HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-7121 FX
S'ti
~,
CHARLES D. HILL,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
01-7121 CIVIL TERM
LISA DIAZ,
Defendant
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 25th day of March, 2002, the
parties having requested the opportunity to file a memorandum of
law in support of their respective positions, Plaintiff is given
until Monday, April 1, 2002, to file his memorandum, and
Defendant shall file a response by the close of business on
Monday, April 8, 2002.
By the Court,
,~~mas Williams, Esquire
. Attorney for Plaintiff
~ne Costopoulos, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
7[~.
03-:210 -0;(
srs
i-';'~l"l""_1.
^ __ ~_4~__
I
'"~I
- -,
filIT'"Tn"-'"
~, "~'.~-,'-
-, -',-C'^,~
~_.,.., I!II".",.
',-""-,","'~'."- ~^
'-.~.",?>.< '.'~ol, ,H"-'
.-,,- -'. '-i=-,,"_" . .
!'"~: Qi\IJ>.,.1~d .....
},J..t ~ [~~iA~~; I >1~~"'~',1.,~~__:~ ~~ :"/'-: n:.)
2 ';j : 1 ! ~<\~J
(1 -_,I
.-J C,
,
,-j
)l~~,-",:
,-~ ,~' .,..,,,
,~.< ,
- ,~-, :'J ,':'_C;:_-,;~' ,
'. ,. ~,.--- 0, ",..,.", -~r ''',0 " 0"
"-,-"",,c\<~ ,',.' . ..
--"-,
E5
611
-,! .' '..!!_~,I!II!
- ~~~~~'-!ii"",_;,__""",,r'''''<~\__,;\~::::~;
~ilIl'llli!II'!II!II"....
' )~~~~.,","
06/08/2'0'02 3_ 5: l!.).
7'.722Hl90<l
WIGBELSlI!ELCH
PAGE 01
CHARLES D. HILL,
Plaintiff
: THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v_
: No. 01-7121 Civil Term
USA DIAZ,
Defendant
: Crvn, ACTION - AT LAW
: CUSTODY
nF.ll'1-I\I1).Ul1::'~~MO"Q.A~IJM OF I.il W
RF.r.A RDING .IITRISlbtr.TI"ON
AND NOW COMES, the Defendant, Lisa Diu., by and through her attorney, Jeanne B.
Costopoulos, Esquire, and submits the fullowing MelJ)orandwn:
L FArTS,
Lee Thomas Wells (hereinafter rd'e"..a to as the "Child") was born to the parties on December
13, 1990. In 1993, PlaintiifCharles D. Hill (hereinafter referred to as ''Father''), filed a custody action
against Defendant Lisa Diaz (then Lisa Hill, hereinafter referred to as "Mother") at Adams COlUlty
Court of Common Pleas docket number 93-S-S01. The initial Adams County custody order dated July
16,1993 ordered general physical and legal custody to rest with Mother, because ofthesmalll\ll1Ount
of time Father had, up to that point, spent with the cbild. Father was awarded alternating Saturdays
and Sundays from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on each day. It was further Ordered that Mother be
pennitted to inspect Father's residence to determine its suitability for the child, who, at that time, Wl\$
two years old. However, when Mother attempted to inspect Father's residence, he informed her that
he did not actua1ly reside at the residence he had given as his domicile and that he would not seek
overnight visitation if Mother would not pursue an inspection ofhis residence.
A second conciliation confurence which had been scheduled on October 19, 1993, to discuss
-.,oz,~~"I~r, _" _1!l:~...".,.." ,'_, ~_,
'1
..~" ,
~ -' ; ,'-,
-
=.-,~ .~-~ -
0~/08/2002 15:~1
7172210904
Ii!IGBELSWELCH
PAGE 02
eJq>ansion ofFa1her's visitation was continued after Father i.odicated that he did not wish to pursue
overnight visitation at that time.
On January 25, 1994, a custody conference was held at which time the Adams County court
administrator was directed to schedule a hearittg. Furthennore,a home study of Father's residence
was oretered, the cost of which was to be paid by Fatber_ Father failed to cooperate with the home
study. He further fuiled to exercise his altemating Saturday and Sunday visitation in that on the few
times he decided to exercise visitation he never once kept the child fur the entire allotted time period of
9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. In addition, Father would leave the child with his girlfriend dwing his visitation
periods. On one occasion, Mother dropped the child olf at Father's apll11ment and shortly thereafter
observed Father's girlfriend with the child at Wal-Mart. She took the cbild to Father's apartment
where he was watching his gir!fiiend's children and he told her to go ahead and take the child home.
Thereafter, he voluntarily ceased all contact with both Mother and child.
In the fall of 1996, Mother filed a petition requesting child support. Following the issuance of
a bench warrant at the support docket, Father filed a request for a custody conference. A conference
was held in chambers before the Honorable Oscar F. Spicer on November 27, 1996. Although Father
failed to appear for the conference, Judge Spicer reluctantly permitted him to pazticipate by telephone.
Following the confurence, Judge Spicer suspended Father's visitation rights since he had not exercised
them for almost three years. He further ordered completion of the home study previously ordered on
Janulll)' 25, 1994 and that a hearing be scheduled.
Father again fuiled to cooperate with the home study, alleging that since January 25, 1994 he
never came up with enough money to affQrd it. Despite Father's claim ofbeing without IUnds t!> p<lY
,C.f\1'-"~'$f~_"
,- ~: .." I"
- ,~
,. ~.
~iI1
~d!88!2882 15:dd
n.7221090d
'A'IGBELSWELCH
.~. -..- .--. .. ~~,- .,.
PAGE 01
for the home study for over four years, on May 29, ] 997 Judge Spicer ordered Father to pay the bome
study tee within ten days, the failure of which would result in dismissal of his request for a hearing.
The May 29, 1997 Order further provided that upon payment of the home study fee, the case would
then be assigned to a conference hearing officer.
Father never provided the funds fur the howe study fee. Instead, he applied his funds
approxima1ely eight years later to the filing of the instant Cumberland County custody action entitled
"Comp1aint to Confinn Custody" at the above term and docket number.
Adams County has not fomlally relinquished jurisdiction of custody docket number 93-S-50 1.
n JSSTTF.",
Should the Cumberland County Court decline jwisdiction in this custody matter?
Suggested answer in the afiinnative.
m "RG{lMT.NT:
Plaintiff has made the argument that, as Cumberland County has been the domicile of the child
since 1995, jwisdiction must automatically rest in Cwnberland County. It is certainly true that the
county where a child resides is usually the county with jurisdiction; however, that is not as automatic as
P\aintiffwould lead This Honorable Court to believe.
It is respectfiilly suggested that the Coun look to the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe
County which decided a strikingly similar case. In Gehris v. Gehris, 38 Pa. D.&:C.4ih 412 (1998), the
original custody action began in Northampton County, Father, who had primary physical custody of
the parties' son, moved to Monroe County. Mother remained in Northampton County. Following
father's move, a custody hearing was held and Father again was awarded primary physical custody of
-"J~~!" ~",.", o,-~
,-~, T-'
. , , , ~"-~"
- -",
-
~J/08/2002 15:J5
n 72218984
'NIGBELSWELCH
PAGE 01
the child. It should be noted, at no time during that hearing did Mother object to the jurisdiction or
venue of the Northampton County Court. (Similarly, in the ease at bar, plaintiff never raised objections
to the jurisdiction or venue of Adams County at any confi:rence or proceeding following Mother's
move to Cumberland County.) Ten months after that custody hearing, Mother filed a custody
complaint in Monroe County, contending (as Plaintiff in the instant case) that under the Uniform Child
Custody Jurisdiction Aa (UCCJA) Monroe County satisfied the "home state" jurisdictional test since
Father and child had te$ided in Monroe County for more than six months. It, of course, is to be
remembered that 23 Pa.C.S. 5364 makes interstate jurisdiction specifically applicable to intrastate
jurisdiction. The Monroe County Court stated:
"PCIhaps if our analysis was limited solely to a strict interpretation of
the UCCJA deti.nitionof 'home state: we may be constrained to find
that jurisdiction exists in Monroe County since the roinOT child has lived
here for almost two years. However, we ate not required to end our
lUlalysis lit this point. Our Commonwealth lw continuously stressed
that a court's paramount concern in a custody proc:-.lB1gshould be
focused on the best interest of the child. We must keep in mind that
the bases for jurisdiction outlined. in the statute are alternative, and the
fuct that one state is !:he child's 'home state' does not automatical1y
confer jurisdiction upon that state. Merman v. Merman, 512 Pa.
Super. 247, 603 A2d 201 (1992). Furthermore, when viewing the
totality of rules and statutory provisions regarding custody actions, we
note that jluisdiction is not set in stone, but tathtr the roles are set forth
as guidance for the court but may be applied. wi!:h discretion in order
fur the court to respond in the cbi.ld'$ best interest. Carpenter v.
Carpenter, 326 Pa. Super. 570,474 A2d 1124 (1984). To clarify, we
point to the note stated directly after Rule 1915.1 which provides:
'Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. 23 Pa. C. S. ~ 5341
at !leq., the court may decline to el!;ercise its jurisdiction in a particular
action despite the action having been brought J.n a county of proper
verwe.' PaRe.P. 1915.1, note (emphaois added)."
;("'"i~~_~~
..,,-~, '--.'
~~"' T~'- "," ',_
, < ~ ~1" "v
~.o
~.'"~e
f'i!
06/08/2002 ~5:65
n. 722J. 0904
l~rGBELS"!ELCH
In Ft:nlQCf:hiQ V. Favrxdlia, 200 I Pa. Super. 58, 169 A2d 531 (2001), the Court held:
''It is true that 'the home state is the preferred basis for jurisdiction
pursuant to the UCCJA.' [Citation omitted]. However, it is by no
means the excJusjve basis for a trial court' $ jurisdiction under the
UCCJA [Citations omitted].. . Although the drafters of the Uniform
Act were C8J:efi.1I to state that jurisdiction under ~5344(a)(2) was to be
'interpreted in the spirit of the legislative purpOses' and was intended to
'limit jurisdiction rather than proliferate it,' the Act clearly implies that
there will be fiIctua1 situations that will impel a court to accept
jurisdiction even when 'home' jurisdiction exists elsewhere. When two
forums exist, however, only one should actually adjudicate."
It is important to remember the primary purposes of the UCCJA are;
(1) Avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with
courts of other state in matters of child custody which have in the past
resulted in the shifti.og of children from state to state with harmful
effects on their well-being.
(2) Promote cooperation with the courts of other states to
the end that a custody decree is rendered in that state which can best
decide the case in the interest of the child.
(3) Assure that litigation concerning the custody of a child
takes place ordinarily in the state with wb\cb the child and his family
have the closest connection and where significant evidence concerning
his car:e, prOteCtion, training, and personal relationships is most readily
available, and that courts of this Commonwealth decline the exercise of
jurisdiction when the child and his family have a closer connection with
another state.
(4) Discourage continuing controversies over child custody
in the interest of greater stability of home environment and of secure
fiunily relationships fur the child.
(5) Deter abductions and other unilatera1 removals of
children undertaken to obtain custody awards.
(6) Avoid relitigation of custody decisiom of other states
in this Commonwealth ins<?far as feasibk. (Emphasis added)
~3"J;h1~"]~ ,
~",-
<~ ~
, "",
PAGE 02
86/08/2002 15:66
71722J.0904
1,IIGBELS'AIELCH
PAGE 03
(7) Facilitate the enforcement of custody decrees of other
states.
(8) Promote and expand the ClI::cbange of infunnalion and
other forms of mutual usistanc:e between the courts of this
Commonwealth and those of other states concerned with the same
child.
23 Pa.C.S.A. g5342.
Clearly, this matter bas been litigated extensively in Adams County. It bas long been Defendant's
contention that Plaintilf is forum shopping, hoping to find a court that is unaware of the background of
this case. As the Court in Gehris stated:
We find that the best interests of this minor cbild would be served with
a forum that has hlId optimunl access to all relevant evid~ce about the
child and family. By 1iling a custody complaint in Monroe County,
Mother is asking this court to begin the custody process over again in
our jurisdiction. We do not find this to be a pmctica1 mecbanimn to
effectuate a modification of a current custody order or in the best
interests of (the minor child).
