The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-06063 ~ , , , ~- ""d" "'O";-'-:ll~~: ~. ~ JAMES R. MORROW AND BONNIE J. MORROW PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. 01-6063 CIVILACTIONLAW KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT AND CRAIG A. SEYBERT DEFENDANT IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Tuesday, October 30,2001 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa P. Greevy, Esq. , the conciliator, at 214 Seuate Avenue, Suite 105, Camp Hill, PA 17011 on Monday, December 03, 2001 at 11:00 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to defme and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: Isl Melissa P. Greevy. Esq. fM Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 .1/ - ~"=~~~, ~"'-""~'-_'",","_~""",^,~_:_ "h"""">",,,~_"~ __ - ~.o_. ';":' ,- ". ",'-.'. ~ - ",.'".'- U.,,~;-~' "-,"~"';"-",,,, ,~~ " " --"'l-,-",.M~' <""'-';' \- '" "'-'''''-4' c~,"O_ 'f" -1 --'~'''''-ll1firjjuiljli11t'r~ ~t"_:_..'tL~'f /~:3/.dl /0 :31'CJ/ /0 ']/-CJ/ r",,- C/r'- 1If) S'S' ilt or,.t, ';.,! ~ ,.-/! .r J " :,' i 1 , .,'. Iln j i: I b CUI-rA''):'' ';: . ,1,r[j""IJ "-',-,''. . PEi\Ji\i8Yt(I,~ ~'~~:.l.}IVIY - "'''/''11111/\ tu/-t1~ ~~~.~ ~ . 'Jl~ ";~ i' a/f ~ ~4~: ~ /W~ :#.?~~ " _~llf1>!'ilP'l'~";*'''').''''>=',~;;~:ruiWJl'ii''i&~~,W,~''''''''':''''' ;,""_10-'.-",- -- 'c"'!Y!.Ti"O-' '" """"''''<C<'''T''''"'''E''''"~!'N'-''~ n"-'K~!T'~~1'~';,"-' ;'fil"i::"~i'~~"l~:' L',,'J ,~ . ~ ' : ,,- . Ji:O;~--' frur"'_L . .... " ~ ocr 2 9 2001 ~~ Theresa BarrellMale, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Seco!,d Street Harrisburg, P A 1710 1 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JAMES R. MORROW and BONNIE J. MORROW Plaintiffs v. NO. 2001- ~ CuLT~ KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT and CRAIG A. SEYBERT Defendants CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, October , 2001, upon consideration of the attached Complaint for Custody, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before the Conciliator: at on , 2001 at .m. for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such Conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute or, if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the Court, and to enter into a Temporary Order. All children age five or older may also be present at the Conference. Failure to appear at the Conference may provide grounds for the entry of a temporary or pel7YU1nent Order. , ~,,' . 'N-' .~ OCT 2 9 2001~~ For the Court, Date of Order: By: Custody Conciliator YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 1-800-990-9108 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. BY THE COURT: J. 2 "l '"' "' ~i ~, , . -- ,-"''''~, ~~ o " Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Seconq Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JAMES R. MORROW and BONNIE J. MORROW Plaintiffs v. NO. 2001 - (.,.Ol.d Q;Q~l/~ KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT and CRAIG A. SEYBERT Defendants CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY 1. The plaintiffs are James R. Morrow and Bonnie J. Morrow, residing at 917 Sheffield Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 2. The defendants are Kimberly L. Seybert and Craig A. Seybert, residing at 917 Sheffield Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055, and 21 Shingus Circle, Grantham, PA 17027, respectively. 3. Plaintiffs seek custody of the following child: Name Present Residence Date of Birth Kyle Seybert 917 Sheffield Avenue Mechanicsburg, PA 08/22/93 The child was not born out of wedlock. <- ~ . ,-- ~ -'~'" --'1 :"-~"I' '. The child presently is in the custody of Kimberly Seybert, who resides at 917 Sheffield Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. During the past five (5) years, the child has resided with the following persons at the following addresses: Name Address Dates James & Bonnie Morrow Kimberly Seybert 917 Sheffield Avenue Mechanicsburg, P A 03/23/01 to date Kimberly & Craig Seybert 21 Shingus Circle Grantham, P A 08/22/93 - 03/23/01 The mother of the child is Kimberly L. Seybert, currently residing at 917 Sheffield Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. She is married. The father of the child is Craig A. Seybert, currently residing at ADDRESS. He is married. 4. The relationship of plaintiffs to the child is that of maternal grandparents. The plaintiffs currently reside with the following persons: Name Relationship Kimberly Seybert Kyle Seybert daughter grand-son 5, The relationship of defendant Kimberly L. Seybert to the child is that of mother. Defendant Kimberly L. Seybert currently resides with the following persons: 2 of. Jl;!ij;.k" " Name Relationship James & Bonnie Morrow Kyle Seybert parents son The relationship of defendant Craig A. Seybert to the child is that of father. Defendant Craig A. Seybert currently resides with the following persons: No one. 6. Plaintiffs have not participated as parties or witnesses, or in another capacity, as yet, in other litigation concerning the custody of the child in this or in another court. There is a custody action pending in this court docketed as: Craig A. Seybert v. Kimberly L. Seybert, Cumberland County # 2001-2180. Since Craig A. Seybert instituted that action, the court has entered the following orders: a. OS/21/01: This order awarded primary custody to Kimberly Seybert and partial custody to Craig Seybert. The order also required Craig Seybert to secure a psychiatric evaluation. A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit 1. b. 08/27/01: This order vacated the terms of the May 21 order in all respects except the requirement that Craig Seybert secure a psychiatric evaluation. The order awarded primary custody to Kimberly Seybert and partial custody to Craig Seybert. A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit 2. c. 09/06/01: This order denied Craig Seybert's special relief petition, which sought relief from the requirement that Craig 3 ~. ,~ ~-- ." ~"~ ~""-~ ., i: '''',,-, Seybert undergo a psychiatric evaluation. A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit 3. Plaintiffs have information of a custody proceeding concerning the child pending in a court of this Commonwealth. The court, term and number, and its relationship to this action is: Craig A. Seybert v. Kimberly L. Seybert, Cumberland County # 2001-2180. Plaintiffs do not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child. 7. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting the relief requested because: a. plaintiffs have provided daily care, custody, control and nurturing for Kyle since he was 6 weeks old; b. Kyle has spent over half his life with plaintiffs; c. Kyle has benefitted socially, emotionally and psychological- ly from his time with plaintiffs; d. plaintiffs want to ensure that Kyle continues to benefit from from his time with plaintiffs, particularly now that his parents are separated and going through a divorce. 8. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the child have been named as parties to this action. 4 ,,~ ~ "' ~, :.,o""'.;tJ"ji!llL.'cii!e, " Wherefore, plaintiffs request the court grant them custody of the child, as more particularly set forth on their proposed order, which is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 4. Theresa Barrett Male, Esqui . Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: October 21,2001 5 - ~"~ ,~ ,- '~~ "" ~ ~,",~~"r' " Exhibit 1 , - .~ -' ~ - - Iri'"""""''';'''i!ii:; M~l ...V ~UUlV' CRAIG A. SEYBERT, . Plaintiff ; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYL V ANlA v. KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT, Defendant . . . : CIVlL ActION . LAW . ' . : NO. 2001~2180 . . : IN CUSTODY . Q"RllER OF COUR~ AND NOW, this .2J~ day of consideration of the attached Custody Conciliano follows: 2001, upon epoIt, it is ordered and directed as 1. The Mother, Kimberly L. Seybert and the Father, Craig A. Seybert, shall have shared legal custody of Kyle. H. Seybert. born AuSUSt 22, 1993. Each parent shall . haveanequa1ri~t, to be ex~djobl.t1ywith the other parent, to make all ~jornon- emergency decisions affecting the. child'sgeneraJ. well-being including, but not"limited to, all decisions regarding his health. education and religion. . 2. . Mother shall have primary physical custody of the child. . . ' ~ . 