~~3s~
@o ~z's~ fir,
,o r+.~ o o.5s
ii 3.5 bs ~~
"~ O 'J'
•.oo 0 2'~5.~ ~"
m~•°- ° h o-~~
~~~ WW r~~ ~ ~5 qp~
61 0
V fr '= ~€ •N
~y~Q~L~~`
°> ~.S c ~ °^° 'D
~ $ ~ O G n > ~
~^~.~'a~.~s
~$-~'~eE'~~
'S m 3 N O G.C
3
r
U
~~.
nL
•c
O
c
E
.~
U
Z
x
3
Nl
o`.
U
y °N~~.y~..L ~' C
~~3~~ ~ ~~ ~~g+~.H
g ~ ,,~~ ~{ ii a ~ F1,
'Y ~ ,
~~ b 3~'~ ~, ,c
n Y ~ c n
q~FVI ~VJ .•.' O o yC9
5 ~~
u }a~
a u Q a.°~ .2
•g G ° r
-~~~ b ~~~. 05 ~~ 2.8
^' b tl.
~k~"~Soz~~
°~
S $ y yi ~ , ~ 9 • ~ C V ~ pi
C B O C 9 ~ Wyy ~" L
4 9$~ ..~ .b 'rJ' m ~ n n
V v. °" ~ 3 y~ 4 ~ N
° 3
.n 3 •~ ~ m~ z G~~ G o
a ~ 3s~~m~ €aapyu
° °OC ~N o~~pg ~y m2S c•~F
Y sO 9 ° V p ~.
~ ~ .5 ~ F. 9 '`C y Y •~ L. C y
°YC n p 8~ Y= ,~ N L L
~ ° 23 M t7 ~' .-: Yj ~
z ~ a ii
N "
< ~
/G
~~~:~.~y s~ ~ g ao~
~,
~~~~ ~ -r f3 'J' F•~ 6 ~ ~ZC7 W
•~ °, °
m . 'F
p(t ~ ~ O:
^~~ ~ ~~ o~~ ~ g'8 s a ~ ~ NF-~vc~
m •_ .
o '7 ~ G C Q
A 8•~~z us ~ ~~ 8 ~z ~~^~~u
c
ou
N° .C O ~ ~ eS 'a ,C ~ ~ ~ ,fl ,C ~fV ~n
3
;~M.~~soFF ~ o3a ~~l~ ~~ ~ ~
'J ~ ~ ~ L L ~ •' N ~ fn y E°L ~ N N_ C
E' RU L C °~ ° P.• G .G °
o ~
t'Z c 01 N L t0 ~'C ~~..C. ES + q ° L
~ ~ ~ L L ~ O. -~r5 ~ x ~ rr~~~i 'O .$ g
y
5
Y ~ ~ v F-• ~p~ ~ v~~ ~ B U ~•y ~ ~ W S:
J N N_ W O ~ Cl ° •O
N~' u•d E °a E ~~ Y ~E" ~8
~EF y .+ ~i ~ as b U .{,~ ~ •_ + 'O'q~ ~ •G " ~
G ~ ~ ~ r .~•. ` O• ~ ~ L N 0.r'C ~ pl ~ lL 9
3
c5
v~
a
~,
0
0
.~
u
z
rn
3
d
u°
M
ML
d
3
7
•°.
Y
a
b
c
a
0
a
i ~
'y {aj
N
¢
a.,, '~~ ~'~~ o
ti
= ~~' ~ g
N 6 Y ~O 5 ~ 'J' ._.
s~ sE~a~a~~
M ~ ~ d ~ r
perp.. M Ij ~pp td " ~ ~ ~O M1
.~ 'O N C p U~~ ~ h
r~~..i R ~~ ~ U N
o '._ O
E G o
'~ Y~v ~ c.U ° Y
~T3N ~'V U.S.^ O."'U
~$~~~fL a.~`c S
o ~~oW>3 a
3~ Fu4~ ~
g~~ ao~z b
Q~.. ,..i~~aQ
`~~' z~>`~~ E
oNz~~~oz~ ~
H
ONU_.~a~O~u~ ,~
¢za
Q~Co.1o~~gO~oz
W ~ ~ ~ Q U ~ OU o
[.~ W u
F' (1] u ¢ ~ O ~ ~ Ct V iT
h ~
o~<a~~ro~oNW~
`~owso~>z v3
~mv~zc.F-~F.~~'~•h
qG C6W,.G.'7. CaQ~a~~ Y
<¢~ W u v~i Q~ W¢ q
~G
9~.~.~
5
`v~~~ ~~~~ ~~'
e~~.S' `o .~ ..
u~~ ,~ a
~~03'' ~
O~ E O a M
~ ~ °~
q ~
~ a~
ai ~ E ~
~~ Y~ aq ~'~ ~h
d~ v~~ ~_
-~~q•-=~ b>m~
~~ r¢~,ogi_, E a ~.~ ~
N~,9,Gu.~r¢~r~. cn'
ao'~ ~o,~ 5•E~^~
E _ .
F~~~~~~~~-r•
Y
S N o~ Y ~ m
~~ ~.r7 ~n 'JG u Oti~'Co
m u f~ ~
q ou ~ ~~ ~ A ~ ~i
S d ~ ,~ ~~ q p~ -i 4
~~~•~688~,~.E 2 ~^.63,
N
.~aA~~d~~:~~~
~uS ~~° ~1' ¢'
~~5 ~o
~~ o ~~~~~ s~~
a, .9 u3 s '~~' %~
~'~.LJ.''~.' ~'W O'fj''m5•r
^y ~ 3
.~ ~
~ aW o~d ~ g~v 0
0
o e
y ' •~ ~ °'
~ c2. ~ ~ ~ ' V o o,
M ~ 1~ M
O ~ ~'C 'C7
mv^ W £ti hu,
~~M q O Ov C ~vv
.L ~ 'J .5 .G
~ a~~5~ca ~ 5`0 ~3~~ AE.6 m
G U ~ rJ' C ~ '~ ~y{ M T ~ O ~ L wn ~ 4r
U 3 ~ ~ dddFiii V al ~ ° B ° Y ~ °
m ~ c u w ~ $ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ .E ~ z ~C ^ ti
'~' ~ N~.+B'~~ ~ ~a~ ~ -fie v'
~ o ~ $ N rn ~ ~ f .~ x ^o
•~~ o•a.. 5 d= M Y ~~ e
'° ~ ~ ~` °'
'O E N ~ 4 (~' ~ Yq Op6Op N ~ ~,,'.1 'S
Y o Lo ~.= ~ .5 v v `OOn. «[000 ' P m ~ `L .
.I U~ ~ ~.q. r y ~ N ~.i O N P m.~ ~p 0
G '~ ~ d~ Uq p Si U N G~ ^ C~ q 'g ,rr~+ m N C ,i
Cd ~ C~ ~ 00 6 L' G rJ' 4 N~ y~ b S O S ~j y
C U q ~+.L'', C p U S'
pp~~ y G U i7i
.G C 6 ~ q .E ~ ~ n 'O 'r 4' ~ v O ~ 9 ~ - m C~
O' o ~„ rJ' C m. C o ~ C W~ G~ .G ~ m ~ .~
'pyy~°gooY(1'ES~c~~UU_,~.C~i ~nF~ '_°.'d
L u t ~ 'O " S'i L pCp ~ c~ "'1 'O ~' .GC .SR
3 .~ ~ rJ' t5 C 'O 'S U~ m~ i ri .~ G O ~ C
RM~
3
i
N
O
.~
U
z
~:
3
v
~G
ti
.75 R F `~ 555
~~`~ u ti b o `o b
p~~+~ arc ~~ ~~ ~g~}1
u N v b O ~ Si ~Lyvl,~
~+ •a
P vi ~ " 8
~ap~gF~~ o ~~8.~~
~ ~ b •~ ~ B O H ~N n,~ U y.
,n c ,Gd ~ m .o " ,~ ~ •~ ~ a ~ l~
'^C vii U ~ F- u ~ .~ ~ H ~T $ ~ ~ ~ ~i
'd ,moo '~ ~ .g o s~ o o .17 _~.e 2$ ~ 'U
~ C ~^ ~•O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~t_ ~ M
~ Gy G ~ e ~ SS -° ~ • g a ~ m _.t'
~ ^ V ~"• ~ ~ 4.•
Y V s~~ ooJ Q~~ C~ G G .~]
Y b ~ O 4 'C ._
'~ = C ~ ~ ~ .. N G G dj ~ py u
OY ~ C < y to G•E _°'.
I.
^" ~U,C G .4..
C M Q~ O 4 G~r.~ m CL L 9 GQ
u G ~ oNO'a<r~°'. ~- 25 ~ p Y1 by
•pg yy~~ € . o 'Joo qq <
~ "J' .-7 ~ b~=~00.c ~n y ~.~ O G vo
u ¢ _; ~!
Nx y b., L•~N~e+G~O...~d
E v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v' nV' 'J . C b m ~ ."-. ' J r G .T ~ N
~~ ~ o•~r#,`~is~ ~ti u~~ 9
~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~,g
o '~ ~ c •~ $ Yl '~$1 ys' ~ u n
vl ° ?y
•~ ~ b ~~'°
~~~~•~~.G~~
~ ~ ~n o
~ b• ~ ~s~ b
~ ~ B 3 ~ m ~ ,~ ~ ~ m ~ .~•~ b
~~~
C ~ a •~ o~ m p + ~ stO=' S
0 0° u ~ G" Y~ u
~ •E A M .~ f0 m h o a P' '`a ~
b '~ ,~~' d 'yy.°(n •~F F°LC U o N 5 :~ ._~ E E o
3 LS m~ W.M.. ~'r m G t"•O~•C L.S
n b ti u ~oCC r+ E o 17
.L~.O ~rj W ~ .~,~ CITE
g~,•8.~•~ 3 $Sy
u V Y
9 Y 'J
;~ a ~~ m~=~~ ~
~`3oa~`~~m •S~6.p~' ~
s .e '~
v3 Ev° yo.5 c ~:a8.$
~8: 3
v~~~s;~~~ ~~~
9 a•d3 b =~' os~b`g 5
~.. ,.', c !S.
Si a G C
~ m
v~ ~ =3' ~•~ 'ate ~'3~ ,~
==~5 3
~ O O cvi ~ G•p u ~ S ~ $u m
'E z.2s':e .s
v ~,~= ~
°3~"•~°G s3~~3~ E
v _V,_ o Yn
G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ``' Ca: r ~ U o 47 QG
~.+ ~ eC3 r ~ a N G 25
E oot= . •s L^ •e
=~~zh•s~s ,~
3
c~
0
E
.~
u
Z
U
~G
4
O
.9
r
0
w
°a
M
4r
C
m
a
I 6
i Q
9
< ~ppO
t C.`
J' V
O 04 S V
0.
8 u ~P~-$U
0
ki'~.e ~ ~
>. ~ o 4 _,
xs ~ u p
~ ~ ~ m
W ~ ~.4.
4
98a =~'~ ~:s^~
C ~:~~~E9,~~
'p0~ °tri E u
'O N 6
.fl '7 C •~G
u .L p ~'.:J ~ t2
u~ ~ u W c o y
O T .`qL ~ ~ C ~ ~..'.~.
g q ~ Q~
.°
~i ~ ~ ~ ° .2 ,J '~ u
'a a c n 4~C s~~ a
~~~~~~.~
~~~~_'~.
.~ g ~ g '~.'~ ~'
.~ °~~~.
p
p it ~ P ~ 6
G~ga~~~
s~•~~` ~~
~,~ i p.~ u
E dy ~~*~$
r ~ p S p
@ ~ G ~ E$3 ~•`c
C Q. ~• p ~ ~ V ~ '5
c~3{~ ~.t •~~a
~ 3
~` € .fi ~ 3 ~ `E ,a C7
~~~~~~~9
~~ ~~ ~~C•c~..
•L 'R R~ u A 4 C
F' u p~ 5 ~ u ~ '~
- LS ~+~ U ~g, t'd ~ p W
o ~ '$u '5 W ~ w v ~
~E+ c '° u ~ $ e 'S 'A
~ ~'
F o 'S~c•~~t E
v 'a-.~ 5 v -°
c ~ Z .d 3i'~ ~.;~
a~ ,~, ~d 5 s o ~
e .~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~sC
~ ~ q .~ ~ ' ~ p ttl
~Ff, > _
C r Vl V rJ' 'O ~ r0 b
~ o n ~ o ~ '^ .- ^ Tn
•~i ~ 'Cj 5 ~ ~ 8~ .Q ~ V
O ~.. 4p44Ht, C 5
,_ 'O O C~ O rn 5 O
~+s'5 ~Fu~~F.~~
8
~~
'F O
V
a
~ a
E c
.~ 9
8^
@4
,_`o @ C
~ ~~
g q 6
6~
E
3 ~
y~ pq~
E fi
o E '8
t_ u 1.
'.,~
~ F 9
~~s
`} M p '$~ p ~~j}
u ~ .~
h ,? a a'' ~ q G,
~' a " ~2 ~ ° `~ ~ w
43'~ q ~~
4a•~
~ ~~ ~ pg
c~ES ~§ro°t~~~~~:e 5^.S
' d && (j ,~ a
~~~ d~=~~,~gW~~y~
O O ~~ '7 ~.J 'a v'rj- ~y~ p
~> S.•~~n~ ~•S G~r~dEEa~4w3
= `~ mawL' ~'~ ~'~ ~ °q°~Lm ~n~9
~~?:c
$ +'' ~ '~ 'y ~+ `~
€ o^:~~~ ~•r~ ~
~O V ooO. 5 .5 m Si
~~~ ~~~t~
m ~~ ~ O ~ O O
•at~ q ~a~u
rn ~ ~ .5 ° °c ~ '~
E
u N ~ ~ $ o
.'J ~ _ ~' V J ~ O
y 0.U ~.. L 'J
N ~ c~ _v,
a ~ 7 0 0 ~. ~ u~ ury2
v~~ ~'~ ~ Gds
d .~ . ~ e°u u .5 U ~
Gv~~ m,s'3.5...
C7 N L~ C ~ O~
S g ~ ~ a tol ~~3
U -CC
7 rl~~ ~~~ ~ ty
~4r °'$9
LK I U w cg ~ t'~3 u 0.
'C~ ,~ 5 p r0 r0 C~ pj
~'
" g.r ~~ $ c
~'v u u ~
4 5 r
~ g ~"dE ti a
~ °'O4~u w
° w'= E v 'v
.~ ~ 4 ~'O ~ 4..
_ ,,°. Y u
° 5 .5 ~ ~ ES .q. t C .n
E $~jj t ,+~ C 4G C p
5 .^~ U F U q y. ^° .J
4.y ~ ~ 'J G = ,~' 1O.
4 q 0 0 ~-U, w N q Ci
C N V ~' ~ $ Tl>' c
fig- y°' ~•= _
v -~' 8,-c cF~,~ -.5
G ,i U G q d3 'J ~ v
h
0
.~
U
z
00
3
c
U
s~
"m U. O ~,6~r ~~, 4~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~3 8~ di'N••OppA ?'0 5~~ ~ 0,.9 u.
u p 3 ~ '
F3 '~ a ;~ ,~ ~ E' C s~ ~ .+
o
~n0 '4~ ~ m~'$.g .5 O~ v.~M `~ ~•~ 0 9 0 0~ ~ ~ 'o'b
2€ 'r- L 7J m G p~ ~ -• O
v ~' u `ua y 3~ ''7 ~~~ 5 u
.G~j ,M m e1 ,~ 0. [V 9 'a 4.C ~ ~ .S q .0 ~ ~ d .,.{
g ~,CJ ~ ~ ~ .tl ~ ~ .G N .u. p ~ 'i'~ u~ .G C ~ ~~ °~ U 'Y tr 6
m .. oU L N
~-•5 C7~C7,3c ~:g°=..i av ~•~ u',-u,'O ~ a `o ~ S = ~
o s `~ ~~~;~ r~~. a ~5 •5 ~ v d" vr~^.5. .d E .~_' ~ d ~ z ~ c u
'~ •o •~ ~ 3 m'v ~Y! •g •:a 'a '~ u ^ E •°~'^° a ~' S r' >.~ ~ o
5 °. ` " C7 •d ~ G ~ ~.e ~,~ Q~ o e~ o~ m.~ u .e c •o'L-' = ,~ ~+ q
c id '~ .e ~ .S 3 ~ :8 m ° ~ ~' 3 A~ ^~, •u Q •9 s u ^ ¢ ~ ~ •a ~ Z
Q u>~ c~ C7 a.2 ~ •9 v ._ a ~ u c m Q o W
.pC3 ~ S ~ ~ ~' •v g° ° % 5E ~ ~' `~ 'S u ~'a ~ ~ o Y1 d •~ ~q`O ~ ,Y~-' ~ -!'' ~
c.- •~ v u ~ .c 2 5 ~ `~ ~ .'• has O ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ z~ ~
~ ~ ~ •~
m b s .~ J ~ .2 o v rd! Ec~.' u '-' °~ ~~ ~i a s
q G`O~`•°v c o, o ~~'S'~ g~g ~ c•g~~ ga+•~ ~ 8 ~•~ ~ p~w~•9 eL~~s
~ N .o ~ ~ u m ~~~ ~' ~ i3 0 ~ Y3 v° G + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .3 S r,~. E' v
•a ~~N 9 W yc Qka.~' ~ ~ ~.O ~~ '- y.c ~~ `c.'o E^' _ 5•QS `3.
w Wa c5.°_ `dv~~.o a m o.5•~°-'av u ~;s~~•a3 W~C7
y p v~ 9~ o L ,? Fi L `• 7 L p 0
L, O Q ~ C ~ {~ ~ rX 'n, L .$ d O r O yrn• ~ •~ W ~ ~ rn T C
a ~Q5
~ ~' ~~~'m~~J• ~rrJ°•oaGi°'c~.~.5a`'o~~ ~33p~p~~,N-$W
4 ~ 6 b v O~ y; ,Q C m ., ~ '~ •~ d 0 u O m ~ C7 O°~ cV
~+ u °0 5 i0 ` e v `~ o v ~' ~ ~ ~ c ~' o •a 5 o C7 m .. ~ .. ~
w a~ v ~{ h'" ~ u G o & ~ o
e ov vfTi$~ u~ ~ v m=.5 .5 ~i m ~~ ~~i v~.a t's~° a ~` ``~`
i .Q N •rj '~ L .C .D u L •... ° ~ 'J O L 1~
a oo a -' c S u ~ •" r .o ,h .~ c •~ u ~ ~, r~~5 ~, 'J F, "m ti
r"~ `3c ~ ~''.°-•5-°, ~ ~ ~33 alp ° o v.~~ ~+ ~ .~.p m $~3 ~'~'v a
~' m v ~~ a '-' ~C7C7 ~.S ~ a~'~ ~.Sr~ ~.5'y ~O °%n ~'O
3
V
vi
0
.~
m
u
z
a
6
U
,1
i-
_- ~~~7Z
SeatL°acd ~akl.~y ~~ecr!lelce
. ,
:,
•..
' - 2 June 1998 - ~-.----..:~,;;r.-....--~-~..~:,..`
`~ Dear Honorable Bayley: ,
• ~;
' I have had the distinct pleasure of being Bethany Hall's physician for the
past ten months while she has been under the care of Ken and Lisa Hall.
., During this time she has blossomed into an engaging and sweet 10 month
old little girl. Bethany has clearly "bonded" with her "Mom and Dad"!
-This is clearly evident in her developmental growth and pleasant
disposition.
I can not speak highly enough of how much Mr. and Mrs. Hall care for
` Bethany. They are excellent parents! -- any child would be fortunate to
call them Mom and Dad!
': Si/nc/erely,
,, , William J. Keating, M.D.
-,.~`
RECEIVED
JUN 0 5 tS9,~
Ans d..