The Court of Common Pleas in Adams COWlty is the court where significant evid\mCC concerning the
minor child's care, protection, training, and petlKlnal relationships is most readily available. In the
interests of judicial expediency, it is respectfu.Ily suggested that this case continue to be litigated in the
court which is aware of the history of thl' pl\rl:i~ and where a foWldation already exists in the form of a
record, rather than asking This Honorable Court to begin the entire custody prQOOfJ /Ill~.
'~"'j.~W~_l:l:l~
,,"?:
. .
~, ~--!
~~ _ _ " 0, ~ '.,
-
~
~
~6/08/2002 ~5:65
7~_ 72210906
'i!IGBELSWELCH
-" - " "-"_._,~,,.
PAGE 04
IV. rnNrT .TT!ilrnN~
It is in the best interest of the subject minor child for jurisdiction to remain in Adams County;
therefOre, This HOAorable Court should decline jurisdiction and require this matter be litigated in the
Court of Common Pleas of Adams County.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: -1(~fo~
J~ Costopou1os, Esquire
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
1400 N. Second Street
Harrisburg, PAl 71 02
(717) 221-0900
Supreme Ct. ID No. 68735
"<'''''''~~,~,_Jf,,'r~, ' "<_"""p
'-' '"1-
';,,-'-1'
:gi;
~d/08!2002 15:66
71 72210904
WIGBELS,JELCH
PAGE 05
CHARLES O. HILL,
Plaintifl7Respondent
: THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: No. 7121 Civil Term
Defendant/Petitioner
: CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
: CUSTODY
USA DIAZ,
I:PRTTFTI:ATI< OF ~F.RvrI:F
I, Jeanne B. Costopou!os, Esquire, hereby certifY that I am this day serving a copy of
the furegoing document upon the pel'son, and in the manner, indicated below, which service satisfies
the requirements of the PARules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of the same with the United
States Post Office at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, through first class mail, prepaid, and addressed as
follows:
Thomas 1. WiIIiarns, Esquire
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS &. OTTO
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
BY:
/-- -
J~e B. Costopou1os, Esquire
ATTORNEY FORPLA!NTl.Ff
1400 N. Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 221-0900
Supreme Ct. ID No. 68735
Date:
V/~(cf!j
I
C",",i"W9""l:'~~~o _. ~;'
I
. ~~
~
06/08/2002 15:39 7~72210904
WIGBELS'iJELCH
~-"- . ".-..'"'' nr
PAGE 01
COSTOPOULOS & WELCH
1400 North Second Street
Harrisburg, P A 17102
Phone: (717) 221-0900
Fax: (717) 221~0904
To:
Re:
Pages (induding cover): 1
Comments: /Jifruk.J.J ~ Jk.. ~ ~ ~ ~.
ex-ry;J w,lIk~~~{ Vlfj
_ ~()J J.. ()
"2-'10-(, (/
JI~1J /I O,l{ L
From:
Date:
Fax:
NOTICE: The information contained in this facsimile transmission is attorney
privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the above-
Damed addressee. H the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution', 0.- copy of facsimile is strictly
prohibited. If you bave received tbis transmission in IIlrror, please notify us
immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the address set
forth at the top of this page.
.;I,'~!~0i~~~. p_
".;"'
']," "
'"~
-tI
..
.
...
CHARLES D. HILL,
Plaintiff/Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
vs.
01-7121 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
LISA DIAZ,
DefendntJPetitioner
IN RE: PETITION FOR COURT TO DECLINE JURISDICTION
ORDER
AND NOW, this
I a-
{ day of February, 2002, a rule is issued on the plaintiff to
show cause why the relief requested in the within petition ought not to be granted. This rule
returnable twenty (20) days after service.
BY THE COURT,
.Ad
v ~_ iJ-, \\'la..~ s '7
v c.ostOpOLL\~
t. up.' ;,., {() a:.JJ
o ~ -/9-0;" - l ~S
''''W'I'I~~^
'-',n,' ";,_. _oF.:'
r-'-. " ---J," ".
-'. -
-
..jo-'T"~' -;:::'(iTJ J~ -~-"'1tlli:lfr"lltt -'0', G~---illiT' ~'ftrt{" "Zi'-~-':;'~. -ji~;;'1{"f ',',';;',~'..
-,v':t,~'-' ".i '--,;"~,c"'.r_',,-{__:c,t;,, ",.~~. ,-~ '~, "?".<","',",~,,\, -"'"jM*'~&~'
... ~_~ "~ """"""'__""'"" _ ~o "
'0"
..
....
"
If
I~
i1
I',
111
,
I:'
il
I~I
1.1
I,
Ii,."
;!
1[1
I',
!:.I
I....'
'H
"1'""...., I'N'.I-
V l\;V/\ l/\~Sj 1(\j-1d
1 'f I,..r~-r. r'_, '-. ,:~
,i\' \, ,~ ! j ,< I . ." " , ~r'll n ~""I^
-- " I"" ,; '-.":" '-~-;',":j~! I..)
I', '1'1.",.'
I. [,',!
I'
Ii
I'.,
:1
~<J
~
AtJ~I~; L_\ L~
-i~-
1~_i_
^'~ --:"'T....~-~l!W"~,
.__,._~~,~:_,.1~~~__\t.';Wi!1'!1'\%"~8'i'f\;~'i~-';f,,{}I)fYW,"~,1!!~~_%f$'~}.Ji!~il!.~~~~~
J:.,':j:'
",
.~
f .
. ,
FES 0 5 2002W
CHARLES D. HILL,
Plainti.IDRespondent
: THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: No. 7121 Civil Term aOO'
Defendant/Petitioner
: CIVIL ACTION -AT LAW
: CUSTODY
LISA DIAZ,
AND NOW, this
day of
, 2002, upon
review of the foregoing Petition for Court to Decline Jurisdiction, it is hereby ORDERED that
This Honorable Court declines to exercise jurisdiction in this matter as all prior proceedings
have been held in the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County and the Custody Order currently
in effect was issued by That Honorable Court, which gives that court primary jurisdiction over
this matter.
It is further ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner attorney's fees for the cost
of defending this action and preparation of the foregoing Petition.
BY THE COURT:
~. -Wi Iii"..... '"
-~~ C.6 stoPOIJ..\os
J.
'""'.::-";'t,,,-B:l;.,,_.,~ H.<"_= _ ".
,.
"
.
.'lo^ .
~
t
.i
CHARLES D. .HIlL,
Plaintiff/Respondent
: THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: No. 7121 Civil Term
DefendantlPetitioner
: CIVIL ACTION -AT LAW
: CUSTODY
LISA DIAZ,
PRTITTON FOR COlJRT TO ORn JNR .nTRTSmCTION
AND NOW COMES, the Petitioner, Lisa Diaz, by and through her attorney, Jeanne B.
Costopoulos, Esquire, and files this Petition for Court to Decline Jurisdiction, respectfully
representing as follows:
1. Petitioner is Lisa Diaz, Defendant in the above captioned custody action (hereinafter referred
to as "Mother'').
2. Respondent is Charles D. Hill, Plaintiff in the above captioned custody action (hereinafter
referred to as "Father").
3. On or about December 20, 2001, Father filed a Complaint to Confirm
Custody at the above term and docket number. See, Plaintiff's Complaint to
Confirm Custody, provided herewith as Exhibit A
4. In his Complaint, Father made the following averment:
The parties have participated in previous litigation concerning the
custody of the child in Adams County Court, No. 93-S-501; however,
a final determination was never made.
5. That brief statement does not provide This Honorable Court with the actua1
history and current status of the litigation in Adams County.
6. Approximately two years following the subject child's birth, Father med a
q~';':.!N<',.f,'W~ w ~ _ ~ ,
,~ '
,-
,~
. ~
-~:":;i.,>".-":<"''']'W r-' ~-"~f'~""" .
- ,,-
t
custody action in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas at docket
number 93-S-50 1.
7. The initial custody decree, Adams County Order of Court dated July 16,
1993, ordered general physical and legal custody to rest with Mother; because
of the small amount of time Father had, up to that point, spent with the
subject minor child. It was further ordered that a phase-in period be
established and that Mother be pennitted to inspect Father's residence to
determine its suitability for the child See, Order of Court, dated July 16,
1993, provided herewith as Exhibit B.
8. The July 16, 1993 Order provided Father alternating Saturdays and Sundays
from 9:00 am. until 7:00 p.m. each day. At the time, the subject child was
2Yz years old
9. Pursuant to the July 16, 1993 Order, Mother attempted to inspect Father's
domicile; however, he infonned her that he did not live at the address he had
given as his domicile and that he would not be pursuing ovemight visits.
10. A second conference was scheduled for October 19, 1993 and was continued
because Father again decided that he did not wish to pursue overnight visits.
11. On January 25, 1994, a custody conference was held at which time the
Adams County Court Administrator was directed to schedule a hearing.
Furthennore, a home study was ordered, the cost of which was to be paid by
Father. See, Order of Court dated January 25, 1994, provided herewith as
;-"l,'J"-""~;_
_ W"~I"_.'" ~
,-- "1
, I" <
_ "d .
-~~
I~ ._~,-
('""1"'1'"" ..-
. ~~"
Exhibit C.
12. Father failed to cooperate with a home study. Father also failed to exercise
the visitation awarded to him in that on the few times he exercised visitation
at all, he never once kept the child for the entire allotted time period. In
addition, Father would give the child to his girlfriend during the few short
periods of visitation he chose to exercise. When Mother confronted him
about this after taking the child from Father's girlfriend upon finding the
child alone with her at a Walmart, Father ceased all visitation with the child.
13. In the fall of 1996, Mother filed a petition requesting child support.
Following the issuance of a bench warrant at the support docket, Father filed
a request for a custody conference.
14. The Court held a conference in chambers on November 27, 1996. Father
failed to appear, but the court nevertheless pennitted him to participate by
phone. Following the conference, upon finding that Father had not been
exercising his rights pursuant to the July 16, 1993 Order, the court suspended
Father's visitation rights and again directed that a hearing be scheduled and
that a home study of Father's home be conducted. See, Order of Court, dated
November 27, 1996, provided herewith as Exhibit D.
15. Father once again failed to pay for the home study and the court entered an
Order on May 29, 1997 directing Father to pay the home study fee within ten
days, the failure of which would result in dismissal of his request for a
'~'''-#''''T,,,,,~ N ,,~_ .. ,~ ,~_ __.
~"
I'
!';' -
~ ~-.
,-~
- ~"
_?~
~.''"'-'=''- ,.<"~~~
.,
hearing. The Court stated that the matter would be assigned to a Conference
Hearing Officer if payment were made. See, Order of Court, dated May 29,
1997, provided herewith as Exhibit E.
16. To date, Father has not paid the home study fee. Furthermore, he never
contacted Mother regarding the child until November 8, 200 1, at which time
Father's counsel sent a letter directly to Mother, admitting Father's past
dependability problems and lack of relationship with his son, but nevertheless
suggesting that Father now wanted to begin to establish a relationship with
the child and that she should cooperate. See letter dated November 8, 2001,
provided herewith as Exhibit F.
17. On November 20, 2001, Mother's Adams County counsel, Tracy M. Sheffer,
Esquire, responded to the November 8, 2001 letter, informing Father's
counsel that the child had expressed a desire to have no contact with his
father. The letter further requested Father to sign a consent for adoption so
Mother's husband, who had taken the role of the child's father for the past
several years, could adopt the child. See letter dated November 20, 2001,
provided herewith as Exhibit G.
18. Father's counsel responded to the November 20, 2001 letter via facsimile
dated December 14, 2001 stating that Father would not agree to relinquish his
parental rights or consent to adoption. See facsimile dated December 14,
2001, provided herewith as Exhibit H. The instant action shortly followed.
"<"""""~f"-f'''"~.,.,.
~,-", ,.
,~ ~" "
.~. ~=~~-~.~~-~- ~-~""-~'''I''''''"'-i''-'' f"!!_,'W
19. Clearly, Respondent was given numerous opportunities to obtain and exercise
visitation with the subject child throughout the Adams County custody
litigation.
