Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-1800Date: 3/27/2007 Dauphin County Time: 10:00 AM Complete Case History Page 1 of 3 Case: 2005-CV-01685-CU John E Myers III vs. Melinda S McCauley Filed: 4/25/2005 Subtype: CustodyNisitation Physical File: Y Comment: Status History Transferred Judge History Date 4/25/2005 11/23/2006 3/2/2007 5/16/2005 Payments Mindy S. Gc 3/27/2007 Judge No Judge, No Judge, Bratton, Bruce F. Krevsky, Sanford Receipt Date >odman esq 79043 4/25/2005 Plaintiff Name: Myers, John E III Address: Phone: Home: Employer: Litigant Type: Comment: Attorneys Goodman, Mindy S Custody Pre-Hearing Conference Order Referred 5/12/2005 Defendant Name: Address: Phone: Employer: Litigant Type: Comment: Work: SSN: DOB: Sex: Amount 221.00 Total 221.00 Send notices: Y User: LGARCIA o17 - Wod Appealed: N Reason for Removal Administrative Administrative Current Administrative Type Civil Filing (Primary attorney) McCauley, Melinda S Home: Work: Hearings From To Judge 6/9/2005 10:00 AM 6/9/2005 04:30 PM Krevsky, Sanford 1101 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA Register of Actions 4/25/2005 New Civil Case Filed This Date. Send Notices SSN: DOB: Sex: Send notices: Y Type CustodyNisitation No Judge, Date: 3/27/2007 Dauphin County Time: 10:00 AM Complete Case History Page 2 of 3 Case: 2005-CV-01685-CU John E Myers III vs. Melinda S McCauley Register of Act ions 4/25/2005 Filing: Custody Complaint Paid by: Mindy No Judge, S. Goodman esq Receipt number: 0079043 Dated: 4/25/2005 Amount: $221.00 (Check) Plaintiff: Myers, John E III Attorney of No Judge, Record: Mindy S Goodman Complaint in Custody, filed. No Judge, 4/26/2005 Upon consideration of the attached Krevsky, Sanford Complaint it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before the Conciliator, on the 12th day of May, 2005, at 3:00 P.M., on the 4th Floor, Dauphin County Courthouse, Front and Market Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. See Order of Court. Copies to Atty. 4-27-05. 5/12/2005 Upon consideration of the attached Krevsky, Sanford Complaint it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before the Conciliator, on the 9th day of June, 2005 at 10:00, AM, at 1101 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. See Order of Court, filed. 5/16/2005 Judge assigned to case. Krevsky, Sanford Hearing scheduled for (CustodyNisitation Krevsky, Sanford 06/09/2005 10:00 AM) 1101 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 6/16/2005 The parties (John Meyers, Plaintiff and Bratton, Bruce F. Melissa McCauley, Defendant) both parties having appeared pro se for a custody conference on June 9, 2005 before Sanford A. Krevsky, Esquire, and having reached an agreement with regards to the best interest and welfare of their minor child, Chase Hunter Meyers (D.O.B. 9/13/01), herein after referred to as child, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED as follows: 1. It is the intention of the parties and the parties agree that they will have shared legal custody of the children. 2. Parents shall have partial custody of the minor child in accordance with the following schedule: See Complete ORDER, filed. Copies dist. 6-17-05 11123/2005 Judge assigned to case. No Judge, Stipulated Order for Custody, filed No Judge, User: LGARCIA Date: 3/27/2007 Time: 10:00 AM Page 3 of 3 Dauphin County Complete Case History Case: 2005-CV-01685-CU John E Myers III vs. Melinda S McCauley Register of Actions 11/29/2005 The parties John Myers, represented by Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire and Melinda McCauley, represented by Melissa L. Van Eck, Esquire, have reached an agreement with regards to the best interest and welfare of their minor child, Chase Hunter Myers (d.o.b. 9/13/01), herein after referred to as child, and therefore it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED as follows: 1. It is the intention of the parties and the parties agree that they will have shared legal custody of the child. 2. Mother shall have primary physical custody. Father shall have partial custody of the minor child in accordance with the following schedule: See COMPLETE VISITATION SCHEDULE and STIPULATED ORDER FOR CUSTODY, filed. 3/2/2007 Petition to Transfer Custody Case to Cumberland County, filed. Judge assigned to case. 3/5/2007 Upon consideration of the Petition to Transfer Venue filed by Plaintiff, a Rule is hereby entered upon Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Rule Returnable Friday, March 16, 2007. See Order, filed. Copies dist. 3/5/07 Chambers 3/22/2007 Petition to Make Rule Absolute, filed. Certificate of service of the Petition to Make Rule Absolute, filed. 3/27/2007 Upon consideration of the Petition to Transfer Venue filed by Plaintiff, and the Defendant's failure to respond thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is GRANTED. The above-captioned custody case shall be transferred to Cumberland County, and pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P.1915.2(d), the Dauphin County Prothonotary is hereby directed to forward certified copies of all docket entries, process, pleadings, and other papers filed in this action. Costs to be paid by Plaintiff. See Order, filed. Copies dist. 3/27/07 Chambers The above action transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. ****NO MORE ENTRIES CASE TRANSFERRED**** TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY UAR -2 17 ')nn-7 I hereby ce ify that t o or n is a t4 c rrect copy o the igi al filed. Proth notary/ Jerk a Bratton, Bruce F. No Judge, Bratton, Bruce F. Bratton, Bruce F. No Judge, No Judge, Bratton, Bruce F. Bratton, Bruce F. No Judge, User: LGARCIA N ? a [ G --Cl r-a t o - 2E -r, n Copies itrbuted Date . JOHN E. MYERS, III, V. Plaintiff, MELINDA S. McCAULEY, Defendant ORDER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO. 2005-CV-1685-CU ?. h) cm ?L a J AND NOW, this 27`" day of March, 2007, upon consideration of the Petition *P Transfer Venue filed by Plaintiff, and the Defendant's failure to respond thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is GRANTED. The above-captioned custody case shall be transferred to Cumberland County, and pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1915.2(d), the Dauphin County Prothonotary is hereby directed to forward certified copies of all docket entries, process, pleadings, and other papers filed in this action. Costs to be paid by Plaintiff. MAR 2 7 2007 t hQrWW CW* v"a the forte is a true and cornet copy If ? c+ai?istal f4 w. Prothonotary Distribution: BY THE C T: Bruce F. Bratton, J. President Judge Kenneth W. Seamans, Susquehanna County Courthouse, PO Box 218, Montrose, PA 18801 Howard M. Spizer, Esq., 724 Bank Towers Bldg., 312 Spruce St., Scranton PA 18503 Mindy S. Goodman, Esq., 2215 Forest Hills Drive, Suite 35, Harrisburg PA 17112 t t Mindy S. Goodman Attorney at Law 2215 Forest Hills Drive Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 JOHN E. MYERS, III, Plaintiff V. MELINDA S. McCAULEY, Defendant 6. F 4 id `maw ..-Para" r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. C9 00'?- - I WVS CM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT You, MELINDA S. McCAULEY, have been sued in court to OBTAIN custody, partial custody, or visitation of the child: CHASE HUNTER MYERS. You are ordered to appear in person at ?A?(py?,/? moo, (?u2T u,5 6 at 3;6v P.M., for F?oNr' ?,p?C'KET os7-s. D N 1-v y /.;? c/a conciliation or mediation conference a pretrial conference a hearing before the court. If you fail to appear as provided by this order, an order for custody, partial custody, or visitation may be entered against you or the court may issue a warrant for your arrest. 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. C Dauphin County Lawyer Referral Service 213 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-7536 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin 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. FOR THE COURT: DATE: '2". - s4? Cu dy Conference Offic 1' f b r o C1 CZ3 .t, T- rra ?v Cew p .. N o v JOHN E. MYERS, III, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. aU?? . • ??9U (AA MELINDA S. MCcAULEY, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : IN CUSTODY COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, JOHN E. MYERS, III, by and through his attorney, Mindy S. Goodman, and avers the following: 1. Plaintiff is an adult individual residing at 464 Stonehedge Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant is an adult individual residing at 716 Stoney Creek Drive, Dauphin, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 3. The parties are the natural parents of CHASE HUNTER MYERS, bom on September 13, 2001. 4. Since the parties separated in February of 2003, the parties have been able to work well with one another regarding custody of the minor child and no custody action has previously been filed with regard to this child. I 5. Since the child's birth, the child has lived with the following people at the following locations: a. September 13, 2001 through February 1, 2003, the minor child lived with Plaintiff and Defendant at 602 Mallard Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; b. February 1, 2003 through August 1, 2003, the minor child lived with Defendant, Kathy Radlein, Connor Radlein, and Logan Radlein at 1320 Horick Drive, Boiling Springs, Pennsylvania; C. August 1, 2003 through August 1, 2004, the minor child lived with Defendant and Don Schneider at 402 Market Street, apartment B, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania (Mr. Schneider did not actually move in until June 1, 2004); d. August 1, 2004 through the present time, the minor child lived with Defendant and Don Schneider at 716 Stoney Creek Drive, Dauphin, Pennsylvania (Don Schneider has relocated to the State of New York, but the exact date of his departure is unknown). 6. Over the past several weeks, the minor child has been telling the Plaintiff that he is moving to the State of New York and will no longer be able to see Plaintiff on a regular basis. 2 w 4 7. Plaintiff has approached Defendant about her possible relocation, and after denying it initially, Defendant has indicated to Plaintiff that she intends to move to the State of New York on or about August 1, 2005 to be with Don Schneider and she intends to take the parties' son with her. 8. Since Plaintiff believes that Defendant intends to relocate with the child outside of the jurisdiction of this Court within the next few months, Plaintiff files this custody action seeking primary legal and physical custody of the minor child. 9. Defendant's relocation to the State of New York, or anywhere outside a 25-mile radius of her current residence, would be contrary to the child's best interests. 10. The move, as proposed by Defendant, would seriously impair Plaintiffs ability to be an active parent for his child. 11. Plaintiff is intimately involved in the life of his child. It is and always has been Plaintiffs desire to be an everyday presence in his son's life. 12. The minor child who is the subject of this custody action is also very close with his paternal grandparents, and the move as proposed by Defendant would seriously impair that relationship as well. 13. Plaintiff maintains that it is critical to the child for both parents to raise him and that can only be accomplished if the Defendant and her son remain 3 in the Central Pennsylvania region. Plaintiff maintains that he is more than capable of raising his son without the assistance of Defendant; however, he does not believe that would be in the child's best interest and would agree to a shared custodial arrangement in the event Defendant remains within the jurisdiction of this Court. 14. Defendant does not have a valid basis for the move. 15. Plaintiff understands that he cannot prevent Defendant from relocating; however, he is adamantly opposed to his son relocating anywhere that would interfere with his daily contact with his son, and requests this Honorable Court to grant him primary legal and physical custody of the minor child in the event that Defendant does relocate outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 16. Plaintiff has the means, desire and ability to care for the minor child and while in his care, the child will be afforded the greatest opportunity to grow spiritually, physically and emotionally. 17. In the event that Defendant relocates outside the jurisdiction of this Court and Plaintiff is awarded primary legal and physical custody, Plaintiff will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the child maintains and further develops a strong and healthy relationship with his mother and both the maternal and paternal extended family members. 18. 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. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests Your Honorable Court to grant him primary legal and physical custody of CHASE HUNTER MYERS in the event that Defendant does relocate outside the jurisdiction of this court, or shared legal and physical custody should Defendant remain within the jurisdiction of this Court. Respectfully submitted, Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire Attorney ID No. 78407 2215 Forest Hills Drive Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-8742 Attorney for Plaintiff D???, ?nt?? ?? a? `? Ivil AGi ED 00 JOHN E. MYERS, III, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 2005 CV 1685 CU MELINDA S. MCCAULEY CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY Defendant ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 12Z day of cvO , 2005, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before Sanford A. Krevsky, Esquire, the Conciliator, 1101 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the 9th day of June, 2005 at 10:00 a.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. FOR THE COURT: Sanford A. Kr vsky, Cu dy Conciliator YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONECE. 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. DAUPHIN COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE 213 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717)232-7536 ?: ey, Copies Distributed IMAGED Date 1a 06- Initials JOHN MEYERS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MELISSA McCAULEY, : NO. 2005 CV 1685 CU Defendant M o c c.. -c:: c c?. c:) - ; M ORDER r 2-? c - f a A ti. AND NOW THIS day of ?Itijt 2005 the parties (John Meyers; < c Plaintiff and Melissa McCauley, Defendant) both parties having appeared pro se for a custody conference on June 9th, 2005 before Sanford A. Krevsky, Esquire, and having reached an agreement with regards to the best interest and welfare of their minor child.,Chase Hunter Meyers (D.O.B. 9/13/01), herein after referred to as child, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED as follows: 1. It is the intention of the parties and the parties agree that they will have shared legal custody of the children. The parties agree that major decisions concerning their children, including, but not limited to, the children's health, welfare, education, religious training and upbringing shall be made by them jointly, after discussion and consultation with each other, with a view toward obtaining and following a harmonious policy in the child's best interest. Each party agrees not to impair the other party's rights to shared legal custody of the children. Each party agrees not to attempt to alienate the affections of the child from the other party. Each party shall notify the other of any activity or circumstance concerning their child that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to the other. Day to day decisions shall be the responsibility of the party then having physical custody. With regard to any emergency decisions which must be made, the party having physical 0 1 custody of the child at the time of the emergency shall be permitted to make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby. However, that party shall inform the other of the emergency and consult with him or her as soon as possible. Each party shall be entitled to complete and full information from any doctor, dentist, teacher, professional or authority and to have copies of any reports given to either party as a parent pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. 5309. 2. Parents shall have partial custody of the minor child in accordance with the following schedule: a) Weekdays: Father will exercise visits weekly from Friday thru Sunday, times as agreed upon by the parties. Subsequent to father's shift change, alternate weeks of custody shall be exercised by both parties, Saturday thru Saturday, times as mutually agreed upon. The parties shall alternate Christmas and Thanksgiving holidays at mutually agreed upon times. 4. The holiday schedule shall take precedence over the regular custody schedule. Father shall have custody on Father's Day and Mother shall have custody on Mother's Day. 6. The transportation will be shared as follows: Mother shall provide 2/3 of the transportation, father shall meet mother 1 /3 of the way at a place mutually agreeable with both parties for all periods of exchange. 7. During any period of custody or visitation, the parties to this order shall not possess or use controlled substances or consume alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication. 2 • The parties shall likewise assure, to the extent possible, that other household members and/or houseguests comply with this prohibition. 8. Neither party will smoke cigarettes or tobacco products nor allow others to smoke in the presence of the child. 9. Each party shall be entitled to reasonable telephone or email contact with the child. when he is in the custody of the other party. The parties shall provide to one another an emergency contact phone number, e-mail address or contact person. 10. The parents shall organize ways for their child to maintain his friendships, extracurricular activities and other special interests, regardless of which household he maybe in. It is also suggested that toys, clothing, etc. not become matters of contention. 11. The parties shall refrain from making derogatory comments about the other party in the presence of the child and to the extent possible shall prevent third parties from making such comments in the presence of the child. 12. Should either party have the child spend overnight at a place other than their primary residence, the other party will be given the address and telephone number where the child is spending the night. 13. Neither party shall relocate from a current address if such relocation will necessitate a change in the custody schedule as set forth in this Order, or if the relocation will be to a location in excess of fifty (50) miles from the other party's then current address without (a) such party's first giving prior written notice to the other party not less than sixty (60) days prior to the planned relocation and (b) either written consent of the other party to such relocation or further Order of this Court. In the event of any intended 3 relocation, either party may seek modification of the terms of this custody Order by filing a Petition to Modify Custody with the Prothonotary. It is understood and stipulated by the parties that upon mutual agreement an expanded or altered schedule may be agreed upon between the parties and that such mutual agreement would be in the best interests of the child. 14. Should either parent be unavailable to care for the child during their custodial period, the other parent will have the right of first refusal to care for the children. 15. It is understood and stipulated by the parties that upon mutual agreement an expanded or altered schedule may be agreed upon between parties and that such mutual agreement would be in the interest of the child. BY URT: Bruce F. Bratton, Judge DISTRIBUTION: Sanford A. Krevsky, Esquire, Conciliator Conference John Myers, 464 Stonehege Lane Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17050 Melissa McCauley, 716 Stoney Creek Drive Dauphin, Pa. 17018 4 r.4Pies tb xptt a 1113b)OS vW? JOHN MYERS, Plaintiff V. MELINDA MCCAULEY, Defendant IMAGED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PENNSYLVANIA. DAUPHIN COUNTY w r i , r- ®rn < C ?r -•? p NO. 2005 CV 1685 CU STIPULATED ORDER FOR CUSTODY AND NOW THIS?SKday of r, 2005 the parties John Myers, represented by Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire and Melinda McCauley, represented by Melissa L. Van Eck, Esquire, have reached an agreement with regards to the best interest and welfare of their minor child, Chase Hunter Myers (d.o.b. 9/13/01), herein after referred to as child, and therefore it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED as follows: 1. It is the intention of the parties and the parties agree that they will have shared legal custody of the child. The parties agree that major decisions concerning their child, including, but not limited to, the child's health, welfare, education, religious training and upbringing shall be made by them jointly, after discussion and consultation with each other, with a view toward obtaining and following a harmonious policy in the child's best interest. Each party agrees not to attempt to alienate the affections of the child from the other party. Each party shall notify the other of any activity or circumstance concerning their child that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to the other. Day to day decisions shall be the responsibility of the party then having physical custody. With regard to any emergency decisions which must be made, the party having physical custody of the child at the time of the emergency shall be permitted to make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby. However, that party shall inform the other of the emergency and consult with him or her as soon as possible. Each party shall be entitled to complete and full information from any doctor, dentist, teacher professional or authority and to have copies of any reports given to either party as a parent pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. 5309. 