PLAIti1TIFF'S ~~
G/~~, IB~~~y Ali'
V ~ i : ~. ~.. :d. ~"";
G1o 48` t.LTw=1
3730 Scotland Road • Scotland, PA '17254 • T17-267-3606
ADOPTION dORISONS
899 Petersburg Road
Cerl.isle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717J 249-8850
Fax (727) 249-5030
ADOPTION HONESTUDY
NAME:
ADDRESS:
DATE OF MARRIAGE:
CHILDREN:
Kenneth Wayne Hall (b. 3/25/65)
Lisa Ann Hall (b. 9/26/62)
10746 Spring Ridge Road
3hippensburg, PA 17257
(717) 530-1132
6/9/84
Cassidy Garrett Hall (b. 10/4/90)
Adopted from Guatemala in May, 1991
FILE COPY
SUl4IARY OF CONTACTS
Both Kenneth and Lisa Hall were involved in a group homestudy
process in 1990 prior to the adoption of their first child,
Cassidy. The group focused on issues relevant to adoption,
cultural background for intercountry adoption, transracial
adoption and parent skills training. The group process was
followed by an individual homestudy. When Ken and Lisa decided
that they would like tq adopt a second time, a homestudy update
was completed which included a home visit on May 2, 1997.
MOTIVATION TO ADOPT
When Ken and Lisa Hall married over thirteen years ago, both
deeply hoped that one day they would become parents.
Unfortunately, the Halls had difficulty conceiving and then
suffered two miscarriages when Lisa finally did become pregnant.
Although these experiences were deeply disappointing, Ken and
Lisa gradually came to realize that parenting was far more
important to them than producing a biological child. Thus in
1991, the Halls adopted their son Cassidy from Guatemala.
Cassidy is now six years old and has been a delight to the Halls.
child/childrenoand wouldmalsoelikeotouprovide aasiblingsgornd
8-S
ir+-
Cassidy. They feel thnt Cassidy is at a good age to add a
brother or sister. Although they know that there will be changes
and added demands on their time, Ken and Lisa anticipate that the
joy oP parenting again will be enormous.
PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE FATHER
Kenneth Wayne Hall, age 32, was born on March 25, 1965 in
Chambereburg PA. Ken is Caucasian and Protestant. He is a
deeply reliq~ous man who is an active member of the Mt. Rock
Brethren in Christ Church. Presently and Por the past three
years, Ken has been employed as a truck driver for Giant Foods.
His education was completed with a high school diploma.
Ken is a man oP average height and stocky build at 5'7" and
approximately 200 pounds. He has dark brown hair and green eyes.
Ken is quiet and easy-going by nature. He presents as calm and
gentle; slow to anger. Ken is a hard worker who is not afraid to
tackle substantial projects such as the construction of his own
home. He also has a good sense of humor and appears to be a
dedicated Family man and committed Christian. His wife describes
him as "very sensitive and kind hearted...he thinks of others'
Peelings."
Ken was one oP twin sons born to Donald and Loretta Hall. Ken's
father was a Peed consultant and his mother a cook. Ken speaks
very favorably of his growing years. He describes his father as
a kind, Christian man who was very affectionate. Ken's father
worked very hard to provide for his family and also gave of his
free time to his church. Ken recalls his mother always being
there for support. She, too, gave of herself to the church. Ken
feels that ae a couple, his parents had a strong and stable
relationship.
Today Ken's parents live on the same road as do the Halls. His
brother, Roger, is married and the father of two boys. Roger is
a state police officer and lives in nearby Newburg, Pennsylvania.
Ken's entire family is supportive of the Hall's plans for
adoption.
Ken's favorite childhood memories include camping as a family and
going hunting with his father. Extended family was also very
important to Ken and he was particularly close to his grandfather
who was a preacher. Ken, se a twin, was very close to his
brother and grew up doing everything together. Arguments were
rare. The brothers even bought a car together while in high
school and fixed it up with the help of their father.
Ken attended Shippensburg Area Schools and describes himself as a
good student. His favorite subjects were history and geography.
The social aspects of school were important to Ken and he had a
number of good Friends. He enjoyed athletics and played
baseball, football and church softball. He also was a member of
both the rifle team and the Future Farmers of America Club.
S'
f!!A
Following high school graduation, Ken first became a supervisor/
milk tester for a dairy herd improvement association. He then
changed careers and began to drive tractor trailers. He is
currently employed by the Giant Foods Corporation and is
responsible for delivering groceries to stores in the tri-state
area. He appreciates the fact that his work does not involve
overnight travel and that he can be home to help care for his son
every morning.
Kenneth Hall is in excellent health as verified by a recant
physical examination completed by William J. Keating, MD of
Scotland, PA. There are no known chronic or contagious illnesses
noted and Ken is HIV negative. Dr. Keating sees no reason why
Ken should not enjoy a normal life expectancy and recommends his
positive consideration for adoptive parenting.
In his free time, Ken likes to go hunting, bowl on a league and
volunteering as a third grode Sunday school teacher at his
church. He enjoys visiting with hie extended family and friends
as well. Most of all, having time to spend with his wife and son
is of great importance to Ken.
Kenneth Hall is a warm, easy-going man who appears to have a
positive outlook on life. He has proven himself to be a devoted
husband and father as well as a committed Christian. Ken appears
to be generally satisfied with hie life at this point. The only
change that he wishes to make is to add to his family through
adoption. There is every indication that Ken will extend the
same love and dedication to a second child/children as he has to
his son Cassidy. He is looking forward to the day when his new
son or daughter ie placed in his arms.
PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE MOTHER
Lisa Ann (Gsell) Hall, age 34, was born on September 26, 1962 in
Waynesboro, PA. Lisa is Caucasian and Protestant. Like her
husband, her religious faith is of great importance to her and
has served as a guiding force in her life. Lisa also is an
active member of the Mt. Rock Brethren in Christ Church. Lisa~s
education was completes} with a high school diploma and two years
of business college. Presently and for the past fourteen years,
Lies has been employed as a medical secretary for the
Chambersburg Hospital.
Lisa stands 5' 1" tall and weighs approximately 150 pounds. She
has blond hair, green eyes and a warm smile. Lisa is soft-spoken
and sensitive. She feels that she is neither out-going nor shy
but rather somewhere in between. Lisa is sensitive to the
feelings of others. Her husband describes her as being "kind,
considerate and loving." Lisa sets goals for herself and then
works diligently to achieve them. She is organized and capable
in her field of endeavor.
Lisa was the first of Pour children born to Paul and Mary Gsell.
She has two sisters four and ten years her junior and one brother
~~
/'~'1
/"1
twelve years younger than herself. Lisa describes her
relationship with her next younger sibling as being fairly
typical and with a certain amount of sibling rivalry. However,
Lisa gained much experience in caring for children ae she helped
to raise her youngest sister and brother.
Lisa describes her childhood as holding mostly good memories.
For most of her life her family owned and operated a dairy farm.
The entire Family loved to farm and all worked very hard to
contribute to the success of their work. Lisa was particularly
close to her Father while growing up. It was she who helped most
around the farm and spent the bulk of the time with him. Lisa
describes her mother as being more strict than her father. she
tried to teach the children about God and how to be a good
person.
Lisa feels that her family remains a very important part of her
life. Her extended family members all live in nearby communities
and get together frequently. Lori, age 30, is married and the
mother of two children. She works in the office of a private
school. Paula, 25, is married and currently expecting her second
child. She is employed as a beauty supply store manager. Last
is Paul who lives at home with his parents. Paul is 22 and
currently enrolled in college. Like Ken's family, the Gsell
family is excited about the prospect of the Halls adopting a
second child/children.
Lisa enjoyed school and was an "A" student. She attended a
Christian Academy for her final two years of high school and
graduated as valedictorian of her class. Her Favorite outside
activities included 4-H Club and showing her own dairy cows at
local county fairs. She also enjoyed writing poems and short
stories. Any other free time was spent helping with chores on
the farm.
Lisa first obtained a factory job after graduation but then
decided to go back to school. She graduated from Hagerstown
Business College in 1983 with an Associate in Arts degree. Again
Lisa proved to be an excellent student graduating with honors.
She was first hired by Chambersburg Hospital on a part time basis
but was later given a fulltime position as Departmental Secretary
where she still works today. Her responsibilities include
computer work, typing, filing, ordering, competing reports and
compiling statistics. She has continued to take various computer
courses to upgrade her skills.
Lisa Hall is in excellent health as verified by a recent physical
examination completed by Edward F. Swartz, MD of Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania. There are no known chronic or contagious illnesses
noted and Lisa is HIV negative. Dr. Swartz sees no reason why
Lisa should not enjoy a normal life expectancy and recommends her
positive consideration for adoptive parenting.
8U
,.:.
P'''1 1~1
In her spare time, Lisa enjoys spending time with her husband and
son ae well as extended family members. She likes to do various
forms of stitchery and also serves as a third grade Sunday school
teacher at her church. Day trips and listening to music are also
enjoyed by Lisa.
Lisa has found parenting to be more rewarding than she could
possibly have imagined before becoming a mother. She, delights in
watching her son grow and develop. She knows that if'she had
been able to give birth, she would never have been blessed with
her son Cassidy and she cannot imagine her life without him.
Lisa is now ready to open her heart and home to a second
child/children. She feels that, together with Ken, she can offer
this child/children a loving and stable home in a Christian
environment.
OTHERS IN THB HOME
Cassidy Garrett Hall was born on October 4, 1990 in Guatemala and
was adopted by the Halls in May 1991. Cassidy is a bright and
inquisitive child who enjoys listening to stories, painting and
drawing, music and playing outdoors. Although initially shy
around strangers, Cassidy quickly warms up. Cassidy will enter
the first grade at the Nancy Grayson Elementary School in the
fall.
Cassidy has been a very healthy little boy since his placement.
He has always known that he is adopted and has been taught by Ken
and Lisa that adoption is simply another way of forming a family.
He is looking forward to becoming a "big brother."
MARRIAGE
Kenneth Wayyne Hall and Lisa Ann Gsell were married on June 9,
1984 in Shippensburg, PA. It is the first marriage for both
(verified) Lisa and Ken were first drawn together by the many
interests they share se well as similar backgrounds and values.
Although the early years of their marriage were stressed by the
challenge of establishing themselves financially as well as
infertility, Ken and Lisa overcame these hardships through
learning to communicatQ with one another, trying to better
understand the other persons point of view and prayer. Their
relationship further matured as the two learned how to
successfully parent together.
FINANCIAL SITUATION
Ken and Lisa Hall have a combined annual income of $60,980. Of
this amount, Ken earns $36,720 and Lisa earns $24,260. These
salary figures were verified via employer reference letters.
Checking and savings accounts total approximately $4,450. Ken
also has $4,152 invested in a 401K account. Furnishings and
other personal property are valued at $26,000.
The Halls own their own home which is assessed in value at
$130,000. The outstanding mortgage on this property is $103,000
towards which the Halls make a monthly payment of $1063. Their
" L
/'~
only other outstandingq debt is a small appliance loan of $920
with a monthly pnyment of $H2.
Lisa is covered by life insuranoe in the amount oP $10,000 and
Ken by a policy of $50 000. The entire Tamily is covered by
major medical end hoep~talization insurance through PA Hlue
Cross/Blue Shield end dental insurance through Connecticut
General. The child/children they hope to adopt will be covered
by this insurnnce Prom the date of placement.
The Hells live conservatively and within their income. They are
beginningg to increase their savings again following the recent
construction of their new home. They will be able to afford to
raise end educate another child or children in their family.
DI3CIPLINS
Ken and Lisa Hall have approached child rearing with the overall
gonl oP helping their child/children feel good about themselves.
They Teel that in matters of discipline, consistency is crucial.
The Halle prefer to use verbal rather than physical methods of
discipline. With Ceseidy the Halls have found that the use oP
time outs or putting him in his room are effective means of
correcting misbehavior.
Ken and Lisa also feel that it is important to let children try
things on their own when developmentally appropriate in order to
help them develop self-confidence in their own abilities.
RS3IDSNCB
The Halls recently finished building a new split level home that
contains a living room, kitchen with dining area and laundry room
on the•Pirat level. Downstairs is a large family room and half
bath while the upper level contains three bedrooms and two
additional bathrooms. The home is located on a lot that is
approximately one acre in size. Housekeeping standards are
excellent. The Hall children will be bussed to nearby
Shippensburg Area District schools.
CHILD CARS
Lisa plans to take at least a one month leave of absence
following placement of another child. The Hall children will
then be cared Por by Ken in the morning before he leaves for
work. Lisa~s schedule may soon change allowing her to work part
of the time at home. She plans to use her home time in the
afternoons so that no outside care is necessary. Family members
are close by Por help if needed.
ACT 33 CLSARANCS3
State Police and Child Abuse Clearances were obtained on both
Lisa and Kenneth Hall ae required by PA Act 33 of the Child
Protective services Act. Records indicate that neither Lisa nor
Ken has a history of child abuse or violent crime. These records
were approved on November 25, 1996.
O
• r"~1 I~
THE CHILD WHO WILL BELONG
Ken and Lisa Hall would like to adopt a newborn infant of any
rsaiel background. Although they could consider a child of
either sex, they have a strong preference for adopting a girl
since they are already parenting a son. Ken and Lisa would
prefer that their child be of basically good health although they
understand and accept the risks associated with parenting any
child.
SUMMARY AND RECOFQlENDATION
Ken and Lisa Hall are stable and caring individuals who have
demonstrated an ability to love and nurture a child. Their son
Cassidy is a positive reflection of parenting skills. The Halls
have given of themselves to others through the ministries oP
their church as well. They have proven themselves to be devoted
to one another and have the strong support of their extended
families and Friends for their plans to adopt a second child or
children. There is every indication that any child placed in
this home will receive the same love and nurturing as has
Cassidy.
Adoption Horizons recommends the approval oP the Hall family for
placement of a newborn female child who is considered healthy at
the time of lacement. They understand and accept the risks
associated with parenting any child. The Halls are open to
considering children of any racial background. Adoption Horizons
will provide post-placement services including assistance with
the legal finalization of the adoption.
~' ~u,a. ~. 1/,~,.~i,n., s ~~/~l ~
Cy his H. riens, M.Ed.
Social Worker
Adoption Horizons
License /348110 Under Title 55
PA Code, Chapter 3350, Expiration 9/16/97
SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED TO BEFORE ME
THIS 12th DAY OF AUGUST, 1997.
ql
KENNETH W. HALL and
LISA ANN HALL,
PLAINTIFFS
V.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 31°' day of August, 1999, following a hearing, Walter L.
Humphrey is adjudicated in contempt of the custody order entered on July 10, 1998, for
not providing Kenneth W. Hall and Lisa Ann Hall temporary physical custody of Brianna
(Bethany) for one week in Pennsylvania as provided for in the order. Upon relation by
plaintiffs that defendant has absconded with the child and that their location is not
known, and that Walter L. Humphrey is receiving social security disability and a
veteran's disability pension the United States Social Security Administration and the
Veterans Administration are authorized to provide plaintiffs through their counsel with
information as to the current whereabouts of Walter L. Humphrey.
By-the Cou~t~~
Edgar B.
i~iLi; 7-'.ir i~lr~
,:.
99 RUG 31 f~NII:?.9
Cl/h,fi_r,~.;; a ::GJV1Y
P~iJNSYL171i dIA
r ~ ~
Jamea D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Plaintiffs
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro se
13853 Alazea Circle
No. 24B
Tampa, FL 33613
Walter L Humphrey
c/o Ruby Humphrey
2952 Gillespie Avenue
Sarasota, FL 34234
:saa
~y
J. A07028/99
KENNETH W. HALL AND LISA ANN
HALL,
Appellants
v.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Appellee
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 1087 Harrisburg 1998
Appeal from the Order entered July 10, 1998,
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Civil, No. 98-1530 Civil Term
! U D G Y B N T
ON COMSID®P.4710N WHffilP.OP, It is now here ordered and
adJudged by this Court that the ,Judgment of the Court of
Common Pleas Of CUMBERLAND County be, and the same
is hereby AFFIRMED.
Dated: April 9, 1999
BY THE COUI~'.^
J. A07028/99
KENNETH W. HALL AND LISA ANN
HALL,
Appellants
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Appellee No. 1087 Harrisburg 1998
Appeal from the Order entered July 10, 1998,
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Civil, No. 98-1530 Clvll Term
BEFORE: EAKIN, JOYCE AND NESTER, J].
MEMORANDUM:
PILEDAPROg ~ggg
This is an appeal from the final order of the trial court wh(ch dented
the custody complaint filed by Appellants, Kenneth Hall and his wife, Lisa,
and awarded custody of the child to Appellee, Walter Humphrey.l For the
reasons set forth below, we affirm. Before addressing the merits of
Appellants' claims, we will briefly recount the pertinent facts of this case.
Commencing in April of 1996, Appellee and Rosalyne Watkins began to
reside together in Florida. During this time, Watkins became pregnant with
Humphreys child. Watkins moved out of the apartment she shared with
Appellee and returned to live with her former paramour, Frank Quarterman,
in June of 1997.
On July 27, 1997, Watkins prematurely gave .birth to her daughter,
B.W. She thereafter placed the child with an adoption agency. Watkins and
1 Although Appellee participated in the lower court proceedings pro se, he
has not filed a brief or otherwise apprised us of his position on appeal.
I
J. A07028/99
her paramour Informed the agency that Quarterman was the biological
father of the child.Z
Appellants were seeking a child to adopt. Consequently, the Florida
agency placed B.W. in Appellants' care.' As Watkins and Quarterman
consented to the adoption, the Florida court entered a decree terminating
their parental rights in August of 1997. That same month, Appellants
instituted adoption proceedings in Pennsylvania.
In November of 1997, Watkins Informed Appellee of the birth of his
daughter and of the adoption. Appellee immediately contacted the adoption
agency in an effort to regain custody of his daughter. Although the agency
informed Appellants of Appellee's claim, it did not give Appellee any
information as to the location of the child.
Appellants thereafter filed a petition to involuntarily terminate
Appellee's parental rights. Following a hearing, the trial court entered a
decree nisi denying Appellants' petition. Appellants neither filed exceptions
to the decree nor otherwise sought to appeal this determination.4
Z Subsequent paternity testing revealed that Appellee is the biological father
of B.W.
' B.W. remained in Appellants' custody until the trial court issued Its
decision in the custody action In July of 1998.
4 As the decree nisi is not properly before us for review, it will not be further
discussed.
-2-
]. A07028/99
While the termination proceedings were pending, Appellants filed a
complaint for custody of the child. The custody proceeding was stayed until
the termination proceeding was resolved. After the termination petition was
denied, a hearing on the custody complaint was held in June of 1998. The
trial court thereafter dented Appellants' request and awarded legal and
physical custody of B.W. to Appellee. Appellants timely appealed.s The sole
Issue for review is whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding
custody of B.W. to Appellee, her biological father.
The scope of review of an appellate court reviewing a child
custody order is of the broadest type; the appellate court
is not bound by the deductions or inferences made by the
trial court from its findings of fact, nor must the reviewing
court accept a finding that has no competent evidence to
support it. However, this broad scope of review does not
vest in the reviewing court the duty or the privilege of
making its own independent determination. Thus, an
appellate court is empowered to determine whether the
trial court's Incontrovertible factual findings support Its
factual conclusions[,] but it may not interfere with those
conclusions unless they are unreasonable in view of the
trial court's factual findings; and thus represents
[an]...abuse of discretion.
Moore v. Moore, 535 Pa. 18, 28, 634 A.2d 163, 168 (1993). (citations
omitted). On issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, appellate
s Appellants subsequently filed various motions in both the trial court and
this Court. These motions were denied. As the matters contained therein
are not before us for review, they will not be further addressed. We further
note that Appellants have standing to maintain this appeal as they have In
loco parents status. Siifies v. Webster, 713 A.2d 639, 645-646 (Pa.
Super. 1998) and Mol/ander v. Chiodo, 675 A.2d 753, 756 (Pa. Super.
1996) (providing that adoptive parents had standing to challenge custody
where they had assumed and fulfilled parental duties towards the child).
-3-
J. A07028/99
courts must defer to the findings of the trial judge who has had the
opportunity to observe the proceedings and the demeanor of the witnesses.
Robinson v. Robinson, 538 Pa. 52, 55-56, 645 A.2d 836, 837 (1994).