3. .. ...... Father shall have pUiods of partial phySical custody as follows: a. . Pending a psychiatric evaluation. every school moming in order to drive the cbiJ.d to school, two hours every weekday evening at maternal grandparents home at such times as the parties agree, and every Saturday or Sunday for eight hours. Father 1lhall provide one week's notice to Mother as to which day of the weekend that he will exercise his eight-hour period. b. Once a psychiatric evaluation is obtained by Father, it shall be shared thrOugh counsel. lino questions are tais~ as to Father's mental . health and stal?ility, Farhershal1 have partial physical custody on a week on week offbasis once schooHs in SUlIlmer recess. These weeks shall be from Sunday to sunday at 6;00 p.m. and shall continue until school resumes, unless otherwise agreed by the parties: c. In the ~vent that the psychiatric evaluation reveals problems, the schedule provided in Paragraph 3a shall continue, with the morning drive to schOol excepted during summer recess, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. . . . 4. The parties shall keep each other advised immediately relative to any emergencies, medical or otherwise, concerning the child and shall. further, take ~):_ '''1 - . , . <- , .,' -'d necessary steps to ensure that the health and wellbeing of the c:hildis protected. During such illness or medical emergency, each pany shall have the right to visit the child as often as he/she deems consistent with the proper medical care of the child. S. The parties shall be entitled to reasonable telephone contact with the child, as is appropriate considering the age of the child, during the periods when the child is not in the custody ofthatpany. 6. Neither party shall do 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 ~development of the child's love or affection for the other party. 7. Transportation shall be as agreed by the parties. 8. The parties may modify die provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the tem1$.ofthis Order shall control. - . '." cc: Douglas G. Miller, Esquire - Counsel for Father Charles Rector, Esquire - Counsel for Mother ~ -~, ~""" ~~ -, ~ '. Exhibit 2 "L ';~ - = 'li'~Si ", " ~ ..~,- ..~~~~ ,,- - - ~ - . ~ j, llliO """~'i' a._-~"""";';""A-''''''~"'~A'' . , AUG 2 4: 2001tp CRAIG A. SEYBERT, RespondentIPlaintiff V. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLV ANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2001-2180 KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT, PetitionerlDefendant : IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT . ~ ~ . AND NOW, this .:J 7 . day of . ',Ar . ,2001, upon consideration of the attached Custody Concilia on Report, iris ordered and directed as follows: 1. The provision in the prior Order of Court dated May 21, 2001, requiring Father to obtain a psychiatric evaluation hereby remains in full force and effect. All other provisions of the prior Order are hereby vacated. " 2. The Mother, Kimberly L. Seybert and the Father, Craig A. Seybert, shall have shared legal custody of Kyle H. Seybert, born August 22, 1993. Eachparent 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. 3. Mother shall have primary physical custody of the child. 4. Father shall have periods of partial physical custody as follows: a. Alternating weekends, from Friday at 6;00 p.m. to Monday morning when Father shall take the child to school. b. On the off weekend from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Saturday at times as agreed by the parties. . _ c. One weekday evening every week from 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. to. coincide with the child's soccer practice. Father shall advise Mother of which weekday he has selected at the beginning of the week. 5. Holidays shall be shared as agreed by the parties. 6. The parties shall keep each other advised immediately relative to any emergencies, medical or otherwise, concerning the child and shall, further, take any necessary steps to ensure that the health and well being of the child is protected. During such illness or medical emergency, each party shall have the right to visit the child as often as he/she deems consistent with the proper medical care of the child. "~ - ~ ~-- ,; ,-. -,c"...c"~' - '''ij:.a.H","'.-,u;, .jj~i 7. The parties shall be entitled to reasonable telephone contact with the child, as is appropriate considering the age of the child, during the periods when the child is not - in the custody of that party.. 8. Neither party shall do 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. 9. Transportation shall be as agreed by the parties. 10. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. BY THE COURT, /~~ LU'd''1. rDl"i 9 i. es ey Oler, J. J. . cc: Douglas G. Miller, Esquire - Counsel for Father Charles Rector, Esquire - Counsel for Mother -,. rRVE COpy FROM RECOB.D In Testimony whereof, I here unto set my !laM afl~ the5e~ of said Court at Carlisle. Pa. ThiS .2.8'~ day ot r;;:~i~ ~Jl {~,- G . . ' I . ProthonrAarf -- ~ - ~7-!_-L~",,>, Exhibit 3 ~, , . ,.., ~-L -- L.~~,,--~~>!;.o;: , FROM : Ckarles Rector, ESq. PHONE NO.' : 717+761+2161 Oct. 01 2001 04:51PM P11 CRAIG A- SEYBERT, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA. CNIL ACTION - LAW KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT, . Defendant NO. 01-2180 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2001, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Petition for Special Relief, and it appearing that Plaintiff is requesting that the court rewrite the parties' agreement as expressed in the order of court dated August 27,2001, , '. the petition is denied. BY THE COURT, J Douglas G. Miller, Esq. 60 West romfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 . Attorney for Plaintiff ~les Rector, Esq. . 1M Femwood Avenue Suite 203 Camp Hill, P A 17011 Attorney for Defendant :rc rRlJE COpy FROM RECORD In T a~im(li1Y whereof. i ilere lmloset my r,,,nd aild tile seal of said COll 1\t Carlisie, Pa. fhis. 7fi.-.4 . day. .(lT~;;~w. ~{ "I" . f2. . ~ A ~-;j . ProthORc.t;!rf , '; -,~ ~ Exhibit 4 -', <"~'-'-,~ r.-'ll ~_"~d ,_ ,~""'""''', Theresa Barrett Malethe Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JAMES R. MORROW and BONNIE J. MORROW Plaintiffs v. NO. 2001 - KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT and CRAIG A. SEYBERT Defendants CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, October _, 2001, pursuant to agreement of the parties, the Court enters the following Order for Custody: 1. Plaintiffs James R. Morrow and Bonnie J. Morrow ("Grandparents") shall have partial custody as set forth below: a. beginning Friday, October 26, 2001, the fourth (4th) weekend of each month from Friday after school until Monday at 7:00 a.m. b. during the school year, every Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. until school begins, and from after school until 5:00 p.m. ~,. "~ - -~ L~ . O~ \lJ!: ,-.;..:. , "~ c. during the school year, from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on every school holiday, in-service day, snow day, etc. when classes are not in session and Defendants are unavailable to have custody of Kyle, including that Defendants are at work. d. during the summer break from school, every Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. with the exception of those periods in which either Defendant takes Kyle for a vacation. e. during the summer, two non-consecutive uninterrupted seven-day periods for vacation which Grandparents will take on either end of their regularly-scheduled weekend. Grandparents shall notify Defendants in writing by April 1 of each year of the dates they choose for this period of custody. Grandparents will advise Defendants of Kyle's whereabouts and provide a telephone number where he can be reached. 2 f, - !. ' -."-" '. '-""".~ ,,~.."'~-< .. 2. Defendants shall have reasonable telephone access to Kyle when he is in the custody of grandparents. BY THE COURT: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J Distribution: Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire for Plaintiffs Charles Rector, Esquire for Defendant Kimberly L. Seybert Douglas A. Miller, Esquire for Defendant Craig A. Seybert 3 {~'1 , -"',,' ,', -" ,- 'Ow' ~, '_i' VERIFICATION We, James R. Morrow ami Bonnie J. Morrow, state upon personal knowledge or information and belief that the averments set forth in the foregoing document are true. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. c.s. S 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. o I r '-'--" &nr~~.~ Bonnie J. Mo ow Date: October 1P, 2001 1_"'<"'~"'J1"";"-~"""_""~~_[-:'~"'U1+4i1Lill;~~~~~~JJIl!iIili'L . - ~ - ~ ~ 0 ,"~~ r, 1l C:. '--,.) ":''" 'n ...... ili tr => 8 c-, ?P} -.., -q PJ co,):'> i'.) :'~_-Il~ " . kES G.) " [; ~ ."U ~'-< :~'~ '"'3 ,pf......... __, h, ~ Z(j ::t: C::S=.lJ 2 J> --) ~ Z") ," otn :cJ ~ co; 0 :..> .>-~ 0 ::0 -< ~.,-- -~- ~~~ =--~ < ,~~.~ .... - " , .~ ,- " "'" . "~_. <.,,-'- ,'.''-'' 'i,ltitmiJ,; .l.