2. Mother shall have primary physical custody. Father shall have partial custody of the minor child in accordance with the following schedule: a. Alternating weekends from Friday to Monday morning. Father shall be responsible for taking the minor child to daycare on Monday morning. b. Father will exercise periods of physical custody during the day until the minor child and Mother relocate. Father shall be responsible for returning the child to daycare at the end of his period of physical custody. C. Other times as agreed by the parties. d. Once mother and child move or Father begins working first shift, the parties will alternate custody on a weekly basis. 3. The parties shall alternate Christmas and Thanksgiving holiday at mutually agreed upon times. 4. The holiday schedule shall take precedence over the regular custody schedule. 5. Father shall have custody on Father's Day and Mother shall have custody on Mother's Day. 6. The transportation will be shared as agreed by the parties. Once mother and child move, mother shall provide 2/3 of the transportation, father shall meet mother 1 /3 of the way at a place mutually agreeable with both parties for all periods of exchange. 7. The parties agree that Mother and the minor child will be relocating to the vicinity of Montrose, Pennsylvania 8. Either party may request another conciliation conference after a six month trial period. 9. During any period of custody or visitation, the parties to this Order shall not possess or use controlled substances or consume alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication. 10. Neither party will smoke cigarettes or tobacco products nor allow others to smoke in the presence of the child. 11. Each party shall be entitled to reasonable telephone or email contact with the child when he is in the custody of the other party. The parties shall provide to one another an emergency contact phone number, e-mail address or contact person. 12. The parties shall organize way for their child to maintain his friendships, extracurricular activities and other special interests, regardless of which household he maybe in. It is also suggested that toys, clothing, etc. not become matters of contention. 13. The parties shall refrain from saying derogatory comments about the other party in the presence of the child and to the extent possible shall prevent third parties from making such comments in the presence of the child. 14. Should either party have the child spend overnight at a place other than their primary residence, the other party will be given the address and telephone number where the child is spending the night. 15. Should either parent be unavailable to care for the child during their custodial period, the other parent will have the right of first refusal to care for the children. 16. It is understood and stipulated by the parties that upon mutual agreement an expanded or altered schedule may be agreed upon between parties and that such mutual agreement would be in the interest of the child. BY T T: C) o c, J. cv ? W Date: John Myer -N" A . + . Melinda McCauley Ap 46 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF : SS. On this, the Z$`? day ofS V4 ? 2005, before me, a Notary Public, the undersigned officer, personally appeared John Myers, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTARIAL SEAL FMMINDY S. GOODMAN, Notary Public City of Harrisburg, Dauphin County y Expires M 21, 2009 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SS. COUNTY OF s On this, they day of , 2005, before me, a Notary Public, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Melinda McCauley, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that she executed the same for the purposes therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. otary Public Notarial Seal My commission expires: Carotrn A. SWftd, Notary Public Montrose Boro, Sum COU* My Commission Expires June 17, 2008 M~. Par?nsY Association Of Nob" i C JOHN E. MYERS, III, Plaintiff/Petitioner V. MELINDA S. McCAULEY, Defend ant/Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-CV-1 ..Vv<CU 3-S CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY nRnFR AND NOW, based on Plaintiff/Petitioner's Petition to Transfer Custody Case to Cumberland County, the above-captioned custody case shall be transferred to Cumberland County and, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1915.2(d), the Dauphin County Prothonotary is hereby directed to forward certified copies of all docket entries, process, pleadings and other papers filed in this action. BY THE COURT: J. Distribution: Kenneth W. Seamans, P.J., Susquehanna County Courthouse, P.O. Box 218, Montrose, PA 18801 Howard M. Spizer, Esquire, 724 Bank Towers Building, 312 Spruce Street, Scranton, PA 18503 Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire, 2215 Forest Hills Drive, Suite 35, Harrisburg, PA 17112 Prothonotary, Cumberland County Courthouse, Hanover and High Streets, Carlisle, PA 17013 JOHN E. MYERS, III, Plaintiff V. MELINDA S. McCAULEY, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA r-- NO. 2005-CV-1685-CU CIVIL ACTION - LAW N IN DIVORCE - PETITION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE 1. On or about March 2, 2007, Plaintiffs counsel filed a Petition to Transfer Custody Case to Cumberland County. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference is a copy of said Petition. 2. On March 5, 2007, this Court, by the Honorable Bruce F. Bratton, issued a Rule on Defendant to show cause, if any there be, why counsel's petition should not be granted. The Rule was returnable Friday, March 16, 2007. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference is a copy of said Rule. 3. On March 6, 2007, undersigned counsel forwarded to Defendant's counsel a copy of the executed Rule to Show Cause. 4. To date, which is March 19, 2007, Defendant has not raised any opposition to the Petition to Transfer Custody Case to Cumberland County. 1 WHEREFORE, undersigned counsel respectfully requests that this Honorable Court make the Rule on March 5, 2007 absolute and grant the Petition to Transfer Custody Case to Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and direct the Prothonotary to forward certified copies of all docket entries, process, pleadings and other papers filed in this action to the Prothonotary of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Date: 9 -o ?- By: Mindy S. Goodman Attorney at Law ID No. 78407 2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35 Northwood Office Center Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-8742 2 Mindy S. Goodman Attorney at Law 2215 Forest Hills Drive Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 JOHN E. MYERS, III, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MELINDA S. MCcAULEY, Defendant NO. 2005-CV-1615-CU CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY PETITION TO TRANSFER CUSTODY CASE TO CUMBERLAND COUNTY 1. Plaintiff/Petitioner, John Myers, filed a custody action in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania on or about April 27, 2005. 2. A lengthy custody conference in the action filed in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania was held on or about May 12, 2005 before Sanford Krevsky, Esquire, a Dauphin County Conciliator. 3. As a result of the conference before Conciliator Krevsky and further discussions between the parties, the parties reached an agreement and a Stipulated Order for Custody, dated November 18, 2005 was entered as an Order of Court on November 30, 2005. A copy of the Stipulated Order for Custody is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 1 4. Since the Stipulated Order for Custody was entered as an Order in November of 2005, the parties have maintained shared legal custody of the minor child and shared physical custody of the minor child on an alternating weekly basis. 5. Physical custody has taken place in Cumberland County on those weeks when the child is with his father and Susquehanna County on those weeks when the minor child is with his mother. 6. The child has not spent a consecutive six month period in either Cumberland County or Susquehanna County, but the child has lived the majority of his life in Cumberland County, except for one year that the child lived in Dauphin County, which was at the time that the initial custody action was filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner in Dauphin County. 7. Because of the distance between the parties' residences, Defendant/Respondent and Plaintiff/Petitioner were each aware that the other would seek primary custody of the minor child prior to the child enrolling in school in the Fall of 2007. 8. Plaintiff/Petitioner asserts that in order to get the upper hand in the custody action, on or about November 14, 2006 Defendant/Respondent filed a Petition to Modify Custody in Susquehanna County, without first seeking Court approval to have the action transferred from Dauphin County to Susquehanna 2 County. A copy of the Petition to Modify Custody filed by Defendant/Respondent in Susquehanna County is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 8. Neither Plaintiff/Petitioner nor Defendant/Respondent resides in Dauphin County any longer. 9. Although neither party remains in Dauphin County, Plaintiff/Petitioner does continue to reside in Cumberland County, and central Pennsylvania is the area where the child has spent the majority of his life. 10. Because Plaintiff/Defendant continues to reside in central Pennsylvania, on or about December 15, 2006 Plaintiff/Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection to Petition for Modification of Custody Order on the basis of improper venue and inconvenient forum, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 11. A hearing on the Preliminary Objection was held in Susquehanna County before the Honorable Kenneth W. Seamans, P.J., on February 28, 2007 after which an Order was issued Staying the proceedings filed in Susquehanna County by the Defendant/Respondent in this case, specifically conditioned on a child custody proceeding being promptly commenced in Cumberland County. A copy of the Order is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 12. Plaintiff/Petitioner maintains it is in the best interest of the minor child for Cumberland County to assume jurisdiction over this matter since the minor child was born and raised in South Central Pennsylvania, Plaintiff/Petitioner and his extended family remain in the Dauphin and Cumberland Counties, the minor child attends preschool in the Cumberland County, and Defendant/Respondent is employed in Dauphin County. 13. Plaintiff/Petitioner maintains that since the child has lived in central Pennsylvania for the majority of his life, Cumberland County is the appropriate and most convenient forum for this case. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff/Petitioner prays that this Honorable Court grant this Petition for Transfer Custody to Cumberland County so that Plaintiff/Petitioner can seek a modification of the existing Custody Order pursuant to the Order entered in Susquehanna County directing Plaintiff/Petitioner to commence a custody action in Cumberland County. Respectfully submitted, Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire ID No. 78407 2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-8742 Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner 4 JOHN MYERS, Plaintiff V. MELINDA McCAULEY, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ti o : DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA r-T7 =` c G ? Cl NO. 2005 CV 1685 CU ) CD r CIO STIPULATED ORDER FOR CUSTODY AND NOW THIS WI? 2005 the parties John Myers, represented by Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire and Melinda McCauley, represented by Melissa L. Van Eck, Esquire, have reached an agreement with regards to the best interest and welfare of their minor child, Chase Hunter Myers (d.o.b. 9/13/01), herein after referred to as child, and therefore it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED as follows: 1. It is the intention of the parties and the parties agree that they will have shared legal custody of the child. The parties agree that major decisions concerning their child, including, but not limited to, the child's health, welfare, education, religious training and upbringing shall be made by them jointly, after discussion and consultation with each other, with a view toward obtaining and following a harmonious policy in the child's best interest. Each party agrees not to attempt to alienate the affections of the child from the other party. Each party shall notify the other of any activity or circumstance concerning their child that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to the other. Day to day decisions shall be the responsibility of the party then having physical custody. With regard to any emergency decisions which must be made, the party having physical custody of the child at the time of the emergency shall be permitted to x make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby. However, that party shall inform the other of the emergency and consult with him or her as soon as possible. Each party shall be entitled to complete and full information from any doctor, dentist, teacher professional or authority and to have copies of any reports given to either party as a parent pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. 5309. 2. Mother shall have primary physical custody. Father shall have partial custody of the minor child in accordance with the following schedule: a. Alternating weekends from Friday to Monday morning. Father shall be responsible for taking the minor child to daycare on Monday morning. b. Father will exercise periods of physical custody during the day until the minor child and Mother relocate. Father shall be responsible for returning the child to daycare at the end of his period of physical custody. C. Other times as agreed by the parties. d. Once mother and child move or Father begins working first shift, the parties will alternate custody on a weekly basis. 3. The parties shall alternate Christmas and Thanksgiving holiday at mutually agreed upon times. 4. The holiday schedule shall take precedence over the regular custody schedule. 5. Father shall have custody on Father's Day and Mother shall have custody on Mother's Day. 6. The transportation will be shared as agreed by the parties. Once mother and child move, mother shall provide 2/3 of the transportation, father shall meet mother 1/3 of the way at a place mutually agreeable with both parties for all periods of exchange. 7. The parties agree that Mother and the minor child will be relocating to the vicinity of Montrose, Pennsylvania 8. Either party may request another conciliation conference after a six month trial period. 9. During any period of custody or visitation, the parties to this Order shall not possess or use controlled substances or consume alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication. 10. Neither party will smoke cigarettes or tobacco products nor allow others to smoke in the presence of the child. 11. Each party shall be entitled to reasonable telephone or email contact with the child when he is in the custody of the other party. The parties shall provide to one another an emergency contact phone number, e-mail address or contact person. 12. The parties shall organize way for their child to maintain his friendships, extracurricular activities and other special interests, regardless of which household he maybe in. It is also suggested that toys, clothing, etc. not become matters of contention. 13. The parties shall refrain from saying derogatory comments about the other party in the presence of the child and to the extent possible shall prevent third parties from making such comments in the presence of the child. 14. Should either party have the child spend overnight at a place other than their primary residence, the other party will be given the address and telephone number where the child is spending the night. 15. Should either parent be unavailable to care for the child during their custodial period, the other parent will have the right of first refusal to care for the children. 16. It is understood and stipulated by the parties that upon mutual agreement an expanded or altered schedule may be agreed upon between parties and that such mutual agreement would be in the interest of the child. 1 Kerala N17", trua 'V4 awt A Date: BY THE COURT: 1?m John Myers ftY' elinda McCauley COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF SS. On this, the 'Z 9"- day of? ? 2005, before me, a Notary Public, the undersigned officer, personally appeared John Myers, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: EbMKON=WEALTHOFPENNSYLVANIA NOTARIAL SEAL----7 MIN®Y & GOODMAN, Notary Public City of Harrisburg. DauphL272COMMONWEALTH ty M ?niSSion Expires MOF PENNSYLVANIA SS. COUNTY OF On this, the ?$ day of , 2005, before me, a Notary Public, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Melinda McCauley, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that she executed the same for the purposes therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. otary ublic otarial Seal - [,:Wftd,N0tarYPUbfiC My commission expires: Carolyn A. Mntroo, SL Wn*B= C)b* y GoExpires June 17, 2006 Member, Pbrtinsyty{ o As liM©(Notaries Law Offices of Howard M. Spizer 724 Bank Towers Building 312 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER RR #5 - Box 99 Montrose, PA 188011, PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER VS. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY JOHN E. MYERS, III 1?21 Cardamon Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 170509 EFENDANT/RESPONDENT • N0.2006 - C.P. PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY NOW COMES, the Plaintiff/Petitioner, Melinda S. Schneider, by and through attorney, Howard M. Spizer, Esquire, and files the within Petition to Modify Custody and represents as follows: 1. The Plaintiff/Petitioner is Melinda S. Schneider, formerly Melinda McCaule individual, residing at RR#5, Box 99, Montrose, Susquehanna Count y, an adult y) Pennsylvania 18801. 2. The Defendant/Respondent is John E. Myers, III, an adult individual, residing at 21 Cardamon Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. 3. The parties are the parents of a minor child, Chase Hunter Myers, born September 2001. 13, 3. The parties entered into a Stipulated Order for Custody in the Court of Common P of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, on 18 November, 2005. -leas GK1 lS rr 4. As part of said stipulation of 18 November, 2005, your Petitioner relocated to Montrose, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, and the parties have been alternating custody on a weekly basis. 5. That the said child is intending to enter school in the end of August or September, 2007 and your Petitioner desires to have the child enrolled as a full-time student in kindergarten in the Montrose School District. 6. That Your Petitioner avers and has reason to believe that the best interest of the child will be served by the child relocating for primary physical custody with his mother, your Petitioner herein, and her husband, Donny Schneider, and their new child, Lucas Schneider, at their residence in Montrose. 7. That Your Petitioner has been a resident of Montrose, Susquehanna County, since October, 2005, and the child has resided in Susquehanna County on alternate weeks since that time. WHEREFORE, your. petitioner respectfully requests that a conference/hearing be scheduled to modify the prior custody order of 18 November, 2005. Respectfully ubmitted, Ho Ad Spizer, squire Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner 724 Bank Towers Building 321 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 570-346-1111 S. CUD # 08291 VERIFICATION I, Melinda S. Schneider, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Petition to Modify Custody are true and correct to the best of my information and belief. I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: " MdA s G Melinda S. Schneider Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire 2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-8742 Attorney for Defendant/Respondent MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER RR#5 - Box 99 Montrose, PA 18801, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY : CIVIL ACTION -LAW : IN CUSTODY JOHN E. MYERS, III 21 Cardamon Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Defendant/Respondent NO. 2006-C.P. 1839 NOTICE TO PLEAD To Melinda S. Schneider, Plaintiff/Petitioner: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ORDER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire Attorney for Defend ant/Respondent 1 ?dcr co, PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, comes the Defendant/Respondent, John E. Myers, III, by and through his attorney, Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire, and raises the following Preliminary Objection to Petition for Modification of Custody Order: IMPROPER VENUE UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Since Plaintiff/Petitioner was residing in Dauphin County in 2005, Defendant/Respondent, John Myers, filed a custody action in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania on or about April 27, 2005, a copy of the original Complaint for Custody being attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. A lengthy custody conference in the action filed in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania was held on or about May 12, 2005 before Sanford Krevsky, a Dauphin County Conciliator. 3. As a result of the conference before Conciliator Krevsky, the parties reached an agreement and a Stipulated Order for Custody, dated November 18, 2005 was entered as an Order of Court on November 30, 2005. A copy of the Stipulated Order for Custody is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4. Since the Stipulated Order for Custody was entered as an Order in November of 2005, the parties have maintained shared legal custody of the minor child and shared physical custody of the minor child on an alternating weekly basis. 2 5. Physical custody has taken place in Cumberland and Susquehanna counties with the minor child not spending an extended period of time in either county; however, the minor child has spent the majority of his life in the South Central Pennsylvania area which includes the neighboring counties of Dauphin and Cumberland. 6. Plaintiff/Petitioner is well aware that Defendant/Respondent, John E. Myers, III, also intends to pursue primary custody of the minor child prior to the child enrolling in school in the Fall of 2007. 