Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03269 ,,,-, " ',~ 1,-" "1 ~ ~ . ~'il '~t~ .. GERALD A. PERAGINE, Plaintiff 7 MAY 3 1 2001 ' In the Court of Common Pleas of tr . " CUMBERLAND County, PENNSYLVANIA v. Civil Action - Law ANN E. PERAGINE, Defendant CUSTODY NO. cJ/- 3'),(/1 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _ day of ,2001, 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 ,2001, at M, for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. at such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; of if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. FOR THE COURT By: Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the Court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the Court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. 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, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 -.. M" -' ~b, , d '. -', : ..-, ~~i;' " J U L2 :f200J COpy Jerry Peragine 6280 Carlisle Pike, # 307 11echanicsburg,Pi\ 17055 July 20,2001 The Honorable Judge Edward Guido Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, P A 17013 Re: Civil i\ction - Custody 01-3269 Peragine vs. Peragine Dear Judge Guido, On July 2,2001 a Conciliation Conference was held regarding the above Civil i\ction, and the Court has subsequently scheduled an i\ugust 31 st Hearing on the matter, in your Courtroom; I've attached a copy of11s. Dawn Sunday's Conciliation Report. I've expressed to 11s. Sunday my appreciation for her even-handed and professional demeanor during the Conference, which was of particular consolation as I acted in a pro se capacity and didn't know what to expect. In reading 11s. Sunday's Summary Report, however, I must take exception and make clarifications to several statements within the Report, and I'm writing you now to do that as opposed to waiting for the Hearing. I've furnished copies of this letter to the appropriate parties, and ask that it be added to the record of the Case (if that requires a captioned i\nswer or 11emorandum format, I can comply if so informed). The Report refers to a 11otion I made to the Court to circumvent the Conciliation process and move directly to Hearing, and uses a quote from that 11otion. From my conversations with the Prothonotary and Court Administrator's respective Office, I know that this 11otion never made it past the Prothonotary's file folder on the case (where, I presume, it still resides), as I had neglected to include an Order and appropriate stamped envelopes for processing. If, in fact, the Court Administrator's Office directed the Conciliator to proceed with the Conference, it was due to the i\dnllnistrator being unaware of my 11otion, and not because the Court had made any determination about that 11otion's merits. At any rate, I expressed to 11s. Sunday that I made the 11otion to expedite the proceeding because of what I believe is the severity and urgency of the -'. " ',,-, " ~'';''",'''''" ",,- .- -e",,,,,,__, custody situation, and not specifically because I was "not interested in attempting to resolve the custody issues atthe Conciliation Conference". Indeed, I made an offer to the Defendant's counsel both prior to the Conference and again at the Conference (which is not noted in the Custody Conciliation Report) to resolve the matter and render a Hearing unnecessary. Although the Defendant's counsel rejected this offer, I would have expected them to offer some counter-proposal (unless I'm mistaken, this is how negotiations work), and was somewhat surprised that none was forthcoming. I might note that the same counsel recently represented the Defendant in a Support Hearing that took place in Your Honor's Courtroom; they made an offer to me, which I accepted without reservation, enabling our appearance before you to take less than five minutes. I did not state at the Conference that I was only open to one of two "options" (nor did I use that word), but did say that the Complaint for Custody document outlines my position; whereas I did state that I was uncomfortable discussing matters without benefit of counsel I did not say, and I regret if any such impression was given, that I was not open to compromise or suggestions. I made quite clear to Ms. Sunday, or so I thought, that I do not intend to appear before the Court without having suitable accommodations to house my children, and that my Complaint :vas filed prior to that situation occurring so as to expedite the Hearing. I did not indicate that I have been in custody of my children on alternating Sundays; indeed, I have been in custody of them every single Sunday, as per the existing Custody Order, for purposes of attending church services. I stated to Ms. Sunday that, although I probably shouldn't say too much in absence of counsel, I would indeed answer any question that she asked of me. If she asked me directly "Why have you not exercised your right to custody on both weekend days?", I do not recall it. Nor can I recall not answering any direct question that was put to me by Ms. Sunday or the Defendant's counsel. I did not, per se, "acknowledge having communication problems with the Mother". That problem, at the very least, is not my problem but a reciprocal one; it was after several months of the Defendant refusing to speak to me that I implored her to be civil for the children's sake. Although I do recall referring to the Defendant as "she" or "my wife" several times, i~ is true that I primarily referred to her as "the Defendant". Acting as my own counsel, and in a quasi-judicial venue, I deemed that to be a suitable form of address, and I'm unaware that the term "the Defendant" is pejorative in any way. In any case, I can't recall the Defendant or the Defendant's