~... ~ ",\ oqj lo' 42001 CRAIG A, SEYBERT, Plaintiff V. : IN THE CURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT, Defendant : NO. 2001-2180 CIVIL TERM : IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this t::t fl.. day of e> L t"L r r ,2001, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A Hearing is scheduled in Court Room No. / of the Cumberland County Court House, on the /; i/t... day of :::I4.~ ' 2001, at r: 30 o'clock A.M., at which time testimony will be taken. For purposes of this Hearing, the Father shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for each party shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a Memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list of witnesses who will be expected to testify at the Hearing and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. These Memoranda shall be filed at least ten days prior to the Hearing date. 2. Pending further Order of Court or agreement of the parties, the prior Order of Court, dated August 27, 2001 shall remain in full force and effect. BY THE COURT, / cc: Douglas G. Miller, Esquire - Counsel for Father Charles Rector, Esquire - Counsel for Mother ~ 'Y.J~cf'ed' /I/~ filE COpy ~~. , -,.,', 'J, . ,. ".kL,,,,~" "6;.. If. __~ '..... CRAIG A. SEYBERT, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT, Defendant : NO. 2001-2180 CIVIL TERM : IN CUSTODY PRIOR JUDGE: J. WESLEY OLER, JR. 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 Kyle H. Seybert August 22, 1993 Mother 2. The third Conciliation Conference was held October 3, 2001 with the following individuals in attendance: The Father, Craig A. Seybert, with his counsel, Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, and the Mother, Kimberly L. Seybert, with her counsel, Charles Rector, Esquire. 3. The Court previously entered Orders following Conciliation Conferences. The first Order of Court agreed to by the parties is dated May 21, 2001. It provided for the parties to have shared legal custody; Mother to have primary physical custody and Father to have partial physical custody of the child before and after school and eight hours every weekend. It further provided for Father to receive a psychiatric evaluation because of a previous threatened suicide attempt. If the psychiatric did not raise any mental health or stability questions, week on/week off physical custody was to begin during the summer. Father never received a psychiatric evaluation. He instead received a psychological evaluation. Nevertheless, summer week on/week off physical custody commenced. Mother filed a Petition for Contempt on July 24, 200, alleging Father's failure to obtain the psychiatric evaluation. The second Order of Court, dated August 27, 2001, followed the Conciliation Conference held on the Contempt Petition. Contempt was not found. The August 27, 2001 Order of Court vacated the prior Order except for the requirement of the psychiatric evaluation. Mother maintained primary physical ~ "-'-.:] "' ,-" ,-",,^, '~' ".. 11'~~:, , custody and Father had partial physical custody on alternating weekends Friday to Monday, every Friday to Saturday and one evening per week. Father thereafter filed a Petition for Special Relief. By Order dated September 6,2001, the Court denied the Petition for Special Relief. Father also filed a Petition to Modify the prior Orders which went before the Conciliator on October 3, 2001. The conciliator has also received correspondence from Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire indicating that she intends to file a Petition to Intervene in the matter on behalf of the maternal grandparents, although as of October 3, 2001 no Petition had been filed. 4. Father's position on custody is as follows: He is seeking shared legal custody and shared physical custody. He maintains that the psychological evaluation supports his mental health and stability. He indicates that he is unable to obtain a psychiatric evaluation when he advises the psychiatrist that it involves a custody matter. The parties live only one mile apart in the same school district. Unlike prior to the marital separation, the parties presently have approximately the same work schedule. Father has a desire to spend as much time with the child as possible. Father believes these factors support his requested shared physical custody arrangement. 5. Mother's position on custody is as follows: She is seeking shared legal custody and primary physical custody with Father having partial physical custody on alternating weekends. She maintains that a psychiatric evaluation is necessary to overcome her fears of Father's mental health and stability issues which put the child at risk when in Father's custody. Mother claims that prior to their marital separation, Father spent little time with the child. Mother also believes that a shared physical custody arrangement is disruptive to the child during the school year. She believes that child will be more stable and do better in school ifhe remains in her primary physical care during the school year. 6. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached scheduling a Hearing and maintaining the prior Order of Court, dated August 27, 2001. It is expected that the Hearing will require one day. / D- Lj-o / Date %,t cq line M. Verney, Esquire Custody Conciliator "'; -,,~ ",,' -. ,;,'e'_. :, "1"" '-('u;,;, CRAIG A. SEYBERT, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2001-2180 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN CUSTODY V. KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT, Defendant JAMES R. MORROW and BONNIE J. MORROW Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 2001-6063 KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT and CRAIG A. SEYBERT Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN CUSTODY PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANT. KIMBERL Y L. SEYBERT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Kimberly L. Seybert, by and through her attorney Charles Rector, Esquire, and, files the following Pre-Trial Memorandum: I. Defendant's Position Reaardina Custodv Defendant, Kimberly L. Seybert is the natural mother of Kyle H. Seybert, born August 22, 1993. Defendant and her husband, Craig A. Seybert, were married on February 6, 1993, and separated on March 23, 2001. On that date, Plaintiff became violent in the marital home. In the early morning hours of March 24, 2001, he contacted the maternal grandparents, James and Bonnie Morrow, Plaintiffs in the consolidated action, and during a lengthy cell phone conversation with them, requested that he be permitted to speak to this son prior to committing suicide by jumping off of a bridge. Mr. II " ,,-,.<;,,'Lc',,! , ;;"""'~""'''-jl,i and Mrs. Morrow convinced the Plaintiff to return to their home, which he did, and his suicide attempt was averted. As a direct result of these threats of violence, and his unpredictability and violence in the home, Defendant, Kimberly Seybert, fled the marital home and now resides with her parents. Mr. Seybert never received counseling following his March 23-24, 2001 threats of suicide nor has he fulfilled his Court Ordered obligation to obtain a psychiatric evaluation. The current Order of August 27,2001, which confirms primary custody to Mother, should remain as-is and the order modified such that Mrs. Seybert is provided with alternating Friday nights to be with her son. In addition, the Summer vacation schedule should provide for three (3) weeks of vacation, one week per month (June, July and August) for each party with the alternating weekend schedule suspended during the Summer. Most importantly, Father's request for shared custody must be denied under the circumstances. Defendant's parents should be awarded time with the minor child independent of the current order. Importantly, any decision by the Court should be withheld until completion of the Court Ordered psychiatric evaluation of Plaintiff and the taking of testimony, if necessary, on that issue. II. Witnesses At the present time Plaintiff intends to call the following witnesses: a. Kimberly L Seybert - Mrs. Seybert will testify regarding all aspects of the facts giving rise to the parties' separation on March 23, 2001, the current custodial arrangement, her living situation, and related factors confirming that the best interests of Kyle will be better served with her as primary physical custodian. ~f ."~ , > . , "~~-< ' '-1- " -" '" ,',_ ';"'''i"\''''''; ~ ,. b. Bonnie J. Morrow - Mrs. Morrow, maternal grandmother of the minor child, will testify regarding all aspect of the discussions of suicide that Plaintiff had with her and in general the circumstances surrounding these conversations. Mrs. Morrow will also testify regarding her observations of her daughter's parenting skills and the fact that Plaintiff spent little to no time with the minor child prior to separation. c. James R. Morrow - Mr. Morrow will testify regarding all aspects of Defendant's parenting skills. d. Craig A. Seybert - Plaintiff will be cross-examined regarding all aspects of his prior threats of suicide, his failure to obtain counseling, his previous violent behavior, the false information that he provided to Jeffrey Pincus, Ph.D. and his contempt of the Court's Custody Order of August 27, 2001, which requires him to obtain a psychiatric evaluation which he has failed and refused to do. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this witness list for purposes of rebuttal. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Date:~ ~ Charles Rector, Esquire 1104 Fernwood Avenue, Ste. 203 Camp Hill, PA 17011-6912 (717) 761-8101 "" '^""=""1j CRAIG A. SEYBERT, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 2001- 2180 CIVIL TERM KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT, Defendant IN CUSTODY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES R. MORROW and BONNIE J. MORROW, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 2001 - 6063 CIVIL TERM KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT and CRAIG A. SEYBERT Defendants IN CUSTODY MEMORANDUM OF LAW "The polestar of any child custody dispute is to reach a decision which serves the best interests of the child. The factors to be considered include the child's physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual well-being." Johnson v. Diesineer, _ Pa. Super. ----' 589 A.2d 1160,1164 (1991). 1. Shared Custody 23 Pa.C.S.A. S 5304 governs when an order for shared custody may be awarded. Specifically, the statute provides that when it is in the best interests of the child, shared custody may be awarded either: (1) upon application of one or both parents; (2) when the parties have agreed to an award of shared custody; or (3) in the discretion of the court. tl -', - ,,,-.,,,,""-,'- The Superior Court has previously suggested the following guidelines for courts to use in considering an award of shared custody: whether both parents are capable of making rational child-rearing decisions, whether there is a desire on the part of both parents for a continuing active involvement in their child's life, whether the child has formed a relationship with both parties, and whether there is a minimal degree of cooperation between the natural parents. In re Weslev J. K., _ Pil. Super. --' 445 A.2d 1243, 1248-1249 (1982). 2. Partial Physical Custody or Visitation by Grandparents Generally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that parents have a basic and fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit without unwarranted governmental intrusion. Ken R. v. Arthur Z., _ Pa. _' 682 A.2d. 1267, 1271 (1996). Only in rare and exceptional circumstances has the Pennsylvania legislature allowed court interference with the parents' right to custody. Id. One of the rare circumstances is 23 Pa.C.S.A. ~~ 5311-5313 which govern grandparent partial custody and visitation rights in Pennsylvania. Maternal grandparents indicated at their Conciliation that they seek partial physical custody primarily nnder 23 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 5312, which addresses a situation where the parties' marriage is dissolved or the parties are separated. By its very terms, ~ 5312 permits a grant of partial custody or visitation only where it is "in the best interest of the child and would not inteifere with the parent-child relationship." (Emphasis added). Furthermore, under ~ 5312 courts must consider "the amount of personal contact between the parents or grandparents of the party and the child prior to the application." The burden is therefore clearly upon the grandparents seeking partial custody or visitation. In interpreting similar statutory language under ~ 5311, the Superior Court has stated '''.~ ,~c,<"", ~'\';;; that "the parents in any custody dispute have a prima facie right to uninterrupted custody and the more time awarded to the grandparent the more convincing the evidence must be that the award is in the best interest of the children." Johnson v. Diesinl!er, 589 A.2d at 1165. This evidentiary burden on grandparents to prove their custody claim on the merits has not been altered even though the matter of standing has been recently expanded under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of 9 5313(b). R. M. v. Baxter ex reI. T.M., _ Pa._, 777 A.2d 446, 451 n.4 (2001). According to the Superior Court, 99 5311-5313 were enacted to protect against estrangement that might occur under the circumstances described in each section, namely after one parent dies, or after the parents separate or divorce and custody is with one parent, or after the child has lived with the grandparents for a significant period of time. Gradwell v. Strausser, _ Pa. Super. , 610 A.2d 999, 1004 (1992). In the instant case, there is no issue of estrangement of Maternal Grandparents. To the contrary, Mother is currently residing with Maternal Grandparents with no immediate plans to move. Furthennore, the parties have maintained the pre-petition practice of having the minor child dropped off by the school bus at grandparents' home, and of staying with grandparents during the majority of the summer while parents are at work. In a strikingly similar situation, the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County expressly denied a request for partial custody or visitation under ~ 5312 by paternal grandparents. See Earon v. EarQn, 9 D. & C.4th 101 (C.C.P. Clinton County 1991). In that case, grandparents regularly saw the minor child pursuant to their son's partial custody because he was residing with grandparents. Id. at 102. The Earon Court recognized that nonnally grandparents seek visitation or partial custody under 9 5312 when the parent through whom they would otherwise t~ '~ -~, .' , see the minor child is unavailable or does not otherwise have custody or visitation rights. Id. at 105-106 (citations omitted). Elaborating further, the Earon Court stated that grandparents' rights are not looked at in a vacuum. "Normally if a father has the legal right to visit with his children, he will provide his parents access to their grandchildren." Id. at 106. In order to grant the grandparents' request in a case where their son had regular periods of custody, the Earon Court recognized it would need to "take custody from one of the natural parents." Id. at 106 (emphasis in original). The grandparents did not dispute that they saw the minor child when she was in her father's custody. The Court refused in such a case to award a separate period of time just to paternal grandparents and in effect "carve up" the minor child's time three ways. Id. at 107. In a well reasoned opinion, President Judge Brown recognized the potential legal quagmire of granting paternal grandparents' request under the circumstances. To recognize plaintiffs' claim under the present circumstances would require the court to carve up the child's time among three people. It is also theoretically possible that the maternal grandparents would have the same rights as the paternal grandparents which creates a prospect of further division of the child's time between four different households. It could even be observed that in some cases grandparents themselves are separated or divorced and the court could be involved in even further divisions with five or six people. The precedent that would be set in a case like this of allowing partial custody privileges to the grandparents when they already have access to the child through their son is one which the court chooses not to set. Id. at 108. The Earon Court found support in an earlier decision by the Superior Court. In Al!ati v. Al!at!, _ Pa. Super. , 492 A.2d 427, 432 (1985), the trial court's decision to deny grandparents' petition for separate partial custody was affirmed. In Al!ay, the grandparents enjoyed a "regular, meaningful and significant relationship with their grandchild" with overnight visits to the father frequently spent at grandparents' home. The Superior Court also recognized ~~ -~~ ",'" "'"~"'<~""'"":'" that "in order to increase the grandparents time, it would be necessary to subtract from that of the mother." Accordingly, the Superior Court agreed that under those facts the statute did not require separate custody time with grandparents. In the instant case, Maternal Grandparents have also indicated they may seek custody under ~ 5313. However, grandparents have not for 12 months assumed the role and responsibilities of the minor child's parents, nor do either of the other two circumstances apply. Presumably Maternal Grandparents believe that the time they have had with the minor child rises to the level of assuming the role and responsibilities of the parents. The Superior Court has