20. Despite previous Orders of Court granting visitation rights, scheduling
hearings, and Ordering home studies, Father has failed to establish any sort of
relationship with the subject child. In fact, as evident in paragraph 3 of his
Complaint to Confirm Custody, Father does not even appear to know the full
name of his son, whose name has been Lee Thomas Wells since birth.
21. The child, who is now 11 years old, has not seen Father since he was two or
three years old. In essence, he does not know him, nor does he wish to know
him.
22. Mother has had full physical and legal custody of the child since birth. The
child considers Mother's husband, Jorge Diaz, as his father. Consequently,
Mother is filing a Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights and
Petition for Adoption in Adams County in an effort to terminate Father's
rights so her husband may adopt the child.
23. It is believed and averred that the child would suffer irreparable harm if
forced to visit with Father this time.
24. It believed and therefore averred that Father is, by filing a Custody Complaint
in This Honorable Court, attempting to forum shop for a venue that does not
know the history of this case.
'''''''_;;\f'l!!1'!Ii''''~1!I " o,~~__
- ~
-
~," . '0" "~
~ '-~~""'i""~~""'"
;/!r< '''.''~-,,~ --,'-" "~~., '
.
25. Father's Complaint to Confirm Custody is not a petition or complaint for an initial decree or
order. Instead, it is a Petition to ModifY the current interim Order of Adams County dated
November 27, 1996. It is believed and averred Father's only reason for filing a fresh
complaint in Cumberland County is to avoid the "adverse inference" the Adams County
court indicated in its Order dated JanllllIy 25, 1994 that it would draw in the event Father
failed to pay the home study fee.
26. With regarding to modification of an order from another court, 23 PaC.SA ~5364(H)(1)
states:
"If another court has made a custody decree, a court before which a petition for
modification is pending shall not modifY the decree of the other court unless it
appears to the court before which the petition is pending that the other court which
rendered the decree does not have jurisdiction under jurisdictional prerequisites
substantially in accordance with this subchapter or has declined to assume
jurisdiction to modifY its decree and the provisions of subsection (t)(2) will not be
violated by an exercise of jurisdiction by the court before which the petition is
pending. "
27. As applied to the instant case, under 23 PaC. SA ~5364(H)(1) Cumberland County should
not modify the Adams County custody order unless Adams County does not have jurisdiction
under jurisdictional prerequisites substantially in accordance with 23 Pa.C.SA ~5362, OR if
Adams County has declined to assume jurisdiction to modifY its prior order, AND the
provisions of23 Pa.C.SA ~5364(F)(2) will not be violated by an exercise of jurisdiction by
Cumberland County.
(a) Adams County has jurisdiction pursuant to 23 PaC. SA ~5344.
(b) Adams County has not declined to assume jurisdiction to modifY its interim order of
-~""'18.,.",~~ ,"' ,. ,"!It
"" "'~,-~ - f-"
, ,~ ,
!r -' ,"-
-~
,
;!r---'''",",,'''''~i<~. ~ -
January 25, 1994. Father simply needs to pay the home study fee and request a
conference and the case will resume as previously scheduled.
(c) Cumberland County would violate 23 Pa.C.SA ~5364(F) if it exercised jurisdiction
in this case. 23 Pa.C.SA ~5364(FX2) states:
". . . If the petitioner has violated any provision of a custody decree of another court,
the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction unless the contestant can show that
conditions in the custodial household are physically or emotionally harmful to the
child. The burden of proof on this issue is on the contestant requesting the court to
take jurisdiction."
At the time of filing of his Cumberland County Complaint to Confirm
Custody, Father was in violation of the Adams County Order dated May 29, 1997 in
that he has yet to pay the home study fee. In addition, Father cannot meet his burden
to show that the conditions in Mother's household are physically or emotionally
harmful to the child.
28. 23 Pa.C.SA ~5364(F)(3) permits the court to charge attorney's fees upon dismissal of an
action pursuant to 23 PaC.SA ~5364(F). Mother has incurred legal fees in the amount of
$250.00 for the filing of this Petition. In addition, she will incur additional counsel fees of
$500.00 for the custody conciliation conference presently scheduled before Jacqueline
Vemey, Esquire, on Febrwuy 6, 2002 at 9:30 a.m. unless said conference is cancelled
29. Father should not object to the case remaining in Adams County since his address, as set
forth in paragraph 1 of his Complaint to Confirm Custody, is in Gettysburg, Adams County.
30. This Honorable Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction in this matter as all prior
proceedings in this matter were held in the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County and
.''''''''';--''~f!'l~,:'':j!t,,~__,.."
~, T"
...~ '." .
~ >
, ., __ "I~r=!:'
'i"l" .. ''" m "
that Honorable Court is familiar with the case and was the court to issue all previous custody
orders, including the order currently in effect.
31. Under the circumstances and for the reasons set forth above, Cumberland County is an
inconvenient forum in which to litigate this case.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays This Honorable Court will dismiss Respondent's Complaint
to Confirm Custody, declining to exercise jurisdiction in this matter, and award attorney's fees
against Respondent. Alternatively, Petitioner prays This Honorable Court to stay these proceedings
pending conclusion of the Adams County proceedings regarding Involuntary Termination of Parental
Rights and Adoption.
Respectfu1ly submitted,
/
v
Jeanne B. Costopoulos;Esquire
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
1400 N. Second Street
Harrisburg, P A 17102
(717) 221-0900
Supreme Ct. ill No. 68735
Date: JJ '1101..
'\';~,--"""'!Ii"'.. fi] W~. "..
, .
"., ~,
-- ~-
> - ~1~' , -
;;;;<,:r'""-" -,"
CHARLES D. HILL,
Plaintiff7Respondent
: THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: No. 7121 Civil Term
DefendantlPetitioner
: CIVIL ACTION -AT LAW
: CUSTODY
USADlAZ,
A TTORNFY VRRTFTr.A nON
Undersigned counsel, Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire, hereby verifies and states that:
1. She is the attorney of record for Lisa Diaz, DefendantlPetitioner.
2. She is authorized to make this verification on her behalf.
3. The facts set forth in the foregoing Petition are known to her and not necessarily to
her client.
4. The facts set forth in the foregoing Petition are true and correct to the best of her
knowledge, information, and belief.
5. She is aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
BY:
# --
Jean6e B. Costopoulos, Esquire
1400 North Second Street
Harrisburg, P A 171 02
(717) 221-0900
P A Supreme Ct. ill No. 68735
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
Dated:
z/V! I/-
'--"i"'~.;Z'~~~;_ _\l-__.)~ '. ~ ~~ ,,~~,.~
~,
-
. ~f
4:~" '-- ~ -
CHARLES D. HILL,
PlaintiffiRespondent
: TIIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: No. 7121 Civil Term
DefendantlPetitioner
: CIVIL ACTION-AT LAW
: CUSTODY
USADIAZ,
rRRTTFTCA TR OF SRRVTCF.
I, Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire, hereby certi:fY that I am this day serving a copy of
the foregoing document upon the person, and in the manner, indicated below, which service satisfies
the requirements of the P A Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of the same with the
United States Post Office at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, through first class mail, prepaid, and
addressed as follows:
Thomas 1. Williams, Esquire
MARTSON DEARDORFF WIlLIAMS & OTTO
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
BY:
f1 ---
Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
1400 N. Second Street
Harrisburg,PA 17102
(717) 221-0900
Supreme Ct ill No. 68735
Date:
:zl V;d;'
'--~'~",""~ ;;If;~lllIJIi,,,,.,~,,_,_,_ ,,,,",~_.
"~ - ~,
,
,.
-
,......"""!"'"""'"
~-'"~" . ~'W
'^"-'.'ili'J-"?~
1.[
, -, ' -~
EXHIBIT A
~
!1>"~"'-"M '
~
r\FII ES\lMl'A1'll E\(;,'ndocturII045\,cllscomlde
erc,lled' l'!.117/fll O! l(llX PM
ReI,sl',l 1!I:QIOl Itl ~\) 4~ AM
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 01- ?U..[ c,~;l~~
CHARLES D. HILL,
v.
LISA DIAZ,
Defendant
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this _ dayof , upon consideration of the attached Complaint,
it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before
, the conciliator, at
on the day of ,_, 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 entry of a temporary or pemlanent order.
FOR THE COURT,
By:
Custody Conciliator
The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable
accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact
our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before
the court. You must ~ttend 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.
~]
/-
[/
a~1
@
~
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Li berty A ven ue
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone (717) 249-31 (i(i
i''''fl'.~.~t.~"..
'.'
"~
~ .-""
'-'''-''
~"fT""'~
fr" -..
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES D HILL,
v.
NO. 01-
, ,
LISA F. DIAZ,
Defendant
IN CUSTODY
PLAINTIfF'S COMPLAINT TO CONFIRM CUSTODY
I. Plaintiff is Charles D. Hill, an adult individual currently residing at 23G'Buford
Avenue, Gettysburg, Adams County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant is Lisa F. Diaz an adult individual currently residing at 21 Whitehorse
Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. Plaintiff seeks custody of the child, Jordan Lee Hill, a/k/a Jordan Diaz, a/k/a Lee
Diaz, a/k/a Lee Thomas Wells, who was born on December 13, 1990.
4. The child was born in wedlock.
5. Since the child's birth, the child has resided with the following persons at the
following addresscs for the following periods of time:
G. The relationship of the Plaintiff to the child is that of father. He is divorced and
living separately. The Plaintiff currently resides with the following:
. -
Name
Michelle Williams
Relationship
Girl friend
7. The relationship of the Defendant to thc child is that of mother. She is married and
living separately. The Defendant currently resides with the following:
Name
Jorge Diaz
Jordan Lee Hill
Relationship
Husband
Son
Unknown(s)
Child(ren) of Defendant
8. The parties have participatcd in previous litigation concerning the custodyofthe child
in Adams Cuunty Cuurt, Nu. 'n-s-sol; howcvcr, a IInal dctcnninalion was never made.
-'i","1;>,~~"~ij ~o' ~.^_".
T
,~
~ ~
1~""
ir'"""~ -W"'~"_
9. Defendant has refused to pernlit contact and has affirmatively interfered with
Plaintiff s attempts to see his son.
10. The Plaintiffhas no information ofa custody proceeding concerning the child pending
in any other court.
II. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting
custody to Plaintiffbecause: As his natural father, he can best provide a stable and nurturing home
for his son.
12. Plaintiff does not know of any person not a party to these proceedings who ciaims to
have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests your Honorable Court to set a time and place for a hearing
at which Plaintiff requests the Court to grant him the Custody Order. Pending said hearing, Plainti ff
requests temporary custody.
MARTSON DEARDORFF WlLUAMS & OTTO
By
Tomas .
Ten East I.' 1 Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: December 19, 2001
~'j"i''''''l~~,.., .
,-, !~
,~
~~
'-". .
- ~,
r ~I
)ii"']'"' --"~'~''',,"-,
VERIFICATION
The foregoing Complaint for Custody is based upon infonnation which has been gathered
by my counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language ofthe document is that of counsel and
not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I
have given to rny counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, infornlation and belief.
To the extent that the content of thc document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in
making this verification.
This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties ('If 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904
relating to unsworn falsification to authoritics, which provides that if I Illakc knowingly false
averments, I Illay be subject to criminal penalties.
Date: 7)0/0/
~j).d
Charlcs D. Hill
....,..
.''''
.","l!J" .~,,-'~, ,;" ...,.".
1
I'
~:"r'''''ff'-''''r~-'~"'' -~"'~.p
EXHIBIT B
""""T"'1\I~~ ,",__, ~ Jl,~,
,.
-~ ,
>. -'"
7'7-St2-~S5Z
T-:9~ l' ~15/Ji8 c_~g~
~A~-2;-2~~Z ~3' !8?V r:CV-St~7E~SeY & S~E=:E~
1
L
......
3
-I
,.
J
6
7
8
9
lC
11
12
13
14
1"
~
16
';
~,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
,('C,. ,
.d~C;
/k!?,'"-<fAJC '"'""~,_
.'
, ..y
. '~
IN THE COURT OF CGMMO>J PLEAS OF' llDANS COUNTY, PENtlSYL\11i;t,,,,, '
. ......;,
__-....-:-' I,
e i vi 1 -::::;! 1.'/
.'"
Charles Dirk Hill
<>3-5-501
'~
VS..