7. Prior to Plaintiff/Petitioner relocating to Montrose, Susquehanna County, she and the minor child lived in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania while Defendant/Respondent lived in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 8. Defend ant/Respondent admits that neither he nor the Plaintiff/Petitioner resides in Dauphin County any longer; however, the minor child's paternal grandparents, with whom the minor child has had a very close relationship since his birth, have lived and continue to live in Dauphin County. 9. Defendant/Respondent has resided and continues to reside in Cumberland County, which is the neighboring county of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, both of which are counties located in South Central Pennsylvania. 10. Defend ant/Respondent maintains that it is in the best interest of the minor child for Dauphin County to retain jurisdiction over this matter for the following reasons: a. The case was filed and an Order has been entered in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania; b. Sanford Krevsky, Esquire, the Custody Conciliator who is familiar with this case will remain the conciliator and his familiarity with the case may help the parties reach a resolution without litigation; C. Since the minor child was bom and raised in South Central Pennsylvania, the majority of the people involved in the child's life are located in Dauphin County and/or South Central Pennsylvania; d. Plaintiff/Petitioner is still employed in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania and makes frequent trips to Dauphin County and the South Central Pennsylvania area; e. The minor child attends a kindergarten program at the Mulberry School in South Central Pennsylvania and the child's teachers are located in the South Central Pennsylvania area; Holding a custody hearing in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania will create a hardship for the Defendant/Respondent and the majority of the witnesses because the he, his family, and the child's teachers live in South Central Pennsylvania; g. It was Plaintiff/Petitioner who chose to move out of Dauphin County and relocate a significant distance away and Plaintiff/Petitioner should not have a benefit of convenience over Defendant/Respondent and all of the witnesses when she was the one who chose to relocate and she 4 still has connections with Dauphin County since she remains employed here; and h. Dauphin County is well equipped to take testimony in a custody case and render an appropriate decision regarding the child's present and future care, protection, training and personal relationships. 10. Plaintiff/Petitioner has failed to file a petition with the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas requesting a transfer of the action to Susquehanna County, which is the proper procedure to be followed. 11. While Defendant/Respondent maintains that the action should remain in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania because it is a forum more convenient to both parties than Cumberland or Susquehanna counties; however, in the event Dauphin County no longer desires to maintain jurisdiction/venue in this case, Defendant/Respondent will pursue a transfer of the custody action to Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, which Defendant/Respondent believes to be the next appropriate county in light of the fact that the minor child has spent the vast majority of his life in the South Central Pennsylvania area. WHEREFORE, the Defendant/Respondent prays that this Honorable Court Dismiss the Petition to Modify Custody, with prejudice, due to proper venue being vested in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, and Cancel the conference/hearing scheduled for January 3, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire ID No. 78407 2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-8742 Attorney for Defendant/Respondent 6 Mar 01 07 01:16p Myran b uewitt Esq MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER VS JOHN E. MYERS, III 5'lU UbJ 45Ei5 P.I ?' ' f i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY, PENNA. NO- 2006 - 1839 C.P. ORDER NOW TO WIT, this 28d' day of February, 2007, after hearing held on the Defendant- Respondent's, John E. Myers, Ill, Preliminary Objections to Petition to Modify Custody, the preliminary objections be and are hereby Granted on the basis that, although Susquehanna County may have jurisdiction over the matter, Susquehanna County is an inconvenient forum inasmuch as the child has generally been raised in Dauphin County and Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and that Cumberland County is the residence of his father who shares physical custody with the mother on an equal basis. Therefore, we would order that the proceedings of Plaintiff's, Melinda S. Schneider, Petition to Modify Custody be Ordered Stayed for a period of not more than thirty (30) days specifically conditioned upon a child custody proceeding being promptly commenced in berland County by the father, John E. Myers, Ili. BY THERT, -c t) KENNETH W. SEAMANS, P.J. JOHN E. MYERS, III, V. MELINDA S. McCAULEY, Defendant Plaintiff, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, : DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION : NO.2005-CV-1685-CU=:: ORDER w 0 AND NOW, this 5 h day of March, 2007, upon consideration of the Petition to Transfer Venue filed by Plaintiff, a Rule is hereby entered upon Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Rule Returnable Friday, March 16, 2007. Bruce F. Bratton, J. V'A' ? f. r Froth Rotary Distribution: Howard M. Spizer, Esq., 724 Bank Towers Bldg., 312 Spruce St., Scranton PA 18503 Mindy S. Goodman, Esq., 2215 Forest Hills Drive, Suite 35, Harrisburg PA 17112 • JOHN E. MYERS, III, Plaintiff/Petitioner V. MELINDA S. McCAULEY, Defend ant/Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-CV-1 5-CU CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, based on Plaintiff/Petitioner's Petition to Transfer Custody Case to Cumberland County, the above-captioned custody case shall be transferred to Cumberland County and, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1915.2(d), the Dauphin County Prothonotary is hereby directed to forward certified copies of all docket entries, process, pleadings and other papers filed in this action. BY THE COURT: J. Distribution: Kenneth W. Seamans, P.J., Susquehanna County Courthouse, P.O. Box 218, Montrose, PA 18801 Howard M. Spizer, Esquire, 724 Bank Towers Building, 312 Spruce Street, Scranton, PA 18503 Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire, 2215 Forest Hills Drive, Suite 35, Harrisburg, PA 17112 Mindy S. Goodman Attorney at Law 2215 Forest Hills Drive Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 JOHN E. MYERS, III, Plaintiff V. MELINDA S. MCcAULEY, Defendant T na 1 cn w IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-CV-1615-CU CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY PETITION TO TRANSFER CUSTODY CASE TO CUMBERLAND COUNTY 1. Plaintiff/Petitioner, John Myers, filed a custody action in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania on or about April 27, 2005. 2. A lengthy custody conference in the action filed in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania was held on or about May 12, 2005 before Sanford Krevsky, Esquire, a Dauphin County Conciliator. 3. As a result of the conference before Conciliator Krevsky and further discussions between the parties, the parties reached an agreement and a Stipulated Order for Custody, dated November 18, 2005 was entered as an Order of Court on November 30, 2005. A copy of the Stipulated Order for Custody is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 1 4. Since the Stipulated Order for Custody was entered as an Order in November of 2005, the parties have maintained shared legal custody of the minor child and shared physical custody of the minor child on an alternating weekly basis. 5. Physical custody has taken place in Cumberland County on those weeks when the child is with his father and Susquehanna County on those weeks when the minor child is with his mother. 6. The child has not spent a consecutive six month period in either Cumberland County or Susquehanna County, but the child has lived the majority of his life in Cumberland County, except for one year that the child lived in Dauphin County, which was at the time that the initial custody action was filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner in Dauphin County. 7. Because of the distance between the parties' residences, Defendant/Respondent and Plaintiff/Petitioner were each aware that the other would seek primary custody of the minor child prior to the child enrolling in school in the Fall of 2007. 8. Plaintiff/Petitioner asserts that in order to get the upper hand in the custody action, on or about November 14, 2006 Defendant/Respondent filed a Petition to Modify Custody in Susquehanna County, without first seeking Court approval to have the action transferred from Dauphin County to Susquehanna 2 County. A copy of the Petition to Modify Custody filed by Defendant/Respondent in Susquehanna County is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 8. Neither Plaintiff/Petitioner nor Defendant/Respondent resides in Dauphin County any longer. 9. Although neither party remains in Dauphin County, Plaintiff/Petitioner does continue to reside in Cumberland County, and central Pennsylvania is the area where the child has spent the majority of his life. 10. Because Plaintiff/Defendant continues to reside in central Pennsylvania, on or about December 15, 2006 Plaintiff/Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection to Petition for Modification of Custody Order on the basis of improper venue and inconvenient forum, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 11. A hearing on the Preliminary Objection was held in Susquehanna County before the Honorable Kenneth W. Seamans, P.J., on February 28, 2007 after which an Order was issued Staying the proceedings filed in Susquehanna County by the Defendant/Respondent in this case, specifically conditioned on a child custody proceeding being promptly commenced in Cumberland County. A copy of the Order is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 12. Plaintiff/Petitioner maintains it is in the best interest of the minor child for Cumberland County to assume jurisdiction over this matter since the minor child was born and raised in South Central Pennsylvania, 3 Plaintiff/Petitioner and his extended family remain in the Dauphin and Cumberland Counties, the minor child attends preschool in the Cumberland County, and Defendant/Respondent is employed in Dauphin County. 13. Plaintiff/Petitioner maintains that since the child has lived in central Pennsylvania for the majority of his life, Cumberland County is the appropriate and most convenient forum for this case. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff/Petitioner prays that this Honorable Court grant this Petition for Transfer Custody to Cumberland County so that Plaintiff/Petitioner can seek a modification of the existing Custody Order pursuant to the Order entered in Susquehanna County directing Plaintiff/Petitioner to commence a custody action in Cumberland County. Respectfully submitted, Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire ID No. 78407 2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-8742 Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner 4 JOHN MYERS, Plaintiff V. MELINDA McCAULEY, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA c:} NO. 2005 CV 1685 CU 4 R4 CS C-0 : --.t IN N W STIPULATED ORDER FOR CUSTODY AND NOW THIS V - day of qVQ I? 2005 the parties John Myers, represented by Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire and Melinda McCauley, represented by Melissa L. Van Eck, Esquire, have reached an agreement with regards to the best interest and welfare of their minor child, Chase Hunter Myers (d.o.b. 9/13/01), herein after referred to as child, and therefore it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED as follows: 1. It is the intention of the parties and the parties agree that they will have shared legal custody of the child. The parties agree that major decisions concerning their child, including, but not limited to, the child's health, welfare, education, religious training and upbringing shall be made by them jointly, after discussion and consultation with each other, with a view toward obtaining and following a harmonious policy in the child's best interest. Each party agrees not to attempt to alienate the affections of the child from the other party. Each party shall notify the other of any activity or circumstance concerning their child that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to the other. Day to day decisions shall be the responsibility of the party then having physical custody. With regard to any emergency decisions which must be made, the party having physical custody of the child at the time of the emergency shall be permitted to make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby. However, that party shall inform the other of the emergency and consult with him or her as soon as possible. Each party shall be entitled to complete and full information from any doctor, dentist, teacher professional or authority and to have copies of any reports given to either party as a parent pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. 5309. 2. Mother shall have primary physical custody. Father shall have partial custody of the minor child in accordance with the following schedule: a. Alternating weekends from Friday to Monday morning. Father shall be responsible for taking the minor child to daycare on Monday morning. b. Father will exercise periods of physical custody during the day until the minor child and Mother relocate. Father shall be responsible for returning the child to daycare at the end of his period of physical custody. C. Other times as agreed by the parties. d. Once mother and child move or Father begins working first shift, the parties will alternate custody on a weekly basis. 3. The parties shall alternate Christmas and Thanksgiving holiday at mutually agreed upon times. 4. The holiday schedule shall take precedence over the regular custody schedule. 5. Father shall have custody on Father's Day and Mother shall have custody on Mother's Day. 6. The transportation will be shared as agreed by the parties. Once mother and child move, mother shall provide 2/3 of the transportation, father shall meet mother 1/3 of the way at a place mutually agreeable with both parties for all periods of exchange. 7. The parties agree that Mother and the minor child will be relocating to the vicinity of Montrose, Pennsylvania Either party may request another conciliation conference after a six month trial period. 9. During any period of custody or visitation, the parties to this Order shall not possess or use controlled substances or consume alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication. 10. Neither party will smoke cigarettes or tobacco products nor allow others to smoke in the presence of the child. 11. Each party shall be entitled to reasonable telephone or email contact with the child when he is in the custody of the other party. The parties shall provide to one another an emergency contact phone number, e-mail address or contact person. 12. The parties shall organize way for their child to maintain his friendships, extracurricular activities and other special interests, regardless of which household he maybe in. It is also suggested that toys, clothing, etc. not become matters of contention. 13. The parties shall refrain from saying derogatory comments about the other party in the presence of the child and to the extent possible shall prevent third parties from making such comments in the presence of the child. 14. Should either party have the child spend overnight at a place other than their primary residence, the other party will be given the address and telephone number where the child is spending the night. 15. Should either parent be unavailable to care for the child during their custodial period, the other parent will have the right of first refusal to care for the children. 16. It is understood and stipulated by the parties that upon mutual agreement an expanded or altered schedule may be agreed upon between parties and that such mutual agreement would be in the interest of the child. I_UU ) 1 hWeby ?t.tl t"'l 4?-z 10:'wi3VC1 is a ind ROWY Date: BY THE COURT: J. John Myers j & A - elinda McCauley Law Offices of Howard M. Spizer 724 Bank Towers Building 312 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER RR #5 - Box 99 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Montrose, PA 18801, • OF SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER • • CIVIL ACTION -LAW VS. • IN CUSTODY rn ., JOHN E. MYERS, III' 21 Cardamon Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17050, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT ' N0.2006 - C.P. o PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY • NOW COMES, the Plaintiff/Petitioner, Melinda S. Schneider, by and through her attorney, Howard M. Spizer, Esquire, and files the within Petition to Modify Custod and y represents as follows: %t 1. The Plaintiff/Petitioner is Melinda S. Schneider, formerly Melinda McCauley, an adult individual, residing at RR#5, Box 99, Montrose, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania 18801. 2. The Defendant/Respondent is John E. Myers, III, an adult individual, residing at 21 Cardamon Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. 20013. The parties are the parents of a minor child, Chase Hunter Myers, born September 13, . A 3. The parties entered into a Stipulated Order for Custody in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, on 18 November, 2005. 4. As part of said stipulation of 18 November, 2005, your Petitioner relocated to Montrose, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, and the parties have been alternating custody on a weekly basis. 5. That the said child is intending to enter school in the end of August or September, 2007 and your Petitioner desires to have the child enrolled as a full-time student in kindergarten in the Montrose School District. 6. That Your Petitioner avers and has reason to believe that the best interest of the child will be served by the child relocating for primary physical custody with his mother, your Petitioner herein, and her husband, Donny Schneider, and their new child, Lucas Schneider, at their residence in Montrose. 7. That Your Petitioner has been a resident of Montrose, Susquehanna County, since October, 2005, and the child has resided in Susquehanna County on alternate weeks since that time. WHEREFORE, Your Petitioner respectfully requests that a conference/hearing be scheduled to modify the prior custody order of 18 November, 2005. Respectfully ubmitted, o d .'Spizer, squire Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner 724 Bank Towers Building 321 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 570-346-1111 S. CUD # 08291 C- Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire 2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-8742 Attorney for Defendant/Respondent MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER RR#5 - Box 99 Montrose, PA 18801, Plaintiff/Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. IN CUSTODY JOHN E. MYERS, III 21 Cardamon Drive r Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 <- y Defendant/Respondent NO. 2006-C.P. 1839 NOTICE TO PLEAD To Melinda S. Schneider, Plaintiff/Petitioner: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ORDER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire Attorney for Defend ant/Respondent 1 v- PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, comes the Defendant/Respondent, John E. Myers, III, by and through his attorney, Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire, and raises the following Preliminary Objection to Petition for Modification of Custody Order: 1. IMPROPER VENUE UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1. Since Plaintiff/Petitioner was residing in Dauphin County in 2005, Defendant/Respondent, John Myers, filed a custody action in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania on or about April 27, 2005, a copy of the original Complaint for Custody being attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. A lengthy custody conference in the action filed in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania was held on or about May 12, 2005 before Sanford Krevsky, a Dauphin County Conciliator. 3. As a result of the conference before Conciliator Krevsky, the parties reached an agreement and a Stipulated Order for Custody, dated November 18, 2005 was entered as an Order of Court on November 30, 2005. A copy of the Stipulated Order for Custody is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4. Since the Stipulated Order for Custody was entered as an Order in November of 2005, the parties have maintained shared legal custody of the minor child and shared physical custody of the minor child on an alternating weekly basis. 2 5. Physical custody has taken place in Cumberland and Susquehanna counties with the minor child not spending an extended period of time in either county; however, the minor child has spent the majority of his life in the South Central Pennsylvania area which includes the neighboring counties of Dauphin and Cumberland. 6. Plaintiff/Petitioner is well aware that Defendant/Respondent, John E. Myers, III, also intends to pursue primary custody of the minor child prior to the child enrolling in school in the Fall of 2007. 7. Prior to Plaintiff/Petitioner relocating to Montrose, Susquehanna County, she and the minor child lived in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania while Defendant/Respondent lived in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 8. Defend ant/Respondent admits that neither he nor the Plaintiff/Petitioner resides in Dauphin County any longer; however, the minor child's paternal grandparents, with whom the minor child has had a very close relationship since his birth, have lived and continue to live in Dauphin County. 