counsel referring to me in a less formal (or more familiar) fashion. The Report states that I feel humiliated to pick my children up in front of my home, and prefer the comer two doors down from the house. As it might seem odd that someone -. < " -~ . ' ~". ""-- ~:""~ii would feel this way about parking briefly in front of their prior home, I thought I would explain why that is. As I explained at the Conference, my brother, referred to in 7(b) of my Complaint, is now living in my home. The few confidantes I've revealed this to have independently come up with the same one-word reaction to this - "sick". The Defendant did not complain that I've been unwilling to take the children on Saturdays; her concern was that she was being denied, by my current inability to lodge my children overnight, to pursue a social life in a manner she'd prefer. My own concerns about the current Custody arrangement, such as my chagrin at dropping my children off at to an empty home after custodial visits, with the Defendant returning home inebriated very late at night, are not referenced in the Report. Thank you for your patience. cf: - Jan Terpening, MidPenn Legal Services (Counsel for Defendant) - Dawn Sunday, Esquire ._. ~ . -'. '~,.J.'. I _~ "', j GERALD A. PERAGINE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : NO. 01-3269 CIVIL TERM : ANN E. PERAGINE, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant . IN CUSTODY . PRIOR JUDGE: George E. Hoffer CUSTODY <::c:NCn.IATIOO SlHWcr REPCRr IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COONTY RULE OF CIVIL PRClCEOORE 1915.3-8, the undersigned CUstody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subjects of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURREN.rLY IN CUSTODY OF Sara Elizabeth Peragine Rebecca Diane Peragine Mason Andrew peragine November 18, 1986 January 13, 1989 October I, 1990 Mother Mother Mother 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on July 2, 2001, with the following individuals in. attendance: Gerald A. peragine, who was not represented by counsel, and the Mother, Ann Elizabeth Peragine, with her counsel, Jan Terpening and Philip Briganti, Esquire. This Court previously entered a separate CUstody Order in this matter on February 8, 2001 by consent of the parties at the same time as entry of a Protection Order. Under the CUstody Order, the Mother had primary ]:hysical custody and the Father had partial custody on alternating weekends and every Tuesday evening. The Protection Order specified that exchanges of custody were to take place at the curb in front of the Mother's residence, during which the Father was to remain in his vehicle. The Father filed this Petition for Modification Pro Sa. After the Conciliation Conference was scheduled, the Father filed a Motion requesting that the Conciliation Conference be canceled and a Hearing be scheduled before the Court as "The Children's interests are jeopardized by spending valuable time in a Conciliation process doomed to failure by extant circumstances. " The Conciliator was directed by the Court Administrator I s Office to proceed with the Conciliation Conference. 3. As indicated in his Motion for a Hearing, the Father was not interested in attempting to resolve the custody issues at the Conciliation .~ ' '.....~~''''{" " "'" " ,^ ,=..."",~+j Conference and it will be necessary to schedule a Hearing in this matter. 4. The Father's position on custody is as follows: The Father believes that the Children's interests would be best served by residing primarily with him. The Father stated at the Conference that he would consider only one of two options for resolving the custody matter. Under Option 1, The Court would vacate the provision in the Protective Order excluding the Father from the marital residence and the Father would move into that residence to have custody of the Children. Under Option 2, the Father seeks a Court Order granting the Father primary physical custody of the Children at such time as the Father is able to obtain appropriate housing in the future. The Father currently lives with his mother and brother and indicated that he has not been exercising his right to overnight weekend periods of custody wi th the Children because he does not have sufficient accomodations. Although the marital residence is actually owned by. the maternal grandmother, the Father believes he has sufficient inte!:"est in the home th!:"ough his !:"ole in assisting the Mothe!:" in obtaining Power of Attorney for the maternal grandmother, who cu=ently resides in a nursing nome. The Father indicated that he has been having custody with the Children on alternating Sunday daytimes. When questioned by the Conciliator as to why he was not at least exercising his right to custody on both weekend days, the Father indicated he did not wish to discuss those issues at the Conference and it is therefore unclear to the Conciliator as to the Father's full position in this matter. In his Petition for Modification, however, the Father expressed concern that the Mother has an alcohol problem and is not providing adequate care for the Children. The Father acknowledged having communication problems with the Mother and, in fact, referred to the Mother consistently as the "defendant" throughout the Conference. The Father .requested that the parties exchange custody down the street fz:-om the Mother's residence rather than immediately at the home which the Father feels is humiliating to him. The Father indicated that he would consider obtaining a custody evaluation but was doubtful that he would be able to pay for the full amount. 