previously held, however, that a third party cannot place himself in loco parentis status in defiance of the parties' wishes and the parenVchild relationship. Gradwell v. Strausser, 610 A.2d at 1003. IRWIN, McKNIGHT & HUGHES . Miller, Esquire Supreme ourt ID # 83776 West Pomfret Professional Building 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222 (717) 249-2353 Attorney for Craig A. Seybert <c;. - -<>;""""'~ , COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRAIG A. SEYBERT Plaintiff v. NO. 01-2180 KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ........................................................................................................... JAMES R. MORROW and BONNIE J. MORROW Plaintiffs v. NO. 01-6063 KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT and CRAIG A. SEYBERT Defendants CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM OF JAMES R. AND BONNIE J. MORROW Parties Plaintiffs James R. Morrow and Bonnie J. Morrow ("Grandparents") 917 Sheffield Avenue, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 [Parents of Defendant Kimberly L. Seybert] Defendants Kimberly L. Seybert ("Mother") 917 Sheffield Avenue, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Craig A. Seybert ("Father") 21 Shingus Circle, Grantham, PA 17027 Child Kyle Seybert (dob: 08/22/93) 917 Sheffield Avenue, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 M~"__ ~ - '-"'^'~,~" Expert Witnesses Grandparents have not identified any expert witnesses. They anticipate, however, that Father will call Jeffrey Pincus, Ph.D. to testify on Father's behalf. Fact Witnesses Bonnie J. Morrow, James R. Morrow, and Kimberly Seybert Evidentiary Issues 1. At the conciliation conference, Father challenged Grandparents' standing. Because Father failed to file preliminary objections to the custody complaint, he has waived this challenge. 2. In contravention of the Court's pretrial directive, Father did not secure a psychiatric evaluation. Father therefore should be precluded from presenting any evidence regarding his mental and emotional health. This preclusion includes direct testimony and cross- examination of the direct testimony and evidence presented by the other parties. Issue Will Kyle's best interests be served by awarding Grandparents partial custody? Relevant Law Prior to 1996, a grandparent had no right to seek custody of a grandchild unless a parent was deceased, 23 Pa. C.S. ~ 5311; the parents' marriage was dissolved, or the parents were separated. [d. ~ 5312. Since the legislature amended section 5313, however, grandparents who cannot proceed under sections 5311 and 5312 now have standing to seek physical and legal 2 ~'"-_~'l-'" custody of a grandchild. R.M. v. Baxter, 565 Pa. 619, 777 A.2d 446 (2001). Instantly, Grandparents are proceeding under section 5312, which provides: , In all proceedings for dissolution, subsequetit to the commencement of the proceeding and continuing thereafter or when parents have been separated for six months or more, the court may, upon application of the parent or grandparent of a party, grant reasonable partial custody or visitation rights, or both, to the unmarried child if it finds that visitation or partial custody, or both, would be in the best interest of the child and would not interfere with the parent-child relationship. The court shall consider the amount of personal contact between the parents or grandparents of the party and the child prior to the application. 23 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 5312 (emphasis added). Grandparents also are entitled to proceed under section 5313(b), which "applies to a grandparent '" who has genuine care and concern for the child; [and] ... whose relationship with the child began with the consent of a parent of the child ...." Grandparents filed their complaint for custody on October 23, 2001. Father did not file preliminary objections to the complaint. He therefore may not assert at this stage of the action that Grandparents lack standing. Even assuming, arguendo, that Father had filed preliminary objections on this issue, he would not have prevailed. Grandparents clearly have standing under section 5312 because the parents are separated. Additionally, they have standing under section 5313(b) because they have genuine care and concern for Kyle, and their relationship with him began with the consent of both Mother and Father. Father's position that Grandparents may not pursue their custody action until the court disposes of the parents' action! similarly is unavailing. He did not raise this argument in preliminary objections, nor did he articulate this theory as an affirmative defense in new matter. ! See Custody Conciliation Summary Report at , 6. 3 - '" ~!-' Moreover, sections 5312 and 5313 do not make resolution of a custody action between parents a condition precedent to the court's dispositiong of a grandparents' custody action involving the same child. In two orders entered in the parents' action, the Court directed Father to secure a psychiatric evaluation. Thereafter, Father filed a special relief petition seeking to substitute a psychological assessment for the court -ordered psychiatric evaluation. The court denied this request. Grandparents therefore urge the court to preclude Father from presenting any evidence on the issue of his mental and emotional health. Contrary to Father's position, this is not a mere semantic distinction. A forensic psychiatric evaluation is not at all comparable to a brief assessment by a psychologist. Moreover, Father's suicide threat, which he made directly to Grandparents, places the need for a comprehensive evaluation of Father by a psychiatrist squarely at Father's doorstep. On the merits of Grandparents' claim, the parties agree that Grandparents have cared for Kyle daily since he was 6 weeks old. There similarly is no dispute that Grandparents had custody of Kyle one night every week from the time he was three months old until entry of the custody orders in the parents' action. Father can present no credible evidence demonstrating ilI- will, resentment, or estrangement between the parties which would militate against granting Grandparents custody. Rather, the irrefutable evidence is that Grandparents, with the consent and encouragement of both parents, have enjoyed substantial time with Kyle, and have been responsible for his daily care, nurturing and supervision. 4 "" ,,~~...,,~~, In custody actions, grandparents have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that it is in the child's best interest to have time with grandparents. Norris v. Tearney, 422 Pa. Super. 246, 249, 619 A.2d 339, 340 (1993) (citation omitted). Unlike the grandmother in Norris, however, Grandparents will sustain this burden. They also will establish that Kyle's best interest, which encompasses his emotional as well as his physical well-being, will be served by maintaining the stability and security he has enjoyed with them. Entry of Grandparents' proposed custody order will accomplish this goal, which is paramount in every custody action. Proposed Order AND NOW, February , 2002, after a hearing, and the Court finding that the best interest and permanent welfare of Kyle Seybert will be served by granting partial custody to Kyle's maternal grandparents, James R. and Bonnie J. Morrow, the Court ORDERS and DECREES: 1. Plaintiffs ("Grandparents") shall have partial custody as set forth in the following paragraphs. 2. From Friday, February 22, 2002 after school until Monday, February 25 at 7:00 a.m. 3. Beginning Friday, March 29, 2002, the fourth (4th) weekend of each month from Friday after school until Monday at 7:00 a.m. 4. During the school year, every Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. until school begins, and from after school until 5:00 p.m., and from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on every school holiday, in-service day, snow day, etc. 5 ": ':~< when classes are not in session and Defendants are unavailable to have custody of Kyle, including when Defendants are at work. 5. During the summer break from school, every Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., with the exception of those periods in which either Defendant takes Kyle for a vacation, and two (2) non-consecutive uninterrupted seven-day periods for vacation which Grandparents will take on either end of their regularly-scheduled weekend. Grandparents shall notify Defendants in writing by April 1 of each year of the dates they choose for this period of custody. Grandparents will advise Defendants of Kyle's whereabouts and provide a telephone number where he can be reached. 