9. Defendant/Respondent has resided and continues to reside in Cumberland County, which is the neighboring county of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, both of which are counties located in South Central Pennsylvania. 10. Defend ant/Respondent maintains that it is in the best interest of the minor child for Dauphin County to retain jurisdiction over this matter for the following reasons: 3 a. The case was filed and an Order has been entered in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania; b. Sanford Krevsky, Esquire, the Custody Conciliator who is familiar with this case will remain the conciliator and his familiarity with the case may help the parties reach a resolution without litigation; C. Since the minor child was bom and raised in South Central Pennsylvania, the majority of the people involved in the child's life are located in Dauphin County and/or South Central Pennsylvania; d. Plaintiff/Petitioner is still employed in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania and makes frequent trips to Dauphin County and the South Central Pennsylvania area; e. The minor child attends a kindergarten program at the Mulberry School in South Central Pennsylvania and the child's teachers are located in the South Central Pennsylvania area; f. Holding a custody hearing in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania will create a hardship for the Defendant/Respondent and the majority of the witnesses because the he, his family, and the child's teachers live in South Central Pennsylvania; g. It was Plaintiff/Petitioner who chose to move out of Dauphin County and relocate a significant distance away and Plaintiff/Petitioner should not have a benefit of convenience over Defendant/Respondent and all of the witnesses when she was the one who chose to relocate and she 4 still has connections with Dauphin County since she remains employed here; and h. Dauphin County is well equipped to take testimony in a custody case and render an appropriate decision regarding the child's present and future care, protection, training and personal relationships. 10. Plaintiff/Petitioner has failed to file a petition with the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas requesting a transfer of the action to Susquehanna County, which is the proper procedure to be followed. 11. While Defend ant/Respondent maintains that the action should remain in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania because it is a forum more convenient to both parties than Cumberland or Susquehanna counties; however, in the event Dauphin County no longer desires to maintain jurisdiction/venue in this case, Defendant/Respondent will pursue a transfer of the custody action to Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, which Defendant/Respondent believes to be the next appropriate county in light of the fact that the minor child has spent the vast majority of his life in the South Central Pennsylvania area. 5 WHEREFORE, the Defendant/Respondent prays that this Honorable Court Dismiss the Petition to Modify Custody, with prejudice, due to proper venue being vested in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, and Cancel the conference/hearing scheduled for January 3, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire ID No. 78407 2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-8742 Attorney for Defend ant/Respondent 6 Mar 31 37 01:18p Myron P DeWitt Esq 573 853 4585 p.1 Lr MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER ; IN THE COURT OF CONU40N PLEAS VS : SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY, PENNA. JOHN E. MYERS, III : NO. 2006 - 1839 C.P. ORDER NOW TO WIT, this 28t` day of February, 2007, after hearing held on the Defendant- Respondent's, John E. Myers, III, Preliminary, Objections to Petition to Modify Custody, the preliminary objections be and are hereby Granted on the basis that, although Susquehanna County may have jurisdiction over the matter, Susquehanna County is an inconvenient forum inasmuch as the child has generally been raised in Dauphin County and Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and that Cumberland County is the residence of his father who shares physical custody with the mother on an equal basis. Therefore, we would order that the proceedings of Plaintiff s, Melinda S. Schneider, °etition to Modify Custody be Ordered stayed for a period of not more than thirty (30) days pecifically conditioned upon a child custody proceeding being promptly commenced in :timberland County by the father, John E. Myers, III. r KENNETH W. S, P.J. i1Z Y, s: BY THE CfRT, L/ a?, ZOO? dd azy r IMAGED A'" Mstibuted Date 442gaz Initials JOHN E. MYERS, III, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA, Plaintiff, DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION MELINDA S. McCAULEY, NO. 2005-CV-1685-CU Defendant ORDER, AND NOW, this 5t' day of March, 2007, upon consideration of the Petitioft to w 0 Transfer Venue filed by Plaintiff, a Rule is hereby entered upon Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Rule Returnable Friday, March 16, 2007. B R Bruce F. Bratton, J. Distribution: Howard M. Spizer, Esq., 724 Bank Towers Bldg., 312 Spruce St., Scranton PA 18503 Mindy S. Goodman, Esq., 2215 Forest Hills Drive, Suite 35, Harrisburg PA 17112 JOHN E. MYERS, III, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 2005-CV-1685-CU MELINDA S. McCAULEY, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : IN DIVORCE ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mindy S. Goodman, Attorney at Law, do hereby certify that on the 6t' day of March, 2007, 1 served a copy of the Petition to Transfer Custody to Cumberland County upon the Defendant, Melinda S. McCauley, through her attorney, Howard M. Spizer, Esquire, by depositing the same in the United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: p Howard M. Spizer, Esquire 724 Bank Towers Building 312 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 N Cy% Respectfully submitted, Mindy S. Goodman Attorney at Law ID No. 78407 2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-8742 Attorney for Plaintiff (5 JOHN E. MYERS, III, N 0 : IN THE COURT OF COMMON LE/W Plaintiff : DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYL-VAN96 V. : NO. 2005-CV-1685-CU MELINDA S. McCAULEY, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : IN DIVORCE: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mindy S. Goodman, Attorney at Law, do hereby certify that on the 6th day of March, 2007, 1 served a copy of the Petition to Transfer Custody to Cumberland County upon the Defendant, Melinda S. McCauley, through her attorney, Howard M. Spizer, Esquire, by depositing the same in the United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Howard M. Spizer, Esquire 724 Bank Towers Building 312 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 Respectfully submitted, Mindy S. Goodman Attorney at Law ID No. 78407 2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-8742 Attorney for Plaintiff I - h Mindy S. Goodman Attorney at Law 2215 Forest Hills Drive Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-8742 JOHN E. MYERS, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff/Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 0'7 MELINDA S. McCAULEY, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defend ant/Respondent : IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY AND NOW, this day of , 2007, comes Plaintiff/Petitioner JOHN E. MYERS, III, by and through his attorney, Mindy S. Goodman, Attorney at Law, and files this Petition for Modification of Custody. 1. The current address of Plaintiff/Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as Father, is 21 Cardamon Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The current address of Defend ant/Respondent, hereinafter referred to as Mother, is RR#5, Box 99, Montrose, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. i ,+ 3. The parties are the parents of one minor child whose name and date of birth are as follows: CHASE HUNTER MILES DoB September 13, 2001 4. On or about November 18, 2005, the parties entered into a Stipulated Order for Custody in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5. On or about November 14, 2006 Mother filed a Petition to Modify Custody in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 6. Father filed a Preliminary Objection to venue, after which a hearing was held before the Honorable Kenneth W. Seamans, P.J. of Susquehanna County, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 7. After a hearing on the Preliminary Objection, Judge Seamans entered an Order directing Father to commence a custody action in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, which is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 8. On or about March 1, 2007 Father filed a Petition to Transfer Custody Case to Cumberland County in Dauphin County, after which a Rule was issued returnable Friday, March 16, 2007, which are attached hereto as Exhibits E and E-1. 9. Mother did not file a response to the Petition to Transfer Custody Case to Cumberland County and on March 22, 2007 Father filed a Petition to Make Rule Absolute, which is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 2 . • 10. On March 27, 2007 an Order was entered by the Honorable Bruce F. Bratton granting the Petition to Transfer Venue and directing the Prothonotary to forward certified copies of the docket entries, process, pleadings, and other papers to the Prothonotary in Cumberland County, which is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 11. Father now files this Petition for Modification of Custody and in support thereof avers as follows: a. The minor child is intending to enter kindergarten in the end of August or early September of 2007. b. The distance between the parties' homes makes it impossible for them to continue with the current shared custodial schedule which alternates custody on a weekly basis. C. Father maintains that the best interest and welfare of the child will be served by granting him primary physical custody of the minor child subject to periods of partial custody with Mother. 3 -. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant him primary physical custody of the minor child who is the subject of this petition. Respectfully submitted, Mindy S. Goodman Attorney at Law ID No. 78407 2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-8742 Attorney for the Plaintiff/Petitioner 4 VERIFICATION I have reviewed the contents of the foregoing Petition for Modification of Custody and I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner signing on behalf of John E. Myers, III JOHN MYERS, Plaintiff V. MELINDA MCCAULEY, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ti DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ?. 4 G W p i NO. 2005 CV 1685 CU rte` • Y w STIPULATED ORDER FOR CUSTODY AND NOW THIS It +\ day of _Q1 ( 2005 the parties John Myers, ?hrr; CZ) rr7 represented by Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire and Melinda McCauley, represented by Melissa L. Van Eck, Esquire, have reached an agreement with regards to the best interest and welfare of their minor child, Chase Hunter Myers (d.o.b. 9/13/01), herein after referred to as child, and therefore it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED as follows: I . It is the intention of the parties and the parties agree that they will have shared legal custody of the child. The parties agree that major decisions concerning their child, including, but not limited to, the child's health, welfare, education, religious training and upbringing shall be made by them jointly, after discussion and consultation with each other, with a view toward obtaining and following a harmonious policy in the child's best interest. Each party agrees not to attempt to alienate the affections of the child from the other party. Each party shall notify the other of any activity or circumstance concerning their child that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to the other. Day to day decisions shall be the responsibility of the party then having physical custody. With regard to any emergency decisions which must be made, the party having physical custody of the child at the time of the emergency shall be permitted to ' . i make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby. However, that party shall inform the other of the emergency and consult with him or her as soon as possible. Each party shall be entitled to complete and full information from any doctor, dentist, teacher professional or authority and to have copies of any reports given to either party as a parent pursuant to 23 Pa.C.5. 5309. 2. Mother shall have primary physical custody. Father shall have partial custody of the minor child in accordance with the following schedule: a. Alternating weekends from Friday to Monday morning. Father shall be responsible for taking the minor child to daycare on Monday morning. b. Father will exercise periods of physical custody during the day until the minor child and Mother relocate. Father shall be responsible for returning the child to daycare at the end of his period of physical custody. C. Other times as agreed by the parties. d. Once mother and child move or Father begins working first shift, the parties will alternate custody on a weekly basis. 3. The parties shall alternate Christmas and Thanksgiving holiday at mutually agreed upon times. 4. The holiday schedule shall take precedence over the regular custody schedule. 5. Father shall have custody on Father's Day and Mother shall have custody on Mother's Day. 6. The transportation will be shared as agreed by the parties. Once mother and child move, mother shall provide 2/3 of the transportation, father shall meet mother 1/3 of the way at a place mutually agreeable with both parties for all periods of exchange. 7. The parties agree that Mother and the minor child will be relocating to the vicinity of Montrose, Pennsylvania 8. Either party may request another conciliation conference after a six month trial period. 9. During any period of custody or visitation, the parties to this Order shall not possess or use controlled substances or consume alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication. 10. Neither party will smoke cigarettes or tobacco products nor allow others to smoke in the presence of the child. 11. Each party shall be entitled to reasonable telephone or email contact with the child when he is in the custody of the other party. The parties shall provide to one another an emergency contact phone number, e-mail address or contact person. 12. The parties shall organize way for their child to maintain his friendships, extracurricular activities and other special interests, regardless of which household he maybe in. It is also suggested that toys, clothing, etc. not become matters of contention. 13. The parties shall refrain from saying derogatory comments about the other party in the presence of the child and to the extent possible shall prevent third parties from making such comments in the presence of the child. 14. Should either party have the child spend overnight at a place other than their primary residence, the other party will be given the address and telephone number where the child is spending the night. 15. Should either parent be unavailable to care for the child during their custodial period, the other parent will have the right of first refusal to care for the children. 16. It is understood and stipulated by the parties that upon mutual agreement an expanded or altered schedule may be agreed upon between parties and that such mutual agreement would be in the interest of the child. UV ?j ij ?-Ju j fled.. `t f notary Date: BY THE COURT: (S[EcaL Wp?ftm J. John Myers a Melinda McCauley COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF SS. On this, the 'Z day of ?2005, before me, a Notary Public, the undersigned officer, personally appeared John Myers, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: LMINDY EALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ?<+ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : NOTARIAL SEAL I GOODMAN, Notary Public it?sburg, Dauphin County ssion Expires May 21, 2 , SS. COUNTY OF On this, the ?$ day of , 2005, before me, a Notary Public, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Melinda McCauley, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that she executed the same for the purposes therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. otary ublic NotarLad Nay Public My commission expires: Carolyn A. g Montrose B.Oro, SusWeha m C'MV My ConunisWn Expires June 17, 2006 Member. PennsyNWIa AS$o iaWn Of W26% Law Offices of Howard M. Spizer 724 Bank Towers Building 312 Spruce Street Scranton, PA, 18503 MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER RR #5 - Box 99 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Montrose, PA 18801, OF SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER • CIVIL ACTION -LAW VS. IN CUSTODY r-:7 JOHN E. MYERS, in 71 . 21 Cardamon Drive J - Mechanicsburg, PA 17050, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT NO. 2006 - PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY NOW COMES, the Plaintiff/Petitioner, Melinda S. Schneider, by and Y through her attorney, Howard M. Spizer, Esquire, and files the within Petition to Modify represents as follows: Custody and 1. The Plaintiff/Petitioner is Melinda S. Schneider, formerly Melinda M individual, residing at R.R#5, Box 99, Montrose, Susquehanna McCauley, an adult County, Pennsylvania 18801. 2. The Defendant/Respondent is John E. Myers, III, an adult individual Cardamon Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. ° residing at 21 3. The parties are the parents of a minor child, Chase Hunter Myers, born September 13, 2001. 'i 3. The parties entered into a Stipulated Order for Custody in the Court of of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, on 18 November, 2005 Common„Pleas 4. As part of said stipulation of 18 November, 2005, your Petitioner relocated to Montrose, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, and the parties have been alternating custody on a weekly basis. 5. That the said child is intending to enter school in the end of August or September, 2007 and your Petitioner desires to have the child enrolled as a full-ti me student in kindergarten in the Montrose School District. 6. That Your Petitioner avers and has reason to believe that the best interest of the c ' held will be served by the child relocating for primary physical custody with his mother, your Petitioner herein, and her husband, Donny Schneider, and their new child, Lucas Schneider, at their residence in Montrose. 7. That Your Petitioner has been a resident of Montrose, Susquehanna County, since October, 2005, and the child has resided in Susquehanna County on alternate weeks since that time. WHEREFORE, your petitioner respectfully requests that a conference/hearin be scheduled to modify the prior custody order of 18 November, 2005. g ubmitted, ReWd. Ho izer, squir e Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner 724 Bank Towers Building 321 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 570-346-1111 S. CUD # 08291 VERIFICATION I, Melinda S. Schneider, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Petition to Modify Custody are true and correct to the best of my information and belief. I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: kL'(?2 -? ?L- ? ? Melinda S. Schneider . I Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire 2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-8742 Attorney for Defendant/Respondent MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER RR#5 - Box 99 Montrose, PA 18801, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. JOHN E. MYERS, III 21 Cardamon Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Defend ant/Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY NO. 2006-C.P. 1839 NOTICE TO PLEAD To Melinda S. Schneider Plaintiff/Petitioner: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ORDER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire Attorney for Defend ant/Respondent PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, comes the Defendant/Respondent, John E. Myers, III, by and through his attorney, Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire, and raises the following Preliminary Objection to Petition for Modification of Custody Order: IMPROPER VENUE UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1. Since Plaintiff/Petitioner was residing in Dauphin County in 2005, Defendant/Respondent, John Myers, filed a custody action in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania on or about April 27, 2005, a copy of the original Complaint for Custody being attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. A lengthy custody conference in the action filed in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania was held on or about May 12, 2005 before Sanford Krevsky, a Dauphin County Conciliator. 3. As a result of the conference before Conciliator Krevsky, the parties reached an agreement and a Stipulated Order for Custody, dated November 18, 2005 was entered as an Order of Court on November 30, 2005. A copy of the Stipulated Order for Custody is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4. Since the Stipulated Order for Custody was entered as an Order in November of 2005, the parties have maintained shared legal custody of the minor child and shared physical custody of the minor child on an alternating weekly basis. 5. Physical custody has taken place in Cumberland and Susquehanna counties with the minor child not spending an extended period of time in either county; however, the minor child has spent the majority of his life in the South Central Pennsylvania area which includes the neighboring counties of Dauphin and Cumberland. 6. Plaintiff/Petitioner is well aware that Defendant/Respondent, John E. Myers, III, also intends to pursue primary custody of the minor child prior to the child enrolling in school in the Fall of 2007. 