5. The Mother's position on custody is as follows: The Mother believes that it is in the Children's best interest to continue to reside primarily. with her. The Mother denies the allegations in the Father's petition concerning her ability to care for the Children. The Mother is willing to continue with the custody arrangements set forth in the February 8, 2001 Orde:c under which the Father has custody on alternating weekends and Tuesday evenings. According to the Mother, the Father has only exercised his right to partial custody on most alternating Sundays but has not been willing to take the Children on Saturdays or for overnight periods. The Mother expressed her concern that the Father refuses to speak with her directly at all and confuses the Children by communicating through them on custody issues. The Mother believes it is inappropriate for the Father to pursue possession of the marital residence, (to which she believes he has no legal interest in any event) through the custody process when the Mother has been granted exclusive possession in a Protective Order. Finally, as to the place for exchange, the Mother stated that the Children, object to walking down the street to a park where the Father has insisted upon picking them up rather than at the Mother's curbside. The Mother indicated she would be willing to participate in a custody evaluation but is not able to contribute financially. , "" ';v;.J",~ ~ '"","l&."'~;'-i 6. The conciliator recorrnnends an Order in the form as attached scheduling a Hearing on the Father's petition for Primary Custody. It is expected that the Hearing will require at least one-half day and possibly a full day. The provision in the proposed Order concerning the place for exchanges of custody is the recorrnnendation of the Conciliator as a temporary compromise to the parties' respective positions on that issue. ~ Date 1 9 :J.-0o / I DaQ~ Custody Conciliator " '-'-.." "~- -I,' -"" .. '.',~ " "" ~, ;~, "' "'of-' would feel this way about parking briefly in front of their prior home, I thought I would explain why that is. As I explained at the Conference, my brother, referred to in 7(b) of my Complaint, is now living in my home. The few confidantes I've revealed this to have independently come up with the same one-word reaction to this - "sick". The Defendant did not complain that I've been unwilling to take the children on Saturdays; her concern was that she was being denied, by my current inability to lodge my children overnight, to pursue a social life in a manner she'd prefer. My own concerns about the current Custody arrangement, such as my chagrin at dropping my children off at to an empty home after custodial visits, with the Defendant returning home inebriated very late at night, are not referenced in the Report. Thank you for your patience. Very truly yours, cf: - Jan Terpening, MidPenn Legal Services (Counsel for Defendant) - Defendant " j' i~,.,~ \~~~ "~'J.n~ ..'~ ~:'(l-; ,'.~~,,,,f't! "'_/.~*~"" COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY August 6, 2001 EDWARD E. GUIDO JUDGE Jerry Peragine . 6280 Carlisle Pike #307 Mechllmcsburg, Pa. 17055 Dear Mr. Peragine: .. "~I:>",","" COURTHOUSE ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA 17013-3387 (717) 240-6290 FAX (717) 240-6462 I am returning your letter of July 20,2001, which I have not read. You may not correspond with this Court on an ex parte basis. EEG/sld Enclosure CC: Philip Briganti, Esquire Dawn Sunday, Esquire v~ Edward E. Guido , , . . ! ~ c.l -'.....'", ,J. ~ ,. " :-'",';'_"".0_'; ... GERALD A. PERAGINE , Plaintiff In the Court of Common Pleas of CUMBERLAND County, PENNSYL VANIA v. Civil Action - Law CUSTODY ANN E. PERAGINE, Defendant NO. 0/. 3;U..Y COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY I. Plaintiff is Gerald A. Peragine, residing at 6280 Carlisle Pike, # 307, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 2. Defendant is Ann E. Peragine, residing at 16 East Gate Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011. 3. Plaintiff seeks custody of the following minors: Sara Elizabeth Peragine, who was born on November 18,1986. Rebecca Diane Peragine, who was born on January 13,1989. Mason Andrew Peragine, who was born on October 1,1990. The children were not born out of wedlock. The children are presently in the custody of Ann E. Peragine, who resides at 16 East Gate Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 170 II. During the past five years the children have resided, collectively, with the following persons and at the following addresses: (a) With defendant, at 16 East Gate Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 from November 21,2000 nntil present. (b) With plaintiff and defendant, at 16 East Gate Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, from Jnne 1997 until November 21,2000. (c) With plaintiff and defendant at 10325 SW I 19th Street, Miami. Florida 33176 from 1993 until June 1997. The mother of the children is Ann E. Peragine, residing at 16 East Gate Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 170 II. She is married to the Plaintiff, Gerald A. Peragine, but is separated. The father of the children is Gerald A. Peragine, residing at 6280 Carlisle Pike, # 307, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. He is married to the Defendant, Ann E. Peragine, but is separated. ~:. . ~~~ ~~ ,j ',,-', ~ ,,- ., '1, '---"';. #. 