6. Defendants shall have reasonable telephone access to Kyle when he is in the custody of grandparents. Respectfully Submitted, Ii 1J( w- Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Maternal Grandparents Date: Febluary 5, 2002 6 '^~j;cl',1 PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R.C.P. 440: Service via hand-delivery to: Charles Rector, Esquire 1104 Fernwood Avenue, Ste. 203 Camp Hill, PA 17011-6912 Attorney for Defendant Kimberly L. Seybert Douglas G. Miller, Esquire 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant Craig A. Seybert &~ Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: February 6, 2002 -"""-\.11 CRAIG A. SEYBERT, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 2001 - 2180 CIVIL TERM KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT, Defendant IN CUSTODY ---~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES R. MORROW and BONNIE J. MORROW, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 2001- 6063 CIVIL TERM KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT and CRAIG A. SEYBERT Defendants IN CUSTODY PLAINTIFF CRAIG A. SEYBERT'S PRE-HEARING MEMORANDUM AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Craig A. Seybert, by and through his attorneys, Irwin, McKnight & Hughes, and submits the following Pre-Hearing Memorandum: I. HISTORY OF THE CASE The parties in this action were married on February 6, 1993, and separated on March 25, 2001. The parties are the natural parents of the minor child, Kyle H. Seybert, born August 22, 1993, and currently 9 years old. Plaintiff, Craig A. Seybert ("Father"), initiated the action docketed as No. 2001 - 2180 by filing a Petition for Custody on April 12, 2001. In that Petition, Father sought joint legal and physical custody of the minor child. Defendant is Kimberly L. Seybert ("Mother"). '''"l < ~w ~ ~_. ~,-" '" ."'~ -~. <tit Following a Conciliation in this matter, an Order of Court dated May 21, 2001, was issued. Because of Mother's stated concern for Father's mental health following the separation of the parties, the Order provided for limited periods of partial custody for Father until such time as an evaluation was obtained by Father. At said conciliation, Mother indicated that either a psychiatric or a psychological evaluation could be performed to alleviate her concern. Father agreed to submit to a psychological or psychiatric evaluation. However, the Order states that a "psychiatric" evaluation was to be performed. Following such an evaluation and in the event "no questions are raised as to Father's mental health or stability" a week on, week off custody exchange was to occur through the summer of 2001. After that time, it was anticipated that the parties would schedule a second Conciliation to attempt to enter a more permanent Order. Following Father's psychological evaluation, custody was exchanged on a week on, week off basis during the summer of 2001. However, on July 24, 2001, Mother filed a Petition for Contempt alleging Father's failure to obtain a psychiatric evaluation. Following a second Conciliation, an Order dated August 27, 2001, was issued. According to the Custody Conciliation Summary Report, contempt was not found. The Order provides for partial physical custody for Father on alternating weekends from Friday evening until school on Monday, Friday evening until Saturday on the off weekends, and one weekday evening every week to coincide with soccer practice. Father was requesting a continuation of the week on, week off custody arrangement, but the Conciliator in her report did not believe that procedurally such a modification should be considered. As stated by the Conciliator in her report, "Father objected in principal, but was willing to accept the additional times until a Petition to ModifY and another Conciliation Conference could be scheduled. 2 ~'. ,,~' , ';'Jj On August 31, 2001, Father filed a Petition for Modification and a Petition for Special Relief seeking shared physical custody of the minor child, as well as relief from obtaining an additional evaluation by a psychiatrist. By Order dated September 6, 2001, this Court denied Father's Petition for Special Relief. A third Conciliation was scheduled for October 3, 2001. On September 28,2001, legal counsel for Mr. and Mrs. James Morrow ("Maternal Grandparents"), sent correspondence to the Conciliator requesting a continuance of the third conciliation until a petition to intervene could be filed. No petition was filed and Father did not consent to an additional delay given the late notice and that Mother has been residing with Maternal Grandparents. By Order dated October 8, 2001, this matter was then scheduled for hearing on February 6, 2002. On October 29, 2001, Maternal Grandparents filed a Complaint for Custody seeking partial physical custody of the minor child. Due to a scheduling conflict with the Conciliator, and the sickness of Mother's legal counsel, Conciliation was not held until January 31,2002, at which time the parties could not resolve the issues. Maternal Grandparents subsequently filed a Motion to Consolidate Custody Actions. Upon information and belief the Court granted the motion to consolidate but denied the request to delay the instant hearing scheduled for February 6, 2002. II. STATEMENT AS TO CUSTODY AS BETWEEN FATHER AND MOTHER Father is seeking is seeking shared physical custody of the minor child. The parties maintained a week on, week off schedule during most of the summer of 2001, and Father 3 ~ ~, ^~~~'"~-' '~'~~'",,';,'~-''"'''~'''''' ,." believes that a similar schedule for the entire year would be in the best interests of the minor child. The parties currently live less than one mile apart and in the same school district. The parties also have similar work schedules. Mother works all year Monday through Friday from approximately 7:45 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., and Father works Monday through Friday from approximately 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Other than agreeing to an overall schedule, the parties have been able to work together and cooperate to coordinate activities and transportation. Father desires to spend as much time with his son as possible. To that end, Father has also been volunteering as a coach for his son's soccer team. Furthermore, Father is concerned that many times Mother schedules activities and events for herself and relies upon her parents to care for the minor child rather than allow Father additional time. With regard to Mother's concerns about Father's mental health and stability, Father has already obtained a favorable psychological evaluation from Dr. Pinkus of Riegler, Shienvold & Associates, and has provided complete copies of said evaluation to Mother and the Court. Mother's insistence upon a psychiatric evaluation is in direct opposition to her statements at the initial Conciliation, and is not justified by the facts of the case. Mother's concerns revolve almost entirely around events that took place following her announcement that she was leaving the marriage. Since that time, there have been no other events to justify continued concern. Furthermore, Father made nwnerous attempts to contact both either a psychiatrist or a psychologist who would be covered by his insurance. All of the five individuals or firms refused to schedule an appointment for Father because the matter involved a custody action. Instead, Father was referred to Riegler, Shienvold & Associates, even though Father explained that a full custody evaluation was not required. 4 " ~~' ,~",o, ~'""~"', __, ~_' " '. ki III. STATEMENT AS TO CUSTODY AS BETWEEN PARENTS AND MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS Father does not object to allowing Maternal Grandparents time with the minor child when the parents are at work, both before and after school during the school year and during the day in the summers. This schedule is substantially the same arrangement as utilized before the separation of Mother and Father. Maternal Grandparents have never had the minor child for an entire week without either parent as they are now requesting. Furtbennore, Mother is currently residing with Maternal Grandparents and has made no immediate plans to move. Maternal Grandparents therefore already see the minor child more than Father. Father also believes that providing additional time to Maternal Grandparents will in fact interfere with both parent's ability to raise their child and with their ability to adjust to Mother's decision to separate and file for Divorce. IV. WITNESSES Plaintiff anticipates calling the following persons as witnesses: a. Craig A. Seybert to testifY about his relationship with his child and parenting skills; b. Jeffrey Pincus, Ph.D., to testifY concerning the psychological evaluation of Father; c. James Seybert, Father's brother to testifY as to the parties' relationship and interaction with the minor child and their parenting skills; d. Tammy Seybert, Father's sister~in-Iaw to testifY as to the parties' relationship and interaction with the minor child and their parenting skills; e. Murray Arbegast to testifY as to Maternal Grandparents relationship and care for the minor child. Plaintiff reserves the right to call any witnesses identified by Defendant or to produce rebuttal witnesses. 