7. Prior to Plaintiff/Petitioner relocating to Montrose, Susquehanna County, she and the minor child lived in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania while Defendant/Respondent lived in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 8. Defendant/Respondent admits that neither he nor the Plaintiff/Petitioner resides in Dauphin County any longer; however, the minor child's paternal grandparents, with whom the minor child has had a very close relationship since his birth, have lived and continue to live in Dauphin County. 9. Defendant/Respondent has resided and continues to reside in Cumberland County, which is the neighboring county of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, both of which are counties located in South Central Pennsylvania. 10. Defendant/Respondent maintains that it is in the best interest of the minor child for Dauphin County to retain jurisdiction over this matter for the following reasons: 3 a. The case was filed and an Order has been entered in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania; b. Sanford Krevsky, Esquire, the Custody Conciliator who is familiar with this case will remain the conciliator and his familiarity with the case may help the parties reach a resolution without litigation; C. Since the minor child was born and raised in South Central Pennsylvania, the majority of the people involved in the child's life are located in Dauphin County and/or South Central Pennsylvania; d. Plaintiff/Petitioner is still employed in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania and makes frequent trips to Dauphin County and the South Central Pennsylvania area; e. The minor child attends a kindergarten program at the Mulberry School in South Central Pennsylvania and the child's teachers are located in the South Central Pennsylvania area; f. Holding a custody hearing in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania will create a hardship for the Defendant/Respondent and the majority of the witnesses because the he, his family, and the child's teachers live in South Central Pennsylvania; g. It was Plaintiff/Petitioner who chose to move out of Dauphin County and relocate a significant distance away and Plaintiff/Petitioner should not have a benefit of convenience over Defendant/Respondent and all of the witnesses when she was the one who chose to relocate and she 4 still has connections with Dauphin County since she remains employed here; and h. Dauphin County is well equipped to take testimony in a custody case and render an appropriate decision regarding the child's present and future care, protection, training and personal relationships. 10. Plaintiff/Petitioner has failed to file a petition with the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas requesting a transfer of the action to Susquehanna County, which is the proper procedure to be followed. 11. While Defendant/Respondent maintains that the action should remain in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania because it is a forum more convenient to both parties than Cumberland or Susquehanna counties; however, in the event Dauphin County no longer desires to maintain jurisdiction/venue in this case, Defendant/Respondent will pursue a transfer of the custody action to Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, which Defend ant/Respondent believes to be the next appropriate county in light of the fact that the minor child has spent the vast majority of his life in the South Central Pennsylvania area. 5 WHEREFORE, the Defendant/Respondent prays that this Honorable Court Dismiss the Petition to Modify Custody, with prejudice, due to proper venue being vested in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, and Cancel the conference/hearing scheduled for January 3, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire ID No. 78407 2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-8742 Attorney for Defend ant/Respondent MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS vs : SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY, PENNA. JOHN E. MZ'ERS, III N0.2006 - 1839 C.P. ORDER NOW TO WIT, this 28d' day of February, 2007, after hearing held on the Defendant- Respondent's, John E. Myers, 111, Preliminary Objections to Petition to Modify Custody, the preliminary objections be and are hereby Granted on the basis that, although Susquehanna County may have jurisdiction over the matter, Susquehanna County is an inconvenient forum inasmuch as the child has generally been raised Ln Dauphin County and Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and that Cumberland County is the residence of his father who shares physical custody with the mother on an equal basis. Therefore, we would order that the proceedings of Plaintiffs, Melinda S. Schneider, Petition to Modify Custody be Ordered Stayed for a period of not more than thirty (30) days specifically conditioned upon a child custody proceeding being promptly commenced in Cumberland County by the father, John E. Myers, III. KENNETH ?W???SEAMANS, P.J. ?? ? ryz xa BY TI -M RT,-? ' i-; Mindy S. Goodman Attorney at Law 2215 Forest Hills Drive Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 JOHN E. MYERS, III, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MELINDA S. MCcAULEY, Defendant : NO. 2005-CV-1615-CU CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY PETITION TO TRANSFER CUSTODY CASE TO CUMBERLAND COUNTY 1. Plaintiff/Petitioner, John Myers, filed a custody action in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania on or about April 27, 2005. 2. A lengthy custody conference in the action filed in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania was held on or about May 12, 2005 before Sanford Krevsky, Esquire, a Dauphin County Conciliator. 3. As a result of the conference before Conciliator Krevsky and further discussions between the parties, the parties reached an agreement and a Stipulated Order for Custody, dated November 18, 2005 was entered as an Order of Court on November 30, 2005. A copy of the Stipulated Order for Custody is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4. Since the Stipulated Order for Custody was entered as an Order in November of 2005, the parties have maintained shared legal custody of the minor child and shared physical custody of the minor child on an alternating weekly basis. 5. Physical custody has taken place in Cumberland County on those weeks when the child is with his father and Susquehanna County on those weeks when the minor child is with his mother. 6. The child has not spent a consecutive six month period in either Cumberland County or Susquehanna County, but the child has lived the majority of his life in Cumberland County, except for one year that the child lived in Dauphin County, which was at the time that the initial custody action was filed b Plaintiff/Petitioner in Dauphin County. by 7. Because of the distance between the parties' residences, Defendant/Respondent and Plaintiff/Petitioner were each aware that the other would seek primary custody of the minor child prior to the child enrolling in school in the Fall of 2007. 8. Plaintiff/Petitioner asserts that in order to get the upper hand in the custody action, on or about November 14, 2006 Defendant/Respondent filed a Petition to Modify Custody in Susquehanna County, without first seeking Court approval to have the action transferred from Dauphin County to Susquehanna 2 County. A copy of the Petition to Modify Custody filed by Defend ant/Respondent in Susquehanna County is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 8. Neither Plaintiff/Petitioner nor Defendant/Respondent resides in Dauphin County any longer. 9. Although neither party remains in Dauphin County, Plaintiff/Petitioner does continue to reside in Cumberland County, and central Pennsylvania is the area where the child has spent the majority of his life. 10. Because Plaintiff/Defendant continues to reside in central Pennsylvania, on or about December 15, 2006 Plaintiff/Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection to Petition for Modification of Custody Order on the basis of improper venue and inconvenient forum, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 11. A hearing on the Preliminary Objection was held in Susquehanna County before the Honorable Kenneth W. Seamans, P.J., on February 28, 2007 after which an Order was issued Staying the proceedings filed in Susquehanna County by the Defendant/Respondent in this case, specifically conditioned on a child custody proceeding being promptly commenced in Cumberland County. A copy of the Order is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 12. Plaintiff/Petitioner maintains it is in the best interest of the minor child for Cumberland County to assume jurisdiction over this matter since the minor child was born and raised in South Central Pennsylvania, Plaintiff/Petitioner and his extended family remain in the Dauphin and Cumberland Counties, the minor child attends preschool in the Cumberland County, and Defendant/Respondent is employed in Dauphin County. 13. Plaintiff/Petitioner maintains that since the child has lived in central Pennsylvania for the majority of his life, Cumberland County is the appropriate and most convenient forum for this case. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff/Petitioner prays that this Honorable Court grant this Petition for Transfer Custody to Cumberland County so that Plaintiff/Petitioner can seek a modification of the existing Custody Order pursuant to the Order entered in Susquehanna County directing Plaintiff/Petitioner to commence a custody action in Cumberland County. Respectfully submitted, Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire ID No. 78407 2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-8742 Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner 4 A V JOHN E. MYERS, III, V. Plaintiff, MELINDA S. McCAULEY, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION ' NO. 2005-CV-1685-CU c.?t ORDER 0 AND NOW, this 5`h day of March, 2007, upon consideration of the Petition to Transfer Venue filed by Plaintiff, a Rule is hereby entered upon Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Rule Returnable Friday, March 16, 2007. B R• Bruce F. Bratton, J. .77-777 tn.u Proth+ riwary Distribution: Howard M. Spizer, Esq., 724 Bank Towers Bldg., 312 Spruce St., Scranton PA 18503 Mindy S. Goodman, Esq., 2215 Forest Hills Drive, Suite 35, Harrisburg PA 17112 JOHN E. MYERS, III, Plaintiff V. MELINDA S. McCAULEY, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-CV-1685-CU CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE' v PETITION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE m 1. On or about March 2, 2007, Plaintiffs counsel filed a Petition to Transfer Custody Case to Cumberland County. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference is a copy of said Petition. 2. On March 5, 2007, this Court, by the Honorable Bruce F. Bratton, issued a Rule on Defendant to show cause, if any there be, why counsel's petition should not be granted. The Rule was returnable Friday, March 16, 2007. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference is a copy of said Rule. 3. On March 6, 2007, undersigned counsel forwarded to Defendant's counsel a copy of the executed Rule to Show Cause. 4. To date, which is March 19, 2007, Defendant has not raised any opposition to the Petition to Transfer Custody Case to Cumberland County. $ 4 WHEREFORE, undersigned counsel respectfully requests that this Honorable Court make the Rule on March 5, 2007 absolute and grant the Petition to Transfer Custody Case to Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and direct the Prothonotary to forward certified copies of all docket entries, process, pleadings and other papers filed in this action to the Prothonotary of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Date: ! r By: Mindy S. Goodman Attorney at Law ID No. 78407 2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35 Northwood Office Center Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 540-8742 2 . A a JOHN E. MYERS, III, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff, DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION MELINDA S. McCAULEY, : NO. 2005-CV-1685-CU Defendant ORDER c? AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2007, upon consideration of the PetiTion tU Transfer Venue filed by Plaintiff, and the Defendant's failure to respond thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is GRANTED. The above-captioned custody case shall be transferred to Cumberland County, and pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1915.2(d), the Dauphin County Prothonotary is hereby directed to forward certified copies of all docket entries, process, pleadings, and other papers filed in this action. Costs to be paid by Plaintiff. BY THE C T: 11 Bruce F. Bratton, J. MAR 2 7 2007 # her* cartiV? that ft fortP ft is S trw 5#J corr;;at flied. Distribution: Prothonotary President Judge Kenneth W. Seamans, Susquehanna County Courthouse, PO Box 218, Montrose, PA 18801 Howard M. Spizer, Esq., 724 Bank Towers Bldg., 312 Spruce St., Scranton PA 18503 Mindy S. Goodman, Esq., 2215 Forest Hills Drive, Suite 35, Harrisburg PA 17112 ? (tl ? ? ? ? ? - ? N c° ?? ? .. '??`' C_?) r7 1 ?i'"i 7 ^Q ? c? ( . ? ?! 'i7 _ ?,? ,3 ? ?., y w? r?.:? ? JOHN E. MYERS, III IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MELINDA S. MCCAULEY DEFENDANT 07-1800 CIVIL ACTION LAW . IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Wednesday, April 04, 2007 , 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 39 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 at 1:30 PM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT. By: /s/ Dawn S. Sunda Es q. Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 41470 'P^w?-Yt" *- ?t COh h e Zo •z1 pd 'l° UY LG0z ]HI JO MAY 0 4 2007 IVI JOHN E. MYERS, III Plaintiff vs. MELINDA S. MCCAULEY Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 07-1800 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this a day of M try , 2007, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The parties shall submit themselves, their minor Child, and any other individuals deemed necessary by the evaluator to a custody evaluation to be performed by a professional selected by agreement between the parties. The purpose of the evaluation shall be to obtain independent professional recommendations concerning ongoing custody arrangements which will best meet the needs of the Child. The parties shall sign any authorizations deemed necessary by the evaluator in order to obtain additional information pertaining to the parties or the Child. 2. Within 60 days of receipt of the evaluator's written custody recommendations, counsel for either party may contact the conciliator to schedule an additional custody conciliation conference, if necessary. 3. Pending completion of the custody evaluation and further Order of Court or agreement of the parties, the parties shall continue to follow the custody arrangements currently in effect. cc: ?dfi dy S. Goodman, Esquire - Counsel for Father arbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire - Counsel for Mother BY THE COURT, c t} ;'yt r Luz 4J `?' JOHN E. MYERS, III Plaintiff VS. MELINDA S. MCCAULEY Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 07-1800 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Chase Hunter Myers September 13, 2001 Mother/Father 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on May 2, 2007 with the following individuals in attendance: the Father, John E. Myers, III, with his counsel, Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire, and the Mother, Melinda S. McCauley, with her counsel, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire. 3. It was agreed at the conference that counsel for the parties would contact the conciliator in mid-June to advise as to the status of the custody evaluation to ensure that a hearing could be scheduled prior to the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year in the event the parties are unable to reach an agreement after the evaluation is concluded and a hearing is ultimately necessary. 4. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator OCT ] b 2007?43 JOHN E. MYERS, III Plaintiff vs. MELINDA S. MCCAULEY Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 07-1800 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 0 1h - day of d J 6p t e , 2007, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A hearing is scheduled in Court Room No. Q our S of the Cumberland County y Courthouse on the 4717day ofd c??t F , 200 g, at which time testimony will be taken. For purposes of the hearing, the Father shall be ed"emed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a Memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list of witnesses who are expected to testify at the hearing, and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. These Memoranda shall be filed at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. 2. Pending the hearing and further Order of Court or agreement of the parties, the prior Order of this Court dated November 18, 2005 shall continue in effect as modified by this Order. 3. Pending hearing in this matter and further Order of Court or agreement of the parties, the Mother shall have custody of the Child as follows: Friday, October 5, through Monday October 8, 2007; Friday, October 12 through Sunday October 14, 2007; Friday, October 26 through Sunday October 28, 2007; Friday, November 9 through Saturday November 10, 2007, in Mechanicsburg; Friday, November 16 through Monday November 26, 2007, which includes the Thanksgiving holiday; Friday December 7 through Sunday December 9, 2007; Monday December 24 through Tuesday January 1, 2008, including the Christmas and New Years holidays; Beginning Friday, January 11, 2008 on alternating weekends from Friday through Sunday until the date of the hearing. The Father shall have custody of the Child at all times not otherwise specified for the Mother in this provision. 4. The parties shall continue to exchange custody at the halfway point between their residences unless otherwise agreed. BY THE COURT, Nk -At", ??" , V M. L. Ebert, Jr. J. cc: 7indy ara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire - Counsel for Mother S. Goodman, Esquire - Counsel for Father KIVA, EASNNt-J?l 0 Z :6 WV 9 1 130 LOOZ JOHN E. MYERS, III Plaintiff vs. MELINDA S. MCCAULEY Defendant Prior Judge: M. L. Ebert, Jr. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 07-1800 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Chase Myers September 13, 2001 Father/Mother 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on October 4, 2007 with the following individuals in attendance: the Father, John E. Myers, III, with his counsel, Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire, and the Mother, Melinda Schneider, formerly McCauley, with her counsel, Barbara Sumple- Sullivan, Esquire. 3. Initially, beginning in 2003, the Mother had primary physical custody of the Child. However, when the Mother moved to Montrose, Pennsylvania in 2005, the parties initiated an alternating weekly schedule for exchanges of custody. With the Child beginning kindergarten in the 2007-2008 school year, the parties recognized it would no longer be feasible to share custody with a three hour distance between their residences and the Father filed this Petition for primary physical custody. The parties obtained a custody evaluation and returned to conciliation following receipt of the evaluation report. Since the beginning of this school year, the Child has been attending kindergarten in the local area and spending alternating weekends with the Mother in Montrose. 4. The parties were unable to reach an agreement at the conference and it will be necessary to schedule a hearing in this matter to determine which parent will serve as the Child's primary custodian during the school year. It is anticipated that the hearing will require one-half to one full day. The parties were able to establish a custodial schedule by agreement pending the hearing as reflected in the attached proposed Order. ntlh Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator JOHN E. MYERS, III, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER, Defendant NO. 07-1800 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 2008, after hearing in the above-captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the parties shall file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law supported by a brief on or before the close of business on Friday, January 25th, 2008. By the Court, ?k -1k 4A ? M. L. Ebert, Jr., Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire For the Plaintiff Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire For the Defendant lfh 040 P its ifls?ag ??ti.? ? ?,, ?, ? ?? F??. t'?;,? ; '? ?? ? ? ?? ? b??? if 1 JOHN E. MYERS, III, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MELINDA S. MCCAULEY, a/k/a MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER, DEFENDANT NO. 07-1800 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1 st day of May, 2008, after hearing in the above matter and consideration of the proposed findings of fact, and conclusions of law and briefs filed by the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. Legal Custody: The parties, John E. Myers, III, and Melinda S. McCauley, a/k/a Melinda S. Schneider, shall have shared legal custody of the minor child, Chase H. Myers, born September 13, 2001. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all major non-emergency decisions affecting the child's general well-being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding his health, education and religion. Pursuant to the terms of 23 Pa.C.S. §5309, each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the child including, but not limited to, medical, dental religious or school records, the residence address of the child and of the other parent. To the extent one parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent. All decisions affecting the child's growth and development including, but not limited to choice of child care provider; medical and dental treatment; psychotherapy, or like treatment; decisions relating to actual or potential litigation involving the child directly or as a beneficiary, other than custody litigation; education, both secular and religious; scholastic athletic pursuits and other extracurricular activities; shall be considered major decisions and shall be made with the parents jointly, after discussion and consultation with each other and with a view toward obtaining and following a harmonious policy in the child's best interest. 