4. The relationship of the Plaintiff to the children is that off ather. Plaintiff currently resides with the following persons: Name Dianna Peragine Joseph Peragine Relationship Mother Brother 5. The relationship of the Defendant to the children is that of mother. Defendant currently resides with the children, described above, whom Plaintiff seeks custody of. 6. Plaintiff has participated as a party or witness, or in another capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody ofthese aforementioned children in the following action: In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania No. 00-8509 Civil Term Protection From Abuse Said case was negotiated by respective counsels of both Plaintiff and Defendant, without findings of fact stipulated; custody of aforementioned children was awarded to the Defendant pending further court order. This Complaint represents Plaintiffs endeavor to secure further court order. Other than the proceeding mentioned above, Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning these children pending in a court of this Commonwealth. Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the children or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the children. 7. The best interests and permanent welfare of the children will be served by granting the relief requested because: (a) Defendant suffers a chronic and ongoing addiction to alcohol, which, over the years, has manifested itself in (among other things) blackouts, promiscuity, dereliction of family, car wrecks, and a recent Dill arrest in Pennsylvania (that arrest was adjudicated with the ARD program, for which the Defendant was released from counseling by falsely asserting that she'd stopped drinking). Defendant has drinking bouts that last well into small hours of the morning; one night, on June 11,2000 she didn't come home at all (documented in Mechanicsburg Police department Incident # 2000 06 000142). Despite her affiiction, she chooses to work in a bar; the predictable results have ensued. Since her separation from the Plaintiff, which she secured by filing for and securing a Protection From Abuse order, there have been several examples (which the Plaintiff can document, through police and private investigator reports) of the Defendant drinking in bars while her children were home alone late at night. Defendant regularly drives while intoxicated despite her knowledge that a second Dill conviction results in a 30-day jail sentence. The Plaintiff has urged the Defendant to seek out treatment; although she has done so several years ago, she '" ~~ , I" " , -,,--~ -~ '-' ." '" "'~"",: , is unable or unwilling to do so now. The Defendant's severe problems with alcohol (and with, in the Plaintiffs estimation, a deep-seated depression) pre-date the Plaintiffs first association with the Defendant twenty years ago. Defendant often chooses (or is compelled) to drink instead of parent; the children suffer, as a result, from neglect and an exceedingly poor example. The potential threat is far worse. (b) Defendant has little regard for propriety. In February, 1995 the Plaintiff encountered the Defendant and the Plaintiffs brother, James Peragine, drunk and in a carnal embrace, at the Plaintiff's home, with the children in the next room. Recently, since the separation of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Plaintiff requested of the Defendant that the Plaintiff s brother, who is currently unemployed and homeless and who suffers from general amorality (having jeopardized or ruined several marriages via his own lack of propriety), not be allowed at the family home. The Defendant agreed to this but, as has so often been the case, the Plaintiff could not rely on the Defendant's veracity; the Plaintiffs brother has apparently spent a good deal of time there. And the Defendant has urged the children to lie to the Plaintiff about the situation. The unseemliness of this, the wanton lack of respect the Defendant displays towards the Plaintiff, who has never strayed from his marriage vows or treated the Defendant in such a shoddy manner, not only humiliates the Plaintiff to his children but also creates an unhealthy environment for the children. (c) Defendant has a dysfunctional relationship with the real world. For instance, she has been driving a car with an inspection sticker that expired a year and a half ago. She'll try to stick to back roads and drive at night, in hopes of avoiding police cars, despite having had ample funds and opportunity to secure the automobile insurance she needs to get a new inspection sticker. Defendant has no explanation for this, because there is no explanation for it. It obviously sets a poor and unhealthy example for the children, who are aware of the situation. Another example concerns the Defendant's Power of Attorney duties for her mother's affairs (her mother is in a local nursing home); as far as the Plaintiff can see, every imaginable fiduciary responsibility connected with that Power is violated egregiously and repeatedly. (d) Defendant does not provide proper adequate supervision for the children. Despite the Plaintiffs objection, on November 5, 2000, to the Defendant's choice of occupation (bartender), Plaintiff made sure to be home from his ownjob each day by 5 PM to cook, help with homework, etc. Since the separation and the Protection From Abuse order that allows for Defendant's seeing the children only on Tuesday evenings, all other evening have been unsupervised until the Defendant arrives home (ostensibly at 7:30 PM, but almost always later, sometimes much later). The children are unable to cook nourishing meals and no meals are prepared in advance by the Defendant for them. The children are not, in the Plaintiffs estimation, mature enough to be on their own for these hours. Defendant has shown no inclination to hire a sitter or to change her work hours (which, beginning in early June, will see the children unsupervised each day from roughly II AM until whenever the Defendant arrives home at night from her job...8 PM? ... 9 PM?...Iater still?). The Plaintiffs son (10 years old) has cried, ~ii~,!~lilH;li~:!f!ij,lir~tj'k;t,;;"":jf,'i":.&ir@.ja!ai"fl!;,;,,,,,,,t,;;f&ll'!'-"'"",.....