Whenever a court is called upon to determine custody[,]
the central focus is the best Interest of the child, and with
that paramount concern in mind, traditional burdens or
presumptions such as[ ] [a] substantial change in
circumstances[,]...the fitness of one parent over another[,]
or the tender years doctrine must all give way.
Moore v. Moore, 535 Pa. at 30-31, 634 A.2d at 169 (citations omitted).
We further recognize that a determ(nation of the best interests of the child is
based on consideration of all factors which legitimately have effect upon the
child's physical, Intellectual, moral and spiritual well being. Moliander v.
Chiodo, 675 A.2d 753, 754 (Pa. Super. 1996). We shall consider the trial
court's decision and Appellants' arguments with these principles in mind.
Where, as here, there is a custody dispute between a parent and a
third party, our Supreme Court has recognized:
[T]he parties do not start out even; the parents have a
prima facie right to custody, which will be forteited only if
convincing reasons appear that the child's best interest will
be served by an award to the third party. Thus, even
before the proceedings start, the evidentiary scale is
tipped, and tipped hard, to the parents' side. What the
judge must do, therefore, is first[ ] hear all evidence
relevant to the child's best interest, and then, decide
whether the evidence on behalf of the third party is
weighty enough to bring the scale up to even and down on
the third party's side.
E//erbe v. Hooks, 490 Pa. 363, 367-368, 416 A.2d 512, 514 (1980)
-4-
J. A07028/99
(citations and quotation marks omitted).6 Accord Mollander, 675 A.2d at
754.
Appellants assert that they are entitled to custody of B.W. because
they are better parents than Appellee. Appellants' Brief at 10 and 16.
Appellants further contend that a change of custody will have a detrimental
emotional impact on B.W. Appellants' Brief at 12 and 16. We are not
persuaded that the trial court committed an abused of discretion here.
While Appellants are undisputedly fit to parent B.W., the record does
not indicate that Appellee's skills are inadequate in comparison. Appellee
has successfully parented his own four children until he and his wife
divorced. N.T. 6/10/98 at 46-48 and 59-61. Appellee further related that
while the older children are pursuing their educational or career goals, he
maintains weekly contact with his younger children. Id. at 47-48. Appellee
also testified that he does volunteer work with children at the local high
school. Id, at 52. In addition, Appellee stated that he lives in an upper
e We recognize that a plurality of the Supreme Court has expressed an
intent to abandon the presumption that a parent has a prima facie right to
custody as against third parties. Row/es v. Row/es, 542 Pa. 443, 447-448,
668 A.2d 126, 128 (1995) (plurality opinion by Flaherty, J., joined by Nix,
C.]. and Castille, J.). Because a majority of the justices did not agree as to
whether the parental presumption ought to be abandoned, it does not
constitute binding precedent. Mol/ander, 675 A.2d at 755 n.l. See also
Commonwealth v. Tilghman, 543 Pa. 578, 588, 673 A.2d 898, 903
(1996) (providing that Supreme Court opinion is binding precedent if a
majority of the justices join therein). However, even if we were to apply the
j holding in Row/es, it would not alter the result here. Parenthood continues
to remain a factor that is entitled to significant weight in third party custody
disputes. Row/es, 542 Pa. at 448, 668 A.2d at 128.
-5-
. , .,.
.
]. A07028/99
class apartment and is able to adequately provide for his daughter's needs
and welfare. Id. at 46, 50, 52 and 53-56. Moreover, Appellee loves and
cares for B.W., see !d. at 57 and 64-65, as evidenced by his diligent efforts
to promptly assert his parental rights since learning of his child's adoption
and his paramour's duplicity. Trlal Court Oplnlon, dated 7/10/98, at 3; Trial
Court Opinion and Decree Nisi, dated 5/13/98, at 1, 3-5 and 8-9. In light of
this testimony, it is clear that Appellee possesses the requisite skills and
abilities to parent his child.
With regard to the effect that a change in custody will have on B.W.,
we note that she was approximately one year old at the time the custody
order was entered. While we do not doubt that the change in caregivers and
her familiar surroundings may have ashort-term impact on the child, any
attempt to predict the long-term effects of a change in custody is
speculative. Given the child's young age, she may not even remember the
Incident with the passage of time. Moreover, any negative effects may be
ameliorated or eliminated if Appellee provides his daughter with the same
love and care that he has devoted to his other children. The effects
associated with the disruption of the bond between Appellants and B.W. thus
does not, in and of itself, tip the scales in Appellants' favor so as to defeat
Appellee's right to custody. Finding that the trial court's decision is
supported by the record, we affirm.
Order affirmed.
-6-
~ w,
KENNETH W. HALL and
LISA ANN HALL,
PLAINTIFFS
V.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 31"day of August, 1999, a hearing on plaintiffs' petition for a
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
DEFENDANT
modification in custody shall be conducted in Courtroom Number 2, Cumberland
County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania at 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, Octobet~20,
1999. This petition shall be served against Walter L. Humphrey at his last known
address and the address of his mother.
By the
Edgar B.
James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Plaintiffs
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro se
13853 Alazea Circle
No. 24B
Tampa, FL 33613
Walter L Humphrey
c/o Ruby Humphrey
2952 Gillespie Avenue
Sarasota, FL 34234
:saa
/- _J
(
1 ~~-,
T
i.
~~
In ~
V~
-
~~<.. i~
(t. ~
G,_'-, ~ r si 1 w
Le. C•1
L.~ Ch (.~
~i.
},;:,.
.{
~
~
;
,.
:~~f~,
3'.-i<.
'Y.:
~~
FBI ,.~_r,:.;"E
g3 rtl.~r s i c~a i i~ s!
CUIaidLnLf~';J UUNfY
P[t\idS`iLVFu\IA
Kt'mKlh ~nJ Llu Ildf 11'elilinn fnr N.JiOcninn nfw,uM1Y)
KENNETH W. HALL and
LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
AND NOW, this
day of , 1999,
upon consideration of the attached Motion, a hearing is scheduled concerning the matters raised
therein on the
aaSa^m
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
day of 1999, at
o'clock, _.m., in Court Room No. 2 of the Cumberland County Court
House, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
BY THE COURT:
J.
cc: James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Petitioners
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro Se
13853 Azalea Circle, No. 246
Tampa, Florida 33613
Walter L. Humphrey
c/o Ruby Humphrey
2952 Gillespie Avenue
Sarasota, FL 34234
Kennetll onJ Llrs IId1114tltinn fn MIxIIIlulinn of Cusudy)
KENNETH W. HALL and
LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
Ilflllnl'19
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF
CUSTODY ORDER
I. PROCEDURAL STATUS
1. On July 10, 1998, The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley entered an Order
granting primary physical custody of the child, BRIANNA, to Defendant, WALTER L.
HUMPHREY. That Order was affirmed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, and Plaintiffs
Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Supreme Court was denied on August 17, 1999.
The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley denied Plaintiffs Petition for Modification of
Custody Order on June 14, 1999, noting that the Court did not have jurisdiction pending
resolution of the Petition far Allowance of Appeal. The Court of Common Pleas once again has
jurisdiction of this matter.
2
Ktnne~h end Liu I I~II11'etltlnn for N.elillolion of Cuarolyl IIMrj~p79
On August 10, 1999, the rule entered against WALTER L. HUMPHREY to
show cause why he should not be adjudicated in contempt was made absolute. The final
adjudication is scheduled to be conducted on Monday, August 30, 1999, at 11:00 o'clock a.m.
II. PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
2. The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley entered an Order dated July 10, 1998,
granting legal and physical custody of the child in question, BABY GIRL BRIANNA, bom July
27, 1997, to herfather, WALTER L. HUMPHREY.
3. In accordance with the Court's Order, and after a transition period
mandated by Judge Bayley, physical custody of the child was turned over to her father,
WALTER L. HUMPHREY.
4. Until recently, when WALTER L. HUMPHREY took custody of BRIANNA
and hid his whereabouts from Petitioners, the HALLS have kept in touch with BRIANNA by
telephone, attempting to call her every week or so. The phone number they had been given to
make these calls is 941-355-7340, which is the home of Mr. Humphreys mother, RUBY
HUMPHREY, in Sarasota, Florida. When they called for BRIANNA she is the one who
answered the phone at this number. The number for WALTER HUMPHREY in Tampa, Florida,
as supplied to the HALLS' counsel was 813-632-4903, until recently when it was disconnected.
The HALLS do not have a current telephone number for MR. HUMPHREY, nor do they have a
current address.
3
Kennelly end Llo 11~II U'~Iition for MoJlOrulnn nfCwexlr) oeRO.~i9
5. In accordance with the Court's Order providing ihem with periods of
temporary physical custody the Halls visited with BRIANNA in Florida from December 7, 1998,
through December 10, 1998. During that visit they were able to confirm that BRIANNA lived
with her grandmother in Sarasota, Florida, about an hour from the home of her father, WALTER
HUMPHREY, who lives in Tampa, Florida.
6. Based upon their telephone calls, the recent visit with BRIANNA, and their
conversations with BRIANNA'S grandmother, the Halls believe and aver that BRIANNA had
been in the actual physical custody of her paternal grandmother, rather than in the custody of
her father.
7. In the hearing on termination of parental rights, Defendant HUMPHREY
denied advising the Florida adoptien agency that the child would be raised by a grandparent,
and asserted that he would raise the child himself.
8. Judge Bayley's Opinion reflected an acceptance of this assurance by
WALTER L. HUMPHREY stating the following: "We are satisfied that Humphrey genuinely
wants to raise his daughter." (Op. 3) and "Humphrey has the...genuine desire to raise his own
child..." (Op. 7).
9. Until recently, when WALTER L. HUMPHREY took possession of his child
to conceal her whereabouts from Plaintiffs, he had turned the actual day to day physical custody
of his child overto his mother, RUBY HUMPHREY, who lives in Sarasota, Florida.
4
Kennaih ~nJ Llu Ihll IPHitlon fm M.JiOotlnn of Cmo.JY) ux~?o.v9
10. As Plaintiffs testified recently before the Court, WALTER L. HUMPHREY Is
actively denying them the visitation provided for in Judge Bayley's Order of July 10, 1998,
specl(ically the two weeks visitation in the year, and also the ability to contact her by telephone.
11. Defendant HUMPHREY'S actions in turning custody over to his mother
after denying his intention to do so before the Court, and his actions in Contempt of Court to
deny the visitation directed by Judge Bayley constitute a change of circumstances and justify a
reevaluation of the issue of custody In this case.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court hear these matters on
Monday, August 30, 1999, or in the alternative schedule another date for said hearing.
FLOWER, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`_
By X --
James D. Flower, Jr.,
11 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5513
I.D. #27742
Dater
5
Od/:0/1559 09:55 1i BEHAVIORAL HLTH SViS RASE 0:/C2
r•; : i1 ~ ~.~. , ~ i)t ~: ~ ~ :4nup,~ ~6~~wCn a, unD r.,~e. ui
y~RIFICA';:-~r.
I, hel'9by Vn,^.(.~ cru . ~ stat~rnenis made in the within Instrument are tNY and correct to the beat
o! my Icnowt~,~g,;. •r~natitn ar,d beliof, i understand that false statements here(n are made
subject to thr~ acn,:• .:,i i B P;a.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsifieatlon to authorities.
By. d-~/~ ~• r-f~.~ S~s.c~~ R9
Lisa A. Hall
oats: ~/a '-~9
«,
.
~4 .
~ .
Gun
~~' iv ,~
E~
-~_ ~ ~
. n CJ
~'
)~']
d CJ~
-
N a'~
~~
Ql~! C7
~~
O ~
KENNETH W. HALL AND
LISA ANN HALL,
PLAINTIFFS
V.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: 98-1530 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PETITION TO MODIFY A CUSTODY ORDER OF JULY 10.1998
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 2~~ day of December, 1999, the petition of Kenneth W.
Hall and Lisa Ann Hall to modify the custody order dated July 10, 1998, IS DISMISSED.
By the Court, /!,~ ~
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Plaintiffs
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro se
c/o Ruby Humphrey
2952 Gillespie Avenue
Sarasota, FL 34234
~~
~ 8-9q
R K9
:saa
C,i:.~ ..
~~~ pr,t•, 2.1 t "cl ~~~ 11,
~,11~(~(
F ~~'
KENNETH W. HALL AND
LISA ANN HALL,
PLAINTIFFS
V.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PETITION TO MODIFY A CUSTODY ORDER OF JULY 10 1998
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
BAYLEY, J., December 27, 1999:--
Kenneth W. Hall and Lisa Ann Hall, his wife, filed a petition seeking to modify a
custody order entered on July 10, 1998, regarding Baby Girl Brianna who was born in
Florida on July 29, 1997. A hearing was conducted on October 20, 1999.
Immediately after her birth, Brianna's mother placed her for adoption with
Adoption Placement, Inc., in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The mother and her boyfriend
fraudulently represented that the boyfriend was Brianna's father when in fact Walter L.
Humphrey was her father. Using the auspices of Adoption Horizons in Shippensburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, the Florida adoption agency placed Brianna with
Kenneth and Lisa Hall who live in Shippensburg. When Walter L. Humphrey found out
that his daughter had been placed for adoption without his consent, he immediately
sought to gain custody of his child. He challenged a petition for involuntary termination
of parental rights that was filed by the Halls in this court. Following a hearing at which
Humphrey appeared, and finding that a prerequisite for the termination of Humphreys
parental rights had not been met under the Adoption Act at 23 Pa.C.S. Section
2511(a)(6), a decree nisi was entered on May 13, 1998, supported by a written opinion,
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
denying a petition of the Halls to terminate Humphreys parental rights to Brianna.' No
post-trial motion was filed to the decree nis .
The Halls then filed a complaint in this court for custody of Brianna. Humphrey,
who lived in Tampa, Florida, objected. Concluding that the Hails had standing to seek
custody under Hollander v. Chiodo, 450 Pa. Super. 247 (1996), a hearing was
conducted at which Humphrey appeared.2 An order was entered on July 10, 1998,
supported by a written opinion, awarding legal and physical custody of Baby Girl
Brianna to her father Walter L. Humphrey, but granting to Halls temporary physical
custody of Brianna in Florida or any other place Brianna lives for one week each year,
and in Pennsylvania for one week each year, the two weeks not to be consecutive. The
order provided that if the Halls exercised such periods of temporary physical custody
they were to make arrangements with Humphrey at least forty-five days in advance,
that they would provide all transportation, and that Humphrey would keep the Halls
informed of any changes in Brianna's address. The Halls, having not secured primary
' Adoption of Baby Girl Brianna, 47 CLJ 211 (1998).
s In Hollander, a mother placed her daughter with appellants who thereafter filed
a petition to adopt the child to which was attached the written consent of the mother.
The mother then filed a motion to revoke her consent which was granted. The mother
thereafter filed a petition to dismiss the adoption petition and gain custody of her child.
Appellants countered with a petition for custody of the child for which they claimed in
loco ara antis status. Citing Cardamons v. Elshoff, 442 Pa. Super. 263 (1995), the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that appellants, by virtue of the child having been
placed in their care pending adoption, acquired in logo arp antis status which continued
after the mother revoked her consent and gave them standing to seek custody of the
child.
-2-
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
physical custody of Brianna, filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Humphrey did not participate in the appeal but the custody order was affirmed on April
9, 1999, _ Pa. Super. _ (1087 HGB 1998). The Superior Court also noted that the
Halls had standing to seek custody under Hollander v. Chiodo, supra. A petition for
allowance of appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. _ Pa.
(433 M.D. DKT 1999).
Pursuant to the custody order of July 10, 1998, Humphrey, after a period of
transition, had taken physical custody of Brianna in August, 1998. The Halis then had
the child in Florida for a week of temporary physical custody in December, 1998. Their
contact with Brianna was made at the residence of the paternal grandmother. On July
25, 1999, the grandmother, in a phone call, told the Halls that the father would no
longer allow them any further contact with Brianna. When they were unable to make
arrangements to bring Brianna to Pennsylvania for a week pursuant to the order of July
10, 1998, the Halls, on August 20, 1999, filed the within petition to modify the custody
order. The father did not appear at the hearing on the petition. The Halls testified that
the father no longer lives in Tampa and they do not know where he and Brianna now
live. They maintain that these circumstances warrant a change in the custody of
Brianna.
In B.A. and A.A. v. E.E., _ Pa. _ (1999 WL 1062847), decided by the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on November 24, 1999, a mother placed her child born
on January 4, 1996, with an adoption agency the day after the birth. The agency
-3-
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
immediately placed the child with a couple for adoption. The couple then
Initiated adoption proceedings. The father would not consent to the adoption. On
February 26, 1996, the father filed a complaint for physical custody. The couple who
sought to adopt the child filed a motion to intervene in that case. The trial court granted
the motion on the grounds that the couple stood in loco aro antis to the child. On
November 13, 1996, the trial court awarded primary physical custody of the child to the
couple who sought the adoption and the father appealed. The Superior Court of
Pennsylvania affirmed, holding that the natural mother's decision to grant custody to the
adoption agency which in turn granted it to the couple pending an adoption, conferred
on that couple loco arp entai status, and that considering the child's physical,
intellectual, moral and spiritual wellbeing, the trial court did not error in awarding
custody to that couple. The father appealed and the Supreme Court heard the case to
decide the issue of whether it was error to allow the prospective adoptive parents the
right to intervene in the custody case by conferring upon them loco arentis status. The
Court, while acknowledging the case of Cardamons v. Elshoff, 442 Pa. Super. 263
(1995), which was relied on in Hollander v. Chiodo, supra, nevertheless concluded
that unless the natural parent's prima facie right to custody is successfully overcome via
a dependency proceeding, "A third party cannot place himself in loco parentis in
defiance of the parents' wishes in the parent/child relationship." The Court concluded:
The record in this case establishes that [the father] attempted to gain
custody of his child from shortly after the child was born until the present.
He opposes the adoption and he seeks custody of the child himself. It is
-4-
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
plain that [the couple who seek to adopt) retain custody of his child in
defiance of his wishes, The lower courts were in error, therefore, in
conferring standing upon the prospective adoptive parents. The
order of the Superior Court is reversed and the trial court's order granting
custody to [the proposed adoptive parents] is vacated. The case is
remanded for a hearing on the custody petition filed by [the father].
(Emphasis added.)
Based on the decision of the Supreme Courtin B.A. and A.A., the holding of the
Superior Courtin Hollander v. Chiodo, supra, upon which this court was bound and
the Superior Court relied in acknowledging the Halls standing to seek custody of
Brianna, is no longer the law. Now the law of Pennsylvania is that proposed adoptive
parents with whom a child has been placed, but which adoption does not occur
because of the objection of a parent, have no standing to seek custody of the child.
Therefore, under B.A. and A.A., the Halls do not have standing to seek modification of
the custody order of July 10, 1998.'
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~-~h day of December, 1999, the petition of Kenneth W.
Hall and Lisa Ann Hall to modify the custody order dated July 10, 1998, IS DISMISSED.
'This case represents the risk inherent in accepting placement of a child on the
hope that the child can be adopted. As there are risks for parents having a healthy
child, there is a risk when one accepts a child on a placement for adoption, that until the
rights of the parents are terminated and the adoption becomes final, custody of that
child can be lost by the proposed adoptive parent. How one views that risk is
undoubtedly dependent on whether your point of view is that of a parent whose child
has been placed for adoption, or a prospective adoptive parent who loves and cares for
that child for a period of time, but who ultimately cannot legally adopt the child. The
Legislature sets the law in this regard and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is the
final interpreter of the law.
-5-
:~ ... -,
.. ._ .
.._.. .
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
By the
Edgar B, Bayley, J.
James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire ~
For Plaintiffs
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro se
c/o Ruby Humphrey
2952 Gillespie Avenue
Sarasota, FL 34234
:saa
-6-
LAW OI~PICES
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
A PROFF.9910NAL CORPORATION
11 EAST HIaH STREET
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013.3016
JAAII?S U. 17.OWIiR 111P:ItiCI I h \IUIt(iliN'I'I IAI.