"
-'0
.:::j
.' -.J
Lisa Faye I',ells
,.,-....-.....
,-"'"
~
pillER CE' CCURT
ArID NClW, July 16, 1993, the parties appeared \dth
counsel. This action concerns custody of Lee Thomas Wells,
who was born December 13, 1990. Mother has exercised
general ~ustody since the child's birth. It has been ~SreEa
she shall continue to exercise general physic~l and leS~l
oUDtody and it is so Ordered. Fathet is seeking partial
O'Jstody rights. Because of the small ~mount of conta.ct, it
is necessary that a phase-in period be established. ~lso,
mother needs to investigate the suitability of father's harre
.
fen overnights.
This conference is continued at the call of either
party. Mother is expected to inspect father's domicile in
York. Father will have the child on alternatin~ ~eekends
beginning July 21, 1993. He will have the child from 9:00
a.m. until 7,00 p.m. o~ Saturday and from 9:0C a.m. until
7,00 p.m. on Sunday. Counsel are encouraged to Rubmit this
by stipulation to save another conference if that is
possib:,e.
1
Alicia K. Wooters, RPR
,Official Court Reporter
"'~:;"""-~~
14
~o _, T
""l" ~, ._,
'14'~'jJ1nft.'.'1,"I-"").IIIT' jJ i
.rr-,,- N. '" , ;"
["'I"" .[nll ;";[~'t'
1-~4l'-~~~!
,-j~j p ul,/J.~ ,..._~J.
~
.
1
r -
c_J
2
?ather ~ill provide transportation.
3
BY THE CCf.1BT,
Jeffery Cook. Esq.
~;}; f}
/]'I ilL -4/ I" 1 /'-l/ ,_
{/(~,. It'i ,
o,;'car'F. q~~r. -P.J~--
i /
V
4
5
6
7
Tracy Sheffer, Esq.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
')')
"-
23
24
25
,-
_D
2
Alicia K. Wooters. RPP.
Official Court p.epo::ter
"?J)jf,t.:< (), '..! (in" I.," 1~ ~ 1. Gr {,c/.J-f I. too
, "'Y ,-_I.. L..(... . :}\.i.tJ, J (,[ -/. , L -Z}.'" . 'S c. r:
/.)fbcl'("a" "
"-. .. f"1 cf'
i'''''''4'-';'!~i~;~''"1_
""r ~
, '!_~r
"
.
"~
-
I~~ -'-,"
~"~"', "~ " ~ -
""W"i;!~'!;'
.
EXHIBIT C
-T
r
~~
" ,~
~"
~~ ~~I
~{'f ."...-''-'' "
J,mij-...~-..JI.l I!....~,~':'~.; I'"~\,.~,-tl,,! Itn~r G/. ~~t~.tJ'l:
i I"~~~-~~'j\
i-~~~ ~ UG~,'Jlb F-79d
!.
TN THF. CQUR'r OF CGHMO:J PLEA::: OF' ADMlS COUNTY, PENNS'lLVAI<<!A
2
Civil
", oJ
3
Charles Dirk Hill
93-5-501
""....i
"'7' 1..:.:)'--,
~...., .....)
,<,I'
--"""-....:--' '
'.~~_:~~:i
~;:~'~~
'"
,^~
\':'--J
--.
~::'J
r.........:"J
,,"-i'
.,
--,
with
'('{-
,
4
VS.
:;
Lisa Faye Wells
6
ORDER OF CClJRT
,,<
'~'
7
AND NOW, January 25, 1994, the parties appeared
8 counsel. The arrangement that was ordered July 16, 1993 has
9 apparently not successfully worked out. Mother has stated
10 that father has been inconsistent in his visits and did not
11 give her an opportunity to inspect his ho~e. Mother further
12 states that father had represented that he was foregoir.g b;s
13 request for overnight visits. He has stated that she has
14 made the Child available at father's request or.ly to fino
15 that father has not shown up. Father states that he tas
16 changed the location where he hopes to spend overn'ghts. Ee
17
hopes to spend overnights with the child at the hODe of
Kerry Robinson, Apartment B, 409 York Street, Gettysburg.
The Court Administrator is directed to schedule a half
18
19
day hearing.
Adams County Children and YOuth Services shall perform
22 a home study upon payment of a proper fee. The fee will be
20
?'
-.
23 the responsibility of father to pay. If he failS to pay, an
24 adverse inference will be drawn. He will be Under 110
25 obliga~ion to pay, however, until the following occurs:
Alicia K. Wooters, RPP.
Official Court Reporter
1
../ ;'"
-,,,L~(
'-"j"""Jlf,,'~'qr. ^ oO,~:-Jrl.",.".j '~:".'" _ , _
r:- ~. '~'", ~. ,...,""~
~~. ,
~,
c ~ ~ .,
~;~"".".,,~
!~~-2~.2QO~ C3:~6~~ ~~CM-8~~TEQ~eV i S~~~:EP
1
r--'-' 2
I
~J 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ij""''''''l\'!"1!~~Il11,k ~_
7'>~J2-;G52
T-393 F O~6/r\8 j:-~94
>
A. Mother has'hd~ a reasonable oppeitunify to inspect
the home of Miss Robinson.
B. Mother's counsel makes fermal demand upon father's
counsel for payment.
In order to minimize the confusion that has attended
the prior order, the schedule estabUshed in that order
Shall begin February 5 and 6. Father will piCK up the child
at mother's residence. If father is more than 20 minutes
late and in the absenoe of prior arrangements, that
particular visit shall be deemed cancelled.
Either party may call witnesses and introduce exhibits
if at least ten days prior to the hearing a list is provid~d
opposing counsel. Failure to oomply may result in
preclusion of that evidence.
Jeffe~y Cook, Esq.
EY TEE COURT,
d.J-/ -~' /"
0(/(~ ~'<.{/,~
,) (V \ \
O F S ,.
scar . ~lcer, P~JI
1/
,/
Tracy Sheffer, Esq.
Alicia K. Wooters, RPR
Official Court Reporter
2
0>> jr?</ (:'",1/.) 'T"
r I I .- (i('I"" LeV
" '""!,, (,,, (j, "/(1"--' '~.
71.S;'l:.4ifl ~~J~
~ ''l/)t<. / 1'1.
/_)(71. ~,' (
; .'
"
-
.~=~,
-
'1 ''"1""'"''''''
i$Z'"
""~'>~JIfI'l;~" "-",F."'.~~. ,>
.
EXHIBIT D
.,
.
~;m
~~
'- 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
--,'
, '-' '
.
ORIGINAL
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADAMS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
'-'
, ,
Civil (~')
~. .
~
,
<
Charles Dirk Hill 93-8-501 F'
~
c
~" C
vs. ,
~~
Wells r'::
Lisa Faye <~ -
~
.{t.? f, ('
ORDER OF COUI{T f'
AND NOW, this 27th day of November, 1996, the
Court has conducted a preliminary conference in chambers
with father participating by telephone. The last order
entered in this case was on January' 25, 1994.
The father has not exercised his rights under
that order for reasons which are in dispute. Mother
states that father was not interested in exercistng the
rights. Father states that he was thwarted from
exercising the rights.
It is apparent that a hearing is necessary and
the Court Administrator is directed to schedule a one-half
day hearing in this matter. The sole issue will be
partial custody. The Court reserves the right to assign
this case to a conference hearing officer.
Each party is directed to notify the other of
witnesses and exhibits at least ten days prior to the
hearing. The father has indicated that he and his mother
will be testifying. Mother has provided a prehearing
memorandum. Failure to identify witnesses and/or exhibits
'~'6J-:<;'i~~W~(","\._ .- ~ -, ' ,'~-~' - . ,~ ,~, "~r~~
[ ,~
i&-
,p/"
~/
/
'-P"';-:?f.!';'I'l'I" "_ ~"
-
23
24
25
.........'
.
--,'
1
may result in preclusion of evidence.
2 In the interim, since father has not been
3 exercising the rights of January 25, 1994, that order is
4 suspended. Mother will exercise temporary and legal
5 custody pending further order of Court.
6 Father has agreed to pay for a home study of
7 his home. He lives with his father apparently in York.
8 Mother will make arrangements and mother's counsel will
9 contact father concerning those arrangements.
10 BY THE COURT,
11
a)10i
G02n
12
P.J.
13
Oscar F.
14
Tracy Sheffer, Esq.
rhk
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
;.:?-/() .f)t>
rY.
, .;. ,~
"~" - '~r""'-"~
,'I~ ,
IY
,,;<W;;'1,~~""'"'~
.
EXHIBIT E
-
-
.,
~r="~~
8'''
/
-
o
"
~
"
.
.
~
o
o
i
..;
<
<
o
.
3
"t+-'*';""""*~- ,~'" ,,,,,__~,,t
,l
1
IN TIffi COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADAMS COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANIA
CIVIL
2
3
CHARLES DIRK HILL
93-S-50 1
=
~~.~
--c:;,\I~
. c'll~ u:.
~
:::P2~W
~ w
,; w
;~\i ~
~~
r~...1
4
VS.
"Tl
r-
r.n
5
LISA FAYE WELLS
6
7
ORDER OF COURT
8
9
AND NOW, this 29th day of May, 1997, father is directed to pay mother's
counsel the Home Study fee mentioned November 27, 1996, within 10 days. Failure
to do so will result in dismissal of his request for a hearing. The matter wi II be
assigned to the Conference Hearing Officer if payment is made.
10
11
12
13
14
15
BY THE COURT,
(/h 17 ..
OSCARF.C
President Jt~CER
16
17
18
pI
Charles Dirk Hill, pro se
Tracy Sheffer, Esq.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ill'
ntL
, 111.3197 CW C0p..u>l '/,;; C.AR.,JLQ Jhlt -11....1..1. (l-tu 4-L
.J.wJ.j xU...{-th, [.~
Arty::,
.". - -,
, ..
"..~,
<::''''~P''''1'';'''~lq~=,
--,,,,,--
-
EXHIBIT F
u
r
,"!""'"
""~
'"
....,. ~"
J,~\1-2J-2~C, c: :C3~V i:~CV-8~,~~E~SEv & S~Ej::S~
T'7-6t~-5S:2
T-402 P OG2/~O, ~-e:2
.'
~
MDW&6
[~;r,')"l..~.^rC>l' ,-.rVrCE' .-\.:'\':J~:\\:~
.
"........,.
.
-:-&'1 Ei\sr I--';t':::H Sn.UT,
CAR:..i5I.E, Pn"NSYLv>\N1/; 17(\:3
A'1"")R~~Y~: &: C()1..:..;~r.l..;,;)R$ ',T L\':tI
'\VIU.lt'o:-1 F. M.\1'T:-.ON
J~H.IN B. FOWU_R III
EO\V!HD L. SCHORP!'
.D.4.:';IEl.. K. Dv;~ciORfol'
T~IClV:'>\.)), \\::<i1LL.lV-1:;..
J\'o V. OT;O Ia
GEORCE B. F.4.llC'i ,iR-"
c.....Rl C. Rz501
M.'\RI< A. DE:":JNGf,R
0'\"\'10 R. GALLOWAY
"BC?~.lliJ C;:l'rJ~lHJ C:-''1l-:-R.:t\L 'S"l':Cif.Ufi
TElf!'"H(i~~ ,(717) :2:43.;):141
F)\CS~~il(l.f. (717) 243~1850
JI'-ITEI<.~'IT W'.<lw.ncwo (um
Noyember 8. 2001
tv::s, LIsa F. WeI:s
2l Whitehorse Road
, S-r~pp~:1SblITg~ p ~'\--1-7257
RE: Jordan Lee Hill
Our File1'\o. 10453.1
Dear MS.WeU,:
We have be~:l cOllsu!ted jy Charles Hill regarding Jordan.
, I know there has been. dependability problems in the past; however, Charl3s' wan:s to
estabEsha relationship with his SOil My ,sUggestion is that this start with a t3le?honeconversation
:letwecn father and son; if successful, th~y can then meet,fac.ecio-face,and then, perhaps, a visit.