-";."',"',,n:,';,.;'l,',"_'~~"""';NO~"'g"~~~~WU,if.!!t~_ Z$ ~ ~" ~~"-~~.^ ,,~ .-, .~ ."., 'w ."""~r ',"~" ,~,"" ,>> 'lr ~Ii)u~', I" I, I i I' I !' ii; _.~" '<," W, ,',,,'M,",,'=M0 -~ ..<'- ",-~,",~" "' . on the phone, to the Plaintiff about there being "no adult around". (e) The Plaintiff is concerned and involved with his children and their welfare. A good example of this is that the Plaintiff s son's school contacted the Plaintiff at his office two months ago to request supervision and help with the Plaintiffs son's schoolwork and school behavior. Notes home weren't being returned, the Plaintiffs son seemed hyperactive and uninterested in his studies. The school and the Plaintiff made arrangements where, on the Tuesday nights when he is permitted to see his children for a few hours, an envelope is delivered from the Plaintiffs son with progress reports and assignments pending from each of the teachers. Working with him, the Plaintiffs son has developed better study habits and raised his grades appreciably. Recently, the Plaintiff attended a "Career Day" at his daughter's school to discuss what being a stockbroker is all about. On other fronts, the Plaintiff, despite the severe curtailment on his contact with his children due to the double-pronged burden of the Protection From Abuse order and the fmancial hardship resulting from a contested Domestic Relations support payment, has enjoyed playing basketball and tennis with his children, has taken them to religious services (not often enough, but more than the zero times that the Defendant has done so), has taken them to the library, driven them back and forth to school and community activities, prepared a homemade lasagna for his daughter's Ethnic Foods day at school, etc. (f) The Plaintiff would, if awarded custody, insist that the children receive daily supervision during hours when he's working. The Plaintiff's mother can help to do that to some degree, but the Plaintiff would certainly be prepared to hire someone to help. The Plaintiff would, certainly, be able to improve on the hours spent daily with a parent, as the Plaintiffs workday ends at 4:30PM, the Plaintiff is not an alcoholic or a "night person", the Plaintiff s chief earthly concern in this world is that the children be afforded something resembling a normal environment in which to grow. The Plaintiff, if awarded custody, would promote continued relations between the Defendant and the children, as the Plaintiff does not wish to see the children estranged from their mother. The Plaintiff acknowledges that, at the moment, he does not possess an adequate housing facility for his children; he asks the court to repatriate him to the home at 16 East Gate Drive in Camp Hill, where he has paid either rent or support payments since 1997. If the Court demurs in that regard, the Plaintiff asks the Court to award custody to the Plaintiff, with such custody to take effect upon the acquisition of suitable housing. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court to grant custody of the children to Plaintiff with reasonable rights of partial custody to Defendant. -","'" ~ ~ "I . .. . . . ,~" ~~~ 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 18 Pa. C. S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Gerald Plainti ~ ~~~1iitl,t"ii1l!u"&""'J,;;<ti"i'jl'~i_CJ''';i,j~"M-.tl!l1,,,,,",,;.,lG;'S-#iA,b""t~":",;!*"S"<''';':~Jo'_'L~'i''''T",.&:~~~~~-~-;:~,,j~~~il ~ 1t ES ~ c,.-,,,~<>~ .~'h~M'" .-~ ~~ "'~~<"'~""".~ ","'.,. ~_,.,__,."_"., ~ ~ ~ '1 Q. ~ ~ ~ - ~ --n "" ".-.-' '<y' ". ~~'" o C t;"(,- ~")!~'; u;. r:: .' ~". ->-~ "- (:~ ~<, ->~;~ :< -...... t; r.> .I:- '" ~ ~~.lm .,"" ". :.,) (-' 8) J ~ . -KJJ..:'l':_i -" ~ j: i I I I . . , ^ -"- ':";,-,~),.:;j ,>c~~,.c.:", c,' ,~" ,,' _:, 1:, . .. ~ GERALD A. PERAGINE, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . : vs. : NO. 01-3269 CIVIL TERM : ANN E. PERAGINE, Defendant . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY . . ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 131'JJ day of ~ 'I consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, and directed as follows: , 2001, upon it is ordered 1. A Hearing is scheduled in Court -.ioom #.5' , of the Cumberland County Court House, on the ';J s;r day of F1ut:..a , 2001, at fj:Ja o'clock, L.m., at which time testimony will be taken. For purposes of this Hearing, the Father, Gerald A. J;'eragine, shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties or the parties Pro Se shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a Memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list witnesses who are expected to testify at the Hearing, and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. These Memoranda shall be filed at least ten (10) days prior to the Hearing date. 2. The prior Order of this Court dated February 8, 2001 shall continue in effect. ~: 3. Pending further Order of Court or agreement of the parties, all exchanges of custody under the February 8, 2001 Order shall take place at the curb two (2) doors down from the Mother's residence. .~ ~<<.~ (."..-1.\1 BY THE J. - &I. DWA~ E. el,''/, / cc: Jan Terpening, and Philip Briganti, Esquire - Counsel for Mother Gerald A. peragine, Father ~~.~1ffiWfi,.&j;j~~,;Jb~l!lil~iMil#!~~jjffi!"'_MI!l!fum-MfuI.i,~'<'-';-';""'~;i~~';j,:At~~,;,"""r<i@~i~ii$iii'" ~~ ilillJl.i!~~~"'; . "....', ." ':J;..) , ;; ~ \ .. c,,~- r' _"~, ",o<"^,,, "",<~, r,,_,". "-','",'" ~ ",e""',~ . ",.'_, - "~ ~~^ 0<,'- ~~-'.~, ~' ~'''-'~''_'"_'"__"-'.r . ."""""'-'lam...... ',;",,,"'_.,. 'Ti I;, r t Ii , !" Ii :1 W p ". ~_~,",,,,,-, ''- ."