RO(i1:R A6 AIORCIiN'171AL r717) 2d.1~551.1 (177517x5)
JAMBS U. I+IAWIiIi,Jk PAX: (!17) 2~LbfiSRl ............
CAItOI.J. LINDSAY I•:nuil:PAllrLlawQQmdunn PLOWIiN, KIG1\IIiR
MUIt(iliN'I'I I:\I.R PLO\VP:It
(1'1X54972)
January 26, 1999
The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley ,,CC \~i 3 ~
Cumberland County Courthouse ~-l~ ~
1 Courthouse Square n~~
Carlisle, PA 17013 ~/
RE: Hall v. Humphrey
No. 1087 Harrisburg 1998
Dear Judge Bayley:
As you know, we filed a recent Motion for Modification of Custody Order in the above-
referenced matter, based upon our belief that Mr. Humphrey has turned custody of his
daughter over to his mother, who lives about an hour away from his home. I have been
doing some research in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically Rule
1701, which relates to the issue of whether an appeal divests the Court of Common Pleas
of jurisdiction. I do not believe the law in this area is particularly clear. There is some
authority suggesting that the lower court may have jurisdiction to act concerning matters
arising subsequent to the hearing which gave rise to the order appealed from.
Fortune/Forsythe v. Fortune. 252 Pa. Super. 547, 508 A.2d 1205 (1986). Nevertheless,
the issue is not clear, and a strong argument can be made that the Court of Common
Pleas would not have jurisdiction to take further action.
Rule 1701(b)(5) does state specifically that the lower court may "take any action directed
or authorized on application by the appellate court." In order to clarify the issue of
jurisdiction, we plan to file the enclosed Petition to the Superior Court, asking the Superior
Court to issue an order specifically granting the Court of Common Pleas jurisdiction to take
further action on our Petition for Modification of Custody Order.
_ The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
January 26, 1999
Page - 2 -
I will advise you of the response of the Superior Court promptly upon receipt.
Very tru-y yours,
JDF,Jr.:pas
Cc: Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth W. Hall
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Jam s D. Flower, Jr.
KENNETH W. HALL and
LISA ANN HALL,
Appellants,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Appellee.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
DOCKET NO.
1087 HARRISBURG 1998
MOTION FOR REMAND
TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
FOR FURTHER EVIDENTIARY HEARING
AND NOW come Appellants and make the following Motion:
1. Appellants had custody of the child in question, BABY GIRL
BRIANNA, born July 27, 1997, with the intention of adopting her. They were
consequently in loco parentis.
2. Defendant, WALTER L. HUMPHREY, is the natural father of the
child. The child's natural mother did not advise Defendant that she was putting
the child up for adoption, and falsely informed a court in Florida that another man
was the natural father. An order was issued terminating the parental rights of
the natural mother and the Individual incorrectly believed to be the natural father.
3. After hearing on July 10, 1998, The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
entered an Order granting legal and physical custody of the child in question to
her natural father, Defendant HUMPHREY, subject to a transition period and to
temporary physical custody for the Halls for two weeks each year.
4. The Halls filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court on July 15,
1998, which matter is now before the Court for doterm(nation.
5. Appellants' counsel has just received notice that this matter has
been listed for argument before Panei No. A07, Daily list No. 11 at 9:30 a.m., on
February 24, 1999.
6. In accordance with Judge Bayley's Order and after the transition
period mandated by Judge Bayley, physical custody of the child was turned over
to her father WALTER L. HUMPHREY. The Halis have kept in touch with
BRIANNA by telephone, attempting to call her every week or so. The telephone
number which they have been given to make these calls is 914-355-7340 which
is the home of Mr. Humphreys mother, Ruby Humphrey in Sarasota, Florida.
When the Halls call for BRIANNA, Mrs. Humphrey answers the telephone at that
number. The number for Walter Humphrey in Tampa, Florida, supplied to the
Halls' counsel is 813-632-4903.
7. in accordance with the Court's Order providing them with periods of
temporary physical custody, the Halls visited with BRIANNA in Florida from
December 7, 1998, through December 10, 1998. During that visit they were able
to confirm that BRIANNA lives with her grandmother in Sarasota, Florida, about
one hour from the home of her father, Walter Humphrey, who lives in Tampa,
Florida.
8. Based upon their telephone calls, the recent visit with BRIANNA,
and the conversations with Brianna's grandmother, the Halls believe and aver
that BRIANNA Is In the actual physical custody of her paternal grandmother,
rather than In the custody of her father.
9. In hearings before Judge Bayley, Defendant HUMPHREY dented
advising the Florida adoption agency that the child would be raised by a
grandparent, and asserted he would raise the child himself.
10. Judge Bayley's Opinion reflected an acceptance of this assurance
by WALTER L. HUMPHREY stating the following: "We are satisfied that
WALTER L. HUMPHREYgenuinely wants to raise his daughter" (Op. 3) and
"Humphrey has the genuine desire to raise his own child" (Op. 7).
11. As the child's natural father, Appellant Humphrey has a prima fac/e
right to custody as against the Halls, in spite of the fact that they were in loco
parentis. Rowles vs. Rowles, 42 Pa. 443, 668 A.2d 126 (1995). The same
presumption does not apply to the child's maternal grandmother. Albright vs.
Commonwealth ex rel. Fetters, 491 PA. 320, 421 A.2d 157 (1980).
12. The applicability or lack of applicability of a presumption in favor of
custody of the natural father is extremely important to the outcome of this case.
13. The Halls have filed a Petition for Modification of Custody Order
with the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County on January 12, 1999, a
copy of which Petition is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
14. it is unclear whether the effect of this appeal is to preclude the
lower court from addressing the Halls most recent Petition.
15, Pa,R.A.P. §1701(b)(5) states that the lower court may take "any
action directed or authorized on application by the Appellate Court."
WHEREFORE, the Appellants request that the Superior Court remand this
matter to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County for testimony and
findings of fact on the matters raised In Appellants' most recent Petition to the
Court of Common Pleas (Exhibit "A")and directing that the transcript be
transcribed and filed with the Superior Court or, in the alternative, authorizing the
lower court to enter an Order determining Appellants Petition for Modification of
Custody Order, and in either event, continuing the argument on this Appeal
scheduled for February 24, 1999.
FLOWER, MORGENT~LOWER & LINDSAY
Q
ey OO
Jam Flower, Jr.
I.D. #27742
11 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
.(717) 243-5513
VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that the statements made in the w(thin instrument are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge, Information and belief. I understand .
that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.
§4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: January , 1999
c9wp31 Vdnpiiun~hill`6rief
KENNETH W. HALL and
LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of , 1999,
upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Modification of Custody Order, a hearing is scheduled
on this matter on the day of , 1999, at
o'clock, _.m., in Court Room No. 2 of the Cumberland County Court
House, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
BY THE COURT:
J.
cc: James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Petitioners
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro Se
13853 Azalea Circle, No. 246
Tampa, Florida 33613
t:~xpf I~aJ.ry,llon'1u116rief
KENNETH W. HALL and
LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
. CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
OF CUSTODY ORDER
1. The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley entered an Order dated July 10, 1998,
granting legal and physical custody of the child in question, BABY GIRL BRIANNA, born July
27, 1997, to her father, WALTER L. HUMPHREY.
2. In accordance with the Court's Order, and after a transition period
mandated by Judge Bayley, physical custody of the child was turned over to her father,
WALTER L. HUMPHREY.
3. The Halls have kept in touch with BRIANNA by telephone, attempting to
call her every week or so. The phone number they have been given to make these calls is 941-
355-7340, which is the home of Mr. Humphreys mother, RUBY HUMPHREY, in Sarasota,
Florida. When they call for BRIANNA she is the one who answers the phone at this number.
The number for WALTER HUMPHREY in Tampa, Florida, as supplied to the Hall's counsel is
813-632-4903.
2
caerS l VJ~.plnn`Jiall'b,icf
4. In accordance with the Court's Order providing them with periods of
temporary physical custody the Halls visited with BRIANNA in Florida from December 7, 1998,
through December 10, 1998. During that visit they were able to confirm that BRIANNA lives with
her grandmother in Sarasota, Florida, about an hour from the home of her father, WALTER
HUMPHREY, who lives in Tampa, Florida.
5. Based upon their telephone calls, the recent visit with BRIANNA, and their
conversations with BRIANNA'S grandmother, the Halls believe and aver that BRIANNA is in the
actual physical custody of her paternal grandmother, rather than in the custody of her father.
6. In the hearing on termination of parental rights, Defendant HUMPHREY
dented advising the Florida adoption agency that the child would be raised by a grandparent,
and asserted that he would raise the child himself.
7. Judge Bayley's Opinion reflected an acceptance of this assurance by
WALTER L. HUMPHREY stating the following: "We are satisfied that Humphrey genuinely
wants to raise his daughter." (Op. 3) and "Humphrey has the...genuine desire to raise his own
child..." (Op. 7).
8. Although WALTER L. HUMPHREY may well see his daughter on a
frequent basis, he has turned the actual day to day physical custody of his child over to his
mother, RUBY HUMPHREY, who lives in Sarasota, Florida.
9. Defendant HUMPHREY'S actions in turning custody over to his mother
after denying his intention to do so before the Court, call into question his credibility, and this de
facto change of custody, which is clearly not contemplated by the Court's Order, constitutes a
change of circumstances, and justifies re-evaluation of custody in this case.
3
caxp7l ~adnpi ian`JulLh~ief
10. The Halls filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court on July 15, 1998,
which Appeal is presently pending before that Court.
11. The Halls also filed an Application to the Superior Court for a stay of Court
Order pending Appeal, whirh the Superior Court denied noting, however, that the denial was
without prejudice to the Halls' rights to seek enforcement of the lower Court Order pending
Appeal.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Court to schedule a hearing concerning the
issues raised in this motion.
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717)243-5513
I.D. #27742
4
c:Iw p31 ~Jnp11mPL~il`bri<f
VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that the statements made in the within instrument are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements
herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
~~
Date: I I g I Q~
t ~` F_.
UIr~~ O;
l : i~
f_~
~
, ` ,
~'I
ll. L.
~
i fir.
1~ /'i1,
.
~'~ ~ '
r
•
)
Ul
'
~S
,'
~^:_:
4.,r
l
~
.
'
[i(j
..
(:.,
~~ tl
.
l;
f~
:'~+~
L
,:, .
~, t
i
i
w rn
,y ,•.
~~1 ~~
Iur r-
Q` Y'
1 ~ f1
lI~ ur
G
,~.~
~:~ - ~ u,
U11F111Q ~•((
* N 7
.- r•
M In nr .-
.- .- rn
# .-vas
Q
z
a
.d z ,~
PG 0 .+
..(( 0
OC W ~
Oo~¢
u w p N Q
~ l7 r
~x;z~,
'~HOHZ
Sz~,¢~
C~ LL W W
a ~ ~ ,~,~
p ,, v+
~¢ a
w u
O
.~
w
M .~
i A• , e ~ ~
1
j '.` ti
i~ ~i I
a' ~
r
CO +A titi..,
'
p
~
~
'
~
_~"' ~~
~~
_E`~ ;;
m I
.=~c '
` ~ o i
=U~ '~
_ l9 a~ (C ~ . ~,
-_ ~ ~ ~ ~~
i
I~
.~
I
•~'` j'~
~. •'~~ .
~~" y~,`
• , ~~ ~~ ~,
., ,.~~~ ti.~:
'~ ~
i ~1 d
~- .
-~~ ~ y ;R•
~,••
1~~ I.1 Y
tti
'.1 ~.
• ~i
J, l
I,
~~'~",. ~
irk . •, ~F~
.. ,, °~ .v
•,
f~ 1~-
•.. ~
___
1
~, ~:'
~I ! '
f ;j;.
KENNETH W. HALL and
LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, thls
day of
1999,
upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Modification of Custody Order, a hearing is scheduled
on this matter on the
day of , 1999, at
o'clock, _.m., in Court Room No. 2 of the Cumberland County Court
House, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
BY THE COURT: '
J.
cc: James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Petitioners
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro Se
13853 Azalea Circle, No. 24B
Tampa, Florida 33613
c:~xpfl~Joptlun~h~IPbnef
KENNETH W, HALL and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
LISA ANN HALL, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs, CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
vs. NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant. ,
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
OF CUSTODY ORDER
1. The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley entered an Order dated July 10, 1998,
granting legal and physical custody of the child in question, BABY GIRL BRIANNA, born July
27, 1997, to her father, WALTER L. HUMPHREY.
2. In accordance with the Court's Order, and after a transition period
mandated by Judge Bayley, physical custody of the child was turned over to her father,
WALTER L. HUMPHREY.
3. The Halls have kept in touch with BRIANNA by telephone, attempting to
call her every week or so. The phone number they have been given to make these calls is 941-
355-7340, which is the home of Mr. Humphreys mother, RUBY HUMPHREY, in Sarasota,
Florida. When they call for BRIANNA she is the one who answers the phone at this number.
The number for WALTER HUMPHREY in Tampa, Florida, as supplied to the Hall's counsel is
813-632-4903.
c9xy! I V JopliunN~ll'hnef
4. In accordance with the Court's Order providing them with periods of
temporary physical custody the Halls visited with BRIANNA in Florida from December 7, 1998.
through December 10, 1998. During that visit they were able to confirm that BRIANNA lives with
her grandmother in Sarasota, Florida, about an hour from the home of her father, WALTER
HUMPHREY, who lives in Tampa, Florida.
5. Based upon their telephone calls, the recent visit with BRIANNA, and their
conversations with BRIANNA'S grandmother, the Halls believe and aver that BRIANNA Is in the
actual physical custody of her paternal grandmother, rather than in the custody of her father.
6. In the hearing on termination of parental rights, Defendant HUMPHREY
denied advising the Florida adoption agency that the child would be raised by a grandparent,
and asserted that he would raise the child himself.
7. Judge Bayley's Opinion reflected an acceptance of this assurance by
I
WALTER L. HUMPHREY stating the following: "We are satisfied that Humphrey genuinely
i
wants to raise his daughter." (Op. 3) and "Humphrey has the...genuine desire to raise his own ~
ch11d..." (Op. 7).
8. Although WALTER L. HUMPHREY may well see his daughter on a
frequent basis, he has turned the actual day to day physical custody of his child over to his
mother, RUBY HUMPHREY, who lives in Sarasota, Florida.
9. Defendant HUMPHREY'S actions in turning custody over to his mother
after denying his intention to do so before the Court, call into question his credibility, and this de
facto change of custody, which is clearly not contemplated by the Court's Order, constitutes a
change of circumstances, and justifies re-evaluation of custody in this case.
3
c:~epf l`adoptinmloll M1nef
10. The Halls filed a Notico of Appeal to the Superior Court on July 15, 1998,
which Appeal is presently pending before that Court.
11. The Halls also filed an Application to the Superior Court for a stay of Court
Order pending Appeal, which the Superior Court denied noting, however, that the denial was
without prejudice to the Halls' rights to seek enforcement of the lower Court Order pending
Appeal.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Court to schedule a hearing concerning the
Issues raised in this motion.
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Attorneys for Pla(ntiffs
By
11 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5513
I.D. #27742
4
c:lwf,f I~dupllun~htlPhnef
VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that the statements made (n the within Instrument 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 fals(fication to
authorit(es.
Date: 1 I ~ 19 cj
5
r
Z4'~4 f O,1/M
1F ~ r~
~
-P
1.$0,,, = U8598566
4471-600,23
~ ~ ~1.VJLED FNUU GnNLI .L E NA ~ 7 0 ~ 3
~
U r
M
~ n
~1 w
I I
a y
~~1111I
~~
~
r1Af M ~
``~ ,~
w
M w ~
~' ~ c
~ tnvm J
Mr-CO
t .- v ~o ~
~
•~ ~
vii 3
W ll
~ . ,,,
- ~ N N M
_ ~yG- ~O
~ C ~ ~
30 tT .C ~
LL `p ~Q
_O ~=0..
v1 ~' rn N
y N t0 fp
fE0 ~ W 0
=-~u.rU
N
Q
Z ,o
.-l o
~ O N1
~ .~+
O
3~w~
Ooa?
,v',iW~NZ
LLriax>
o¢¢=N
~ho~z
~n Z
J ~ W W b
~ a
3 V
0
W
'. ~
i
1
•
6~
:
,.
~ '
" j°
T
7 ~
d
~0 T
.., •
k
ti ~
• ~
a~ 1
h , ~~
' %•
i
i F
i `
I ~ • 1~
'.
' ~
~
t. •~
i~
L }
'' ~
I ~
~' •
i ~,
,q,~ ,~.
*
'~
,.
.,/
<.
~~,i w~~'
>r
i 1
'{~ ' .
h
~ ' '~s
;
~
~~
~
~; s +
r ~ ~.a :
~
~,. ~
s..
/ ~~
i
•y
' ~ ~
.
:r
__ . _ ,,.;
_ -
-- - _ y ._....__..~._.:~_:::_:
,,
KENNETH W. HALL and
LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this
day of
day of
upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Modification of Custody Order, a hearing Is scheduled
on this matter on the
1000,
1999, at
o'clock, _.m., in Court Room No. 2 of the Cumberland County Court
House, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
BY THE COURT:
J,
cc: James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Petitioners
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro Se
13853 Azalea Circle, No. 24B
Tampa, Florida 33613
cOwpS I~.h,piiumhill'hne f
KENNETH W. HALL and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
LISA ANN HALL, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs, CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
vs. NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
OF CUSTODY ORDER
1. The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley entered an Order dated July 10, 1998,
granting legal and physical custody of the child in question, BABY GIRL BRIANNA, born July
27, 1997, to her father, WALTER L. HUMPHREY.
2. In accordance with the Court's Order, and aker a transition period '
i
mandated by Judge Bayley, physical custody of the child was turned over to her father,
WALTER L. HUMPHREY.
3. The Halls have kept in touch with BRIANNA by telephone, attempting to
call her every week or so. The phone number they have been given to make these calls is 941-
355-7340, which is the home of Mr. Humphreys mother, RUBY HUMPHREY, in Sarasota,
Florida. When they call for BRIANNA she is the one who answers the phone at this number.
The number for WALTER HUMPHREY in Tampa, Florida, as supplied to the Hall's counsel is
813-632-4903.
c:\wy31 W Ioptlon~AalMnef
4. In accordance with the Court's Order providing them with parlods of
temporary physical custody the Halls visited with BRIANNA in Florida from Docombor 7, 11)08,
through December 10, 1998. During that visit they were able to confirm that BRIANNA Iivos with
her grandmother in Sarasota, Florida, about an hour from the home of hor father, WALTER
HUMPHREY, who lives in Tampa, Florida.
5. Based upon their telephone calls, the recent visit with BRIANNA, and their
conversations with BRIANNA'S grandmother, the Halls believe and aver that BRIANNA Is In the
actual physical custody of her paternal grandmother, rather than in the custody other father.
6. In the hearing on termination of parental rights, Defendant HUMPHREY
denied advising the Florida adoption agency that the child would be raised by a grandparent,
and asserted that he would raise the child himself.
7. Judge Bayley's Opinion reflected an acceptance of this assurance by
WALTER L. HUMPHREY stating the following: "We are satisfied that Humphrey genuinely
wants to raise his daughter." (Op. 3) and "Humphrey has the...genulne desire to raise h/s own
child..." (Op. 7).
8. Although WALTER L. HUMPHREY may well seo his daughter on a
frequent basis, he has turned the actual day to day physical custody of his child over to his
mother, RUBY HUMPHREY, who lives in Sarasota, Florida.
9. Defendant HUMPHREY'S actions in turning custody over to his mother
after denying his intention to do so before the Court, call into question his credibility, and this de
facto change of custody, which is clearly not contemplated by the Court's Order, constitutes a
change of circumstances, and justifies re-evaluation of custody in this case.
3
~:~Np31 uJoptianVullWrief
10. The Halls filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court on July 15, 1998,
which Appeal is presently pending before that Court.
11. The Halis also filed an Application to the Superior Court for a stay of Court
Order pending Appeal, which the Superior Court denied noting, however, that the denial was
without prejudice to the Halls' rights to seek enforcement of the lower Court Order pending
Appeai.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Court to schedule a hearing concerning the
issues raised in this motion.