5 ~~ , , " ,", ':~~'\~i v. CONCLUSION Father respectfully seeks the entry of an Order of Court granting him shared physical custody of the minor child on a week on, week off basis, or as can be mutually arranged between the parties. Father further requests that Maternal Grandparents request for partial custody be denied except for such periods of time as currently exist and agreed to by Father. Respectfully Submitted, IRWIN, McKNIGHT & HUGHES Date: February 4, 2002 By: ~l1:E(j2~ Supreme Court LD. No. 83776 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2353 Attorney for Plaintiff, Craig A. Seybert 6 "~ ,",,'. ':i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, do hereby certifY that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by facsimile, on the date set forth below: Charles Rector, Esquire 1104 Fernwood Avenue, Suite 203 Camp Hill, PA 17011-6912 Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 1710 1 Date: February 5, 2002 IRWIN, McKNIGHT & HUGHES ~'4, ;U;~~ Douglas Miller, Esquire Supreme Court LD. No. 83776 West Pomfret Professional Building 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222 (717) 249-2353 Attorney for Craig Seybert '~ .~ ~," .,,~,I ~~ . Il\liJlIIilaii~ .~ Theresa Barrell Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JAMES R. MORROW and BONNIE J. MORROW Plaintiffs v. NO. 01-6063 Civil Term KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT and CRAIG A. SEYBERT Defendants CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I accept service of the Complaint for Custody. I certify that I am authorized to accept service on behalf of Defendant Craig A. Seybert. Date: November ~o ,2001 .'.~~!~fufi~~tJ'l.'lli.\hi;@~<\~'d.~.k""~,,,"'h ,'e_ JI!I~"LL_ . ~--_. -' ,-,;j--~"> '" c;'I<'_"''{''--i",AtJig,r.ilit!~~I1-'i1~''ili'i~",!.~''li,.>it",-v,[_j,",a~''~~m -- ?_,'~''',~_k~,",',,^^''''~'_' '-'" ',.">,~,_",,,,,_~",,,'_~,~,, ~''',k~_%,?, _"'",,,",O,'''m''''_ ,,"'A, "'_' _c,,,"_~_~_,"~ .'_C ",,_ "<,, () a 0 C "r, 7 2: "'"'C:!CQ ,. .' D rnm ,,< 2.:n 2:C N ~j ~;c; 0 .L ~ ::::;:' :;0':0 -':: ) ;t-; ...0. Zc -:7'--":- >c r- - , 2: ,'V 5;! =<! JJ (;'1 -< '" . Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 S13 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Couusel for Plaintiffs - : '~"~ i COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JAMES R. MORROW and BONNIE J. MORROW Plaintiffs v. NO. 01-6063 Civil Term KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT and CRAIG A. SEYBERT Defendants CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I accept service of the Complaint for Custody. I certify that I am authorized to accept service on behalf of Defendant Kimberly L. Seybert. c Date: November ~ /, ,2001 ~ _;""',,~",'i f?<..... ~l 8:1/ ,IlL. ~ _.i _ ___<'>,~__~",;~'," ,~~ "''''' ,,, , ,,,,,",~, c1'<"~,,_,,,^ ,,,"__ ~" ","b.", ,-,-;"";;,;;,,~,,,:'''f,hr~~!!Iil~(<ih1ill!o!;~~.di.1 '-"= '11;> 'I",-<,,""~"..."'.~~'~". '.1, ""''''''',."~,,.,," IiII III .Il ~ D ~ g (") 0 s::; .c:: .. \' C: S z ~ Q ;t- -UU:1 ,=' :-r~ rllr-rl ,~ "\ < Z:-,[.l ;..-,-'" -, 1') T~" , tc- 9..) V t5~ -_I -i) ll) ..c't~, .:<:... S~;~ ~ t t;=,c: :.t"" 5'c ~ 7" .; -" b ........,0 <.:? j;:c: '-' ,...; 2S S! N :J;- r..;. :Q ....!;> ).,) '" ".""",,,,,,",. ,~-- , - -" ." ,,' ~ ," ~ < , "J~! 02~4/2002 15:56 7174418996 MELISSA P GREEVY ESQ PAGE 02 JAMES R. MORROW and. BONNIE J. MORROW, Plaintiffs vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-f1063 KIMBERLY L. SE:YBERT and CRAIG A. SEYBERT, Defendants . CIVil ACTION - LAW . CUSTODY CUSTODY CONClUo\TION SUMMARY REP~'( IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3.8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. ThR pertinent information concerning the Children who are Ihe subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME KYLE SEYBERT DATE OF BIRtH AUGUST 22, 1993 CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF MOTHER 2. The parties were seen for a Custody Conciliation Conference on January 31,2002 for the action initiated October 23, 2001. The matter was continued recently due to the illness of Mr. Rector. The fOllowing individualA were in attendance at the conference: the Mother . , Kimberley L. Seybert, and her counsel. Charles Rector, Esquire; the Father, Craig A. Seybert, and his counsel, Douglas G. Miller, Esquire; alld the maternal grandparents, James R. Morrow and Bonnie J. Morrow and their counsel, Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire. A divorce action is pending in which Mother is plaintiff. The filing date was May 4, 2001. A custody action between parents is docketed at 01-2180, the most recent order in that matter is October 3, 2001. In that action, Father is seeking ahared physical custody, which Mother believe is too disruptive. Mother is also concerned that Father's emotional condition is impair~d in that he has allegedly made suicidal threats in the past. A full day hearing before Judge Oler in that matter is set for February 6. 2002 at 9:30 A m. 3 The parties reached an agreement as to some periods of partial custody fur the maternal 'grandparents. An agreement was not reached on these issues: weekend custody for Grandparents, summer vacation custody for grandparents and the start time of the week day custody. The start time of weekday custody (essentially day care). is an issue thA parties are able to resolve, based on the start time of the parent's work and allowance for travel time. . 4. Grandparents sought 1 week~nd per month, two nonconsecutive v~cation weeks eaoh summer, pllrtial oustody during the plllnmts work hours and when the children are out ot FEB _ 4 2002 .~ _ i^ ;,,,,,,';fu;!ii: 02104/2002 15:56 7174418996 MELISSA P GREEVV ESQ PAGE 03 . No. 01-6063 school for sick days, snow days, teachArin service as well as the time before and after school when the parents are at work. Grandparents sought partial custody pursuant to 23 Pa. C. S. Ii 5312. They 1Tl1llY also proceed under 23 POI. C. S. !i 5313 (b) . Grandparents report that they halle had daily contact with the child since age 6 weeks and that they have also had one overnight per week. Grandmother is not employed out of the home and maintains that the child has always had all 3 meals each day at the grandparent's home. Grandfather is a self- . employed photographer. 5. Mother presently resides with her parents and is agreeable to the stipulation which the grandparent's counsel presented at the pre-hearing conference. Mother works 7;45 a.m to 5:00 p.m.. year round. as a secretary in the Mechanicsburg Intennediate School. Mother has no immediate plan to relocate from her parent's home. She expects that when the economic impact of the divorce is known she will be better able to plan to livA independently again. 6. As an preliminary matter, Father's counsel has taken the position that the matter betWeen Mother and Father should be ruled on prior to considering Grand parent's petition. However, F'ather's counsel did not file preliminAry objections to their custody action. Father agreed to allowing the grandparents partial custody during before and after school time, and during his work hours, which were 6:30 a.m. to 5;00 p.m. in Harrisburg. Father is a Production Manager for Advance Communications. He opposes any schedule that would interfere with his time, believing that any custodial time that tI:1ey would have when he is not at work should come from the Mother's custodial time. Father also objects to the grandparent's requests for custodial time because the child lives with them which means that they see the child more than rather does. 7. The conciliator recommends a temporary Order which includes the periodS of custody when the parents are at work. In light of the immediacy of the scheduled hearing, the conciliator makes no recommendation in anticipation of an uncertain future time that Mother may elect to reside elsewhere with the child. ~ .;J/-4ld').... . ( .I~ 8r-, Date Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire Custody Conciliator .;" . 02~4/2002 15:56 "o__',c, " , ",'.' " ';"->i-', OJ 71 7 4418996 MELISSA P GREEVV ESQ PAGE 01 Melissa Peel Greevy. Esquire 214 S_ Avenue Suite Ill5 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 1701l-2336 (717) 763-8995 Fax: (717) 441-8996 FAX COVER SHEET FAXNUMBER TRANSMlITED TO: 14/(}- {p.l.