..1 " . , J ",~ < L'~' '~ ;- =0 ' ,;,;,;_:_" ,. _" ,J....:', ~ .. \ GERALD A. PERAGINE, Plaintiff : IN THE OOURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . . . vs. . . NO. 01-3269 CIVIL TERM . . ANN E. PERAGINE, Defendant . . CIVIL AcrION - LAW IN CUSTODY . . PRIOR JUDGE: George E. Hoffer CUSTODY CDlCILIATICN SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCXlIDANCE WITH COMBERLAND COONTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned CUstody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subjects of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH <lJRRENTLy IN CUSTODY OF Sara Elizabeth peragine Rebecca Diane Peragine Mason Andrew Peragine November 18, 1986 January 13, 1989 October 1, 1990 Mother Mother Mother 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on July 2, 2001, with the following individuals in attendance: Gerald A. Peragine, who was not represented by counsel, and the Mother, Ann Elizabeth peragine, with her counsel, Jan Terpening and Philip Briganti, Esquire. This Court previously entered a separate Custody Order in this matter on February 8, 2001 by consent of the parties at the same time as entry of a Protection Order. Under the Custody Order, the Mother had primary physical custody and the Father had partial custody on alternating weekends and every Tuesday evening. The Protection Order specified that exchanges of custody were to take place at the curb in front of the Mother's residence, during which the Father was to remain in his vehicle. The Father filed this Petition for Modification Pro Se. After the Conciliation Conference was scheduled, the Father filed a Motion requesting that the Conciliation Conference be canceled and a Hearing be scheduled before the Court as "The Children's interests are jeopardized by spending valuable time in a Conciliation process doomed to failure by extant circumstances." The Conciliator was directed by the Court Administrator's Office to proceed with the Conciliation Conference. 3. As indicated in his Motion for a Hearing, the Father was not interested in attempting to resolve the custody issues at the Conciliation I ~ r " , "'-- "- l'; ,'- ~-~, -- ~k .. . . , Conference and it will be necessary to schedule a Hearing in this matter. 4. The Father's position on custody is as follows: The Father believes that the Children' s interests would be best served by residing primarily with him. The Father stated at the Conference that he would consider only one of two options for resolving the custody matter. Under Option I, The Court would vacate the provision in the Protective Order excluding the Father from the rrarital residence and the Father would IlDve into that residence to have custody of the Children. Under Option 2, the Father seeks a Court Order granting the Father primary physical custody of the Children at such time as the Father is able to obtain appropriate housing in the future. The Father currently lives with his IlDther and brother and indicated that he has not been exercising his right to overnight weekend periods of custody with the Children because he does not have sufficient accomodations. Although the marital residence is actually owned by the rraternal grandmother, the Father believes he has sufficient interest in the home through his role in assisting the Mother in obtaining power of Attorney for the maternal grandmother, who currently resides in a nursing home. The Father indicated that he has been having custody with the Children on alternating Sunday daytimes. When questioned by the Conciliator as to why he was not at least exercising his right to custody on bOth weekend days, the Father indicated he did not wish to discuss those issues at the Conference and it is therefore unclear to the Conciliator as to the Father's full position in this matter. In his Petition for Modification, however, the Father expressed concern that the Mother has an alcohol problem and is not providing adequate care for the Children. The Father acknowledged having communication problems with the Mother and, in fact, referred to the Mother consistently as the "defendant" throughout the Conference. The Father requested that the parties exchange custody down the street from the Mother's residence rather than immediately at the home which the Father feels is humiliating to him. The Father indicated that he would consider obtaining a custody evaluation but was doubtful that he would be able to pay for the full amount. 5. The Mother's position on custody is as follows: The Mother believes that it is in the Children's best interest to continue to reside primarily with her. The Mother denies the allegations in the Father's Petition concerning her ability to care for the Children. The Mother is willing to continue with the custody arrangements set forth in the February 8, 2001 Order under which the Father has custody on alternating weekends and Tuesday evenings. According to the Mother, the Father has only exercised his right to partial custody on IlDst alternating Sundays but has not been willing to take the Children on saturdays or for overnight periodS. The Mother expressed her concern that the Father refuses to speak with her directly at all and confuses the Children by communicating through them on custody issues. The Mother believes it is inappropriate for the Father to pursue possession of the marital residence, (to which she believes he has no legal interest in any event) through the custody process when the Mother has been granted exclusive possession in a Protective Order. Finally, as to the place for exchange, the Mother stated that the Children, object to walking down the street to a park where the Father has insisted upon picking them up rather than at the Mother's curbside. The Mother indicated she would be willing to participate in a custody evaluation but is not able to contribute financially. ,'~ . L ." . < ' ;'- . -'h;.~' ,'J', "" '"-"""'1"", , ..' \ 6. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached Scheduling a Hearing on the Father's Petition for Primary CUstody. It is expected that the Hearing will require at least one-half day and possibly a full day. The provision in the proposed Order concerning the place for exchanges of custody is the recommendation of the Conciliator as a temporary compromise to the parties' respective positions on that issue. ~ Date j 9( :J-eJo / Daf2~ CUstody COnciliator ~-- , . I "~,,., ,~ ;,. ," .'"," "-"r . ',-, GERALD A. PERAGINE, Plaintiff In the Court of Common Pleas of CUMBERLAND County, PENNSYL VANIA v. Civil Action - Law CUSTODY ANN E. PERAGINE, Defendant NO. 01-3269 MOTION FOR HEARING AND NOW, Plaintiff in the above captioned case moves the Court for a Hearing, as per Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1915.4-1. Plaintiff asks the Court to recognize that, as per this Rule, "serious allegations affecting the children's welfare" were enumerated in the Complaint itself. Plaintiff also notes that new information has come to light since the original filing of the Complaint. Plaintiff maintains that the children's interests are jeopardized by spending valuable time in a conciliation process doomed to failure by extant circumstances. Plaintiff asks that the Court Order issued on June I, 2001 directing the parties to appear for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference be vacated, and that a Hearing be scheduled as quickly as possible. Respectfully submitted, ,~~j!!1ll!liIU1Uj~tl'1il4~141~lillHii!!llitl'j[a..:~~iMM%\f",II@""W.;];"'!~-}i<'-~!,,*1J8i:1<"ibi~a;1i'1:,:c~ii~~M ,",-' "~~~,, '~:' ~. , -- =>.""'- ~N "~" ! ii I: 11 c(" L.:,;, I:;f L ,- ~~ - -~~.. . =~" , .> '>- ^,~. (") 0 0 c: '''n g <- -o'OJ r.::. I; ~g:i :z ;=.:;; -~.j',l Z~~ ,"';0 <;QZ '~.::~,g~ r;::CJ -0 ~j"' ., ~O ;Jl: ~8 -0 ~ ;pc: -l ~ ~ --i '< ~- . . <., ~" "'-'-< -"""~~,j;-,". ''''-+'il~<oJ\ GERALD A. PERAGINE PLAINTIFF V. ANN E. PERAGINE DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 01-3269 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Friday, June 01, 2001 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Dawn S. Sunday, Esq. , the conciliator, at 39WestMainStreet,Meehanicsburg,PA 17055 on Monday, July 02, 2001 at 11:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: Isl Dawn S. Sunday. Esq. ~ Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HA VB AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 - ': ~' - "'~ ^'~,' ,-.~~ ... . _ " -u,~ ''''~~"~'.IT'" 'HW';"~~ ,> __"'/" ,~.~.~ .~'~. '~~n~^'~_JM_"_ "'[1"[ ....--.- i- l..t )~I..)i-HGt OF Ti-:~ :':rYr,-"~..,!r)~ l-~jA' RY 11,;" > '_i\vl, , 01 JUN.. 5 PH 2: 31 CUMBERlfND COUNTY PENNSYLWINIA ~'-5~'(/1 M. ~ /H~ ;d ~ ;; :.S..t:7~ W ~~./ &; fjR'. 9<- ~s: ~;s~.c// ~ jn~ ~ 4=~fr ~ "j <I "-J,,__;~Rii ". ~",_~~,,_~_:Jl~~PW~~~~;t~,l~''ffffl~B,\'I-R''-f'i~' ~- ,J GERALD A. PERAGINE, Plaintiff : In the Court of Common Pleas of CUMBERLAND County, PENNSYLVANIA v. Civil Action - Law CUSTODY ANN E. PERAGINE, Defendant NO. 01-3269 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY I hereby certifY that I have this day served the foregoing document upon all parties of record in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of 1 Pa. Code 33.32. Dated this 30th Day of May, 2001. 'L':.;.~' ~,~". lj~\(till..ik_, ~ ~..<H&~_'J:!;'I.H,itili~l11ili'iHl&:!""ili!f~X&\iJi:'ili'!ij,",1.'l1'i;;j<"":;'j"'ho:b\~~';;jn~ie~.",~\!-","",;,;'.bi.~~~"'~~00i~ - 0 0 ~ C "'U~ r..... u"; ~~ c::: T :z: r~ 1'1;:::: I ::-Q.}n -<~ .c- -'-'Y ,~ ~C"J ~ :=:,0 ~8 'r'l.~i u_::!) 00 >~ - am .. r.> ~ -< SS rf ~^,_,_ C~~ ".~,,,__" ~~. _~,~ "~,,'.'~""e.=_ __ ._ ~-,^_L"e,~" u .I! . ~- co "~'''"~~i",; .. ( o(~ GERALD A. PERAGINE, Plaintiff : In the Court of Common Pleas of CUMBERLAND County, PENNSYLVANIA v. Civil Action - Law CUSTODY ANN E. PERAGINE, Defendant NO. 01-3269 STIPULATION OF CUSTODY MODIFICATION AND NOW, Gerald A. Peragine and Ann E. Peragine, the parties in the above captioned case do hereby agree that their children (Sara, Rebecca, and Mason Peragine) shall be in the joint physical and legal custody of their natural Parents, and it is further AGREED that the parties of this agreement will alternate physical custody of the children on a weekly basis, while remaining flexible to accommodate unforeseen circumstances and it is further AGREED that the parties of this agreement shall alternate custody of the children on each of the children's birthdays, New Year's Day, Fourth of July, Thanksgiving Day, and Easter Sunday, and it is further AGREED that theparties of the agreement split custody of the children on Christmas Day, and it is further AGREED that the natural mother shall have custody of the children on Mother's Day and on the mother's birthday' and that the natural father shall have custody of the children on Father's Day and on the father's birthday, and it is further AGREED that the non-residential parent shall have the right to complete information from any physician, dentist, consultant or specialist attending to the children's physical or mental needs for any reason whatsoever, and to copies of any reports given to the other parent by such persons and it is further AGREED that the parties of the agreement will consult with one another on all important school issues and events to jointly decide on changes of school curriculum, extracurricular activities and participation in special school events and is further j, 'I - .~ _.