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
V GIIIVJ V• •V„ V .,
11 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717)243-5513
I.D. #27742
4
t?ypf IYJuplian'hilPhdef
VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that the statements made in the within instrument 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 78 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
^'-~-a~ ~. ~~11~.
date: 1 ~ 9 ~ q~
t
I
1
t
s
.. ._~.
676 A.2d 753, 450 Pe,Supcr. 247, Mollattdcr v, Cldudo, (Po.Supcr, 1996)
"733 G75 A.2d 753
4501'a.Super. 247
David E. MOLLANDER and Stacey J. Mollander,
Appellantr,
v.
Reg(na M. CHIODO.
David E. MOLLANDER and Stacey J. Mollander
v.
Regfna M. CHIODO, Appellant.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Submitted Jan. 10, 1996.
Filed May 8, 1996.
Prospective adoptive parwts chaHwged award of
primary custody of child to natural mother by the Court
of Common Pleas of McKean County, Civil Division,
No. 799 C.D. of 1993, Cleland, J. The Superior Court,
Nos. 00917 and 01015 Pittsburgh, 1995, Tartrilia, J.,
held that: (1) prospective parents had standing to
chellwge custody determination, and (2) award of
custody to natural mother was not manifestly
unreasonable.
Affumed.
1. PARENT AND CIJII.D X2(7)
285 -»-
285k2 Custody and ConVOI of Child
286k2(4) Proceedings to Determine Right
285k2(7) Poriies;plending.
[See hendnote text below]
1. PARENT AND CI-IQ.D N~15
285 »»
285k15 Persons in low parentis.
Pa.Super. 1996.
Prospective adoptive parents achieved loco-parentis
status, had stsndina t~ chnlleng~the-auste child,
andand meuttained their in low parentis" status after
mother revoked her w n to a option w sere natural
mother had little or no wntact with child for eight
months during •,vhich time prospective parents were
child's primary caretakers and where, for hvo years
efler that, they wntinued to be primary coretnkers with
mother exercising visitation and partial physical
custody of child.
2. PARENT AND CHII.D C°~2(12)
285 ----
285k2 Custody and Control of Child
Paga 1
2HSk2(~t) I'nx:~tdings to Delcrnilnu Itighl
2HSk2(12) Contests tvilh thirst prnwns,
sulliciwcy of evidence.
I'n.Supcr. 1996.
Award of custody to natural mulhcr was not
manifestly unrcasonuble tvhere wort wn.+ideral
psychological Icstimany, mother's employment,
mother's maturity, anJ her love for child, place child
would live, mother's parrnting skills, and available
support services.
•754 Lisa C. Coppolo, St. Marys, for Mollander.
Anthony V. Clarke, Olaan, NY, for Chiodo.
[450 Pa.Super. 248] Hefore TAMILiA, FORD
ELLIOTT end EAKIN, JJ.
TAMILIA, Judge:
David E. and Stacey J. Mollander, prospective
adoptive parents, appeal from the April 19, 1995
Order awarding primary legal and physical custody of
child M.C., bom April 4, 1992, to appcllce/mother,
end partial physical custody to appellants, as the parties
may agree. Recently, this Court, in Vick( N. v.
Joaephlne N., 437 Pa.Super. 166, 649 A.2d 709
(1994), set forth the appropriate standards when
reviewing a custody dispute involving a parent end
third party.
The cases are legion in this Commonwealth that the
paramount wncem in issues of child custody is the
best interest of the child, based on all factors which
legitimately have an effect ort the child's physical,
intepectual, moral and spiritual well-being.
McMillen v. McMillen, 529 Pa. 198, 602 A.2d 845
(1992); Sawko v. Smvko, 425 Pa.Super. 450, 625
A.2d 692 (1993).
On appeal, our swpe of review is broad in that we
ore not bound by deductions and inferatces drawn
by the trial wort from the facts found, nor are we
required to accept findings which are wholly
without support in the rewrd. On the other hand,
our brand swpe of review does not authorize us to
nullify the fectfinding function of [450 Pa.Super.
249[ the trial wort in order to substitute our
judgment for that of the trio) wort. Rather, we are
bound by findings supported in the record, and may
reject wnclusions drawn by the trial wort only if
they involve an eror of low, or ere unreasonable in
light of the sustainoble findings of the trial wort.
See Karts v. KaNs, 518 Pa. 601, 608, 544 A.2d
Copyright (c) West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
G76 A.2d 753, 450 PaSUpcr. 247, Hollander v. Chiodu, (1'a.Super. 199G) Prgo 2
1328, 1732 (1988); Lombnrrln v. /.ombnrrlo, 515 Albright v. Comruonwealrh ex rel. Fetters, 491 Po.
Pa. 139, 147.48, 527 A.2d 525, 529 (1987); 320,328.329,421 A.2d 157, IGl (1980).
Commonwealth cx rel. Itobinson v, Ilubinsrm, 505
Pa. 226, 23G-37, 478 A.2d 800, 805.OG (1984). Finally, Otis Court spoke again, rnumcrating the
Zummo x Zummo, 394 1'a.Supcr. 30, 53.55, 574 wnsidwotions which weigh against the elevation of
A.2d 1130, 1142 (1990). panmthotxl above all oOtcr factors in custaly
dclcrtninations.
In determining the appropriate standard lily
adjttdicetion of custody disputes between a ponml or
parents and o third party, our Supnnrtc Court adapted
the ctvcfully fashioned principles sal forth by this
Court in Jn re Custody ojHernandez, 249 Pa.Supcr.
274, 376 A.2d 648 (1977). Ellerbe v. Hooky, 490
Pe. 363, 416 A.2d 512 (1980).
ht such cases,
The parties do not start out evrn; the parents have
e 'prima facie right to custody,' which will be
forfeited only if'wnvincing reasons' appear that the
child's best interest will be served by an award to
the third party. Thus, even before the proceedings
start, the evidrntiory scale is Opped, and tipped
hard, to the parents' side. What the judge must do,
Oterefore, is fast, hear all evidrnce relevant to the
child's best interest, and then, decide whether the
evidwce on behalf of the third party is weighty
enough to bring the scale up to even, and down on
the third party's side. [Hernmtdez ] nt 286, 376
A.2d at 654 (fwtnote omitted).
First, olOtouglt parenthorxl is o highly important
factor, it sltuuld not be awardal dclerminotivc
weight in our dc~;ision. Other foctors, like the value
of stability, ors also to be accorded great weight.
Indrxxl, in Ellerbe itself the Suprcmc Court allirnicd
the Iris) wart's grant of cuslaly to grandparrnls
over n parrnt of the subject child for the very reason
that the child hod developed o stsblc relationship
with the grandparents and hsd s stsblc rnvironmrnt
with them. The same basic situation was presrnted
in Albright, and once again the grandparents were
givrn custody. Sewnd, the Hernandez standard is
first and foremost an allacedon of the burdrn of
proof to the third ponies, but it does not impose on
them the burden of showing that the parent is unlit
Thus, Ote issue centers on the child, and not on the
parent.
Snarski v. Krlrtcek, 372 Pn.Super. 58, 76-78, 538
A.2d 1348, 1358 (1988).
Vick! N., supra of 168-170, 649 A.2d at 710-711.
(FNl)
We agree that this approach is appropriate.
Clearly these principles do not preclude an sword of
custody to the non-parent. Rather they simply
instruct the hearing judge that the non-parent bears
the burden of production and the burden of
persuasion and that the non-parent's btudrn is
heavy.
/d. et 367-369, 416 A.2d at 514. The Supreme
Court awn thereafter reiterated the standard in such
cases was
'755 [450 Pa.Super. 250] not to be wnsuued as
precluding a custody award to anon-parent, absent
a demonstration of the parent's dereliction. We
again emphasize that the standard seeks only to
stress the importance of parenthood as a factor in
determining the best interests of the child.
However, other factors which have significant
impact on the well-being of the child can justify o
fmding in favor of the non-parent, even though the
parrnt has not barn shown to have been until.
Prior to addressing the custody dispute, we shall first
review mother's cross-appeal claiming appellants
lacked standing[450 Pa.Super. 251] to scek custody.
According to the record, in July of 1992, mother, thrn
17 and unmartied, placed her throe-month old daughter
with appellants. Appellants obtained physical custody
of M.C. on July 14, 1992 and filed a report of intention
to adopt on July 29, 1992. On March 23, 1993,
appellants filed a petition for adoption, to which was
attached mothers wnsrnt to adoption dated July 28,
1992. At this point, mother returned to Florida, her
home state. Subsequently, mother retumal to
Pennsylvania and filed a motion to revoke her wnsrnt,
which the trial wort granted by Order of May 24,
1993. On June 11, 1993, mother filed a petition for a
hearing to dismiss appellants' adoption proceedings
and to regain custody of M.C. Oa July 19, 1993,
appellants filed the present custody wmplaint in which
they claimed to stand "in low parentis" to M.C.
Mother claims, first, she lacked the capacity for a
proper assignment of custody because she was a minor,
Copyright (c) West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
675 A.2d 753, 450 Pa.Supcr. 247, Mollwtdcr v. Chicxlo, (1'a.Super, 199G)
appellants and their cxtcndal family had cxerta! undue
inilurnce and pressure on her to sign the wnsrrol, and
she was in a stale of extreme emotional distress due to
the recent death of her father. As such, appellants
attained "in loco pnrrnds" status under improper
circumstances and thus do not have standing to pursue
the matter. Mother also claims, in "756 the
alternative, that appellants only obtained "in loco
parrnds" status to the [450 Pa.Super. 252J extent Iltcy
could pursue involuntary termination of parental rights
during the period whrn the adoption was pending.
Once the wnsrnt to said adoption properly was
withdrawn, this status rndal.
[1] Afler our thorough review of the record, we fmd
appellants achieved loco parentis statue and have
standing to challenge the custody of M.C.
The phresa "in low parentis" refers to a person who
puts himself in the situation of assuming the
obligations incident to the parental relationship
without going dtrough the formality of a legal
adoption. The status of "in low parentis" embodies
two ideas: first, the assumption of a parrntnl status,
and seamd, the discharge of parrntal dudes.
Cardamone x EGho„Q; 442 Pe.Super. 263, 659 A.2d
575 (1995).
Initially, we find no merit to mother's contrntion she
was coerced into signing the adoption agrecmrnt and
she was under extreme emotions) distress due to the
deatir of her father, therefore appellants achieved in
low parentis status as the result of improper
circumstances. Rather, the trial wort, responding to
Otese alleged improper circumstances, noted that "there
has been a great deal of testimony under the
circumstances of which [M.C.] wns placed with rho
Mollanders." (N.T., 4/12/95, pp. 271-272.) The court
centinued, "I'm not persuaded and I do not think that
circumstances were such that there was a wnspiracy or
that anyone acted in bad faith or attempted to steal or
appropriate this child. It appears to me that the parties,
everyone involved, was acting with good intrndon, I
think motivated by some legitimate cencem for [M.C.]
given the circumstances that Regina was in at the
time." Id. As for mother's status as o minor, it is an
unfortunate truth that many adoption•rclated cases
entail n greet deal of emotional distress for the
biological mother md, many times, the biological
parent is a minor. This does not, however, negate the
actions of the ponies tvho assume parental
responsibilities and obligations. 1 fare, both parties
sgrce mother had little or no wntact with the child
Prrga ~
from July of 1992 until she rctumal to Pcnnsylvanio in
March of 1993 during (450 Pa.Supcr. 253] which time
appellants tvcrc the primary caretakers of M.C.
Furthcnnore, from March, 1993 until tha prcsrent On1cr
was rntcral on April 19, 1995, appcllanLV continual to
be Utc primary caretakers of M.C, with mother
exercising wntinucd visitation and partial physical
custody of M.C. Accordingly, we find the trial court did
not err in fmding appellants achieved in loco perrntis
status.
Next, we fmd appellmts maintained "in loco parentis"
status after mother revoked her wnsrnt to adoption end
thus have standing to seek custody, and in support of
this decision rely on our decision in In Re: Baby Boy
S., 420 Pe.Supcr. 37, 615 A.2d 1355 (1991), aff'd Per
Curiam, 540 Ps. 302, 657 A.2d 484 (1995). As in the
case here, the mother in Baby Boy 3 wav a ternagc gel
who gave birth to a child out of wedlock, the
rclatienship which produced the child had been
superficial and of short duration, and the mother's
family, which the wort tamed dysfunctional, was
unable to otter her assistance. Alter giving birth, the
mother moved in with o woman who had aprned her
home as o shelter for abused and neglected children
and teenage unwed mothers, and shortly thereafter gave
custody of her child to prospective adoptive parents,
alter having executed an rntrustmrnt agreemrnt
whereby the prospective adoptive parents agreed to
carom the child if the mother changed her mind. Alter
the prospective adoptive parrnts film s notice of
intention to adopt, the mother revoked her wnsrnt and
demanded the rctum of the child. The prospective
adoptive parents then filed a Complaint for Custody,
and petitioned for termination of the mother's parrntal
rights.
The biological mother claimed that the prospective
adoptive parents lacked standing to proceed with n
tcmtination action on the basis that no blood
relationship existed betwern rho third panics and the
child, they were never granted custody by rho wort,
and the mother revoked the rntrustmrnt agreement. In
rejwling the mother's argument, this Court stored:
Appellant's revocation of the rnWstmrnt agreement,
despite the fact that i[ ceuld by •757 statute occur at
any time prior to rntry of a final decree of adoption,
nevertheless operated [450 1'a.Super. 254] as an
automatic eraser of standing no more than does any
o0trr revocation of wnsrnt to placement of the child
out of the natural parent's wntrol. For example, a
tcmpornry placerttrnt of a child in faster care is not
automatically endaf by the natural pnrenl's attempt to
Copyright (c) Wcst Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
G75 A.2d 753, 450 Pa.Supcr. 247, Mollandw v. Chiorlo, (I'u.Supur. 199G)
retrieve the child, nor dws the attempt deprive the
agency to which the child was surrcndercJ of the
standing to contest the retrieval.
Appellant would have us txlicvc time upon
revwation of consrnt by the natural motitcr, the
adoptive parents arc faced with no option other than
rctuming the child, and that witit loss of physical
custody standing is also wmpromisal. However, this
court has wncludal, albeit in a dil]'crenl wntext, that
evrn removal of n child from the home of prospective
adoptive parents does not preclude their protesting
such removal, or from prosecuting a previously films
petition to adopt. Standing to seek termination of
parental rights has also been found in prospective
adoptive parents who revived custody from an
agrncy, and where the custodians of the child
received him from relatives of the mother, with no
egrncy acting as intcrtnediary. We have also ruled, in
a case having certain features in wmmon with this
one, that where the natural mother has revoked her
relinquishment of parental rights shortly after the
child has been revived by the adoptive parents, they
can return the child, or, "if they ha[ve] any basis for
doing so, [can] file[ ] a petition under the Adoption
Act asking the wort to terninate [the mothers]
parental rights involuntarily."
/d. at 43, 615 A.2d at 1357-1358 (citations omitted)
(footnote omitted).
Furthermore, we find mother's reliance upon T.J.B. v.
E.C., 438 Pn.Super. 529, 652 A.2d 936 (1995),
misplaced as her revocation of the wnsrnt for adoption
in no way altered appellants' in low parentis status,
rather, it merely terminated the adoption proceeding.
The trial wart wrrectiy distinguished T../.B. from the
present case as the prospcetive adoptive parents in
T.J.B. did not file o complaint in custody but rather
procceded under the Adoption Acl and its statutory
rcquiremrnls. Finding appellants have standing to
pursue [450 Pa.Super. 255] custody, we shall now rum
to their centrndon the trial wart's award of primary
physical and legal custody to appellce tvas manifestly
unreasonable. Spwifically, oppcllants wntend the trial
judge placed undue weight on the status of appellce as
a parrn4 while ignoring the best interests of the child.
The trial wort, in awarding custody to appellw,
wnsidcred the following:
I have wnsiderable wnvms about Regina. I don't
mean to be over familiar, Miss Chiodo. to temrs of
psychological testimony from Dennis Vaughn and of
Page 4
titc report of Doctor Addis indicating that the
relationship bettvcen Miss Chiodo and [M.C.] may be
one of sisters, sister [rather] than parent to daughter.
1 have soma wncems about the wnvms Doctor
Addis expresses about the validity of the
psychological profiles I titink Mr. Vaughn also
indicates that. 1 have some wncem9 about your
maturity and the fact that you arc not steadily
employed and on a carter path. Having said that, on
the plus side 1 Think there's also been abundant
evidrnce that you arc motivatal by cart and concern
for [M.C.] and your grnuine love for her. Yau have
provid~xi apparently a plow for her to live which is
clean and sofa You hove andertakrn e0'orls to
educate yourself about parenting skills and the
testimony of Miss Strayer that she has observed you, I
believe ern times, in the apartment and other times at
the Family Center and parenting appears to be
appropriate and [M.C.] appears to be safe end
wmfortable in your care. In addition, although there
are wnvms that I have expressed about your ability,
it also appears that support servivs arc in platy to
assist you in your care of [M.C.] Weighing all of this
it is my opinion that the law of Pennsylvania requires
that primary physical custody by awarded to Regina
Chiodo.
(N.T. at 273-274.)
[2] After our review of the transcripts and analysis set
forth by the trial wort, we fmd the wort carefully
balanvd all of the relevant factors and weighed the
evidrnv •758. presented pursuant to the standards set
forth in Vlckl N., supm. Accordingly[450 Pa.Super.
256] , we do not fmd the trial wart's award of custody
manifestly unreasonable.
Order a0hmed.
FNI. In Rowley x Rawles, 542 Pa. 443, 668 A.2d 126
(1995), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently
censidrved the standard to be applied in deciding a
custody dispute between parrnts and third parties.
While the Court unanimously reversed tite custody
detemtinadon, the Court was divided three•three on
rewnsideration of the presumption of parents' prima
facie right to custody. Justin Flaherty, joined by
Justices Nix and Castile, would have "abandon[ed]
titc presumption that a parent has a prima facie right
to custody as against third parties," and instead
"mandal[ul] that custody be determined by a
preponderance of evidrnce, welghing parenthood as
a strong factor for consldemrforr." /d. al 444, 668
A.2d at 128 (emphasis in original).
Copyright (c) West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
G75 A.2d 753, 4501'a,Supcr. 247, Mollundcr v. Clticxlo, (1'a.Sup~v. 1996) PNaa S
The Concurring Opinion by Justin: Mont~mturo,
however, fount "no particular advantage in
dispensing with Use 'presumption' "and found "no
reason to otter a process which already takes into
props account both the ideal and the reality of
parrntal behavior." /d of 452, ti68 A.2J at 130-131.
While we arc not bound to follow O~c plurality
decision in Rowlea, we point out that changing the
applicable atundunl in llds mnltcr would not change
the result.
We arc also wgniranl of this Court's dn:ision in
CnmpbeN a Campbell, 446 Pa,Supcr, 533, G72 A.2d
835 (199G), whcn:in the possiblo tn~nd toward the
climinmion of a natural parent's presumptive right to
custody was rccagnizcd.
Copyright (c) West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt works
713 A.2d G39, Silfics v. Webster, (I'a.Supcr. 1998)
"G39 713 A.2d G39
Terence A. 91LFIES rnd 3hrron A. Silllcr,
Appcllrnb,
v.
3uzrnn WEBSTER, Appellee ('M~o Crier).
Superior Couri of Pcnnsylvsnia.
Argued Oct. 23, 1997. ~/yLJ
FilcdJunc 1, 1998. ~/r}-~"~(.~.C
Prospective adoptive parents brought action sacking
custody and visitation with child. The Court of
Common Plcss, Lehigh County, Civil Division, No.
96-FC-413 anti 96-FC-TOGO, Platt, J., dismissed
complaints, end appeal was taken. The Superior
Court, Nos. 3200 and 4358 Philadelphia 1996,
Cerwne, President Judge Emeritus, held that
prospective adoptive parents had standing to bring
custody end visitation actions.
Reversed end remanded.