"
We recognize Ih,it ClJiirJes has illi ssed a good pan of his son's growir:g up andhe understands
(hat building areiation$h;p w.Jll J)'e graduaIandtake time. Jl.Jso, Charles has told me he does not
want to cause any disruptior. to you or your family,
, "
· I recommended co Charles that wejnitially solicit youi' assistance to woric eo'operatively il1'
.. bluldinga relationship between father arid child, It is my ho;>e this ..oanoe done illfonualIyand
wirhout [:l~ necessity of any court illing. If you ag,eeand w::mi to contact Charles directly. his maii
'cmi"be'ieri't to 236 Bllf6rdAv,eniie;G'mysOliig, PA l i3l);iWfhome ,elephouetlumberis 337 -i201;
(jr ,enait can be sent to mwwindberrf'ilslL1:ierpa:mit. If you prefer, I would be happy t,)diSCclSS rhJs .
with you personally.
Velytruly yo!;rs,
,MARTSOt; DEARDORFF WILlJAMS & OTTO
':( ~~).~JJ1._
, 'Thomas l~li~s '
TJW/tde
'cc': ,Mr. CharksHi!l
" if] \..fS\[JA .AHL:',G,~,ll,"C"ll1 Q';;;;J.I" ;
, ,
I:-;roR,~1AT'9N," A,DVICE' AD'VOCA'CY'"
"'>-"~""";'~~)f],1lII1! "~'".
'_M -JIIl:~, -,,-~ I
.~ ~ , -",","
, "~,
," ., ,
I'~~' .=-
'F
~-
(
""""f,C..'~V;:
.."""'''''
. ~.,.
.,
..
. "
EXHIBIT G
.
, .--,"
,.
~,
~
BATTERSBY: &. -SHEFFER
. ,
. . ,
Attorneys At Law
p.o. Box 215 . 20 W. Main Street . Fairfield, PA 17320
717-642-6260 . Fax 717-642-8652
November 20,2001
P.O. Box 879
Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727
301-447-3167
Please Address All Correspondence
to Fairfield, PA
~TTHEWR. BATTERSBY
TRACY M. SHEFFER*
*Admitted in PA and MD
Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto
Ten East High Street
Carlisle PAl 70 13
Re: Lee Thomas Wells, son of Lisa F. (Wells) Diaz
Dear Attorney Williams:
I represent Lisa F. Diaz, formerly Lisa Wells. She is the mother of Lee Thomas Wells, whom
it appears your client believes was named Jordan Lee Hill; however, Lee Thomas Wells has been the
child's name since birth.
.
As you are aware, it has been many years since Mr. Hill has had any contact with Lee. When
Mr. Hill did have contact, it was sporadic at best. I have enclosed a copy of the last court order
regarding custody of Lee.
Ms. Diaz has discussed with Lee the issues raised in your letter. The child is of the age now
where his wishes are paramount. Lee has clearly expressed his desire to have no contact with Mr.
Hill. If Mr. Hill intends to press this issue, it will seriously and detrimentally affect Lee.
Mr. Diaz, my client's husband, has been Lee's father figure for many, many years and desires
to adopt Lee. I have also enclosed a consent for adoption. If Mr. Hill will agree, please have him
sign the consent and return same to me. If, in the future, Lee expresses a desire to meet his
biological father, Ms. Diaz will not hesitate to contact Mr. Hill.
IfMr. Hill intends to proceed to court with this, please note that Ms. Diaz will agree to venue
in Adams County, which will be more convenient to Mr. Hill.
Sincerely,
~fl(>-c~\I\. SWlL
:!fcy MgSheffer, E~'- -
TMS/jhe
enclosures
ee: Lisa F. Diaz
'""';'>;ll>';1,-~,~:,lJl"4'!f:,"
~ .
.,
-
"".'''~'.C';.;o.W)~
)IJl;D]
, '.
<C_"
,
.
.,
...
..... . ~ ..
E)(HIBIT H
~~'r"'
~ ~
",.,.
, "
.
.
"':':.
... _, 1.."-1: "--~ r.l t.'U. ......
;J.'L4.JJ.UUI
!I'IUV-.lU
rHUt. rJl.: tll
~ '\ \ ... .. '. JI
.1 . . ..
, .
~ " .
-10 'I, J
ATTORNEYS & COL'NSELLORS AT LAW
.1\100&0
, ll'1FOpJ,(,4,1l0N . AnV1C[. ADVOC/lC'i
J .' ,
TEN eAST HIGH STREET
CJ\.RUSLE, PENNSYLV~lA 17013
WiLLIAMF.MARTSON
JOHN B. FOWLER III
Eow ARD L. SCHORPP
DANIEL K. DEARDORFf
THOMAS 1. WILl.lAMS'
Ivo V Ono III
GEORGE B. FALLER JR'
CARt C. fuSCH
MARK A. DENLINGER
TELEPHONE (717) 243-3341
FACSlMlLE (717)243-1850
IN"TERNET ww".mdwo,com
*BOARD CEltTl~lI!D CML TRlAL SPBCIALIST
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
TO : Tracy M. Sheffer
FROM: Thomas Williams
FAX:
642-8652
FAX:
717-243-1850
DATE: December 14, 2001
PAGES: 1
(including this sheet)
RE: Wells v Hill
I lDIet with Charles Hill last night regarding the issues raised in your
letter of November 20.
He absolutely will not agree to relinquish his parental rights, nor
COIlsent to adoption. He has instructed me to proceed to establish
some visitation with his son. 1 will be filing papers next week. Let
me know as soon as possible if you are able to accept service.
HE~ doesn't want that much. If Lisa would back off her extreme
position just a little we could save our clients a lot of money,
aggravation and heartache.
And he knows he's going to be paying support.
"""-~''''","->'''~~
"",""
. ,
..
'"
.. '
"
''''n u"'-H<'''"''''i "'["11'1 .1 "TJ11_~.mflRiDlUTrr,ir:Uin,
.' .
.
;,:
1"1'-
___ :,C
/
C/,i:
o
f~
-'.
,
~....
-<
I .
l-:-:"
r..;
o
-"
.. . ~ .
.,."
on
~
C)
1"'1
!"-,)
,~""
,,-
:u
-<.
_ "~~~~!.-"""^'_'~_'"'".,, _, ,ml!!l~'l'/l'i-,.' ll'_~'~'~~~~l','l"*",~,;r~"'1!""'-~"'!~~;!"'^ _""j_,'i",!~, 1i'-'?/7-'-5i'''''G-'''-;;;'''F,~~",~;m'';(!%H':jGl9'''>illf&''<''::~if!l!<~~j'I!~W
~m~,
F;\FILES\DATAFILE\Gendoc.cur\10453-ans.2/sjs
Created: 03/20/0211:30:13AM
__ Rl~vised: 03/22/02 03:06:24 PM
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CHARLES D. HILL,
v.
NO. 01- 7121
LISA DIAZ,
Defendant
IN CUSTODY
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S PETITION
FOR COURT TO DECLINE JURISDICTION
AND NOW COMES, the Respondent, Charles D. Hill, by and through his attorneys,
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO, and hereby responds to the Petition for Court
to Decline Jurisdiction, as folJows:
1-4. Admitted.
5. Denied. Plaintiff cited Adams County Court, No. 93-S-501 and this record clearly
speaks for itself.
6-8. Admitted.
9. Denied as stated. Father informed Mother that he was without the means to pay for
a home study which, at that time, was a necessary prerequisite for overnight visits with his son.
Father at all times wanted visits with his son and continues to want them.
10-11. Admitted.
12. Denied. See 9 above. It is denied that Father never once kept the child for the entire
aIJotted time period. It is denied that Father would "give the child to his girlfriend" during the
periods of visitation he chose to exercise.
13-15. Admitted.
16. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Father has not paid the home
study fee. It is averred that this was due solely to financial constraints. The major reason for Father
not having a good relationship with his son was mainly due to Mother's efforts to prevent same
compounded by his financial limitation. Father's counsel did send a letter directly to Mother, on or
about November 8, 2001, regarding the lack of relationship with his son, and suggesting that Father
now wanted to begin to establish a relationship with the child.
17-18. Admitted.
19. Denied. Father has attempted to establish some custody rights for his son and these
'7%C\"1i""'"';'"d~~___ ~_ ~
'"I
, ~
" ~~~= -.
.~'" -~[ 1'--
"IE~-- -
,""
efforts were frustrated by Defendant, Lisa Diaz (Mother) and by a lack of finances to overcome the
obstacles placed in his path. Father lost track of Mother's whereabouts thereby was unable to
exercise his custody rights.
20. Denied. Father wished to develop a relationship with his son; however, Father was
denied the development of a relationship with the child due to Mother's actions.
21. Denied. Father wishes to develop a relationship with the child. In the past Father
was thwarted from developing a relationship with the child due to Mother's actions.
22. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Mother has had full physical
and legal custody of the child since birth. Father has not been permitted any access to his son and
so cannot know who his son considers his father; however, Father has heard that his son has been
asking about him. It is admitted that Mother had filed a Petition for Involuntary Termination of
Parental Rights and a Petition for Adoption in Adams County in an effort to terminate Father's rights
so her husband may adopt the child. Said petition is "on hold" pending the outcome of custody
proceedings in Cumberland County.
23. Denied. The child would not suffer irreparable harm if visits with Father would
occur at this time. Father will consider, first and foremost, the feelings of his son and to govern the
pace and extent of their relationship accordingly.
24. Denied. Mother and the child have resided in Cumberland County for several years.
There is no question that Cumberland County is the "home county" as defined in Pa. R.C.P.
1915.1 (b). Mother points to the fact that a custody action was initiated in Adams County many years
ago; however, that action was never concluded. Moreover, it was brought at a time when Mother
and child resided in Adams County. Further, no present member of the Adams County Court had
any involvement in that action.
25. No response is required; to the extent that any response is required it is denied. The
payment of a home study fee has no bearing on Father's desire to see his child. Rather, any failure
to pay a home study fee is due to economic constraints.
26-27. This is a legal conclusion to which no response is required; to the extent a response
is required it is denied.
(b) Denied. Father is unable to pay a home study fee due to economic
-;'_i:t'_"'.<;"y,..,.,,,,,,,,,,~1T'VlIl ~....,., "_
";':(
" -
{,-.-
i'D<
constraints.
(c) This is a legal conclusion to which no response is required; to the extent
that a response is required it is denied. Any failure of Father to pay a
home study fee is due to economic constraints, which has nothing to do
with Father's desire to see the child.
28. Admitted.
29. Denied. It is hornbook law that Plaintiff may choose his forum, and such forum
should not be disturbed absent compelling reasons.
30. Denied. This Honorable Court should exercise jurisdiction in this matter. Mother
points to the fact that a custody action was initiated in Adams County many years ago; however, that
action was never concluded. Moreover, it was brought at a time when Mother and child resided in
Adams County. Further, no present member of the Adams County Court had any involvement in
that action.
3 I . Denied. Under the circumstances and for the reasons set forth above, Cumberland
County is a convenient forum in which to litigate this case.
WHEREFORE, Respondent prays This Honorable Court will exercise jurisdiction in this
matter.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
BY'lL~~ W4~
Thomas J. Wil ams, EsqUIre
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013-3093
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Date: March 20, 2002
""'f",-~,:"'~c'l'''"",,,,,::
"1 .. ",- -'r
~- -
o' ~'-"
~~
i""""""'"
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Steven J. Shanahan, an authorized agent for MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS &
OTTO, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Answer to Defendant's Petition for
Court to Decline Jurisdiction was served this date via facsimile.
Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire
1400 N. Second Street
Harrisburg, P A 171 02
(717) 221-0904
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
By ~/UL-
Steven J hanahan
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: March 22, 2002
"'l"-"~""=-'Sf'~'J", ~
=,~
,~"""'~ -
. ,
- '
~. ~1" y-
,<," "'
" " ,,<=,<,
~"'-''1-
>"~ ,~~, =--
""-'''''''-,HI: "c"",,,-,(,:,; ,~"~" '-"',!,,'"""'~. .-~_.~~ ,
--:):.
[':'1
(/i-
[' ::= ,~
>;'-:"
{_--:(:._\
.;:--
()
C" I
'""-,)
~
1]1/
UIIJlJmlilllu' m'1ii11!lffT
l,)
:>)
.-1
_ ." ., ,JI!!i:7~J~~J~~~' ~~T."~,~ "I~~r":""",,,c~,J~TI~~~11i'..-tm;;1'ff;",*,,').(!lTi'Y}''.ifhi'\'~~~'Tit!!l ~OlVJ.[fi~~1j,t~1I~.1.~:,ij,~t-l:'1~,j
~;"
F:\FILES\DA T AFILEIGendoc.cur\l 0453-memora 1/tde
Created'12/t7/0102:;.o:lSPM
Revised: 03/27102 04:06:25 PM
10453,1
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES D. HILL,
v.