{1t 2-J I wM -k- I--Jn w. /J&N , J ,,11110 Of: ~ From: Melissa Peel Greevy. Esq. Client/Mdtte/": 0 /- ,,",ok:3 .a /4f(() '1... To; Date: ,""II,'..'i"'" .',.........., . . .:' '.;;~)M:.~::;~::'.; .: :':.;.;. ?::i~:;::l!::~~~>,.{r~~.!!\:;~:E;~!;l~: :~~ "':':': ''':",:,::1 ~ ~ ._--~_......_.-+-- .....-.------.-------.- ..__ __.. .... ,.,____n____,..""'_ COMMENTS: ';;:;:::;;'OT::;byhlk:v-hn~ , ., The; ;rifurmutiun cunlU.inecJ in th/~ fuciStmile me;ssage is infurmut.lun prute'''led byatl.urnf!Jl</lent and/ur the utturn~urlr. produ.' privil.g.. 11 is inl.nded only for IIw ..... ofllw individuel nem.d abo.. and Ih. privil.g.. ere nOl wai..d by vMu. of thi.v hfElling b'liIrI .vifllU by fQ~8imHf1. If 1M PfI'SOJf Mltud/,.. ""i"""'8 Ihil f,R(:#im.#fI t:H" .:Iny ",h.,. 1"_411.,. t;lf IIw It:lt::~imil" U 7'lat Jh~ named recipient Of' the employee. or agent NlpOll8iblB to d,liver ilia the named recipiel'll. Qny US'. dille",i"Qtiolf. dts,ribuUcm.. nr cfJP)Iinz nf the cnmmunicatinn i.'f/ .!trictly "rnhihi1ed. 1/ JIOU htl\le rf!uivlttl thlr communication In errt>>'o piease jmmlldiale!y MC!/J> us by I8lephot/l! ond r.turn 1M O'iginel mess",. 10 .... ellM ebOVfl eddress vie U.S. Peslaf 50,..,1.., . NOT COUNTING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE 6IJ. PAGES. PLEASE TELEPHONE US IMMEDIATf;L Y AT (717) 763-8995. , . ~. , , ".), _"";,.".v"';"'" ,'","',--.';" ;,.. ''-<''L1 1212/1215/21211212 1121:29 71!4418996 MELISSA P GREEVY ESQ PAGE 1212 JAMES R. MORROW and BONNIE J. MORROW, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNty, . PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 01-6063 CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT and CRAIG A. SEYBERT, Defendants Oter, J.- ORDER OF COURT And now this day of February, 2002, upon consideration of the Custody Conciliation Summary Report it is hereby Ordered and Directed as follows: 1. In order to provide the child with continued stability, consistency and contact with family and in consideration of agreement between the parents and each parenfs present work schedules, when the parents are unavailable, the Maternal Grandparents, Jamss R. Morrow and Bonnie J.Morrow. shaU have partial custody of the minor child, Kyle Seybert, born August 22, 1993 as set forth in thE~ following pa~raphs. 2. During the school year, every Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. until school begins, and trom after school until 5:00 p.m., and from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00p.m. nn every school holiday, in-service day, snow day, etc. when classes are not in session and Defendants are unavailable to have custody of the child, including when the Defendants are at work. 3. During the summer break from school, every Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., with the exception of those periods in which either Defendant . takes the child for vacation. 4. Defendants shall have reasonable access to the child when he is in the CU,stody of maternal grandparents. J. Wesley Oler, J. Dl6tribution; Charles Rector, Esquire for Defendant Kimberley L. Seybert . Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire for PlaintiffS Douglas G. Miller, ESQuire for Defendant Craig A. Seybert 1 I "' ;i,.,." ,c' _;,,', ~'>-\~J;~ 02/05/2002 10:29 , 7174418996 MELISSA P GREEVY ESQ PAGE 01 Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire 214 Senate Avenue Suite 10S Cantp Hill. Pennsylvania 17011-2336 (717) 763-8995 Fax: (717) 441-8996 FAX COVER SHEET FAX NUMBER TRANSMnplJ ro:.;L '-10- ~ '2...- To: ~ .J1!1r::l f)/u- Of - C'EAP From: Melissa Peel Greevy, Esq. 01_ /Pob). Client/Matter: rY)~ ~Je:rt; Date: .;;,lsl,,"J- j',.:tJQC.UMEN!i'fl.' '!]:. :!':.:!l~::~:i~r:?~N:.:::.;ii;']~::; "!~j"!):g'j~:;i:.\'. . . "":;iH~~;~: ,.::', --f~- .. ...... , .,.,----! -.------...-----'^....-. ....,...-.--'"""-.-.- COMME~i OriginaleJPfwill NOT follow by u.s. Mail. ~~ :Jj/p . The informa#OI'I COnlairuzd. in this fac$imile fflf!SSage is infO"'nillia", proJected by attofney-~li"nl and/or the' fl.ttQrneylwork. producl privilege. fl is inlend.d only for IIrs .... of tlut individw:JI named ab.... and IIut privilege' ore nOl waived by virt.. of this /tt1)oillg Inen sent by lacsimife. !f1Jl. person ItCmaliy _eMIlg tins fltC.imll8 or any utluzr ,..,m.,r vfll", f.,es/mil. i.1 "o//h. na",ed retipi.1f! or tlut employee or ag.m re,poI'ISlble to deliver II to the named ntipi.nt, any..... dis..mination. dlslTlbution. {)r copying oJ t~ COmmunlcat,on is strier/y prohlblred. JfytJu haw n:c;r:lvt:d this commJlltlcation ;1I11,.,..or, plaDBtJ immsdiQl6/Y notifY uS by 1.I.phone and n/UJ'n tlut original ""..age to us at Ihe abo.. addrI!8s .iIl U.S. P..ttJl S.rvic.. · NOT COUNTING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE e.lJ. PAGES, PLEASE TELEPHONE US IMMEDIATllY AT (7I7) 763-899~ .,'<, ",'~:..=,,',,' '-'~" -".;,~ """ - ''':''1r''L_: CRAIG A. SEYBERT, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW KIMBERL[ ]Y L. SEYBERT, Defendant 'NO. 01-2180 CIVIL TERM JAMES R. MORROW and BONNIE J. MORROW, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW KIMBERLY L. SEYBERT and CRAIG A. : SEYBERT, Defendants ~O. 01-6063 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 8th day of February, 2001, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' custody complaints in the above-captioned matters with respect to custody of Kyle H. Seybert (d.o.b. August 22, 1993), who is the child of Craig A. Seybert and Kimberly L. Seybert and the maternal grandchild of James A. Morrow and Bonnie J. Morrow, and following a hearing held on February 6, 2002, and based upon the best interests of the child, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. Legal custody of the child shall be shared by the parents. 2. Primary physical custody of the child shall be in the mother. 3. Temporary or partial physical custody of the child shall be in the father at the following times: a. During the school year, "'0 ,~-;,,"'~'. '"","W"""W,' ,,~,"~.."'>- '" -"'~"'ik-jl " (1) On alternating weekends, from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Monday morning when the father shall take the child to school; provided, that when the Monday of such a weekend is a federal holiday the period of temporary or partial physical custody shall extend to Tuesday morning; (2) On the off weekend from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Saturday at 6:00 p.m. (3) On Wednesday evenings from 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. (4) During Christmas vacation from Christmas Day at 2:00 p.m. until December 31 at 2:00 p.m. (5) On Thanksgiving Day from 3:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. b. During the summer, for three consecutive weeks at the beginning of the summer and three consecutive weeks at the conclusion of the summer. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the father shall have physical custody of the child on Father's Day and the mother shall have physical custody of the child on Mother's Day. 4. The parents shall keep each other advised immediately relative to any emergencies, medical or otherwise, concerning the child and shall, further, take any necessary steps to ensure that the health and well being of the child is protected. During such illness or medical emergency, each parent shall have the right to visit the child as often as he/she deems consistent with the proper medical care of the child. 5. In the absence of any evidence of estrangement between the mother and maternal grandparents of the child, and in view of the award herein of primary physical custody of the child to the mother, an award of physical custody of the child to the maternal grandparents is not deemed necessary or appropriate to the best interests ofthe child. 6. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the parents from deviating from the terms of this agreement by mutual agreement. , \ Theresa Barrett Male, Esq. 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for James R. Morrow and Bonnie J. Morrow Douglas G. Miller, Esq. 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Craig Seybert Charles Rector, Esq. 1104 Fernwood Avenue Suite 203 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Kimberly L. Seybert :rc BY THE COURT, ,O~,DV .~;) ~ cr "" ~"~..4" ';',-1" -w"""',,~:-,_--. .,- -,,":,f '", y~ ~ih':k~1iiiei!lil~!i&.~i: '~HK~~:';' "1 ll~Hi!?Il;;"i~";"',;d,,",;;;:,,;I5,,,,;,,,-';;"'-",,",,'l!"''''~'i~,,~'~'''',''/l~,1",<l'fil~1&llI""'-"''-''''''lLJ:i1.~ li rlf~~ ~ J~~:,:'~,~,;"",',J,,,:~t,,t.L ,~j<""~"^,,l~,",;. ~,.)~" ,,~~.L"'1Jp.U~'IJ,,(',J)J.J,.~J1J[L N"'" "f,>\""~;," ~~, >~"<' "",<"",~,L~, ~ ",_ ',-' "..""'),"',",,",, ".", ,~ ," ,c ~__r- -;.c:i.""",~ () S;;;; V;s.. fJ, U) ffji~J fr(~~~ ;f;j:'l ~.<,-~' ~~:. 3'5 " -., , "" "",'""",,',,-,,Ir'.[':! ,'___Y"~,'__, ,,~,~. I (::J ''\0 -M T'>-j' C':.J' I (~ ,', >j " -~ '. ~":iI '"-'.,1':; -. ':,j ('" :; _.u