McEwrn, Presidrnl Judge, dissrntcd.
I. INFANTS X19.3(7)
211 ---_
211II Custody and Protection
21 Ik19 Proceedings Affecting Custody
211k19.3 Detemrination ofRight to Custody
211k19.3(7) Review of discretion and fact
questions.
Pe.Super. 1998.
When reviewing trial wart's order in child custody
matter, appellate wort is not bound by deductions or
inferences made by Wal wort from its fmdings of fact,
nor must appellate wort accept fmding that has no
wmpetrnt evidence to support it; however, this does
not vest in the appellate wort the duty or privilege of
making its own determination.
2. INFANTS X19.3(7)
211 _.._
21 I II Custody sad Protection
211k19 Proceedings Affecting Custody
2llk19.3 DetcrminafionofRighttoCustody
211k19.3(7) Review of discretion and fact
questions.
Pa.Super. 1998.
When reviewing trial wart's order in child custody
matter, appellate wort is empowered to dctcnnine
whether trial wart's inwntrovertible factual findings
support its factual wnclusions; however, appellate
wort may not interfere with (hose wnclusians unless
Prge t
lhcy arc unreavunublc in view of trial wart's findings
and, tiros, rcprescnl show: of Jiscrclion.
3, AC'T'ION x'13
13 ----
131 Grounds and Conditions Prcaxlrnt
13k 13 Person.4 CIIIIIll41 l0 9UC.
Pu.Supcr. 1998.
In essence, the question of standing is whether litigant
is rntilkd to hove wort dwidc merits of dispute or of
particular issues.
4. PARENT AND CFIILD C"~2(5)
285 ----
285k2 Custody enJ Control of Child
285k2(4) Procxdings to Dctcnnine Right
285k2(5) Jurisdiction; vrnuc.
Pa.Supcr. 1998.
In dispute involving custody of minor child, persons
other than child's purrnls arc wnsidcrcd third putties,
and third panics will not be found to have stmding
unless third panics have prima facia right to custody.
5. PARENT AND CHILD G"~ I S
285 ----
285k15 Persons in low parentis.
Pa.Supcr. 1998.
Third party will not be found to have stmding in child
custody case, unless third party has prima facie right to
ctrstody, anti "prima facie right to custody" may arise by
wnducl of third party, whrn third party has stood in
low parrntis to the child for whom he is sceking
custody.
See publication Words and Phrasal for other judicial
wnsWctions sad defmilions.
G. PARENT AND CHILD f^r 15
285 ----
285k15 Persons in low porrntis.
Pn.Sup~v. 1998.
Grnndmodtcr's decision to revoke her wnsrnt to
grandchild's adoption and to cease grandchild's
visitation with his prospective adaptive parents did not
automatically deprive prospective adoptive parents of
standing to wntest custody of grandchild.
7. PARENT AND CHILD X15
285 ----
285k15 Persons in low parentis.
Pa.Supcr. 1998.
Prospective adoptive parents had standing to bring
custody and visitation action; prospective adoptive
parents had reasonable e;rpectation that they would be
Copyright (c) West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt, works
713 A.2d G39, Silfics v, Wcbstcr, (Pr.Supcr. 1998)
Utc 8riure permanent custalians of child, and this gave
them definite and substantial interest in fblurc welfare
of child, Doti once visitations and overnight stays of
child began, prospcetivc odoplivc parents conductcJ
Ihcrosdves in manner towanls child wnsistent wiUr
that of natwal parents to their child.
•640 John J. Kcllcr, Allentown, for appellants.
John Evanoff, Allcntotvn, for appellce.
Hefore McEWEN, President ludgc, and CERCONE,
President Judge Emeritus, and HECK, J.
CERCONE, President Judge Emeritus:
This is a consolidated appeal from two scparstcly
entered orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh
County that dismissed the oppellants' two child custody
wmplaints. We reverse and remand for further
proccedings in accordance with Uris opinion.
Tho subject of the two separate child custody actions,
which form the basis for this consolidated appeal, is
G.W., who was bom on July 20, 1991. The oppellce
(defendant in both child custody actions in the trial
court), Suznmt Webster, is the adoptive mothrx of
O.W's biological mother, N.T. 7/19/96 at 20. In April
of 1994, G.W. was living with Ms. Webster, who was
taking cure of him. Id. at 17-18. Apparently, the
biological mother of G.W, was not participating
whatsoever in the raising of G.W., and proceedings to
terminate her parental rights had already been
wmmenced at Ihnt time by Ms. Webster. (FN I) Id.
ht the immediately preceding months, the appellants
(plaintiffs in both child custody actions in the trial
court), Mr. and Mrs. Sillies, were in the process of
actively searching for a child to adopt. Id. at 16.
Consequently, Mr, and Mrs. Sillies had made inquiries
of adoption agencies and also had made their search
known to a private attomry. Id. Mrs. Sillies was
aware that this particular attomry had adopted n child
privately, so she told the attomry to contact her ff the
attomry over became aware of a child available for
adoption. !d.
Tn eorly April of 1994, the nttomry wnlacted Mrs.
Sillies and informed her that there was a child available
for adoption, and if Mrs. Silfics was interested, the
attomry would set up a meeting. Id. of 17. The child
in gtlesUon was G.W, os, apparently, Ms. Webster had
contacted this same attorney regarding options for the
care of G.W. Id. at 69. Mrs. Silfics agreed to the
Prge 2
mceting, which took place at Ms. Webstcr's houso on
April 7, 1994. Id, at 17, 7U. h wus al Umt mceting
Urat Utc Mr. anti Mrs. Silfics first met G.W.
After Utc first mceting, G. W, began to visit of tho Mr.
and Mrs. Silfics' house, regularly two to low times a
week. Id. at 21. This continual throughout 1994 and
began, in Oclob~r of Urc year, to include ovemight
stays. /d. In January of 1995 the Mr, Doti Mrs. Silfics
spceially prepared n room for G.W. in their home for
the child to stay during visitations. Id. at 23-24.
Thereafter, from Jonuary of 1995 to August of 1995
visitations and ovemight stays took place on a regular
basis, and G. W, stayed, on average, five days a wcek
with Mr. and Mrs. Silfics. Id. at 25, 73-74.
•641 Mr. and Mrs. Sillies filed a Report of ]mention
to Adopt G. W, with the Court of Common Pleas of
Lehigh County in June of 1995. (FN2) Trial Court
Opinion filed 2/6/97 at 2. ShoNy, thereafter, Ms.
Webster sent o letter to the appellant's ettomry, along
with G.W.'s birth and adoption certificates, stating that,
while she was "ogrcenble to the adoption" she wished
to maintain rights as G.W.'s grandmoUrer, which
included umimited phone wntact and weekly visitation.
N.T. 7/19/96 et 33, Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, dated 7/19/96,
at I. The letter went on to say, "To have the best
chance in life [the child) needs to have young parents
and cspceislly a father figure, and I know that the
Sues will be goad parents for him." Id. After a
change of attomrys, Mr, sad Mrs. Sues' new attomry
Prepared o "Grandparents' Visitation Agreement" and
forwarded it to Ms. Webster, but this agreement was
never signed by Ms. Webster. Trial Court Opinion
filed 2/6/97 at 2.
From August of 1995 until March 25, 1996, the
visitations of G.W. with Mr, and Mrs, Sillies became
irregular. N.T. 7/19/96 at 36, 39. Tho length of G.W s
stays with Mr, and Mrs. Sillies varied during this time
period firm as few as throe consecutive days to as long
as seven consecutive days. There was not, however,
the steady five days s week routine, which had existed
prior to August of 1995. Id. al 36. Nevertheless,
contact between G.W, and Mr. anti Mrs. Sillies was
maintained until March 25, 1996. That was the lest
date G.W. ever stayed of Mr. and Mrs. Sillies' home.
Id.
Mr. and Mrs. Sillies wmmenced a custody action on
March 28, 1996. (FN3) Trial Court Opinion dated 2/
6/97 at 2. Ms. Webster filed Preliminary Objections to
the Custody Complaint an April 24, 1996 based upon
Mr. and Mrs. Silfics' alleged lack of standing. Id. et
Copyright (c) Wcst Group 1998 No claim to original U,S. Govt. works
713 A.2J 639, Silfics v, Wcbstcr, (Pu.Supcr. 1998)
39. Meanwhile, un Muy 20, 1916 the piutics mutually
agreed that Mr. anJ Mrs. Sillies could sec O.W. ones o
week with a psychologist carving in the role of n
mcdistor. !d, I lowcvcr, Mr. unJ Mrs. Silfics only smv
O.W, once under Wis agatinncnt and Ural tvos Utc vary
same day the agrccntcnl teas executed, May 20, 19)6.
/d. st 41-42. Thcrcnftcr, Ms. Wcbstcr did not allow
further visitation bceousc of tltc pending custody
proceeding. Trial Cauri Opinion dated 2/6/97 at 2.
On July 19, 1996, the trial wort held o hearing
restricted to the issue of Mr, and Mrs. Sillies' standing
to maintain a custody action. Mr. and Mrs. Silfics, Ms.
Webster and Michelle Hummel, achild-care worker of
O.W.'s day-care center testified of the hearing. N.T. 7/
19/96 at 2. Attar the hesring, the vial wort entered an
order an August 5, 1996 sustaining Ms. Webster's
Preliminary Objections and dismissing the custody
action. Mr. and Mrs. Sillies dtrn filed a Notice of
Appeal to our Court an SeptcKnber 4, 1996 and
simultanwusly filed o Motion to Reconsider with the
trial wort. We do not discern firm the record that the
trial wort twk any action on the Motion to Rewnsider.
(FN4)
During this time period, on August 12, 1996, Mr. and
Mrs. Sillies filed another wmplaint against Ms.
Webster seeking partial physical custody and/or
visitation of O.W. Complaint filed 8/12/96 at 1. (FNS)
Ms. Webster fded Preliminary Objections to this
wmplaint, as well, an September 5, 1996. On
November 4, 1996, after hearing, the uinl wort signed
an order granting this sal of •642 preliminary
objections and dismissing this wmplaint also. This
order was entered on the docket on November 8, 1996.
On Dwentber 4, 1996 Mr. and Mrs. Sillies filed
another Notice of Appesl to our Court and another
Motion to Rewnsider with the trial wort. We see from
the record that the trial wort twk no action on this
maGon, either. On Febnuuy 27, 1997, our Court, sua
sponte wnsolidated both apprnls and designated the
wnsolidated appeal No. 4358 PHL 1996, tvhich is the
subject of this opinion
In this wnsolidated appeal, the appellants presrnt
two issues for wnsidemtion by our wort:
I. DID APPELLANTS PROVIDE ADEQUATE
EVIDENCE OF THEIR SINCERE,
SUBSTANTIAL, AND SUSTAINED INTEREST
IN [G.W.] TO SATISFY THE REQUQ2EMENTS
FOR STANDING UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
WHERE THE CHII.D RESIDED WITH
APPELLANTS FOR EXTENDED PERIODS,
Page 3
I+OItMI:D A 130ND WI'I'II AI'I'L'LI.AN1'S AND
VIIiWGD '1'IiEM AS FIIS PARL'NTS, AND
WIiERIi Al'PELLAN'I'S 1'ARTICII'ATED
SIONIFICAN'I'LY IN THE CIi1LDS EDUCATION,
OROWTII AND DEVI:LOI'MENT7
II. DID APPELLANTS ESTADLISH THEIR IN
LOCO PARENTIS STATUS WITH (O.W.J SO AS
TO ALLOW THEM TO RETAIN THE[R
STANDING TO BRING A CUSTODY AND/OR
VISITATION ACTION AGAINST THE
ADOPTIVE MOTHER EVEN AFTER THE
ADOPTIVE MOTHER REVOKED HER
CONSENT TO THE ADOPTION OF [O.W.] BY
APPELLANTS?
Appellant's Brief al 4. Sines both of these issues are
inlerdeprndrnt, we shall address them simultaneously.
[1] [2] We begin by noting our standard of review.
When reviewing an order of the trial wort in a custody
molter:
[T]he appellate wort is not bound by the deductions
or inferences made by the trial wort liom its fmdings
of fact, nor must the reviewing wort accept n finding
that has no wmpetrnt evidrnce to support it.
However, this ... does not vest in the reviewing wort
the duty ar privilege of making its own determination.
Thus an appellate wort is empowered to determine
whether the trial wart's inwntrovertible factual
fmdings support its factual wnclusions, but it may not
interfere with those wnclusions unless they are
unreasonable in view of the trial wart's fmdings; and
thus represent o[n] ... abuse of discretion
Moore a Aloore, 535 Po. 18, 28, 634 A.2d 163, 168
(1993) (quoting McMillen v. Mc1b11/ten, 529 Pa. 198,
202, 602 A.2d 845, 847 (1992).) (FN6) J.A.4 v.
E.P.H. 453 Pa.Super. 78, 682 A.2d 1314, 1318 (1996)
Thus, the ultimate test is "whether the trial wart's
conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the evidrnce
of record." Moore, 535 Pa, at 28, n. 4, 634 A.2d et
168, n. 4. Based on our review of the rewrd and the
applicoblc law, we are wnstroined to hold that the trial
wart's lmding of Mr, sad Mrs. Silfics' lack of standing
to maintain an action for custody or visitation was
unreasonable.
[3] "In essrnce the question of standing is whether the
litigant is entitled to have the wort decide the merits of
the dispute or of particular issues." IVanh v. Seldln,
422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2205, 45 L.Ed2d
343, 354 (1975). As our Court has said:
Copyright (c) West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
713 A.2d G39, Silfica v. Webster, (Pn.Super. 1998)
'lltc qucxtion of xtunding is nwlcd ht the notion Utul
fur a party to maintain n challenge to sn o0iciul onlcr
or action, he must bu nggricv~Yl in Utut his riglds have
bwn invaded or infringul. 'I'hc tutu of standing
provides Utal one cannot evoke the jurisdiction of Ute
court to enforce private riglus or to maintain a civil
action for the wforecmcnt of such rights, unless he or
she has, in an individual or reprcxntalivc capacity,
some real interest in the cause of action, or o Icgal
right, title ar interest in the subjwt maltcr or
controversy.
Campbell v. Campbell 446 Pa.Super, G40, 672 A.2d
835, 837 (1996),
•643 >n In re TJ. 699 A.2d 1311 (Pa.Supcr.l997),
appeal gmnted, 1998 Pa.L.exis 482 (Pa. Mar. 20,
1998), we reiterated the defutition of the teens
aggrieved party and substantial interest as used in the
standing wntext. We said:
In order to be 'aggrieved' o party must have; 1) o
snbdantlal interest in the subject maltcr of the
lidgadon; 2.) the party's interest must be direct and,
3 J the interest must be Immediate and eat a remote
wnsequenw of the action ... A 'substantial' interest
means that there must be some discernible adverse
etfwt to some interest other than the abstract interest
of ell citizens in having others wmply with the law.
Id. at 1315-1316 (quotlrrg South IVhltelrall Twp.
Poi7ce Service x South IVhltehal! Twp. 521 Pa. 82, at
86-87 555 A.2d at 793 (1989)) (ernpbaals !rr orlglrra!
)•
[4] [SJ The application of the law of standing to child
custody cases is done with a high degree of
scrupulousness by our worts. J.A.L. v. CP.H. 662
A.2d at 1319. This is "not only to protect the interest
of the wort system by assuring that actions are litigated
by appropriate parties, but also to prevent intrusion
info the protected domain of the family by those who
are merely strangers, however well meaning." !d,
Jackron v. Garland, 424 Pa.Supcr. 378, 622 A.2d
969, 971 (1993). Consequently, our worts take the
view that in a dispute involving custody of a minor
child, persons other than the child's parents are
wnsidered "third patsies" Argenlo v. Fenton, 703 A.2d
1042, 1044 (Pa.Supec1997); lrmr Coutren v. IVeUa,
430 Pn.Super. 212, 633 A.2d 1214, 1216 (1993).
Third parties will not be found to hnvc standing by our
wart [m]ess the third party has o "prima facie right to
custody." Argerrlo, 703 A.2d at 1044, J.A.L., 662 A.2d
at 1319.
Page 4
Flowever, we have recognized that an individual's
"prima facie right to custody" does not dcriva solely
and cxclusivcly from his or her stouts a9 a parent.
J.A.L„ G82 A.2d at 1319, Alollartder v. Chlodo 450
Pa.Supcr. 247, G75 A.2d 753, 755 (199G) (discussed
of greater IengUt b jn ), CnrnpbeU v. Campbell, 672
A.2d at 836. A "prima facie right to custody" may
arise by the conduct of a third party, when lha Utird
party has stool to loco parenaaa to the child for whom
he or she is socking custody. J.A.L., G82 A.2d at 1319,
Cardanrate v. ElshoJf, 442 Pn.Supcr. 263, 659 A.2d
575, 581 (1995). In Argerrlo, supra, we set forth our
Court's long•acccptcd definition of what it means for a
party to stand In loco parenNa as follows:
[t]he phrase 'in low parentis' refers to a person who
puts himscll[/herselt] in the situation of assuming the
obligation incidwt to the parental releUottship
wiWout going through the formality of a legal
adoption. The status of 'in low parentis' embodies
two ideas: lust, the assumption of a parental status,
and sewed, tltc discharge of perwtal duties.
Argenlo, 703 A.2d at 1044, quoting van Coutren v.
IVeIIs, supra, 633 A.2d at 1216.
in reviewing the rewrd before us, we lmd ample and
credible evidwcc that from the very beginning of ihe'u
relationship with G.W., Mr. and Mrs. Sillies began to
care for G.W. with the intent of adopting him as soon
as practicable. N.T. 7/19/96 at 17. Ultimately
allowing G.W. to be adopted by Mr. and Mrs. Silfies
was also the intent of Ms. Webster whw she began
allowing the visitations and overnight stays of G.W.
!d. at 18, 69-70. (FN7) Thus Mr. and Mrs. Sillies
must be classified as "prospective adopting parents."
We have held, previously, that prospective adoptive
parents who hnvc stood !n loco parents to a minor
child have standing to wmmwce o subsequent legal
proceeding involving the child.
/n re Baby Boy S., 420 Pn.Super. 37, 615 A.2d 1355
(1992), a~rnred Per Curlonr 540 Pa. 302, 657 A.2d
484 (1995) is the first of three cases that clearly
establish this principle. In this case, o teenage g'ul
gave birth to a child out of wedlock, and, shortly
th~veatter, •644 she moved in to o shelter for unwed
moth~vs. The girl informed one of the directors of the
shelter that she wished to put the child up for adoption.
The shelter dircetor thw arranged for a meeting
behvicen the girl and o wuple wishing to adopt. ARer
the meeting, the teen signed an "wwstment
agreement" which was prepared by the wuple's
Copyright (c) West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
713 A.2d 639, Silfi~"s v. Webster, (PaSupce 1998)
otlomcy and Utc tcen gave Utc baby to Utc wuplc. The
Icon then Icll Ute shdtcr. !d. G I S A.2d ut 1357.
The couple fill a report of Uteir intention to adopt,
but, shortly thcrca0cv, Um I~rn rcvok~tl We cnlruslmcnt
agrccmrnl and sought Utc child's retool, 'fltc trial wart
later tcrtninatcd Ute teen's parctttal rights. On appeal to
our wort, the teen argual that the prospective adoplivc
parrnts lacked standing to maintain o tcrminotion
action because of, inter aha, the revocation of the
rnWstmettl agrcemrnt and the fact that the adoplivc
parrnts were never granted custody. Id.
[G] We rejected those factors as being nandispositive.
We found that the adoptive parents hod attained In loco
paenps status, and hrncc standing, by virtue of both
the rntrustmrnl agrcemrnt and the filing of Urc report
of the intention to adopt. Id. at 1357-1358. We also
rejected the argumrnl that loss of physical custody by
the adoptive parent or revocation of wnsrnt by the
natural parent automatically deprives the prospective
adoptive parents of standing. /d. at 1358. Therefore,
by applying these principles of standing to the case
before us, Ms. Webstcr's decision to revoke her
wnsent to the adoption and cease O. W.'s visitation did
not automatically deprive Mr. and Mrs. Sillies of
standing. Mr. and Mrs. Sillies' standing stems from
their prior relationship with G.W, as prospective
adoptive parents.