NO. 01- 7121
LISA DIAZ,
Defendant
IN CUSTODY
PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW REGARDING
JURISDICTION
I. FACTS:
Lee Thomas Wells was born to the parties on December 13,1990. At that time, the parties
lived in Gettysburg, Adams County. Shortly after the child's birth, the parties separated and were
divorced October 13, 1992 by the Adams County Court. In 1993, Father filed a custody action in
Adams County Court at 93-S-501. Conciliation conferences were held on July 16, 1993, January
25, 1994 and November 27, 1996, all of which resulted in agreed Orders and all orders were interim,
anticipating some kind of follow up. No Court has ever held a hearing, taken testimony or made
findings prior to the filing ofthe instant action.
The Order of November 27, 1996 provided that Father was to pay for a home study in order
to exercise any custody/visitation rights. Father never did and so he has not had any
custody/visitation of his son since then.
Mother remarried in 1994 and moved to Cumberland County in 1995 with her new husband
and Lee. Lee has resided in Cumberland County since 1995. He goes to school in Cumberland
County, his friends and activities are all in Cumberland County, and his immediate family is in
Cumberland County. Most of his extended family is also in Cumberland County, at least on
Mother's side. Mother and her new husband now have two children of their own, a brother and
sister to Lee.
II. ISSUE:
Should the Cumberland County Court decline jurisdiction in this custody matter?
'-,~_;;~"',,,:c"'t?"'~
"',-',
",,'
..
':
III. ARGUMENT:
Cumberland County is the only Court having jurisdiction over custody of Lee Thomas
Well, alk/a Lee Thomas Diaz and should not decline to exercise it.
A. Historical Pennsylvania Law
There is no question that Cumberland County is the domicile of the child and has been since
1995. There is a long line of cases holding that the Court having jurisdiction to decide custody is
the Court where the child is domiciled.
In Freed v. Freed, 172 Pa. Supra. 276, 93 A.2d 683 (1953), a custody order was entered in
Washington County. Mother and child later moved to Bedford County. Father sought and got
modification of the custody order by the Washington County Court that issued it. The Superior
Court reversed, holding that Washington County no longer had jurisdiction since mother and child
moved.
"The residence of the child was in Washington County when the
original order of October 7,1948 was made. . . The court then had
jurisdiction and in a proper exercise of its judicial discretion gave the
child to [mother]. And when she took the child with her and
established a new residence in Hyndman the child acquired the
domicile of its mother in Bedford COlIDty [citation omitted]. While
the court had the authority to make the original order, it lost its
jurisdiction to modify or make a new order when both parents left
Washington County and the child lived with her mother in Bedford
CQunty."
172 Pa. Super at 280, 93 A.2d at 864.
In Hiekev v. Hickev. 216 Pa. Super. 332, 264 A.2d 420 (1970) a custody order was issued
by Bucks County while the parties lived there. Mother then moved to Philadelphia County and later
filed for custody there. Philadelphia County accepted jurisdiction and modified the Bucks County
custody order. Father appealed claiming that Philadelphia court had no jurisdiction since Bucks
County issued the original custody order. He lost. The Superior Court held that the court of the
county which originally entered the order lost jurisdiction when mother and child changed their
domicile to another county.
2
{",j\,"",",')~"'~
,-,
_of
(@('--'"'''' ,--'-
~-~, " .',' -, -,.
"It has become well settled in this Commonwealth that jurisdiction of
child custody cases follows either the domicile or the residence ofthe
child; and the domicile of the child is that of the parent having
custody. [citations omitted]. If a parent to whom a court awards
custody establishes a new residence in another county, the child
acquires the domicile and residence of the parent in that county. . .
Since it appears that appellee, who as awarded custody of these
children, was domiciled in Philadelphia County at the time she
petitioned the court below, Bucks County lost jurisdiction and
jurisdiction of the matter was properly in Philadelphia County."
216 Pa. Super. at 336, 264 a.2d at 421-422. /l
Laws v. Laws, 249 Pa. Super. 355, 378 A.2d 333 (1977) was a similar case. The Superior
Court, en bane, held:
". . . this Court has consistently held that only the county in which the
child resides or his domicile has jurisdiction to award custody."
249 Pa. Super. at 358, 378 A.2d at 334.
m WeVl11ers v. WeVl11ers, 5 Pa. D&C 3rd 291 (Beaver, 1978), it was A11egheny County that
had issued a custody order and the mother was now living with the child in Beaver County. The
Beaver County Court held that it, not Allegheny County, had jurisdiction over custody:
" . . . when she presented her petition neither parent and neither child
was present in, or domiciled in, or under control of a person resident
in Allegheny County. Allegheny County therefore had lost its
authority to proceed. . . "
5 Pa. D&C 3rd at 295.
B. Uniform Child Custodv Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA)
The UCCJA has modified Pennsylvania custody jurisdiction somewhat, though it did not
change it in concept. The principal change has been the concept of "home county" of the child
defIDed as the county where the child has lived for the better part of the past six months. So now a
parent eatlllot move with the child and quickly file in the new county; for a period of six months, a
previous county jurisdiction, ifthere is one, still exists. After that, jurisdiction over custody goes
to the new (home) county unless the child has clearly stronger connections to another county.
3
';!<\>!<'''''~''1''>~= _"_'
",,-'"
,
-
,--
~,[f'''~< ,~
UCCJA is found at 23 Pa. C.S. 9 5341 et seq. While on its face it pertains to interstate
jurisdiction, it is specifically made applicable to intrastate jurisdiction by Section 5364. The concept
of "home county" is made essentially the same as "home state."
The Uniform Law Comments to Section 5344 Jurisdiction succinctly summarize the concept
of the UCCJA:
"Paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) establish the two major
bases for jurisdiction. In the first place, a court in the child's home
state has jurisdiction, and secondly, if there is no home state or the
child and his family have equal or stronger ties with another state, a
court in that state has jurisdiction.
Paragraph (2) comes into play either when the home state test cannot
be met or as an alternative to that test. The first situation arises, for
example, where a family has moved frequently and there is no state
where the child has lived for 6 months prior to the suit, or if the child
has recently been removed from his home state and the person who
was left behind has also moved away. . . A typical example of
alternative jurisdiction is the case in which the stay-at-home parent
chooses to follow the departed spouse to state 2 (where the child has
lived for several months with the other parent) and starts proceedings
there. Whether the departed parent also has access to a court in state
2, depends on the strength of the family ties in that state and on the
applicability of the clean hands provisions of Section 8."
Under either test, jurisdiction in the instant case is in Cumberland County: first, Cumberland
County is the home county and, second, the child's principal ties are to Cumberland County. For
the same reason, it is clear that Adams County does not have jurisdiction: it is not the home county
and there is no known connections of the child to Adams County since 1995.
The unique! posture of this case does not lend itselfto much judicial precedent. There are
a couple ofreeent cases which have some applicability. In Shaw v. Shaw, 719 A.2d 359 (Pa.
I Typically, it is the parent who stays behind complaining that the new county of the child's
domicile should not have jurisdiction; that is, one would expect in this case that Mother, who has lived
in Cumberland County for almost seven years, would complain if Father sought to invoke continuing
custody jurisdiction in Adams County.
4
":c\'"'~,;_nt~f,,," "",~~
. -'--, ~
1'1''" "'
~ " " '
. ~
~,w_'"
Superior 1998), a custody order was entered in Pennsylvania (Bedford County) in 1990. Mother and
child then moved to Ohio and lived there for several years. In 1997, father filed a contempt petition
against mother in Pennsylvania. The issue was whether Pennsylvania courts had jurisdiction to
enforce its order by contempt, even though mother and child were living in another state. The
Superior Court held that it did; however, the Superior Court also implied in dicta that the
Pennsylvania Court did not have jurisdiction for modification of the custody order. Citing an earlier
case, the Shaw court opined:
". . . a trial court could properly hold a party in contempt even though
it no longer had jurisdiction to modifY the underlying custody decree.
In so holding we distinguished between modification and
enforcement jurisdiction as follows:
There is a great difference between modification
jurisdiction, which involves holding an evidentiary
hearing on the best interest of the child in order to
determine custody, and enforcement jurisdiction,
which is limited to determining whether the prior
custody order can be enforced, i.e. whether the decree
was valid when entered and never modified. [citation
omitted].
Accordingly, [citation omitted] stands for the proposition that so long
as a custody decree has not been modified by an Order issued by
another forum, in a valid exercise of its jurisdiction, it is enforceable
in the original forum."
719 A.2d at 360.
While the above language is not dispositive of the question presented in the instant case, it
clearly implies and envisions that the Ohio courts have jurisdiction for modification of a
Pennsylvania order or, at least, have concurrent jurisdiction, since Ohio is the home state. Similarly,
Cumberland is the home county for Lee Wells.
A more helpful and more recent case is Kriebel v. Kriebel, 766 A.2d 854 (Pa. Superior.
2001) where Pennsylvania (Clarion County) had entered a custody order and, later, mother and child
moved to North Carolina. After several years, father sought to modifY the Pennsylvania custody
5
""_f'W_,'_';'.;~"q<'~
"'
'. ~ 1,1 -
.
.
~,
~ .
-
;~
order in Clarion County and that court did as father requested. Mother appealed on the basis that
Pennsylvania no longer had jurisdiction to modify its custody order. The Superior Court agreed with
Mother and reversed the Clarion County Court, holding that North Carolina, not Pennsylvania, now
had jurisdiction over child custody.
"Under the UCCJA, Pennsylvania would have eontinuingjurisdietion
to modify a child custody order only ifthe jurisdictional prerequisites
of the UCCJA continue to be met. The first inquiry is whether
Pennsylvania is now the home state. Judge Greiner concedes that
North Carolina is the home state. However, based on significant
connections he finds Pennsylvania has continuing jurisdiction.
Mother, however, argues forcefully on appeal, that since 1994 all the
children's 'significant contacts have been in North Carolina.' She
points specifically to the fact that the children's school and social life,
medical and psychological care, and their relationship with friends,
as well as Mother's family are all based in North Carolina.
Moreover, their contact with Pennsylvania has been minimal, limited
to infrequent trips to visit Father and his family because Father
usually exercises his custody by visiting the children in North
Carolina. Father simple asserts that the trial court correctly found
sufficient contacts to allow Pennsylvania to retain jurisdiction.
Thus, our courts have declined to exercise jurisdiction under Section
2 in cases of initial jurisdiction where significant connections are
insufficient.
On this record, the facts simply do not support the exercise of
continuing jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. Although Father resides in
Pennsylvania, the children no longer have enough significant
connections in this state. The focus on their lives is, and has been, in
North Carolina where they have lived and gone to school for the past
six years. As an obvious corollary, evidence as to their care,
education and relationships is overwhelmingly in North Carolina.
For all these reasons, we find that there are insufficient connections
in Pennsylvania for this state to assert continuing jurisdiction. The
record does not support the trial court's finding to the contrary. The
best interest of the Kriebel children are clearly served if Pennsylvania
relinquishes jurisdiction."
766 A.2d at 858-859.
6
"~",1"'''"''''-t'JFJ'-~ '.,-,
~, ~
"'-I
.!,-
,~
f' "
~("'--"
Applying this recent pronouncement of the Superior Court in Kriebel to our case and
paraphrasing the opinion, Adams County would have continuing jurisdiction to modify a child
custody order only if the jurisdictional prerequisites of the UCCJA continue to be met. They clearly
are not met in this case; in fact, Mother does not really contend that they are. Mother's testimony
clearly establishes that, since at least 1995, Cumberland County has not only been the domicile of
this child, but the focus of his existence.