2. Communication between Parties: All custody exchanges of the child shall be preceded by telephonic contact directly between the Mother and the Father to confirm availability and time of exchange. It is specifically directed that the child will not be used as an intermediary between the parents. In the event that either party has a change in their telephone number or address, or termination of telephone service, they will inform the other party within 24 hours of the change. 3. Physical Custody: Custody of the child will be governed by the following schedule: A. Remainder of 2008 School Year: 1. Father shall have custody of the child from May 1, 2008, until 7:30 p.m., May 9, 2008. Mother shall then have custody from 7:30 p.m. on May 9, 2008, until 7:30 p.m. on May 11, 2008, (Mother's Day) at which time the child shall be returned to the Father. 2. The Mother shall have custody of the child from 7:30 p.m. on June 15, 2008, (Father's Day) until 7:30 p.m. on August 24, 2008. During this period, Father shall have 7 days (1 week) of uninterrupted custody of the child for the purpose of vacation during the summer school recess. Father shall give Mother notice of the dates of this vacation period on or before June 13, 2008. 2 B. 2008 - 2009 School Year: 1. Long Holiday Weekends: Mother shall have custody of the child for the following long holiday weekends: a. From 7:30 p.m. September 18, 2008, until 7:30 p.m. September 21, 2008. b. From 7:30 p.m. October 10, 2008, until 7:30 p.m. October 14, 2008. c. From 7:30 p.m. January 15, 2009, until 7:30 p.m. January 19, 2009. d. From 7:30 p.m. February 11, 2009, until 7:30 p.m. February 16, 2009, e. From 7:30 p.m. April 8, 2009, until 7:30 p.m. April 13, 2009. f. From 7:30 p.m. May 22, 2009, until 7:30 p.m. May 25, 2009. 2. Additional Regular Weekends: Mother shall have custody of the child from 7:30 p.m. on Friday evening to 7:30 p.m. on Sunday evening for one additional weekend during the months of November 2008, February 2009, and March 2009. Mother shall provide notice to the Father of the weekend she has selected on or before the first day of the preceding month. (i.e. Notice of the November weekend shall be given by October 1, 2008.) C. 2009 Summer Recess: Mother shall have custody of the child from 7:30 p.m. on June 7, 2009, until 7:30 p.m. on the Sunday prior to the start of the 2009 - 2010 school year, during this period Father shall have seven days (1 week) of uninterrupted custody of the child 3 for the purpose of vacation during the 2009 summer school recess. Father shall give Mother notice of the dates of this vacation on or before June 12, 2009. Additionally, Father shall have custody of the child from 7:30 p.m. on June 19, 2009, to 7:30 p.m. on June 21, 2009, (Father's Day) at which time child shall be returned to the Mother. D. Major Holidays: 1. Thanksgiving 2008: Mother shall have custody of the child beginning at 4:00 p.m. on November 27, 2008, until 7:30 p.m. on December 1, 2008. 2. Christmas 2008: Christmas Holiday period shall be divided into two segments, A and B. Segment A shall consist of the period between 7:30 p.m. December 23, 2008, until 7:30 p.m. on December 30, 2008. Segment B shall be the period from 7:30 p.m. December 30, 2008, until 7:30 p.m. the evening prior to the restart of school in 2009. In 2008, and even years thereafter, Mother shall have custody during Segment A and Father shall have Segment B. In odd number years, Father shall have custody during Segment A and Mother shall have Segment B. E. Future Orders: On or before July 31, 2009, the parties will review the school calendar for Cumberland Valley School District and submit to the Court a revised custody schedule which mirrors the allocation of custody stated above but with new dates for the 2009 - 2010 school year. F. Other: At such other times as the parties agree. 4 4. Designation of Transfer Point: Custody of the child will be exchanged at a location to be determined by the parties approximately half way between Mechanicsburg and Montrose along Interstate Route 81. 5. Telephonic Contact: The child will have liberal and regular telephonic contact with the con-custodial parent. 6. Nonalienation: Neither party may say or do anything nor permit a third party to do or say anything that may estrange the child from the other party, or injure the opinion of the child as to the other party, or may hamper the free and natural development of the child's love or affection for the other party. By the Court, 11?1 ?" \// M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Attorney for Defendant bas S O1-0,P 5 3tf 1 X VUUU ,?, ?i` ?l Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 JOHN E. MYERS, III IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-1800 MELINDA S. MCCAULEY, CIVIL ACTION LAW A/K/A MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER IN CUSTODY Defendant NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that Melinda S. McCauley, a/k/a Melinda S. Schneider, Defendant above named, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the Order entered in this matter on the 1St day of May, 2008. This Order has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached copy of the docket entry. Request for an opinion in accordance with Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) is made to the Honorable Judge M.L. Ebert, Jr. Dated: May 28, 2008 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court I.D. 32317 Attorney for Defendant Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 JOHN E. MYERS, III IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-1800 MELINDA S. MCCAULEY, CIVIL ACTION LAW A/K/A MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER IN CUSTODY Defendant ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT A Notice of Appeal having been filed in this matter, the official court reporter is hereby ordered to produce, certify and file the transcript in this matter in conformity with Rule 1922 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. J. M.L. Ebert, Jr. PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Pa e 1 Civil Case Print g 2007-01800 MYERS JOHN E III (vs) MCCAULEY MELINDA S Reference No..: Filed........: 3/30/2007 Case Type ..... : COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Jud men Time.........: 3:30 .00 Judge Assigned: EBERT M L JR Execution Date 0/00/0000 Disposed Desc.: Jury Trial.... ------------ Case Comments Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------- Higher Crt l.: Higher Crt 2.: ******************************************************************************** General Index Attorney Info MYERS JOHN E III PLAINTIFF GOODMAN MINDY S 464 STONEHEDGE LANE MECHANICSBURG PA 21 CARDAMON DRIVE MCCAULEY MELINDA S DEFENDANT SPONAUGLE THOMAS B 716 STONEY CREEK DRIVE DAUPHIN PA RR#5 - BOX 99 * Date Entries ******************************************************************************** 3/27/2007 ORDER AND NOW THIS 27TH DAYIOFTMARCHY2007 UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION TO TRANSFER VENUE FILED BY PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO RESPOND THERETO IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, THE PETITION IS GRANTED THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CUSTODY CASE SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND PURSUANT TO PA R CIV P 1915.2(D) THE DAUPHIN COUNTY PROTHONOTARY IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO FORWARD CERTIFIED COPIES OF ALL DOCKET ENTRIES PROCESS, PLEADINGS AND OTHER PAPERS FILED IN THIS ACTION COSTS TO BE PAID BY PLAINTIFF BY THE COURT BRUCE F BRATTON J ------------- _ _ 4/25/2005 COMPLAINT - CUSTODY PD BY MINDY S GOODMAN ESQ ATTY FOR JOHN E MYERS III ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/26/2005 UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ATTACHED COMPLAINT IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED THAT THE PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL APPEAR BEFORE THE CONCILIATOR ON THE 12TH DAY OF MAY 2005 AT 3:00 PM ON THE 4TH FLOOR DAUPHIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE, FRONT AND MARKET STREETS HARRISBURG PENNSYLVANIA FOR A PRE-HEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE SEE ORDER OF COURT COPIES TO ATTY 4-27-05 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 5/12/2005 UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ATTACHED COMPLAINT IT IS HEREBY DIRECTEn THAT THE PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL APPEAR BEFORE THE CONCILLIATOR ON THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2005 AT 10:00 AM AT 1101 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG PENNSYLVANIA FOR A PRE-HEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE SEE ORDER OF COURT FILED ---------------------- _ 5/16/2005 JUDGE ASSIGNED TO CASE SANFORD KREVSKY HEARING SECHEDULED FOR (CUSTODY/VISITATION 06/09/05 10:00 AM) 1101-NORTH FRONT STREET, HARRISBURG PA ---------------------------- j 6/16/2005 THE PARTIES (JOHN MEYERS PLAINTIFF AND MELISSA MCCAULEY DEFENDANT) BOTH PARTIES HAVING APPEARED PRO SE FOR A CUSTODY CONFERENCE ON JUNE 9, 2005 BEFORE SANFORD A KREVSKY ESQUIRE AND HAVING REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH REGARDS TO THE BEST INTEREST AND WELFARE OF THEIR MINOR CHILD CHASE HUNTER MEYERS (D.O.B. 9/13/01) HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS CHILD IS IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES AND THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THEY WILL HAVE SHARED LEGAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN 2. PARENTS SHALL HAVE PARTIAL CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE: SEE COMPLETE ORDER FILED COPIES DIST 6-17-05 ----------------- 11/23/2005 JUDGE ASSIGNED TO CASE--------------------------------------------'- STIPULATED ORDER FOR CUSTODY FILED --- ----- 11/29/2005 THE-PARTIES JOHN-MYERS REPRESENTED-BY_MINDY_S_GOODMAN ESQURRE AND_ PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Pa e 2 Civil Case Print g 2007-01800 MYERS JOHN E III (vs) MCCAULEY MELINDA S Reference No..: Filed........: 3/30/2007 Case Type ..... : COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time...... . 3:30 Judgment Execution Date 0/00/'0000 Jude Assigned: EBERT M L JR Disposed Desc.: Jury Trial.... d De Case Comments Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ ------------- Higgghher Crt 1.: r 2.: MELINDA MCCAULEY REPRESENTED BY MELISSA LHVANeE CKrESQURIE HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH REGARDS TO THE BEST INTEREST AND WELF RE THEIR MINOR TOIAS CHILDEAND THEREFORE IS IISBHEREBY/ORDEREDEI D DECREED AS FOLLOWS 1. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES AND HE PARTIES AGREE THAT THEY WILL HAVE SHARED LEGAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILD 2 MOTHER SHALL HAVE PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY FATHER SHALL HAVE PARTIAL CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE SEE COMPLETE VISITATION SCHEDULE AND STIPULATED ORDER FOR CUSTODY FILED ----------------------------------------- _ _ 3/02/2007 PETITION TO TRANSFER CUSTODY CASE TO CUMBERLAND COUNTY FILED JUDGE ASSIGNED TO CASE BRUCE F BRATTON ----------------------------------- _ _ _ 3/05/2007 UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION TO TRANSFER VENUE FILED BY r PLAINTIFF A RULE IS HEREBY ENTERED UPON DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHEY THE RELIEF REQUESTED SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED RULE RETURNABL F RIDAY-MARCH-16-2007---SEE-ORDER-FILED-COPIS-DIST 3/5/07 CHAMBF RS 3/22/2007 PETITION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE FILED ------------------------------------------------------ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE PETITION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE FILED 3/27/2007 UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION TO TRANSFER VENUE FILD BY PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO RESPOND THERETO IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE PETITION IS GRANTED ---------------- 4 04/2007 ORDER OF COURT - 04-04-07 - IN RE: PRE-HEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE 05-02-07 AT 1:30 PM AT 39 W MAIN ST MECH PA 17055 - FOR THE COURT BY DAWN S SUNDAY ESQ CUSTODY CONCILIATOR - COPIES MAILED 04-04-07 5/08/2007 ORDER OF COURT - 05-08-07 - IN RE: CUSTODY CONCILIATION REPORT BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 05-08-07 10/18/2007 CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT AND ORDER OF COURT ------------------------------------------------------------------- DATED 10/17/07 - HEARING 7/4/08 9:30 AM CR 5 - BY M L EBERT JR'J COPIES MAILED 10/19/07 1/15/2008 O RDER OF COURT - 1/4/08 IN RE: CUSTODY - THE PARTIES SHALL FILE PROPOSED BRIEF ON FINDINGS N W1/25/08T- BYY M AL EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 1/15/08 -------------------------- 5/01/2008 ORDER OF COURT - 5/1/08 IN RE: CUSTODY - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 5/1/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - _ - * Escrow Information * Fees & Debits Beg Bal P*ymts/Ad' End Bal ******************************** ******** ****** ******************************* CUSTODY AGMT 135.00 135.00 .00 TAX ON AGMT .50 .00 SETTLEMENT .50 AUTOMATION FEE 5.00 8.00 .00 JCP FEE 5.00 5.00 .00 CUSTODY FEE 10.00 10.00 .00 5.2 .30 5.20 .00 CUSTODY FEE-CO 1 MODIFICATION CU 1.30 1.30 .00 SUBPOENA 70.00 70.00 .00 SUBPOENA 3.00 3.00 .00 3.00 3.00 .00 ------- ------------ 241.00 241.00 .00 * End of Case Information y **'** ***********************************************n**?M*, 01 #n t31t!` ?tl arv Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 JOHN E. MYERS, III Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-1800 MELINDA S. MCCAULEY, CIVIL ACTION LAW A/K/A MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER IN CUSTODY Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, BARBARA SUMPLE-SULLIVAN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that on this date, I hand delivered a true and correct copy of the Notice of Appeal, in the above-captioned matter upon the following individual by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: The Honorable M.L. Ebert, Jr. Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 Ms. Laura Handley, Court Reporter Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 DATE: May 28, 2008 Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire Northwood Office Center 2215 Forest Hills Drive, Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112 • al utu a 3umpie-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court I.D. 32317 Attorney for Defendant W Z JOHN E. MYERS, III, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MELINDA S. MCCAULEY, a/k/a MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER, DEFENDANT NO. 07-1800 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29th day of May, 2008, the Court being in receipt of a Notice of Appeal in the above captioned matter, the Appellant is ordered to file with this Court a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal no later than June 19, 2008. By the Court, 1\0, -? M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. 'MindY S. Goodman, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff ? Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Attorney for Defendant bas n (?ZP 1.E.S ?r? a r I S/g -tTo-) n : i ?''y j COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA o -7-l a., Superior Court of Pennsylvania Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq. Middle District 100 Pine Street. Suite 400 Prothonotary Harrisburg. PA 17101 James D. McCullough, Esq. June 3, 2008 717-772-1294 Deputy Prothonotary www.superior.court.state.pa.us Mr. Curtis R. Long i` Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: 965 MDA 2008 John E. Myers, III V. Melinda S. McCauley, Appellant Dear Mr. Long: Enclosed please find a copy of the docket for the above appeal that was recently filed in the Superior Court. Kindly review the information on this docket and notify this office in writing if you believe any corrections are required. Appellant's counsel is also being sent a Docketing Statement, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 3517, for completion and filing. Please note that Superior Court Dockets are available on the Internet at the Web site address printed at the top of this page. Thank you. Very truly yours, Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq. Prothonotary KRC 9:58 AA Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 965 MDA 2008 Page 1 of 3 June 3, 2008 MGM Superior Court of Pennsylvania John E. Myers, III V. Melinda S. McCauley, Appellant Initiating Document: Notice of Appeal Case Status: Active Case Processing Status June 2, 2008 Awaiting Original Record Journal Number: Case Category: Domestic Relations CaseType: CustodyNisitation Consolidated Docket Nos.: Related Docket Nos.: SCHEDULED EVENT Next Event Type: Receive Docketing Statement Next Event Type: Original Record Received Next Event Due Date: June 17, 2008 Next Event Due Date: August 1, 2008 6/3/2008 3023 9:58 A.M. Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 965 MDA 2008 Page 2 of 3 June 3, 2008 Superior Court of Pennsylvania ASM COUNSEL INFORMATION Appellant McCauley, Melinda S. Pro Se: Appoint Counsel Status: IFP Status: No Appellant Attorney Information: Attorney: Sumple-Sullivan, Barbara Bar No.: 32317 Law Firm: Address: 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Phone No.: (717)774-1445 Fax No.: (717)774-7059 Receive Mail: Yes E-Mail Address: Receive E-Mail: No Appellee Myers III, John E. Pro Se: Appoint Counsel Status: IFP Status: No Appellee Attorney Information: Attorney: Goodman, Mindy Sheryl Bar No.: 78407 Law Firm: Address: Suite 35 2215 Forest Hills Drive Harrisburg, PA 17112-1099 Phone No.: (717)540-8742 Fax No.: (717)540-8743 Receive Mail: Yes E-Mail Address: goodmanlaw@comcast.net Receive E-Mail: No FEE INFORMATION Paid Fee Date Fee Name Fee Amt Amount Receipt Number 5/29/08 Notice of Appeal 60.00 60.00 2008SPRMD000463 TRIAL COURT/AGENCY INFORMATION Court Below: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas County: Cumberland Division: Civil Date of Order Appealed From: May 1, 2008 Judicial District: 9 Date Documents Received: June 2, 2008 Date Notice of Appeal Filed: May 29, 2008 Order Type: Order Entered OTN: Judge: Ebert, Jr., Merle L. Lower Court Docket No.: 07-1800 Judge ORIGINAL RECORD CONTENTS 6/3/2008 3023 9:58 A.M. Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: Page 3 of 3 June 3, 2008 965 MDA 2008 Original Record Item Filed Date Content/Description Date of Remand of Record: BRIEFS DOCKET ENTRIES Filed Date Docket Entry/Document Name Party Type Filed By June 2, 2008 Notice of Appeal Filed Appellant McCauley, Melinda S. June 3, 2008 Docketing Statement Exited (Domestic Relations) Middle District Filing Office Superior Court of Pennsylvania 6!312008 3023 C 5- E vs:, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 JOHN E. MYERS, III IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 07-1800 MELINDA S. MCCAULEY, CIVIL ACTION LAW A/K/A MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER IN CUSTODY Defendant STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL AND NOW COMES the Defendant, Melinda S. McCauley, a/k/a Melinda S. Schneider, and files the Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal required pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925 (b). Further, pursuant to Pa. R.A. P. 1925(b)(4)(vi), it is noted that Defendant's statements are set forth in general terms since the decision of the Honorable Judge M.L Ebert, Jr. is not available. 1. The Trial Court erred in not vesting primary physical custody of the minor child in Defendant. The Court disregarded substantial evidence of the stated desires of the child, fitness of the Defendant, the continuing relationship which was formed during the extended time the Defendant was primary custodian and the flexibility of her work schedule to care for the child. 2. The Trial Court erred in determining that it was in the child's best interest to grant primary physical custody to Plaintiff. The Court disregarded substantial evidence regarding the instability in Plaintiff's home, Plaintiffs inability to foster the relationship between the child and Defendant, Plaintiff's failure to communicate with Defendant regarding the child's education and health, the child's change in personality and the child's regression in school since he began living primarily with Plaintiff. 3. The Trial Court may have incorrectly relied on the recommendation of Dr. Shienvold which was issued without knowledge of the occurrences ongoing in Plaintiff's household related to alcohol use. DATE: June 4, 2008 Barbara Sample-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court I.D. 32317 Attorney for Defendant Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 JOHN E. MYERS, III IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 07-1800 MELINDA S. MCCAULEY, CIVIL ACTION LAW A/K/A MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER IN CUSTODY Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, BARBARA SLWLE-SULLIVAN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that on this date, I served a true and correct copy of Defendant's Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, in the above-captioned matter upon the following individual(s), via regular mail addressed as follows: The Honorable M.L. Ebert, Jr. Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire Northwood Office Center 2215 Forest Hills Drive, Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA,17112 DATE: kU ISM = Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court I.D. 32317 Attorney for Defendant ?? ° s ?? ? - ?? ?