~~ ''''''''~,'' .... ...,- .... AGREED that the non-residential parent shall have the right to freely communicate with the children via telephone, written correspondence, or computer technology without interference from the residential parent, and it is further AGREED that neither party shall do or say anything that may estrange the children from the other parent, and it is further AGREED that both parties of this agreement shall bear in mind that the children were borne of Love and Hope, and shall be held in that lofty Ideal until Death our bones with dust shall cover. ~ -, C fA-- , Ann E. Peragine / ,~~. ribed and sworn befo e mej;s I 5"" day of 41A.1 U<,:J- , 't9. 200 \ /1 _ r r.at N tary Public My commission expires: I ~ ,~liWia '-'''' ;" 1Il:!:j~~~~~;jjHH'\'''fiij@jjNjik,1ti1!*'~~I'''-;''%:llfi!ld;!mH',~-' y~ ~~~'," ,~""I ..","",,,,--,. i_/:_' i"","'''lh,O''i'i<~'',W;u'1!i~m'''I!.IlUlll~Wlll'~lIilJ~ ":;,,, I~ N~T' '"' ',." """,~",~_~_~", ,~,~ , ~-~~ .,< ~.~ ~ !Mil ""l~;m.lfilMjl1 C" o s=. -,JV rQP\ z,:J-, z:C (,0 <,';, -(:,,-', C1..:" 1?O / C' 'PC ~ .,.." .- '~:> \'....') C.: - r!~i o ,0 f:i' .. , ";. '''-1-' .-n '7l~;'':\ ~T'~ 1:'....., ~ ! 'r. ,_,,_. , ~illllIIl- , m~'''''"l,'! ~ AUG 2 02001 tP GERALD A. PERAGINE, Plaintiff In the Court of Common Pleas of CUMBERLAND County, PENNSYL VANIA v. Civil Action - Law CUSTODY ANN E. PERAGINE, Defendant NO. 01-3269 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ day of w;,oo 1, upon consideration of the attached Stipulation of Custody Modification, the Court finds the above-captioned parties to have reached an agreement for Joint Custody of their natural children. Edward E. Guido Judge 'x 0'\'').: :t "^ "-"~,,'~~,'o~~~!i!l4i~~!J8Lli)~~~~h~njaH,,<';'Ml:\l~;\*~'1,-,,,,m.,~, "':'''''''''~''''-tJ~,M'it4M",ci@j;1;WIi.'1I\iggiM.lliiJl~IIWlt~:I!ii;iliiJl'!iiil~illIilI~ \i\N'1!\lJ,Si':!N"~~".., ." r-j ,n~ '\.1 :1..,)~',-, ,,:nJ \ ,,'r.. . "",,, ",,' f\,.L1 ~l: L,),_~ ,"' - '--' "'C' .()1 V~':! (,0 '\.11 > L',! \\j 1 (I .... ,.nl'" i .' ~. ,'.' _, _~"" _ ~_" , . ,0~^_. " '." ",._'., .~,~, _<;- ,',w_ ,_-~~ ,'~' 0"_'_' .-.y.," "-". ~, ~ ,. " "",-,-,,'_"~ '.=. 'H ~w _ ..< ~ ~-. ' - --- -,- - ,~. I, " ,;.""" 'Ii.':::;] . ANNE ELIZABETH PERAGINE, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. NO. 01-3269 CIVIL TERM GERALD ANDREW PERAGINE, Defendant : CUSTODY ORDER FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE AND NOW, this ;1t""'day of oJ.:f{,e, , 2001, upon consideration of the attached Petition to Withdraw as Counsel, it is hereby ordered that MidPenn Legal Services may withdraw its appearance as Plaintiff s counsel of record in the above captioned case. Edward E. Guido, Judge Joan Carey David A. Lopez Attorneys for Plaintiff MIDPENN LEGAL SERVICES 8 Irvine Row Carlisle, P A 17013 Gerald Andrew Peragine, Defendant pro se 6280 Carlisle Pike, Lot 307 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 ~~1il1r~q;',jj,;;,"~Hm!i'N~.;,"'f'''''';_'f'.W,im,'lJy~,,'''';~';'1'U:'';>,",-:,.~~;t',h"oN~M~'l";; ''''''';''__t,""",:;~,:t;~il~~~ili!!~~ljJi\i;f:li,i);H~i\i~~'l:B:lj h ViNV!\lASNN3d " l'lnN" r,,, '""\ :~'"'I'r\'"1 ^ I' ;J~i '."'~\'-:: -,~:~J:::, \( ;u ~ "1'" "'I . f ".. ~~ ....'c, "_' - 7 ""' ''") bv lJu I'.., A"I""'" " '0"-" i"". \I ~\., 1_..- i ~ , I,.. .::0 "',' "-,,.---,;~..,.~-,~- "' ...~ . ~ ~ "....~ . .~,' ,.~. ,,"" .~. .. ~-, ~~ ~ ~v, , '111' '-~ . ~'.ll .&i'~ r: I" iii ~ ji ::: n , i,i I: Ii i ""........."-~'.~.~.. ~" ~~ . ~. .L " . ._ <,c.'" <' '''oi:i ANNE ELIZABETH PERAGINE, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF vs. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA NO. 01-3269 CML TERM GERALD ANDREW PERAGINE, Defendant : CUSTODY o 0 " c: .c:r~ ~ -0 -occ ("""") rnrT1 ~ z...,--' zp' N ~(~ ~2 -,~ ~.._', The Plaintiff, Anne Elizabeth Peragine, by and through her attorneys, Joan ~y amfDayt4", ~o L:'~ ;:,-,,~;n Pc ._ 'C'I A. Lopez ofMidPenn Legal Services, moves the Court for an Order to Withdraw ~Co~sel ~ PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL the grounds that: 1. MidPenn Legal Services is counsel of record for Plaintiff, Anne Elizabeth Peragine, in the above captioned matter. 2. Plaintiff is over the income guidelines, and is therefore ineligible for representation in this matter by MidPenn Legal Services. On July 23, 2001, Plaintiff signed the attached statement authorizing MidPenn Legal Services to withdraw as her counsel. 3. The parties submitted a signed and notarized Stipulation of Custody Modification to the Court pro se, and an Order of Court was entered on August 20, 2001. 4. The custody hearing scheduled for Friday, August 31, 2001, at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Edward E. Guido in Courtroom No.5 was cancelled. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant this Petition and authorize MidPenn ,'" ~ ~~~ 'I-- .~ 'd"" '_--,-" '''''- ~%-1. Legal Services to withdraw as Plaintiff's counsel of record in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Joan Carey David A. Lopez Attorneys for Plaintiff MIDPENN LEGAL SERVICES 8 Irvine Row Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-9400 """""". ~" ^" ."-,, _vi "';;}" Q MidPenn Legal Services 8 Irvine Row, Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone 717-243-9400 .1-800.822-5288 FAX 717-243-8026 I, Anne E1izabeth Peragine, understand that I am over the income guidelines and no longer eligible for services/representation by MidPenn Legal Services due to my income and the support I receive for my children. I hereby release MidPenn Legal Services from representing me in this case (Per~e v. Peragine, Cumberland County, No. 01-3269, Custody), and authorize MidPenn Legal Services to withdraw as counsel on my behalf Date: 1-~23-01 iilb LSC ~wma<l!%l~~iw-_;;.'ii>!~N.i>tX:{"ll'""l'''',~I1i~'i"<Z,,E",l,'.ii>_'';'l.'''''!"",;;.~;k:::'_{i"-,,,_)j'i'~;;',","J'h',:08:;~j;ti~liMfi;W_~:iJi;;l,~gli.lilIBlili'ii.9.:J'lI~~.~~' ~j -~,"" '11'~Ulll ~f ""..~lltU v"' " ~,~~<,,~~,_,,~. - h'''''_,"__~.~_'_ ,~....' ~- .~ "~" ~"'"""W' ~e. ._,," ,_, ,",.,., ".", ,~~- ~