C. CONCLUSION
Both as a matter of law and as a matter of practicality Cumberland County has jurisdiction
over this child's custody and is authorized to modify the existing custody arrangement pursuant to
23 Pa. e.s. S 5364(h).
Respectfully submitted,
MARTS9N DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
BY.~~~ \NJ.t~
Thomas J. Wi1 i s, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3093
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: March 28, 2002
7
)',:;;;.,;"':,",."_.,,~
". 0"" "
r ,.j. ~
~- -
'I;;."""",,, _Yo,,",,"' ,-" "'-'0<
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Tricia D. Eekenroad, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby
certify that a copy of the foregoing Hearing Memorandum Regarding Jurisdiction was served this
date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed
as follows:
Jeamle B. Costopoulos, Esquire
1400 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
~W~onf
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Date: March 28, 2002
8
_'Tll"";"-""lli~
~ ""'- -. ,- '-,-< " ;]' ~- - ..,
"-,
~~.
r ~"
,w...-' '
,
~
@1
rcy,
I~
,r;- t:>
l' ,I
o
"'"^''''''-'''''~"",,",~
F:\Fll..I3S\DATAFILEIGendoc.cur\I0453-melIiora lIlde
Create<j: l2f17/01 02:10:18 PM
Revised: 03f27f02U4:06:25PM
10453.1
MAR 2 8 2002 ~
CHARLES D. HILL,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
v.
NO. 01- 7121
LISA DIAZ,
Defendant
IN CUSTODY
PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW REGARDING
JURISDICTION
I. FACTS:
Lee Thomas Wells was born to the parties on December 13, 1990. At that time, the parties
lived in Gettysburg, Adams County. Shortly after the child's birth, the parties separated and were
divorced October 13, 1992 by the Adams County Court. In 1993, Father filed a custody action in
Adams County Court at 93-S-501. Conciliation conferences were held on July 16,1993, January
25, 1994 and November 27, 1996, all of which resulted in agreed Orders and all orders were interim,
anticipating some kind of follow up. No Court has ever held a hearing, taken testimony or made
findings prior to the filing of the instant action.
The Order of November 27, 1996 provided that Father was to pay for a home study in order
to exercise any custody/visitation rights. Father never did and so he has not had any
custody/visitation of his son since then.
Mother remarried in 1994 and moved to Cumberland County in 1995 with her new husband
and Lee. Lee has resided in Cumberland County since 1995. He goes to school in Cumberland
County, his friends and activities are all in Cumberland County, and his immediate family is in
Cumberland County. Most of his extended family is also in Cumberland County, at least on
Mother's side. Mother and her new husband now have two children of their own, a brother and
sister to Lee.
II. ISSUE:
Should the Cumberland County Court decline jurisdiction in this custody matter?
t~,_""!,,
,,~~ ~
-
~, ~_~",.,~ ',.,.,..N
-~~
~ ~ ,~
I""'''''~
".,~, . ~-
III. ARGUMENT:
Cumberland County is the only Court having jurisdiction over custody of Lee Thomas
Well, alk!a Lee Thomas Diaz and should not decline to exercise it.
A. Historical Pennsvlvania Law
There is no question that Cumberland County is the domicile of the child and has been since
1995. There is a long line of cases holding that the Court having jurisdiction to decide custody is
the Court where the child is domiciled.
In Freed v. Freed, 172 Pa. Supra. 276, 93 A.2d 683 (1953), a custody order was entered in
Washington County. Mother and child later moved to Bedford County. Father sought and got
modification of the custody order by the Washington County Court that issued it. The Superior
Court reversed, holding that Washington County no longer had jurisdiction since mother and child
moved.
"The residence of the child was in Washington County when the
original order of October 7,1948 was made. . . The court then had
jurisdiction and in a proper exercise of its judicial discretion gave the
child to [mother]. And when she took the child with her and
established a new residence in Hyndman the child acquired the
domicile of its mother in Bedford County [citation omitted]. While
the court had the authority to make the original order, it lost its
jurisdiction to modify or make a new order when both parents left
Washington County and the child lived with her mother in Bedford
County."
172 Pa. Super at 280, 93 A.2d at 864.
In Hiekev v. Hiekev, 216 Pa. Super. 332, 264 A.2d 420 (1970) a custody order was issued
by Bucks County while the parties lived there. Mother then moved to Philadelphia County and later
filed for custody there. Philadelphia County accepted jurisdiction and modified the Bucks County
custody order. Father appealed claiming that Philadelphia court had no jurisdiction since Bucks
County issued the original custody order. He lost. The Superior Court held that the court of the
county which originally entered the order lost jurisdiction when mother and child changed their
domicile to another county.
2
.';;',r"""~-'<'''''~l''''-r~
-' ,
,- ~. I
,- ~".
-..~
l I> 'M~
'" ~--'
;;:''1"'' .
"It has become well settled in this Commonwealth that jurisdiction of
child custody cases follows either the domicile or the residence of the
child' and the domicile of the child is that of the parent having
,
custody. [citations omitted]. If a parent to whom a court awards
custody establishes a new residence in another county, the child
acquires the domicile and residence of the parent in that county. . .
Since it appears that appellee, who as awarded custody of these
children, was domiciled in Philadelphia County at the time she
petitioned the court below, Bucks County lost jurisdiction and
jurisdiction of the matter was properly in Philadelphia County."
216 Pa. Super. at 336, 264 a.2d at 42 I -422.
Laws v. Laws, 249 Pa. Super. 355, 378 A.2d 333 (1977) was a similar case. The Superior
Court, en bane, held:
". . . this Court has consistently held that only the county in which the
child resides or his domicile has jurisdiction to award custody."
249 Pa. Super. at 358, 378 A.2d at 334.
In WevmefS v. Weymers, 5 Pa. D&C 3rd 291 (Beaver, 1978), it was Allegheny County that
had issued a custody order and the mother was now living with the child in Beaver County. The
Beaver County Court held that it, not Allegheny County, had jurisdiction over custody:
" . . .when she presented her petition neither parent and neither child
was present in, or domiciled in, or under control of a person resident
in Allegheny County. Allegheny County therefore had lost its
authority to proceed. . . "
5 Pa. D&C 3rd at 295.
B. Uniform Child Custodv Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA)
The UCCJA has modified Pennsylvania custody jurisdiction somewhat, though it did not
change it in concept. The principal change has been the concept of "home county" of the child
defined as the county where the child has lived for the better part of the past six months. So now a
parent cannot move with the child and quickly file in the new county; for a period of six months, a
previous county jurisdiction, if there is one, still exists. After that, jurisdiction over custody goes
to the new (home) county unless the child has clearly stronger connections to another county.
3
. '"" "Y'M~a~,~""
TT ',"" 1" ~ "' - T'
,~~"",.",,,,,.,,,,,~, ~_.
~~ -- ~~"F"
-
ik'~ "
UCCJA is found at 23 Pa. C.S. 9 5341 et seq. While on its face it pertains to interstate
jurisdiction, it is specifically made applicable to intrastate jurisdiction by Section 5364. The concept
of "home county" is made essentially the same as "home state."
The Uniform Law Comments to Section 5344 Jurisdiction succinctly summarize the concept
of the UCCJA:
"Paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) establish the two major
bases for jurisdiction. In the first place, a court in the child's home
state has jurisdiction, and secondly, if there is no home state or the
child and his family have equal or stronger ties with another state, a
court in that state has jurisdiction.
Paragraph (2) comes into play either when the home state test cannot
be met or as an alternative to that test. The first situation arises, for
example, where a family has moved frequently and there is no state
where the child has lived for 6 months prior to the suit, or if the child
has recently been removed from his home state and the person who
was left behind has also moved away. . . A typical example of
alternative jurisdiction is the case in which the stay-at-home parent
chooses to follow the departed spouse to state 2 (where the child has
lived for several months with the other parent) and starts proceedings
there. Whether the departed parent also has access to a court in state
2, depends on the strength of the family ties in that state and on the
applicability of the clean hands provisions of Section 8."
Under either test, jurisdiction in the instant case is in Cumberland County: fust, Cumberland
County is the home county and, second, the child's principal ties are to Cumberland County. For
the same reason, it is clear that Adams County does not have jurisdiction: it is not the home county
and there is no known couneetions ofthe child to Adams County since 1995.
The unique! posture of this case does not lend itselfto much judicial precedent. There are
a couple of recent cases which have some applicability. In Shaw v. Shaw, 719 A.2d 359 (Pa.
1 Typically, it is the parent who stays behind complaining that the new county of the child's
domicile should not have jurisdiction; that is, one would expect in this case that Mother, who has lived
in Cumberland County for almost seven years, would complain if Father sought to invoke continuing
custody jurisdiction in Adams County.
4
""-"""~~-fl:,~~, ~,
T
"~~~
-
_ '_h'
~, . ~
, ~- """
;itJ:r
Superior 1998), a custody order was entered in Pennsylvania (Bedford County) in 1990. Mother and
child then moved to Ohio and lived there for several years. In 1997, father filed a contempt petition
against mother in Pennsylvania. The issue was whether Pennsylvania courts had jurisdiction to
enforce its order by contempt, even though mother and child were living in another state. The
Superior Court held that it did; however, the Superior Court also implied in dicta that the
Pennsylvania Court did not have jurisdiction for modification of the custody order. Citing an earlier
case, the Shaw court opined:
". . . a trial court could properly hold a party in contempt even though
it no longer had jurisdiction to modify the underlying custody decree.
In so holding we distinguished between modification and
enforcement jurisdiction as follows:
There is a great difference between modification
jurisdiction, which involves holding an evidentiary
hearing on the best interest of the child in order to
determine custody, and enforcement jurisdiction,
which is limited to determining whether the prior
custody order can be enforced, i.e. whether the decree
was valid when entered and never modified. [citation
omitted].
Accordingly, [citation omitted] stands for the proposition that so long
as a custody decree has not been modified by an Order issued by
another forum, in a valid exercise of its jurisdiction, it is enforceable
in the original forum."
719 A.2d at 360.
While the above language is not dispositive of the question presented in the instant case, it
clearly implies and envisions that the Ohio courts have jurisdiction for modification of a
Pennsylvania order or, at least, have concurrent jurisdiction, since Ohio is the home state. Similarly,
Cumberland is the home county for Lee Wells.
A more helpful and more recent case is Kriebel v. Kriebel, 766 A.2d 854 (Pa. Superior.
2001) where Pennsylvania (Clarion County) had entered a custody order and, later, mother and child
moved to North Carolina. After several years, father sought to modify the Pennsylvania custody
5
"U-'F'~"';"'-";''-'''~~j~rr
_.M
l'
. ~ ~^ "
-
~ .-,..
"~~"r~
co:,:,'
order in Clarion County and that court did as father requested. Mother appealed on the basis that
Pennsylvania no longer had jurisdiction to modify its custody order. The Superior Court agreed with
Mother and reversed the Clarion County Court, holding that North Carolina, not Pennsylvania, now
had jurisdiction over child custody.
"Under the UCCJA, Pennsylvania would have continuingjurisdiction
to modify a child custody order only if the jurisdictional prerequisites
of the UCCJA continue to be met. The first inquiry is whether
Pennsylvania is now the home state. Judge Greiner concedes that
North Carolina is the home state. However, based on significant
connections he finds Pennsylvania has continuing jurisdiction.
Mother, however, argues forcefully on appeal, that since 1994 all the
children's 'significant contacts have been in North Carolina.' She
points specifically to the fact that the children's school and social life,
medical and psychological care, and their relationship with friends,
as well as Mother's family are all based in North Carolina.
Moreover, their contact with Pennsylvania has been minimal, limited
to infrequent trips to visit Father and his family because Father
usually exercises his custody by visiting the children in North
Carolina. Father simple asserts that the trial court correctly found
sufficient contacts to allow Pennsylvania to retain jurisdiction.
Thus, our courts have declined to exercise jurisdiction under Section
2 in cases of initial jurisdiction where significant connections are
insufficient.
On this record, the facts simply do not support the exercise of
continuing jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. Although Father resides in
Pennsylvania, the children no longer have enough significant
connections in this state. The focus on their lives is, and has been, in
North Carolina where they have lived and gone to school for the past
six years. As an obvious corollary, evidence as to their care,
education and relationships is overwhelmingly in North Carolina.
For all these reasons, we find that there are insufficient connections
in Pennsylvania for this state to assert continuing jurisdiction. The
record docs not support the trial court's finding to the contrary. The
best interest of the Kriebel children are clearly served if Pennsylvania
relinquishes jurisdiction."