° ,eta ' .? JOHN E. MYERS, III, PLAINTIFF V. MELINDA S. MCCAULEY, a/k/a MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-1800 CIVIL IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 Ebert, J., August 11, 2008 -- The Defendant, Melinda S. Schneider (hereinafter "Mother"), has filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court following an Order of Court on May 1, 2008, awarding shared legal custody with primary physical custody during the school year of the minor child, Chase H. Myers (hereinafter "Chase"), to the Plaintiff, John Myers, III (hereinafter "Father").' This opinion is written pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a). Mother's bases for appeal are as follows: 1. The Trial Court erred in not vesting primary physical custody of the minor child in Defendant. The Court disregarded substantial evidence of the stated desires of the child, fitness of the Defendant, the continuing relationship which was formed during the extended time the Defendant was primary custodian and the flexibility of her work schedule to care for the child. 2. The Trial Court erred in determining that it was in the child's best interest to grant primary physical custody to Plaintiff. The Court disregarded substantial evidence regarding the instability in Plaintiff's home, Plaintiff's inability to foster the relationship between the child and Defendant, Plaintiff's failure to communicate with Defendant See Order of Court, May 1, 2008. regarding the child's education and health, the child's change in personality, and the child's regression in school since he began living primarily with Plaintiff. 3. The Trial Court may have incorrectly relied on the recommendation of Dr. Shienvold which was issued without knowledge of the occurrence ongoing in Plaintiff's household related to alcohol use. PROCEDURAL HISTORY A custody evaluation was submitted by Dr. Shienvold on August 21, 2008, recommending primary physical custody of the minor child to be with Father.2 On January 4, 2008, 248 pages of testimony were taken in regards to custody of the minor child. Dr. Shienvold again reaffirmed his evaluation recommending primary physical custody of the minor child to be with Father. On May 1, 2008, this Court entered an Order directing shared legal custody of the minor child, Chase H. Myers, between Mother and Father.3 Both parents shall have an equal right to make all major and non-emergency decisions in regards to the general welfare of the minor child including, but not limited to, health, education and religion.4 Father shall have primary physical custody of the minor child during the academic year with Mother having primary physical custody during summer recess.5 Additionally Mother was awarded almost all of the major long holiday weekends and school in service days linked to other weekends during the academic year. Mother is appealing the decision of this Court. z Plaintiff's Exhibit #2, (hereinafter "Pl. Exh. 2, p. 3 See Order of Court, May 1, 2008. 4 Id. 5 Id. -2- STATEMENT OF FACTS Mother and Father never married. They lived together in the Harrisburg area from July of 1999 to February of 2003.6 Mother and Father had a son, Chase H. Myers, . In February of 2003, after the separation, shared custody of on September 13, 20017 Chase was arranged between Mother and Father.8 The shared custody schedule reportedly provided primary physical custody of Chase to Mother with partial custody on alternating weekends and some midweek daytime visits to Father as allowed by his conflicting work schedule.9 After the separation, Father married Lorie Myers in May 2005 and, likewise, Mother married Donny Schneider in August 2005. 10 The shared custody schedule that was implemented in February 2003 remained in effect until Mother relocated to Montrose, Pennsylvania in November 2005.11 Since relocating in 2005, Mother and Father shared physical custody of Chase on an alternating seven day schedule.12 Upon receiving the custody evaluation of Dr. Shienvold in August 2007, Mother has allowed the recommended primary physical custody of Chase to be with Father during the academic kindergarten year with Mother seeing Chase on alternating weekends!3 Chase H. Myers is described by his parents as an active and talkative six year old, who although shy at first in new social situations, enjoys being the center of attention when he becomes comfortable with those around him. 14 Father describes Chase as 6 Notes of Transcript, Jan. 4, 2008, p. 151 (hereinafter "N.T. ' N.T. 152 ' N.T. 153 9 Pl. Exh. 2, p. 2 '0 Id. at 10,12 11 Id. at 2. 12 Id. at 15. 13 N.T. 87-88 14 Pl. Exh. 2, p. 7,8 -3- loving, personable, athletic and humorous but whines when things do not go his way. 15 Mother describes Chase as a happy, caring, and smart child but feels that Chase has developed a temper and is too competitive. 16 During his evaluation Chase spoke positively about both his Mother and Father. 17 Chase commented that at Mother's house he enjoys the freedom of being able to play outside a lot, rollerblade inside, and go to bed whenever he wants.'8 At Father's house Chase spends a lot of time playing with Father. 19 Chase enjoys seeing his paternal grandparents and seeing Father play softball on Sundays. 20 Dr. Shienvold observed both parents interacting with Chase in an office setting and reported that Chase showed no fear or apprehension around either Father or Mother.21 Both parents were able to effectively communicate with Chase and their interaction was "smooth and loving.s22 John Myers, Father, is a 31 year old man who is currently employed as an Operations Manager for Genco Distribution working Monday through Friday from 6:30am to 3:00pm.23 Father is currently married to Lorie Myers. 24 Father and Lorie met in 2003 and married in 2005 and have a seven month old daughter named Camryn.25 Lorie holds a Bachelor's and a Master's Degree in nursing, served three years as a nurse in the Air Force, and currently works as a Senior Implementation Analyst for Select u Id. at 7. 16 Id. 17 Id. at 9. 18 Id. 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 Id. 22 Id. 2s N.T. 123-124 24 Pl. Exh. 2, p. 10 2s Id. -4- Medical in Mechanicsburg.26 Lorie is a constant presence in Chase's life.27 Chase includes Lorie in activities with he and his Father. 28 Father and Lorie incorporate two methods of punishment for Chase when he is misbehaving.29 Chase will either be sent to "time out" or have his bed time moved forward. After coming out of "time out," Father and Lorie will ask Chase to explain the reason why he was punished.30 Father does not engage in the use of cigarettes or illegal drugs.31 On a weekly basis Father consumes approximately six to ten alcoholic drinks. 32 According to the MMPI and PSI analysis of Dr. Shienvold, Father is mildly defensive and reluctant to admit to problems, but is effective in his everyday functions. 33 Melinda S. Schneider, Mother, is a 30 year old woman who is currently employed as a representative for Health America out of her home in Montrose, Pennsylvania. 34 Mother is currently married to Donny Schneider. 35 Mother and Donny have been married for two years and have a one-year-old son named Lucas. 36 Mr. Schneider holds an Associates Degree in construction technology and has operated his own construction company since 2004. Donny is a constant presence in Chase's life.37 Donny plays games with Chase and has been a positive influence. 38 Mother has relied on Donny to be the disciplinarian when Chase misbehaves. 39 Mother has a more lenient parenting style than 26 Id. at 14-15 27 N.T. 98 2s Id 29 N.T. 94 3o N.T. 94-95 " Pl. Exh. 2, p. 10 32 N.T. 135 33 P1. Exh. 2, p. 11 34 Id. 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 Id. at 12. 39 N.T. 182 -5- Father.40 Although Mother has rules, they are not consistently enforced and clear behavioral boundaries for Chase to follow are lacking.41 Mother does not use cigarettes or illegal drugs and only has about one alcoholic drink per month.42 According to the MMPI analysis of Dr. Shienvold, Mother is struggling with chronic feelings of low-level depression, social avoidance, isolation, and feelings of helplessness.43 The PSI evaluation revealed Mother has a negative perception about her competency as a parent and the negative effects being a parent has on her health.aa On October 21, 2007, an incident occurred at Father's house where police were contacted to respond to a domestic dispute. 45 That night Father and Lone had a disagreement while driving home from a wedding reception. The disagreement elevated into an argument and a physical altercation resulting in scratches to Father's face .4' This incident occurred on the one year anniversary of the death of Lorie's mother.47 Lorie, because of her pregnancy and nursing with Camryn, had not drunk any alcoholic beverages for the past 19 months. On this single evening Lone had too much to drink.48 Father tried to explain to Lorie that it was in the best interest of the children that she not get them ready for sleep that night and leave it to Father.49 Lone felt that Father was trying to take Camryn away from her and "lashed out" toward Father. 50 Father then 40 P1. Exh. 2, p. 17 41 Id. 42 Id. at 12. 43 Id. 44 Id. 4' N.T. 105 46 N.T. 101 47 Id. 48 Id. 49 N.T. 102 so Id. -6- called his sister to remove Chase from the situation. 51 Father decided to call the police to document the incident.52 No one was arrested or charged. This was an isolated incident with no evidence of further hostility or documented marital troubles between Lorie and Father. 53 DISCUSSION Pennsylvania law has clearly established that the primary concern in a child custody determination is the best interest of the child. See Jones v. Jones, 884 A.2d 915, 917 (Pa. Super. 2005). In a situation where one parent has already moved to a new area and is now attempting to gain custody, both parents are on "equal footing," in a non- Gruber case, to try and establish that their living situation is in the best interest of the minor child. Klos v. Klos, 934 A.2d 724, 729 (Pa. Super. 2007). In custody cases, the Court must award custody to the party who has proven by a preponderance of the evidence to be superior. In re: AL, 779 A.2d 1172 (Pa. Super. 2001). The Court finds that both Mother and Father are caring parents who are trying to provide Chase with the best environment possible. Both parents share similar viewpoints in regards to the importance of manners, values, and family relationships. 54 Mother and Father are positive influences in Chase's life, and ideally a shared custodial arrangement would be preferred.55 Indeed, between November 2005 until the school year beginning in 2007, the couple had agreed to a 50150 custody split with each party having the child week on/week off. Unfortunately, now that the child has reached school age and is " N.T. 106 12 N.T. 103 " N.T. 47 14 Pl. Exh. 2, p. 16 ss Id. -7- required to attend school on a daily basis, the distance between the Mother and the Father's homes makes the 50/50 arrangement impossible. In examining the Mother's Statement of Matters Complained Of on Appeal, she basically has raised the question of whether the Court erred in its factual determinations relative to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The Statement of Matters Complained Of can be reduced to its simplest form as follows: 1. The Court was wrong in not finding the Mother to be the better parent; 2. The Court was wrong because the Father has faults which make him the inferior parent; 3. The Court relied on an expert witness who supposedly was unaware of "occurrences ongoing ... related to alcohol use" in the Father's household. In a child custody action, the particular circumstances of the case must be considered and each case is to be decided on its own individual facts. Unless the trial Court's ruling represents a gross abuse of discretion, an order awarding custody will not be overturned. In child custody cases, on issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, an Appellate Court will defer to the findings of the trial judge. N.H.M. v. P.O.T., 947 A.2d 1268, 1272 (Pa. Super. 2008). Applying these principles, the Court will now review the Mother's claims of error seriatim: Preference Of The Child It is well established in Pennsylvania law that a child's stated preference can be a factor in custody determination but is not controlling and must be "considered in light of his maturity and intelligence." See K.B. II v. C.B.F., 833 A.2d 767, 778 (Pa. Super. 2003)(citing McMillen v. McMillen, 602 A.2d 845, 847 (Pa. Super. 1992)). When Chase -8- was asked who he would prefer to live with, he responded that he wanted to live with "my mom." When asked "why did you say that?" the Child replied: "because she's the best, she -- because she -- because whenever -- besides I can play a lot there, and I don't have to do a lot of chores, and I have to do a lot of chores at my dad's house. I don't have to take the trash out, and we don't have trash days up at my mom's. [What do you do with the trash?] We go somewhere. Donny goes somewhere and he takes it and throws it down." The Court found this exchange most interesting in light of Dr. Shienvold's custody evaluation report in which he described Mother as having a more permissive parenting style. Dr. Shienvold noted that permissive parents give up most control to their children and do not consistently enforce rules. The Doctor found Mother to have demonstrated an outright unwillingness to play the "bad guy" and wanted Chase to feel free. Dr. Shienvold noted that given Chase's developmental level and behavior needs, a more rules - oriented and structured environment was preferable. This approach is even more important during the school year when a child must have structure and steadfast rules in place in order to succeed. 56 Accordingly, the child's testimony regarding his preference to be with Mother was afforded little weight when considering his age and Dr. Shienvold's expert opinion that the child needed a more disciplined approach to succeed in school. On the other hand, it did support the Court's awarding custody of the child to the Mother for almost all of the entire summer recess based on Dr. Shienvold's opinion that "summer time allows for more unstructured settings and a more lenient parenting style." 16 Pl. Exh. 2, p. 17 -9- Fitness of the Mother As previously stated, this case presents one of those difficult scenarios in custody where the Court finds both parents to be equally fit. As stated previously, this Court has found both Mother and Father to be caring, loving parents who are trying to provide the child with the best possible environment. Dr. Shienvold, the only truly independent unbiased witness, testified that he felt both households are very good households and did not believe that Chase would be negatively impacted or suffer long term negative consequences at either house. He found both Mother and Father to be loving and very competent and appropriate parents who provided a good environment for the child.17 When the facts establish equal fitness of the parents, the Court's paramount concern and the polestar of its analysis must be the best interest of the child. See N.H.M. v. P.O.T., 947 A.2d 1268, 1277 (Pa. Super 2008). In this case, while finding the Mother to be fit, this finding did not alter the Court's more important finding that based on the evidence of an independent custody expert, the best interest of the child was served by being with the Father who could provide a more structured and disciplined environment during the school year. Mother as Previous Primary Caregiver The child in this case was born in 2001 and lived with both parents until February 2003 when the couple separated. Mother did have primary physical custody of Chase from February 2003 until November 2005. Father had partial custody during this period on alternating weekends and some mid-week day visits when his work schedule allowed. However, from November 2005 until August 2007, the parties agreed to have an alternating 7 day schedule thereby sharing physical custody on a 50/50 basis. Since Dr. 57 N.T. 69 -10- Shienvold's custody evaluation, Mother has allowed primary physical custody of Chase to be with the Father since August 2007. Upon a review of the above, it is clear that Mother has not been the primary caregiver since November of 2005. Mother initially agreed to the current arrangement and even conceded physical custody of the child to the Father after review of Dr. Shienvold's custody evaluation report filed in August 2007. Accordingly, this Court does not find at this time that Mother has a closer relationship with the child or that she is more experienced in meeting the child's needs. Based on this record, Mother cannot be afforded positive consideration as the "primary caregiver." Mother's Work Schedule Pennsylvania law has established that when a child is provided with "good care" in the absence of their parent, that parent's work schedule cannot be a factor weighed against them by the Court. See Murphy v. Hatala, 504 A.2d 917, 924 (Pa. Super. 1986)(citing Brown v. Brown, 213 A.2d 395 (Pa. Super. 1965)). Mother is fortunate to have a flexible schedule that allows her to work from home and be more available to Chase during the day;58 whereas, Father has to put Chase in a morning program before school because of a work schedule that begins at 6:30 a.m. and ends at 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 59 However, this Court has determined that Father has provided "good care" for Chase in his absence. Having Chase participate in a morning program before school for approximately an hour every day is a satisfactory answer to Father's conflicting work schedule. The determination of this Court regarding primary custody during the school year does " Pl. Exh. 2, p. 4 S9 N.T. 123-124 - 11 - not depend on the hourly availability of the parents in the child's daily schedule. The important consideration in this case is which parenting style promotes the best interests of Chase. The best interests of Chase, as he begins his academic career, would not be promoted by Mother being granted primary physical custody. Mother's parenting style and personality, at this time, would not provide Chase with the best living situation. Mother's permissive parenting style is found to be one which lacks rule enforcement, clear boundaries, and an "unwillingness to play the `bad guy' .1'60 Dr. Shienvold's evaluation indicated that Mother was suffering from levels of depression that could directly affect her ability to maintain the "level of attention and vigilance necessary to continuously parent a high energy child," such as Chase. 61 Chase as an "active, energetic, rambunctious, loving, happy, and affectionate" six year old would best be suited to live with a parent that has a "great deal of external rules and structure to help him learn how best to control his behavior. ,62 Dr. Shienvold testified, Because of Chase's high level of activity and high energy and [sic] it seems like [sic] that when he gets really wound up, he needs a lot of external structure to keep him in line or calm him down, the more structured environment would certainly be better and that [sic] at the time of the evaluation [it] certainly seemed like to me Mr. Meyers' [Father] residence. 63 Father is providing "good care" to the child. Given the child's need for structure, this Court finds that it is in the best interest of Chase to be placed in the 60 Pl. Exh. 2, p. 17 61 Id. 62 Id. 63 N.T. 28 -12- primary physical custody of his Father and that the child's need for structure trumps consideration of the Mother's more flexible work schedule. Accommodating Parent Mother complains that Father is incapable of fostering a relationship between she and Chase, and that accordingly she is the more accommodating parent. Additionally, she maintains that Father deliberately fails to communicate with her regarding the child's education, health, personality change and regression in school. Initially, this Court does not find that the child has undergone any substantial personality change or that he has had any regression in school. Only the Mother's naturally biased testimony supports these contentions. The child is described as "active, energetic, and rambunctious." At the time of this hearing, the child had only left the 50/50 shared custody environment and had only been in kindergarten approximately four months. Contrary to Mother's concerns regarding lack of communications, Father tried to arrange times when Chase and Mother can talk over the phone as well as allow for extra time for visiting when Mother is in the Harrisburg area on business.64 The child testified that he did not want to talk to his mother every day but preferred every other day. 65 Mother testified that she did not respond to Father's e-mail asking to set up a calling schedule for Chase and failed to provide adequate notice to Father when she was in town on business in order to set up the extra visiting time. 66 64 N.T. 113-15 6s N.T. 245 66 N.T. 191-195, Pl. Exh. 3 -13- Mother's concern over Father's inability to provide her with information on the general welfare of Chase is overstated and lacks any real supporting evidence. Dr. Shienvold, again the only independent and unbiased witness in this case, indicated that there was little evidence to support the claim that Father lacked the ability and willingness to encourage a relationship between Mother and Chase. 67 Dr. Shienvold reported that Father fully understood the importance of Mother and Chase's relationship and the importance of maintaining that bond. 68 Stability of Father's Home This Court finds, as did Dr. Shienvold, that both these parents are very loving and competent. In short, they are both equally qualified to be the primary physical custodian. But for the distance between their homes, the previous 50/50 custody split would be ideal. This was the very custody schedule the Mother found satisfactory since moving to Montrose in November 2005. For almost two years Mother obviously voiced no complaints about Father or his home. While it is indeed unfortunate, it is certainly not uncommon under the microscope of a custody proceeding to see two decent, hardworking people disparage each other in the quest to gain a custody advantage. Mother's position that Father's home is an unstable environment for Chase is unfounded. Both Father and Lorie Myers are college graduates who hold responsible, professional positions. While much has been made of the one incident, which occurred on October 21, 2007, the Court finds that this occurrence was an anomaly. An examination of Defendant's Exhibit 3, the police report of 6' Pl. Exh. 2, p. 17 61 Pl. Exh. 2, p. 5 -14- the incident, indicates that the entire episode from dispatch to clearance took 45 minutes. There were no arrests made or citations filed. The Court finds credible that Mrs. Myers had not drank any alcohol for over 19 months as a result of her pregnancy and nursing their new baby, that they were at a wedding reception, that it was the one year anniversary of Mrs. Myers' mother's death, and that they had only recently been served with the petition for the change of custody. While the Court does not condone such conduct, this Court also holds that one incident of poor judgment under these circumstances does not classify a home as unstable. Even the child testified that his Father does not drink excessively. 