Tho holding of in In re Baby Boy S, served as the
foundation of our Court's decision in Hollander v.
Chlodo, 450 Pa.Super. 247, 675 A.2d 753 (1996),
which directly established the principle that
prospective adoptive parents have the right to maintain
a custody action. In lrlallander, a young umved mother
placed her Urree-month old dought~v with a wuplc.
The wuple filed o report of intention to adopt o few
weeks later and subsequent to That a petition to adopt
which had the mother's wnsrnl to adopt attached. The
moUter later changed her mind and peGtioncd to have
her wnsrnt to the adoption revoked, which the trial
wort granted. Id. 675 A.2d at 755.
The adoptive parents then filed a custody wmplaint
in which they claimed to stand "in low parentis" to the
minor child. (FN8) Id. The trial wort awarded
custody to the prospective adoptive parents. Id. at 754.
On sppenl we aahmed the trial wart's award of
custody, and we again rejected the argument that
revocation of the wnsrnt to the adoption by the molh~v
negated tho adoptive parents standing. !d. at 756. We
specifically held that the adoplivc parents achieved In
loco parentis status and had standing to maintain an
action fur tiw custody of the minor chill. /r/.
Page S
I2ccrtittly, in Lt re Gr•(Q1n, ASG 1'a.Supcr, 440, 690
A.2d 1192 (1997), appeal rlenled 849 Pa. 701, 700
A.2d 441 (1997), cert. dented, Detsack a AUegberty
CoanryChlld~rn and 1 oath Scrvlcea, --- U,S. ----, 11 B
S.Ct. I ISG, 140 I.,Gd.2d 317 (1998), we applied this
specific holding of Alol/mtder. The oppcllonts in
Grl,[/Tn, a marrial couple, were appealing the removal
by Juvrnilc Court of a child in Ihcir custody. Tho
parents hod initially been caring for the minor child as
a foster child. On appeal to cur Court, the appellee,
Children and Youth Serviws, challenged the right of
the appcllont's to wntcst the Juvrnilc Court Order, as
Pennsylvania Inw did not n~cognizc the standing of
foster parrnts to pursue custody of fortncr foster
children. Id. 690 A.2d at 1200-1201. The appellants,
though, had sought pcrntission from the Juvenile Court
to adopt the minor child during the time of the foster
care. Consequently, our Court specifically ruled,
relying on our prior holding in Hollander, that the
wuples' change in smtus 6nm foster parents to
prospective adoptive parents, while they were coring
for the minor child, •645 was su0icirnt to establish
Ihev standing to maintain the appeal and scek the
return of the child to ihev custody. Id. et 1201
(emphasis supplied).
While wnceding that Hollander was "factually
similar," the trial wort distinguished Hollander on the
basis of the fact that the appellants were never given
custody of the child and that Appellee never formally
wnsrnted to the adoption. (FN9) Trial Court Opinion
filed 2/6/97 at 6. However, we reiterate, neither the
lack of o formal award of custody, nor revocation of
prior wnsrnt to adoption by a minor child's mother will
operate to deprive prospective adoptive parents of
standing to utilize our wort system in a proceeding
involving Ure minor child. In re Baby Boy S, aupm.
This is because the wncept of standing has as its root
the notion that an injury to a parry's legally protected
interest enables that party to scek relief from that injury
from our warts. Campbell, supra. Prospective
adoptive parents have such o legally wgnizable and
prouxtable interest.
Prospective adoptive parents are not "strangers"
seeking to invade the secure family unit for nefarious
ends. Quite to the wntrary, as this Court explained in
d!ltch x Buckr Cowry Cldldren and Youth Social
Service Agency, 383 Pa.Super. 42, 556 A.2d 419
(1989), appeal denlerJ Irr re Mitch, 524 Pa. 621, 571
A.2d 384 (1989):
Copyright (c) Wcst Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
713 A.2d G39, Silfics v. Webster, (1ra.Super. 1998)
[PJrospcctiva adoptive parenaa, unlike taster parents,
hevo nn expectation of pcrmanrnt custody which,
though It moy be contingrnt upon the agency's
ultimnto approval, is ncvcrtltclcss grnuinc and
romrntable. Because of this cxp~rlation of
pcnnanrncy, prospxtivo aloptivo parents arc
cnwuregcd to form emotional bonds with Utc child
from tho first day of the placement. Dy removing the
child from tho caro of the prospwtivc ndoptivc
parents, the agrncy forccloscv the possibility of
adoption. In light of tho cxpxtalion of permanent
custody Ihat attends nn adoptive plnccmrnt, on
agency's dxiaion to remove a child wnstitutcs a
direct end aubstential injury to prospxtive adoptive
parents. Becauso prospective adoptive parrnts,
unlike foster parents, stdfer a direct end substmtial
injury when an agency removes a child from them, we
seo ao rcnson why in law or policy why we should
limit their standing to sec for custody.
/d. 556 A.2d al 423.
Whether the adoption process proceeds through rn
agrncy or a private party is irtclcvant. See e.g. In re
Adoption ojJALE. 416 Pa.Super. 110, 610 A.2d 995
(1992), appeal dented 533 Po. 612, 618 A.2d 402
(1992) (husband and wife caring for child received
from relatives of the naturol mother held to have
stonding to mointain tertninotion of parrntnl rights
action). The reason is that the same factors, which
scree as the foundations of adoptive parents' standing,
arc present in both instances.
[7] In our case, Mr. Doti Mrs. Silfics, os prospective
ndopGve porrnls, hod o reasonable expectation that
they would be the future pemrancnt custodians of G.W.
This gave them o defutite and substontial interest in the
future welfare of G.W., which they had the right to seek
the wart's intervention to protect. As we emphasized
in rLl/tch, supra, deprivation of the prospective
adop8ve parrnts' interest by the wssotion of the
adoption prows con cause o direst and substantial
serious injury to the prospwtivc adoptive porrnts.
Many prospective adoptive parents, like Mr. anti Mrs.
Sillies, invest o significant amount of time and effort in
developing o coring and nurturing relationship with the
adoptive child. The prospective adoptive parents do so
because they have o legitimate expcclndon of the
relationship's permanency. When the relationship is
severed there is on emotional toll, which can be scv~ve,
particularly •64G. where, os here, obvious emotions)
anti psychological bonds hove ba~tt formed between
the prospective adoptive parents anti the child.
Prage 6
II is very cvidrnt from the record in the present cosc,
Ihnl onw Utc visitations and ovcmigld smye of G. W,
bcgnn, Mr. and Mrs. Silfics wnduclal Ihcroscivcs in o
manner towards O.W., wnsistrnl with Utat of noturol
parrnls to their child, since Utcy assumed s
wnsidevoble number of the duties and responsibilities
tvltich ore incidental to parcntnl status. They
wmplctely wnvcrt~ n room for G. W, in their home
anJ sprx:islly outfitted it vvith fumiturc, stufiai mimals
and toys. N.T. 7/19/9G at 24.25. While G.W, was
staying with Utcm, Mr. and Mrs. Silfics paid for all
mx:cssilics, including food and clothing. Id. at 62, 87.
Mr. and Mrs. Silfias transportal G.W. to and from
G.W.'s pre-schooUdoycarc center. !d. at 25. They
took an active interest in G.W.'s daily activities at the
center and routinely inquired of G.W.'s teachers as to
G.W.'s academic progress and in-close behavior. /d. at
G5. Together, Mr. and Mrs. Sillies Doti G.W, shared in
a vnricty of outings such os fishing, farm shows,
carnivals and even G.W.'s pre-school costume party.
Id. at 53. Apparently Mr, and Mts. Sillies oleo
navigated G.W. tluough the very demanding but very
necessary process of potty training. Id. at 53. They
also administered prescribed medicine to G.W., if
G.W, bwnme ill tvhile G.W. was staying with them.
!d. at 90. Hy performing porenlol dudes such es these,
it is clear, then, that Mr, and Mrs. Sillies, who fully
expwtcd to adopt G.W., were acting !rr loco parentLr
toward G.W. As we said inJA.L., aupro, "Where such
a relationship is shown, our courts recognize that the
child's best interest requires that the third party [who
assumed parental dudes] be granted standing so u to
have the opportunity to litigate fully the issue of
whether the relationship should be maintained even
over o natural parent's abjection." J.A.L., 682 A.2d et
1320.
We rewgnize and appreciate the efforts of the lrnmed
trioljudge to wnscirntiously apply the Isw to a difficult
case os this. N.T. 11/4/96 at 14. For clarity, we must
therefore emphasize Utm our fmding of standing is e
preliminary dctcrmination, which merely enables the
custody and visitation action to go forward. We have
said:
A fmding of o prima facie right sutiicient to establish
standing does not a0'ect that ponies evidentiary
burden: in order to be granted full or partial custody,
he or she must still establish that such would be in the
best interests of the child under the standards
applicable to third parties.
JA.L., supra, 682 A.2d at 1319.
Copyright (c) Wcst Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
713 A,2d 639, Silfics v. Wcbstcr, (I'u.Supcr. 1998)
Acconlingly, the onlctx of the Court of Common
Plans of Lehigh County dutwl August 5, 1996 and
November 4, 1996 rcsp~xaivcly arc hereby rcver:ud.
This case ie rcmandal for Nrthcr prw~rodings
wnsistrnl with Utis opinion. Jurisdiction rclinquishal,
McEWEN, Prcsidwt Judge, dissents.
FNI, Thcrc was no mention in the record of the id~mtity
of G.W.'s biological father, although, from the
testimony gives it does not appear that he hod any
wntact at all with G.W. alter the child's birth, and his
whereabouts arc unknown.
FN2. The termination of G.W.'s biological mother's
parental rights was wmplclal in September of 1994,
at which time Ms. Wcbstcr adopted G.W. At tha
hearing of July 19, 1996, Ms. Silfics gave
unwntroverted testimony that she and her husband
were prepared to adopt G, W, at that time. However,
eccorling to Ms. Silfics, Ms. Webster stated that a
judge had informed her to wail six (6) months before
again putting G.W. up for adoption. N.T. 7/19/96 at
22. Ms. Webster did not dispute this testimony.
FN3. This action was docketed in the trial wort m
96-FC-413 and was originally docketed in our Court
at No. 3200 PHL 96.
FN4. The trial wort had the authority to reconsider its
judgment, but it was not required to act on the
motion. The exercise of a trial wart's authority to
reconsider is purely discretionary. See Pa.R.A.P.,
Rule 1701(b)(3)(i), 42 Pa.C.S.A., Aloore v. Aloore,
535 Pe. I8, 25, 634 A.2d 163, 167 (1993).
FNS. This action was docketed in the trial wuri at
96-FC-1060 and was originally docketed in our Court
at No. 4358 PHL 96.
Paac 7
~64G_ FNG. Aloarr clurifiul Utc quoted languaga in
A1cAllllcn to be a definition of un appcllato wart's
atanduni of review not swpc of review, and Uto
pnroisc standard to be abuse of discretion not "gross"
obuw: of discretion as originally used in Alcbl/l/en.
Aloom, 535 Pa. at 28, n, 4, 634 A.2d al 168, n. 4.
FN7. Ms. Wcbstcr testified of Uta hearing of 7/19/96
That she no longer wnscnls to the adoption of G.W.
N.T. 7/19/96 at 7G. I Iowevcr, as discussed, supra, at
the time Mr. and Mrs. Silfics had filed their Report of
Intention to Adopt tvith Utc Court of Common Pleas
of Lehigh County, Ms. Wcbstcr indicated via her
Idler to the Silfics' altomcy That she was "agrceablc to
the [pending) adoption." /~l al 33, Plainlill's Exhibit
3, dotal 7/19/96, at 1.
FNB. Both of appellants' wmplaints for custody
wntain an identical avcrncnt. Custody Complaint
filed 3/28/96 at paragraph 7(d); Complaint for
Custody and Visitation filed 8/12/96 at paragraph
20(f).
FN9. 1'he trial court also accorded much weight to the
fact that Ms. Webster still performed certain parental
duties such as authorizing medical treatment for
G.W., choosing G.W,'s day care center and paying
G.W.'s medical insurance. Trial Court Opinion at
4-5. However, the Silfics were not legally authorized
to assume any of these responsibilities as the adoption
of G. W, was not yet wmplete. As discussed Intro,
the Silfics ac9um«t parental duties anti
responsibilities to the extent that they were legally
permitted. Ms. Webster's perfotmanw of her legally
required responsibilities to G.W. did not change Mr.
and Mrs. Silfics' status as prospective adoptive
parents or negate Ureir assumption of certain porental
responsibilities, while G. W, vvas in their care.
Copyright (c) Wcst Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
J .
t ~ 1 . `=,~t' 1. P V
.t ry+y , '~
'.`tt,' .. ,.. .. ...
} ~ ~ ~'; '
~ t _ i ~
t ' 1
1 u:uva°p.~~~ ~ t ~Y°Y~..S~E' o ~°.~ 1 ~ ~~ epuU~ ", .
} pY. et ~C~j p tp~ p p
~~~p F~a~~QiOe1 ,~,p ~.~'M~~yJ'O .e~~~YY"~1y/ ~~a6~N~rif t~~ i
'~ a CY ~',~ a~~~p ~ E~ ~ Y.7lC, ~j ~~.~~Yg}~y .q~ ~ ~ Y~ Y~,d~•p•,~ t~ x,.~ °~d/ e' ~;. :..
G M~yy.. ryt. y ~+ C..$.~.'E`,y~j .$.Y~,T~i E a E~. ~o y~~r,y,,u.~.3;-.[ONW4 •ga~,. :~~; 1~.2' {ji :.:
~1~~gy1'tyi~'~ w ~y•~ .'ip~~ G ,~~`~f pH g,o~~~ •._~i .Y. C o ~ y~ ~ n~7' ~, t~~S~jt;i
!"~j it;~i .N p '{I~ SttXX a 't7.F tL b ,4 Iv ,•J t0 'O•. 83Y.~+~~~{~ ~~
G a f'~ ii $ ,.N'
y
,~ r jt ~ C ~ ,~^'G 11 ,t .1 ~ ~•~•~ Bt ~p~ ui~~j t^ yQ p, r~ Y~~.,,~~t~rM~~.{ t~~.
~~~ ~:~~,~b~ g~~ yQCR~ ~~iu~ E~gG,~O ~ ~~v~$~eCV,u ~~I~rf„ ix,`:.
•~~ ~y ~ Ig b . •' Y,~ ~0.ypQ'a Ie.rtln t ~t ~,~ f'.'t~, ~ ~~ •~ ~ ~ ,~~'~r ~ j „i~"~`"~., t ti
;~w.~$NNN ~;.:~ 8 /C~i t~.~G 088 ~7 ~i7,~'•~~CCC.~~'.'~E ~'~i t~~'w ~'~Oa li~~~~• 6.0 'D ~. ii~~irAs';f~Y Ti
~,.:..
o
„ -.
,,t
~,,
t Y~'
'=4 ti`.`b.J[ vA'l~+
~~~
-S+`
r~ ~
KENNETH W. HALL and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
LISA ANN HALL, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PLAINTIFFS
V.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
DEFENDANT 98-1530 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 10~' day of August, 1999, following a hearing, the Rule entered
against Walter L. Humphrey by order dated June 14, 1999, to show cause why he
should not be adjudicated in contempt of the custody order entered on July 10, 1998, IS
MADE ABSOLUTE. A citation is issued against Walter L. Humphrey for contempt of
the custody order entered on July 10, 1998, for not providing Kenneth W. Hall and Lisa
Ann Hall temporary physical custody of Brianna (Bethany) for one week in
Pennsylvania as provided for in said order. A final adjudication shall be conducted at
11:00 a.m., on Monday, August 30, 1999, in Courtroom Number 2, Cumberland County
Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, at which time Walter L. Humphrey is ordered and
directed to appear.
This order shall be serviced on Walter L. Humphrey at his last known address
and the address of his mother.
!' ,,
f° /
Bpi the Courx
~r
Edgar B. Bayle , J.
I
~~:1 .~~~1 ~1; ''yam
f ~ ~.. ~ ,. .. _...
.4 A.
98-1530 CIVIL TERM
James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Plaintiffs
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro se
13853 Alazea Circle
No. 24B
Tampa, FL 33613
Walter L Humphrey
c/o Ruby Humphrey
2952 Gillespie Avenue
Sarasota, FL 34234
:saa
-2-
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION LAW
NO. ~~3~ CIVIL 19 9~
CUSTODY VISITATION
ORDER OF COURT
And now, this In /l CV !~9 ,upon consideration of the attached complaint, it is hereby directed
that the above parties and their respective counsel a pear before ~1 ~~ ~. ~ ,
Esquire, the conciliator, at ~ ~ C ,
Pennsylvania, on the ~ day of , 1999, at __~___ A.M./
for aPre-hearing Custody Conference. At su 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 maybe present at
the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for the entry of a
temporary or permanent order.
FOR THE COURT:
By:
Custody Conciliator C a
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE
SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
1-800-990-9108
~~~~~~
~-~ ~.~
~, ,~ ~ " ~ ~
dc;v~nz,~sc~r~~~
~~ .~ ~~~~ 01 ~i`~i f~6
~~ ~/ ~
-inr r ~~ r~l=! ~i-i
c: \wp51 \adoption\hall\brief
KENNETH W. HALL and
LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ORDER
PARTIAL CUSTODY AND FOR
PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
I. PROCEDURAL STATUS
1. The Order of Court of the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley of July 10, 1998,
granting primary physical custody to Defendant WALTER L. HUMPHREY, was affirmed by the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania. A Petition for Allowance of Appeal is presently pending before
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
II. ENFORCEMENT OF PARTIAL CUSTODY
2. Judge Bayley's Order of July 10, 1998, provided that the HALLS would
have temporary physical custody of BRIANNA for one week each year in Florida and one week
each year in Pennsylvania.
c:\wp51\adoption\hall\brief
3. The HALLS have exercised their temporary physical custody for
approximately a week in Florida and now desire to exercise their temporary physical custody of
BRIANNA for a week in Pennsylvania this summer. The Order provides that they are to make
arrangements with WALTER L. HUMPHREY at least forty-five days in advance, and that they
are to provide all transportation.
4. The Order further provides that WALTER L. HUMPHREY shall keep the
HALLS informed of any changes in BRIANNA'S address.
5. The relationship between the HALLS and WALTER L. HUMPHREY has
deteriorated. The HALLS previously had frequent telephone contact with BRIANNA through her
grandmother, WALTER L. HUMPHREY'S Mother, RUBY HUMPHREY, with whom she lived in
Sarasota, Florida.
6. The HALLS have now been advised by RUBY HUMPHREY that WALTER
L. HUMPHREY has taken BRIANNA to live with him, that he will not permit any further contact
between BRIANNA and the HALLS, and that he has moved and that she is not permitted to
provide them with his address. The HALLS have attempted to telephone MR. HUMPHREY at
the number provided earlier, which was 813-632-4903, and have been informed by a recorded
message that the line is disconnected.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court schedule a hearing to enforce
Plaintiffs' rights of partial custody of said child, and to determine whether Defendant should be
held in contempt of Court for willfully violating the Court's Order of July 10, 1998.
c:\wp51\adoption\hall\brief
III. MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ORDER
7. The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley entered an Order dated July 10, 1998,
granting legal and physical custody of the child in question, BABY GIRL BRIANNA, bom July
27, 1997; to her father, WALTER L. HUMPHREY.
8. In accordance with the Court's Order, and after a transition period
mandated by Judge Bayley, physical custody of the child was turned over to her father,
WALTER L. HUMPHREY.
9. Until recently, when WALTER L. HUMPHREY took custody of BRIANNA
and hid his whereabouts from Petitioners, the HALLS have kept in touch with BRIANNA by
telephone, attempting to call her every week or so. The phone number they had been given to
make these calls is 941-355-7340, which is the home of Mr. Humphreys mother, RUBY
HUMPHREY, in Sarasota, Florida. When they called for BRIANNA she is the one who
answered the phone at this number. The number for WALTER HUMPHREY in Tampa, Florida,
as supplied to the HALLS' counsel was 813-632-4903, until recently when it was disconnected.
The HALLS do not have a current telephone number for MR. HUMPHREY, nor do they have a
current address.
10. In accordance with the Court's Order providing them with periods of
temporary physical custody the Halls visited with BRIANNA in Florida from December 7, 1998,
through December 10, 1998. During that visit they were able to confirm that BRIANNA lived
c:\wp51 \adoption\hall\brief
with her grandmother in Sarasota, Florida, about an hour from the home of her father, WALTER
HUMPHREY, who lives in Tampa, Florida.
11. Based upon their telephone calls, the recent visit with BRIANNA, and their
conversations with BRIANNA'S grandmother, the Halls believe and aver that BRIANNA had
been in the actual physical custody of her paternal grandmother, rather than in the custody of
her father.
12. In the hearing on termination of parental rights, Defendant HUMPHREY
denied advising the .Florida adoption agency that the child would be raised by a grandparent,
and asserted that he would raise the child himself.
13. Judge Bayley's Opinion reflected an acceptance of this assurance by
WALTER L. HUMPHREY stating the following: "We are satisfied that Humphrey genuinely
wants to raise his daughter." (Op. 3) and "Humphrey has the...genuine desire to raise his own
child..." (Op. 7).
14. Until recently, when WALTER L. HUMPHREY took possession of his child
to conceal her whereabouts from Plaintiffs, he had turned the actual day to day physical custody
of his child over to his mother, RUBY HUMPHREY, who lives in Sarasota, Florida.
15. Defendant HUMPHREY'S actions in turning custody over to his mother
after denying his intention to do so before the Court, call into question his credibility, and this de
facto change of custody, which was clearly not contemplated by the Court's Order, constituted a
change of circumstances, and justifies a re-evaluation of custody in this case.
c: \wp51 \adoption\hall\brief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court schedule a hearing to reexamine
the issue of primary physical custody of the child in question.
FLOWER, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BY ~s ~ ~ ~ ~et.~-~.~ V~ . q ~J~~
games D. Flower, Jr., Esqu
11 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5513
I.D. #27742
c:\wp51\adoptionViall\brief
VERIFICATION
We, KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL, Plaintiffs in the -within action,
hereby verify that the statements made in the within instrument are true and correct to the best
of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false statements herein are made
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
. ~ 4O
Lisa Ann Hall
Date: June 1, 1999
~c~~ .~
L.
` ,
- ; ~ t.
~~~~ t
.3
<,
,
' ~C~
~~~ '-Y'" ;
~~--~r3`
~s~ C3
"~
tJ'2
-G
1.
KENNETH W. HALL and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
LISA ANN HALL, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PLAINTIFFS
V.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
DEFENDANT 98-1530 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 14th day of June, 1999, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The order improvidently entered on June 10, 1999, referring to conciliation
plaintiffs' petition for enforcement of partial custody, modification of the custody, and to
hold defendant in contempt, IS VACATED AND REPLACED WITH THIS ORDER.
(2) The petition of plaintiffs for modification of the custody order entered on July
10, 1998, IS DENIED.'
(3) Plaintiffs' petition for the enforcement of the custody order of July 10,1998,
with respect to the one week period of temporary physical custody provided to plaintiffs
in Pennsylvania each year, and plaintiffs' petition to hold defendant in contempt, shall
be heard in Courtroom Number 2, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, at 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 28, 1999.
(4) A Rule returnable at that hearing is issued against Walter L. Humphrey to
show cause why he should not be adjudicated in contempt of the custody order entered
on July 10, 1998.
The custody order was affirmed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on April
9, 1999; however, it is not a final order because plaintiffs have filed a petition for
allowance to appeal in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The petition is pending so
this court does not have jurisdiction to modify its order.
1.
98-1530 CIV{L TERM
James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Plaintiffs
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro se
13853 Alazea Circle
No. 24B
Tampa, FL 33613
Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire
Custody Conciliator
:saa
By the_.Gourt,
f J
Edgar B. Bailey, J
-2-
,_~ti. ~s -~-, ~ r,.~.~,y~~
i~.~~a-;~, .a
~Y~ ~~ _ ..f 1{{ i
t ~ •l~i ~r~~~~ ~ ~ tit!#~ v~
~~u~.~-~` :'~
} ~t
~~.%l~s~?~.t-~ l.J
r
CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORD
UNDER
PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (c)
To the Prothonotary of the Appellate Court to which the
within matter has been appealed:
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA
THE UNDERSIGNED, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of ('1MB.RL. HD County, the said court being a court of record,
do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy
of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court
as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits,
if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the
docket entries in the following matter:
KENNETH W. HALL AND LISA ANN HALL
HIS WIFE
VS
WALTER L. HUMPHREY
98-1530
1087 HBG 98
The documents comprising the _'ecord ha~y~ been numbered
from No. 1 to No. q~ and attached hereto as Ext:ibit A is a
last of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with
reasona~le definiteness, including with respect to each dccur~~ent,
the number of pages comprising the document.
The date on which the record has been transmitted to the
appellate court is 10-05-98
(Seal c.f Court )
An additional copy cf this certificate is encioGnd. Please
sign and date copy, thereby acknowledging receipt of i:his record.
R::CORD RECEIVED: Date:
Received in Superior Court
(signature & title)
OCT - 71998
HARRISBURG
~ ~
KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
NO. 98 - / S 3~ CIVIL TERM
COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY
1. The Plaintiffs are KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL, adult
individuals, residing at 10746 Spring Ridge Road, Shippensburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania.
2. The Defendant is WALTER L. HUMPHREY, an adult individual, residing at
13853 Azalea Circle, No. 24B, Tampa, Florida 33613.
3. The proposed adoptee is a baby girl, BRIANNA WATKINS, who was born
July 27, 1997, in St. Petersburg, Florida, and who has been placed with Petitioners for adoption.
4. The Plaintiffs seek custody of BRIANNA WATKINS, presently residing with
them at 10746 Spring- Ridge Road, Shippensburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, age 7 months
as of the filing of this Petition.
5. The child in question, BRIANNA WATKINS, was placed with Plaintiffs for
adoption on August 2, 1997. They have had continuous custody of her since that date, and they
have filed with the Orphans' Court Division of this Court, a Report of Intention to Adopt, on I
August 28, 1997, to No. 109 Adoptions, 1997.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
1
The Plaintiffs do not know of
has physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation
the child.
23. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by
granting the relief requested because shortly after the date of the child's birth she was placed
with them, and they have provided all of the love, nurturing, care and support for her, being the
only parents she has ever known.
24. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been terminated and
the persons who have physical custody of the child have been named as parties to this action.
No other persons are known to have or claim a right to custody or visitation of the child.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request this Court to grant primary physical custody
of the child to them.
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Attorneys for Plaintiff
---~
James D. Flower, Jr.
\ 1`1 East High Street
'~-Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5513
I.D. No. 27742
Date: ~ J
5
LAW OFFICES
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
11 EAST HIGH STREET
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-3016
JAMES D. FLOWER BIETSCH & MORGENTHAI.
ROGER M. MORGENTHAL (717) 243-5513 (1975-1985)
JAMES D. FLOWER, JR FAX: (717) 2A3-6510 ----
CAROL J. LINDSAY Ismail: FMFL Law@aoLcom FLOWER, KRAMER
MORGENTHAL & FLOWER
(1985-1992)
May 20, 1998
The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
Cumberland County Court House
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL v. WALTER L. HUMPHREY
NO. 98-1530 CIVIL TERM -CUSTODY
Dear Judge Bayley:
My clients have advised me that they will not be appealing your decision of May 13, 1998,
denying their Petition to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of Walter L. Humphrey.
Enclosed for your convenience is your Order of Court of March 20, 1998, in the custody
case which we had filed against the possibility that our involuntary termination Petition
might be denied. In your Order you stayed the custody action pending resolution of the
involuntary termination action, and you also granted temporary physical custody of Baby
Girl Brianna to my clients, Kenneth W. Hall and Lisa Ann Hall.
At this point, it would seem to be appropriate for the stay to be lifted and for the matter
to be scheduled for a conciliation hearing. I am enclosing a proposed Order which would
accomplish that and which would continue temporary physical custody in my clients.
Accompanying a copy of this letter, I am forwarding a copy of the proposed Order to
opposing counsel and to the Defendant Mr. Humphrey. Please advise if you prefer to have
this proposed in the form of a Petition for Rule to Show Cause.
Very truly yours,
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
J mes .Flower, Jr.
JDFJr:m~m
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth W. Hall
Mrs. Cynthia Barnes Vriens, Adoption Horizons
Anne M. Shepard, Esquire
Lindsay Dare Baird, Esquire
Mr. Walter L. Humphrey
KENNETH W. HALL and LISA ANN HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
NO. 98 - i ~ .j ~~
CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~~~' day of _ ~~. ~' cll. 1998,
pendii ig a decision on the Petition for Involuntary 1'ermina:ion of Paren#al Rights of Walter L.
Humphrey, which was heard on February 18, 1998, and fog which the record is still open, this
custody action IS STAYED. Temporary physical custody of Baby Girl Brianna shall be with
Kenneth W. Hall and Lisa Ann Hall. The Complaint and the Jrder shall be ser/ed on Walter L.
Humphrey.
James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Petitioners
Anne Shepard, Esquire
Court-Appointed for Walter Humphrey
Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire
Court-Appointed for Baby Girl Brianna
BY THE COURT: ~~1 J
i
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
Walter L. Humphrey
13853 Azaela Circle, No. 24B
Tampa, FL 33613
eJUN ~ ~' ~~~~~
KENNETH W. HALL,
vs.
WALTER L. HUMPHREYr
Plaintiff
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAGJ
NO. 98-1530
IN CUSTODY
0[2DER OF QOURT
AND NOW, this 24th day of Juner 1999, the Conciliator, being
advised by the Court that the custody issues raised in Plaintiff's Petition
will be addressed directly by the Court at a Hearing scheduled for July 28,
1999, hereby relinquishes jurisdiction in this case. The Custody
Conciliation Conference scheduled for July 27, 1999 is canceled.
FOR THE COURT,
Dawn S. Sunday, Esquir
Custody Conciliator
c: \wp51 \adoption\hall\brief
KENNETH W. HALL and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
LISA ANN HALL, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs, CIVIL DIVISION -LAW
vs. NO. 98 - 1530 CIVIL TERM
WALTER L. HUMPHREY,
Defendant.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~ ~ da of ~ 1 ggg
Y ,
the hearing scheduled in the above captioned action .for July 28, -199, at 1:30 p.m. is
rescheduled for August 5, 1999, at 1:30 p.m., in Court Room No. 2 of the Cumberland County
Court House, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
cc: James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire
For Petitioners
Walter L. Humphrey, Pro Se
13853 Azalea Circle, No. 246
Tampa, Florida 33613
BY THE COURT:
~,~
~:
,f
a ~-~, 7/~/9s. ~
J.
„ ~ ~., ~, , . f `' . 7
~ i `vl c._
~ .,
._
. ~~,::
,.
t
:~, . m ~~ , ~ wear ,Qc~ 6 ~.-- ~1 a~er~
~.~- ,~ Vl~~ h.o `~% s 1 ever -f i nos ~ a u ct f f Well , (,llP ~''~;:rs -~~:
~ fi
7v flt,(r. t ~ Y~'~ ~Ti1t~S' n ,~ ~1 D W
_ :. ~//
__ has b~~ ~~-~m ~1 d%-~c~ --~,~a 11 ~ ~us ~~f--~ ~
~_ ~ ~
ad ~ ~ S~e~K -~ ~~~h y an a ~~c~l~y.- bps ~s. (,Ue
~. ,~, i t , ~~ ~i SS ~ ~ r vt- l lJjf`~ n ~P/' S d V e -'~ rLt,Gt Ch ~
~r . ,r ~r
i ~ ~ ~ d was
S~ ~ c~ ~- ~a y /~ y tiQs ran us
5 ~ ~ ~ ~~
{
%,
~~
r
6 ~ n ~ ~e~~s~ ~,.'
... -~ a ~U~-l~'S V~ s ; ~~~~, a rte, noC ~~ l¢.~- ~~
u. y .
ACS ~( ~~~ ~~ra~ ~e P or' ~,.
~.... ~':'~ ~,.. ~~'s..'"R ~~~-.`gin::; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Or ~ ", r~ ~I
~ ~-~
Si "T:.,y,~ T ai :. G. ~, T 't+uR:I ~ ~ 'mil ~ ~~ /~ V ~ ~
1 ~r ~ocr~
l~~2)
t 5
.. .: - .: PETITIUNER'T
_..
...
~... _ _- -_ E BfT
. .. .. -
X
.. ,,
_:
~':
r
:r :.
,.
.. _ -
,. .. .. is
_ _. ,.
t ~ i ~ 4 - .ti
.e...:: 'c tsKL•r ` .: ~ ,r- ~" k ~'r„~` d H-. t ~ f~~x a .'y ~ t gay ~ f "~ `r e~,'1r nM r -. . , ~
„,, ~.
-.
,.
~ __. w ~. .... :.. _ r
.. ....
~ ^, r,,..
:~. ;~; ~,,,.~ ~ ~~.~, (/may /n~j, ~~ ~ '
rJ.t 1;>.. ,cu ?. ~ y... f ~~ ~- ~~j~) /1 J /l~/~ %f /,~\ ~/~'71 Q ~ p ~ ~~/ / ' / ~ V t/ ~1
_ y ,~.
~'IQ.s' ~`~en ~o ~ ~-. u..Cc~ q ~S d 1 r ~ ~v
r . ~ .:.. ~~ u~a
_ . V ~9
~~L 1` ~GLV c~r~ i S Cj jf~ G'z ,`~~7C'~~t~7L f ~7L~7O~'I
--~ cCl/ ~
.. _ ~-~ds ~'~ v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ on ~ u/h ~ his ~~, `.
'S.J,., ~q -~ rte." a ~w.~y' ~ ~ ~ i /! V
>_ fl ~/ t
_ .. ..
.. _
~ r' ~"'~
~~~se 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
__ o' r ~ j~ ~ Cv Jl~ra`, k1~
~~l ~`S a d- CCx~..c'
~~
d
~ b
n
S
....
u,
... .
..
..
• r
- .. .. ..,
..
.. - :,
., .. ::;
,.. ;.
~, _ _ :,
. .... .. f
.a Wr.. ^'Lar'F . ... w ~.' ~.. a^.: ~t4 ~ n t r- ..+'. 2 ~ ,„~ _ ~. .er" :. m
v
t ~.s w~j q.n W ~ ytN~
~~ w .:
.M1 =
«' .
..~ ~: ..
..:
r. .. ~ .n .. .. tom:. ~. ~. d[
. .. +n"
~ ~
CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORD
UNDER
PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (c
To the Prothonotary of the Appellate Court to which the
within matter has been appealed:
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA
THE UNDERSIGNED, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of CUMBERLAND County, the said court being a court of record,
do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy
of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court
as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits,
if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the
docket entries in the following matter:
KENNETH W. HALL AND LISA ANN HALL
HIS WIFE
VS
WALTER L. HUMPHREY
98-1530
108? HBG 98
The documents comprising the record have been numbered
from No. 1 to No. q~ and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a
list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with
reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each dccue~ent,
the number of pages comprising the document.
The date on which the record has been transmitted to the
appellate court is 10-OS-98
(Seal of Court) /J~ _ -
r ry
An additional copy cf this certificate is enclosed. Please
sign and date copy, thereby acknowledging receipt of +.h is record.
RECORD RECEIVED: Date:
{signature b title)
~ezerence ,~o... Filed......... 3/19/19
Case Ty e..... COMPLAINT - CUSTODY
~ud
m
n~
04 Time. ... 16•
t
0/00/00
E
ti
~D
g
e
..... xecu
e
on
a
.Judge Assigned: BAYLEY EDGAR B SatlDis/Gntd.. 0/00/00
Jury Trial....
her Court 1
Hi
g
Hi~her Court 2
General Index Attorney Info
HALL KENNETH W PLAINTIFF FLOWER JAMES D JR
10746 SPRING RIDGE ROAD
SHIPPENSBURG PA 17257
HALL LISA ANN PLAINTIFF FLOWER JAMES D JR
10746 SPRING RIDGE ROAD
SHIPPENSBURG PA 17257
HUMPHREY WALTER L DEFENDANT
13853 AZALEA CIRCLE NO 24B
TAM
FL 33613
P
'AGE# **Da*le***~*E****e************~**~********** **********************************
)2-10 03/1/98 COMPLAINT - CUSTODY
)1 03/20/98 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 3/20/98 - IN RE COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY -
ACTION IS STAYED - BY EDG AR B BAYLEY J - COPIES MAILED
3U23%9g
L1 05/22/98 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 5/22/98 - IN RE CUSTODY - ORDER ENTERED
3/20/98 IS VACATED - HEARING 6110 /98 1:30 PM CR 2 - BY EDGAR B
BAYLEY J - COPIES MAILED 5/23/98
.3 06/29/98 PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
2-19 06/30/98 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 6/30/98 - IN RE PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW
CAUSE - PETITION IS DENIED AS THE RECORD IS CLOSED - BY EDGAR B
BAYLEY J - NOTICE MAILED 7/2/98
'.0-40 07/10/98 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT - DATE D 7/10/98 - IN RE CUSTODY - BY
EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPIES MAILED 7/10/98
h1-45 07/15/98 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT BY JAMES D FLOWER JR ES
N ACCO DANCE
~6-49 07/15/98 APPLICATION FOR STAY OF COURT ORD ER PENDING APPEAL I
WITH PA R A P 1732 PLFF
~0 07/17/98 ORDER OF COUiRT - DATED 7/16/98 - IN RE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF
~1 98NDING APPEAL - DENI
OR~iR
MAILE ED - BY EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPIES
j
D
2 07/22/98 TRAN5CRIPT FILED
# 1087 HBG 98
N
T
.3 07/28/98 SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF AP PEAL DOCKETI
O
G
~4-60 08!10/98 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 8/10/98 - TRANSFER OF BRIANNA TO WALTER L
HUMPHREY IS TEMPORARILY STAYED - BY EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPIES
/
D
~l COURT - DATED 8/10/98 -
08/10/98 ORDER
OF HEARING ON THE PETITION FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF THE CUSTODY ORDER ENTERED ON 7/10198 SHALL BE
CONDUCTED 8/11/98 9:15 AM CR 2 - BY EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPIES
MAILED 8/10/98
2-63 /98 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 8/11/98 -
08/ IN RE TRANSFER OF CUSTODY - BY
1
BR~EF B BAYLEY J - COPIES MAILED 8/12/98
4-76
7-91 EXHIBITS
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland ss:
I, Ci1RTTS R LONr, ,Prothonotary
of the Court of Common Pleas in and for said
County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
full, true and correct copy of the whole record of the
case therein stated, wherein
I~.'1~i W. HALL AMID
LISA AI~N HALL
Plaintiff, and
WALTER L Ht)NIPE)(RE'Y
Defendant , as the same remains of record
before the said Court at No. of
98-1530 Term, A. D. 19
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court
this ~~ day of DER A, D., 19~$-.
Prothonotary
1, E. HOF'JN~R President Judge of the HO]E~~
Judicial District, composed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that
CZJRTTS R. IL111[; by whom the annexed record, certificate and
attestation were made and given, and who, in his own proper handwriting, thereunto subscribed his name
and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said County, was, at the time of so doing, and now is
Prothonotary in and for said County of CZI~LAPID in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, duly commissioned and qualified to all of whose acts as such full faith
and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere, and that the said record,
certificate and attestation are in due form of law any
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland ss:
1, QJRTIS R. Lt1VG Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in
and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable E• ~~~
by whom the foregoing attestation was made, and who has thereunto subscribed his name, was, at the time
of making thereof, and still is President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Orphan' Court and Court of
Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for said County, duly Commissioned and qualified; to all whose acts
as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given, as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto
set m hand and affixed the seal of said Court this
~~ day of OG'IOBER A. D. 19 98
Prothonotan