69 Things like bringing up the number of traffic citations Mrs. Myers received in seven years is indicative of the type of pettiness these custody scenarios can present. There is no question that the child has heard his Father and step-mother engage in arguments. However, the child indicates that when this happens, the couple does not use any "bad words."70 It goes without saying that children certainly do not like to hear parents argue. In this case, the child did tell Dr. Shienvold that Father and step-mother did not argue in front of him but went into the bedroom by themselves, and he was not allowed to be present. In any regard, this Court did not find this concern so compelling as to justify labeling this home as unstable. In considering the issue of instability, the Court also had to consider the factors raised in Dr. Shienvold's report regarding Mother. Psychological testing indicated that she had levels of depression that impacted her current perception of 69 N.T. 246 70 N.T. 243 -15- herself as a parent. She indicated that she found the role of parent as being isolating and difficult on her health. Dr. Shienvold also indicated Mother's unwillingness to take responsibility for own actions. This finding was supported by things like blaming her two infidelities during her relationship with the Father on Father's inattentiveness, and blaming him for having to give up her first baby for adoption.71 In considering instability and what will have an effect on one's ability to raise a child, these factors are perhaps much more disconcerting than the allegations made against the Father. Validity of Dr. Shienvold's Recommendation Mother maintains that the Court should not have relied on Dr. Shienvold's recommendation because he was without knowledge of "the occurrences ongoing in the Plaintiff's house related to alcohol use." As stated in this opinion, this Court has determined that neither Father nor step-mother use alcohol to excess. Dr. Shienvold certainly was aware of the October 21, 2007, incident and found it to be an anomaly.72 Again, even the child indicated he has never seen his Father drink excessively. Accordingly, the Court finds that given the fact that there is not excessive alcohol abuse in the household, Dr. Shienvold's ultimate recommendation as to who should exercise primary custody remains valid. As in any civil case, the trier of fact is free to believe all, part, or none of any witnesses' testimony. The same is true of any expert's opinion. S.M. v. J.M., 811 A.2d 621, 624 (Pa. Super. 2002). As such, the Court was allowed to rely upon the expert testimony and report of Dr. Shienvold. " Pl. Exh. 2, p. 17 72 N.T. 34 -16- CONCLUSION At this time, the granting of primary physical custody to Father during the school year is in the best interest of Chase. This Order allows for Father's more authoritative parenting style to help Chase develop patience and understanding for standards of conduct with clear boundaries and external rules that are important in the academic setting. The Order also allows Mother to love and nurture Chase during the summer months and almost all of the long holiday weekends during the school year, when there is a more "carefree" atmosphere conducive to her parenting style. This Court is in agreement with the expert opinion of Dr. Shienvold that granting Father primary physical custody of Chase is in the child's best interest. By the Court, ,*? -? ?AA M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. ? Mindy S. Goodman, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff ?Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Attorney for Defendant COFIks enatLACL 811/;./4)8 '11=m -17- N ip- CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) To the Prothonotary of the Apellate 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: John E. Myers, III VS. Melinda S. McCauley 2007-1800 Civil Term 965 MDA 2008 The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.l to 142, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 08/15/2008 . Curt' R. Lon t L Ono Regina o An additional cony of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy, thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. Date Signature & Title Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland ss: In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto this 15th 1, Curtis R. Long, 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 .Tnhn E_ MyPrc; TTT Plaintiff, and W-1 i nda S McCall1 a-V Defendant , as the same remains of record before the said Court at No. n, =1$ (1o of C iv i i Term, A. D. 19 . set my hand and affixed the Aal of said Court day of -oa A ?x 4/ A. D., l ggg Prothonotary President Judge of the N4:n:th Judicial District, composed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that 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 Cumberland in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, duly commissioned and qualif I of whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of judic re as else he said record, certificate and attestation are in due form of law and mad bthe ro offi e President Ju ge Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland ss: I, Curtis R Lonq__, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable Edgar B Bayley 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, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal Hof said Court this 15th ." of Anrniczt / I A. D. *c2OU Prothonotarv Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the county of 66 D _umhprl and in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to No. 2D -$ftA?'9v i 1 Term, 19 is contained the following: COPY OF Appearance DOCKET ENTRY John E. Myers, III VS. Melinda S. McCauley **SEE.CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCKET ENTRIES** 0 0 d m a a w a a. a G 0 0 CD a k 3 b D n O xJ n ° 0 0 0 N N O c c PYS511 Cumberiana County Yrotnonotary's ur=ice rage. Civil Case Print 2007-01800 MYERS JOHN E III (vs) MCCAULEY MELINDA S Reference No..: Filed......... 3/30/2007 Case Type.....: COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time..;......: 3:30 Judgment.;... .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: EBERT M L JR Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: 965 MDA 2008 Higher Crt 2.: ******************************************************************************** General Index Attorney Info MYERS JOHN E III PLAINTIFF GOODMAN MINDY S 464 STONEHEDGE LANE MECHANICSBURG PA 21 CARDAMON DRIVE MCCAULEY MELINDA S DEFENDANT SPONAUGLE THOMAS B 716 STONEY CREEK DRIVE DAUPHIN PA RR#5 - BOX 99 ******************************************************************************** * Date Entries +? Pcf V`r ZS 0?1r?I rit+4 3/27/2007 _ ? FIRST ENTRY - ORDER AND NOW THIS 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2007 UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION TO TRANSFER VENUE FILED BY PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO RESPOND THERETO IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE PETITION IS GRANTED THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CUSTODY CASE SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND PURSUANT TO PA R CIV P 1915.2(D) THE DAUPHIN COUNTY PROTHONOTARY IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO FORWARD CERTIFIED COPIES OF ALL DOCKET ENTRIES PROCESS PLEADINGS , AND OTHER PAPERS FILED IN THIS ACTION COSTS TO BE PAID BY PLAINTIFF BY THE COURT BRUCE F BRATTON J -- ?a 4/25/2005 ------------------------------------ ----------------------------- COMPP LAINT - CUSTODY PD BY MINDY S GOODMAN ESQ ATTY FOR JOHN E M S ??(© 4/26/2005 ----------------------------------------------- UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ATTACHED COMPLAINT IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED THAT THE PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL APPEAR BEFORE THE CONCILIATOR ON THE 12TH DAY OF MAY 2005 AT 3:00 PM ON THE 4TH FLOOR DAUPHIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE FRONT AND MARKET STREETS HARRISBURG PEN A NSYLVANIA FOR A P E-HEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE SEE ORDER OF COURT COPIES TO ATTY 4-27-05 5/12/2005 ------------------------------------------------------------ UPON-CONSIDERATION - OF - THE ATTACHED COMPLAINT - IT - IS - HEREBY - DIRECTED THAT THE PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL APPEAR BEFORE THE CONCILLIATOR ON THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2005 AT 10:00 AM AT 1101 NORTH FRONT STREE Y T HARRISBURG PENNS LVANIA FOR A PRE-HEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE SEE ORDER OF COURT FILED ---- 5 16/2005 ----------------------------------------------------- ---------- ASSIGNED JUDGE C HEARING SECHEDULEDFOR (CUSTODY/VISITATION 06/09/05 10:00 AM) 1101 NORTH FRONT STREET, HARRISBURG PA I7 - 6/16/2005 ------------------------------------------------------------------- THE PARTIES (JOHN MEYERS PLAINTIFF AND MELISSA MCCAULEY DEFENDANT) BOTH PARTIES HAVING APPEARED PRO SE FOR A CUSTODY CONFERENCE ON JUNE 9, 2005 BEFORE SANFORD A KREVSKY ESQUIRE AND HAVING REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH REGARDS TO THE BEST INTEREST AND WELFARE OF THEIR MINOR CHILD CHASE HUNTER MEYERS (D.O.B. 9/13/01) HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS CHILD IS IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES AND THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THEY WILL HAVE SHARED LEGAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN 2. PARENTS SHALL HAVE PARTIAL CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE: SEE COMPLETE ORDER FILED COPIES DIST 6-17-05 11/23/2005 ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGE ASSIGNED TO CASE STIPULATED ORDER FOR CUSTODY FILED aJ 11/29/2005 -------------------------------------------------------- THE PARTIES JOHN MYERS REPRESENTED BY MINDY S GOODMAN ESQURIE AND r 1U?1.1 \. uww..i -u .. v.... ' Civil?Case? Print vy~_, - ------ 2007-01800 MYERS JOHN E III (vs) MCCAULEY MELINDA S Reference No..: Filed........: 3/30/2007 Case Type;....: COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time..;......: 3:30 Judgment ... .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: EBERT M L JR Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/000000 Case Comments ------------ Higher Crt 1.: 965 MD 2008 Higher Crt 2.: MELINDA MCCAULEY REPRESENTED BY MELISSA L VAN ECK ESQURIE HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH REGARDS TO THE BEST INTEREST AND WELFARE OF THEIR MINOR CHILD CHASE HUNTER MYERS (D.0 B. 9/13/01) HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS CHILD AND THEREFORE IS IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS 1. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES AND THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THEY WILL HAVE SHARED LEGAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILD 2 MOTHER SHALL HAVE PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY FATHER SHALL HAVE PARTIAL CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE SEE COMPLETE VISITATION SCHEDULE AND STIPULATED ORDER FOR CUSTODY FILED -------- ---------- ------- ---- ------------ 1/ID"!oS 3/02/2007 PETITION-TO-TRANSFER-CUSTODY-CASE-TO-CUMBERLAND-COUNTY-FILED JUDGE ASSIGNED TO CASE BRUCE F BRATTON ---------------------------------------------------------- Gv? 3/05/2007 UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION TO TRANSFER VENUE FILED BY PLAINTIFF A RULE IS HEREBY ENTERED UPON DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHEY THE RELIEF REQUESTED SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED RULE RETURNABLE FRIDAY MARCH 16 2007 SEE ORDER FILED COPIS DIST 3/5/07 CHAMBERS -------------------- a 3 - vs 3/22/2007 PETITION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE FILED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE PETITION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE FILED ------------------------7----------- ------------------------------- 70 -CJy' 3/30/2007 PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY BY MINDY S GOODMAN ESQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- lp/ 4/04/2007 ORDER OF COURT - 04-04-07 - IN RE: PRE-HEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE 05-02-07 AT 1:30 PM AT 39 W MAIN ST MECH PA 17055 - FOR THE COURT BY DAWN S SUNDAY ESQ CUSTODY CONCILIATOR - COPIES MAILED 04-04-07 ------------------------------------------------------- ------------ (,1Q 5/08/2007 ORDER OF COURT - 05-08-07 - IN RE: CUSTODY CONCILIATION REPORT - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 05-08-07 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10/18/2007 CUSTODY CO CI IATION CONFERENC SUMMARY REPORT AND ORDER OF COURT - DATED 10 17 07 HEARING 7/408 9:30 AM CR 5 - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES IL D 1-0/19/07 --------------------------------------------------------- 1/15/2008 ORDER OF COURT - 1/4/08 IN RE: CUSTODY - THE PARTIES SHALL FILE BRIEF ON OR BEFOREOTHEACLOSED OF CONCLUSIONS THE BUSSINESS ON W1/25/08T- B BY M AL EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 1/15/08 ---------------------------------------- --------------------------- O,?•-/`/ 5/01/2008 ORDER OF COURT - 5/1/08 IN RE: CUSTODY - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 5/1/08 5 /2-9/2008 N --------------------- OTICE OFDEFTEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT - BY BARBARA SUMPLE SULLIVAN AT FOR ----------------------------------------------------- `% 7 5/29/2008 OFORDAPPEALER OF 5/29/ PT OF THE ABOVEOCAPTIONEDOMATTERITHEIAPPELLLANT IS ORDEREDE TO FILE WITH THIS COURT A CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEA NO LATER THAN 619/08 - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 5/2908 ---------•---------------------------- ' ------------------------------ 6/04/2008 SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 965 MDA 2008 ------------------------------- ___ ---------------------------- / 6/06/2008 STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL - BY BARBARA SUMPLE ATTY FOR DEFT -------- 8/07/2008 TRANSCRIPT FILED--------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- _ ---------------------------- INION PURSUANT TO PA RAP 1925 - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES 8/12/2008 IIN REDOP8/12/08 ----------------------------------------------------- 8/15/2008 NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRIES MAILED TO MINDY S GOODMAN ESQ AND BARBARA SUMPLE-SULLIVAN ESQ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * Escrow Information Civil Case Print 2007-01800 MYERS JOHN E III (vs) MCCAULEY MELINDA S -I- Reference No..: Filed......... 3/30/2007 Case Type..... COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time. .... . 3.30 Judgment.;... .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: EBERT M L JR Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: 965 MDA 2008 Higher Crt 2.: * Fees & Debits Be*Bal***P*ymts/Ad?***** End Bal ******************************** **** ****** ************************** CUSTODY AGMT TAX ON AGMT SETTLEMENT AUTOMATION FEE JCP FEE CUSTODY FEE CUSTODY FEE-CO MODIFICATION CU SUBPOENA SUBPOENA APPEAL HIGH CT 135.00 135.00 .50 .50 8.00 8.00 5.00 5.00 10.00 10.00 5.20 5.20 1.30 1.30 70.00 70.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 48.00 48.00 ----- -------------- 289.00 ----- 289.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 * End of Case Information ******************************************************************************** 1 .AE W 3 W.? it ;.. .t- ?.. 11 n 7- 47 D in Testimony o!-",roof, i hcr,-: s_. t pry hand and the seal of said Court at Car a' , Pa. This .... .... day of.... 421? ....... .. ............ '..? ? Prothonota ' ry Superior Court of Pennsylvania Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq. Middle District Prothonotary James D. McCullough, Esq. August 28, 2008 Deputy Prothonotary Certificate of Remittal/Remand of Record TO: Mr. Curtis R. Long Prothonotary RE: Myers, J., III v. McCauley, M. No.965 MDA 2008 Trial Court/Agency Dkt. Number: 07-1800 Trial Court/Agency Name: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas Intermediate Appellate Court Number: 100 Pine Street. Suite 400 Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-772-1294 www.superior.court.state.pa.us Annexed hereto pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 2571 and 2572 is the entire record for the above matter. Contents of Original Record: Original Record Item Part Filed Date Description August 20, 2008 1 Date of Remand of Record: AUG.. 2 8 2008 ORIGINAL RECIPIENT ONLY - Please acknowledge receipt by signing, dating, and returning the enclosed copy of this certificate to our office. Copy recipients (noted below) need not acknowledge receipt. ?c Signature Printed Name Date /krc PLEASE RFC" AND WTURN ?? _.°? ?. ' r ?..? >.` ?.. « ? f.. .-? _ ?;?;. r , .' ? ? t.?;? _ ?;? :.c ..?. r-f IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA SITTING IN HARRISBURG No.965 MDA 2008 John E. Myers, III V. Melinda S. McCauley : Appeal from the 965 MDA 2008 :Court of Common Pleas :for the county of Cumberland :No. 07-1800 8/28/08 - The above appeal is hereby withdrawn and discontinued by order of: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan Attorney for Appellant 8/28/08 - DISCONTINUED TRUE COPY FROM RECORD IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of said Court, at Harrisburg, this 28th day of August, 2008. • c Deputy Prothonotary cmm- MOP Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq. Prothonotary James D. McCullough, Esq. Deputy Prothonotary Superior Court of Pennsylvania Middle District August 28, 2008 Notice of Discontinuance of Action RE: Myers, J., III v. McCauley, M. Appeal of: Melinda S. McCauley Type of Action: Notice of Appeal No. 965 MDA 2008 Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas Agency Docket Number: 07-1800 100 Pine Street. Suite 400 Harrisbure. PA 17101 717-772-1294 www.superioncourt.state.pa.us The above-captioned matter has been marked "Discontinued" with this court. Certification is being sent to the lower court. Attorney Name John E. Myers, III Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esq Party Name John E. Myers, III Melinda S. McCauley Party Type Appellee Appellant r-.,? C7-) JOHN E. MYERS, III, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MELINDA S. MCCAULEY, a/k/a MELINDA S. SCHNEIDER, DEFENDANT NO. 07-1800 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 4t' day of August, 2009, the above-captioned parties being in compliance with this Court's Order of May 1, 2008, and having stipulated to a physical custody schedule for the 2009 - 2010 school year, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the stipulated schedule signed by the parties attached hereto is hereby declared an Order of Court. By the Court, ru _t t-?YA M. L. ert, Jr., J. ? John E. Myers, III Plaintiff /linda S. Schneider Defendant bas ?l faS matte4L Stu ?og ??l mul l 2009 - 2010 School Year Schedule Please find the following to be the proposed schedule for Chase to be in his mother's care during the school year. September: Thursday night Sept. 3'd through Monday night Sept. 7" Friday night Sept. 18'h through Sunday night Sept. 20`h October: Friday night Oct. 9th through Tuesday night Oct. 13'' Friday night Oct. 23rd through Sunday night Oct. 25h November: Friday night Nov. Oh through Monday night Nov. 9t' Tuesday night Nov. 24t' through Monday night Nov. 30" December: Friday night Dec. 111 through Sunday night Dec. 13th Thursday night Dec. 24" through Sunday night Jan. 3'd Jana : Thursday night Jan. 10 through Monday night Jan. 18'd' Friday night Jan. 29* through Sunday night Jan. 31" February: Thursday night Feb. 11m though Monday night Feb. 15'h Friday night Feb. 26" through Sunday night Feb. 28th March: Thursday night Mar. 4* through Sunday night Mar. 7m Thursday night Mar. 11 m through Sunday night Mar. 14' Friday night Mar. 26" through Sunday night Mar. 28" April: Wednesday night Mar. 31 st through Monday night AR r. 5' Friday night Apr. 16'hthrough Sunday night Apr. 18 My Thursday night May 6t` through Sunday night May 9h May (contZ Friday night May 21s` through Sunday night May 23rd Friday night May 28'h through Monday night May 31 ' June: Last day of school -- Wednesday June 9" Summer vacation starts Saturday June 12'h or Sunday June 13th Note: Any changes to the schedule will be done by Mother and Father and will be agreed upon mutually. Mother: Melinda S. Schneider Father: Date: 36 0 Date: - 3o D4 John E. Myers III OTAP 2409-AUG -4 Ali 11: 2C l • CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) To the Prothonotary of the Apellate 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: John E. Myers, III vs. Melinda S. McCauley 2007-1800 Civil Term 965 MDA 2008 • The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.l to 142, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 08/15!2008 . Cu is R. ~1~P of ry Regina Lebo An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy, thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. Date Signature in Superior Court AUG 1 8 2D08 MtDp~E CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) To the Prothonotary of the Apellate 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: John E. Myers, III vs. Melinda S. McCauley 2007-1800 Civil Term 965 MDA 2008 The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.l to 142, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 08/15/2008 . Curt R. Lon onota Regina Lebo An additional co of this certificate is enclosed. Please si n and date co thereb acknowledging receipt of this record. RECORp Fl~.FD ~~ SI~PFRI~R C4U~ Date Signature i N1~D~~E