766 A.2d at 858-859.
6
,.,-,,,:,,-,,,,-V""',~~
" ' -,
f'
. c. ~
.
"illll" e ~
~ ."",~~",,'''''''J~''''_r_'''~
"H'"
Applying this recent pronouncement of the Superior Court in Kriebel to our case and
paraphrasing the opinion, Adams County would have continuing jurisdiction to modify a child
custody order only if the jurisdictional prerequisites of the UeCJA continue to be met. Theyclearly
are not met in this case; in fact, Mother does not really contend that they are. Mother's testimony
clearly establishes that, since at least 1995, Cumberland County has not only been the domicile of
this child, but the focus of his existence.
C. CONCLUSION
Both as a matter oflaw and as a matter of practicality Cumberland County has jurisdiction
over this child's custody and is authorized to modify the existing custody arrangement pursuant to
23 Pa. C.S. 9 5364(h).
Respectfully submitted,
MARJf~~Af!fW~S & OTTO
By 1] ,,--
Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3093
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: March 28, 2002
7
';'~-"'"""--'''~'~~-f~~. ,..,.,.,,,
-
-....,,~~ _.."",~ ~ ~"
--", -~-,~
""-''^ .
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Trieia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby
certify that a copy of the foregoing Hearing Memorandum Regarding Jurisdiction was served this
date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed
as follows:
Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire
1400 North Second Street
Harrisburg, P A 171 02
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
~i)~{l
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
(717) 243-3341
Date: March 28, 2002
8
'''''~':'''-''''''''''''_'l'''~lIqijr.l-.
I~\, ~^"" _, - ~~~""~, 'F~ _"
"fl~",~
" ~~ ""'^'~ ~
,~~"'" ,~.
'h' - . .-~ &-- ~~"
JUDGE HESS HAS REQUESTED THAT JUDGE GUIDO DEAL WITH
THE JURISDICTION ISSUE AT THE SAME TIME ON MARCH 25,
2002.
COURT ADMIN. SENT TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES TO TWO
DIFFERENT JUDGES AND JUDGE HESS SAYS THIS SHOULD ALL
STAY TOGETHER.
IF ANY QUESTIONS SPEAK TO JUDGE HESS.
':;.;'!~Iy<(
, '-'--,-"t ,"
"'"1,""'.. ,>-- -,-.
H ~
,-,--
---~,
'l~" "~" ~ ,"
F:\FILES\DAT AFILE\Gendoc.cut\l 04S3"hearing.memltde
Created,.j2l17/0102:1t:l:18PM
Revised: 02/28/0204:46:3SPM
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES D. HILL,
v.
NO. 01-7121
LISA DIAZ,
Defendant
IN CUSTODY
HEARING MEMORANDUM
(FATHER)
A. JURISDICTION (VENUE):
Mother, Lisa Diaz, and the child have resided in Cumberland County for several years. There
is no question that Cumberland County is the "home county" as defined in Pa. R.C.P. 1915.1 (b).
Jurisdiction is not really at issue, nor, for that matter, is the propriety of venue; rather, it is believed
that Defendant, Lisa Diaz, is requesting the Court to exercise its discretion and transfer this action
to Adams County, presumably pursuant to Rule 1915.2 (d).
Such a transfer is not appropriate. First, the Rule explicitly allows such a transfer "for the
convenience of parties and witnesses." The only convenience would be for Plaintiff, Charles Hill,
who lives in Adams County, and he is not requesting a transfer. Second, it is anticipated that Mother
will point to the fact that a custody action was initiated in Adams County many years ago; however,
that action was never concluded. Moreover, it was brought at a time when Mother and child resided
in Adams County. Further, no present member of the Adams County Court had any involvement
in that action.
It is hornbook law that Plaintiff may choose his forum, and such forum should not be
disturbed absent compelling reasons.
B. WITNESSES:
It is anticipated that Charles D. Hill (Father) will be his only witness. He will testify as to
his efforts over the years to establish some custody rights for his son and how these efforts were
frustrated by Defendant, Lisa Diaz (Mother) and by a lack of finances to overcome the obstacles
placed in his path.
-i~W'lO"'F"""""'~ ".
,--"._, '
~ F'
<_1
~. ~ ,,-
, .
" '~~"~'
- -I~-' -~ _.,~
, "__ _'_~'", _" ^ w "
Mr. Hill will testify that he lost track of Mother's whereabouts, how he discovered she was
married and had been living in Cumberland County with his son for several years and how he saved
enough money to now hire a lawyer in an attempt to establish some contact with his son.
Mr. Hill will testify to his previously expressed willingness to initially initiate contact with
his son through telephone calls, proceeding to supervised visits, then unsupervised visits, then, if
everything is going well, perhaps an overnight visit, and so on. Mr. Hill will testify to his previously
expressed willingness to consider, first and foremost, the feelings of his son and to govern the pace
and extent oftheir relationship accordingly.
In that regard, the child is currently being evaluated by Georgi Anderson, BCD, LCSW as
to the child's feelings towards his father, the basis of those feelings and how a relationship with his
father can best be established. As of the date of this Memorandum, the results of that evaluation
have not yet been received. It is possible that Ms. Anderson may testify at the hearing on March 25,
2002 depending on whether her findings indicate she would have any testimony to add materially
to the issue of jurisdiction.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
By 'l~-~ ~~
Thomas J. WilIams, EsqUIre
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013-3093
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Date: February 28,2002
""'?f"~:"""'~"" w
-, 'e'__ _,
,<- ;no'" - l'
'r - ....."'-~
:;;'.<.:-," ~"o,. '" '
-,- ~"-~ .
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Trieia D. Eekenroad, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby
certify that a copy of the foregoing Hearing Memorandum was served this date by depositing same
in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire
1400 North Second Street
Harrisburg, P A 17102
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
y
Tneia D. Eekenroad
en East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: February 28, 2002
;:-~,.''''-~'
,,~. ~,--",., "~>'
"~-"~ . '- ,
"~,
I'"~ _.~
""~~"
, ,'" -.. - ,~,
..
c ",_,~~'",,' _"-"'_" ,'_"'" ," __ ce,'~,","'^'_
-,- >-->';" ,c;:,';'I< ~,.",\'';!-i,_'' ~'4:-"'" ",4. >','_',/,.._' ""!'~ \,;_,t'",:~'~',>- i
MDW&6
INFORMATION. ADVICE'. ADvOCACY' '
:AriQRNE.Ys & COUNSELLORS AT lAw
WILLIAM F. MARTSON
JO};lN B.FoWLER III
, EOWAR.D'L. 'SCHORPP
DANIEL K DEARDPRFF
, TMOMAs J. WILLIAMS'
Ivo V. OTTO Ju
GEORGE B. FAIl.ERJR.*
CARLC. RJSCH
MARK A. DENLINGER
DAYlD R GALLOWAY
-"BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL SPECfAlIST
TEN EAST HIGH STREET
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013
TELEPHONE (717) 243-334 I
FACSIMILE (717) 243-1850
INTERNET www.mdwo.com
February 28,2002
The Honorable EdwardE. Guido
Cumberland County CQurthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013,
RE: Charles D.,Hillv.LisaDiaz
No. 01-7121 - Cumberland County C.C.P.
Our File No. 10453.1
Dear Judge Guido:
In accordance with your order of February 14, 2002, the. attached is offered as father's
Hearing Memorandum for the heating scheduled on March 25, 2002. .
Very truly yours,
MARTSQN DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
1~9 4t-Jt~
Thomas J. WilIi<)llls
TJW /tde
Enclosure
ec: JeanneB. Costopoulos, Esquire (w/ene:)
F:IFILES\DA-T AFILE\Genltr,cur\ 10453-jg,]
INFORMATION' ADVICE' ADVCiCACy'M
;""'"""f"lF"'-'f"'I!;''''''~''i'!?~'<:I'''~j~1i1l<!lffl\pw;ji'f'''"'''_
~~ i!',
, '~~'"""""~..~,,,~,;~~~,_f'-<~'>l!''''W~~~''''
,{"""-,,,---. = ~
...
CHARLES D. HILL,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: No. 01-7121 CIVIL TERM
LISA DIAZ,
: CIVIL ACTION . LAW
: CUSTODY
Defendant
DEFENDANT'S PRE-HEARING MEMORANDUM
AND NOW, the Defendant, Lisa Diaz, by and through her attorney, Jeanne B. Costopoulos,
Esquire, submits the foIlowing Pre-Hearing Memorandum pursuant to the Court's Order dated
Febrwuy 14,2002:
L DEFENDANT'S POSmON ON JURISDICTION:
Defendant has filed simultaneously with this Pre-Hearing Memorandum a Memorandum of
Law in Support of her Petition for Court to Decline Jurisdiction which fully explains her position on
jurisdiction. Said Memorandum of Law is incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.
n. DEFENSE WITNESSES:
Defendant anticipates the foIlowing witnesses to testifY at the March 25, 2002 hearing:
1. Defendant shaIl testifY regarding the full history of the custody case at Adams County docket
no. 93-S-501. She shall further testifY as to Plaintiff's lack of interest, participation, and
cooperation foIlowing each Adams County custody order. If relevant, Defendant shaII
further testilY as to her son's adjustment without Plaintiff in his life as weIl as her son's
desire not to be required to have contact with Plaintiff.
2. Jorge Diaz, Defendant's husband, shall coIlaborate Defendant's testimony.
i-""":""'''__'_~__''''''"''''''''''''l
- ,....,o~_....... -l'~
-" "'~,
-~"~
-'-' ~
.. ,~.
,~=
~,.,~,,,,,,,",,, ~---.-,~-~~
r~~''''~'~~''=
!,"'_--'jfil{''''''''-" ~
3. Tracy Sheffer, Esquire, Defendant's Adams County attorney, shall collaborate Defendant's
testimony. In addition, if relevant, she will testify regarding the current status of the Petitions
for Involuntary Tennination of Parental Rights and Adoption pending in Adams County at
Orphans' Court Docket No. RT-4-02,
n. DEFENSE EXBIBITS:
The only exhibits Defendant intends to submit at the hearing on jurisdiction are the custody
orders previously entered at Adams County custody docket no. 93-S-501.
Respectfully submitted,
BY:
~ ---
JeafuJ6 B. Costopoulos, Esquire
1400 N. Second Street
Harrisburg,PA 17102
Phone: (717) 221-0900
Supreme Ct. ill No. 68735
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
DATED: 1/5/f-R
H.""~~,,m*,. I}[
,
, .
I'
". ~''',
, "~~- -'"
. .
~ r'-'" , . ,"
',>'''; ,~,"','""" . ,~
CHARLES D. HIlL,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: No. 01-7121 CIVIL TERM
Defendant
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: CUSTODY
LISA DIAZ,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire, hereby certifY that I am this day serving a copy of the
foregoing document upon the person, and in the manner, indicated below, which service satisfies
the requirements of the P A Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of the same with the
United States Post Office at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, through first class mail, prepaid, and
addressed as follows:
Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
MARTSON DEARDORFF WilLIAMS & OTTO
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3093
BY: ~
J e B. Costopoulos, Esquire
COSTOPOULOS & WELCH
1400 N. Second Street
Harrisburg,PA 17102
Phone: (717) 221-0900
Supreme Ct. ill No. 68735
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
DATED:
? /)/Jd
,
,....--'i'-""';-.v"'>;~:l!!~m.ffi. .](i--
~~" I
-
, ----
-
-. . -~-,
--------------'--- -----'------
;":--"~ r c
il
FEB I) '3 2002 J!
CHARLES D. HILL,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
LISA DIAZ,
Defendant
: NO. 2001-7121 CIVIL TERM
: IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ,if'h day of f2JItu./fJIJ ,2002, upon
consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as
follows:
1. A Hearing is ~ed in Co/)foom ~. 5 ,of the Cumberland
County Court House, on the day of i/I!t II r , 2002, at /1: t'J (1
o'clock, fL.. M., at which time testimony will be taken on the issue of jurisdiction only.
For purposes of this Hearing, the Mother 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 jurisdiction, 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 a hearing on the jurisdictional issue, Mother agrees to obtain
counseling for the child to determine whether it would be detrimental for the child to
establish contact with Father. The counselor shall be selected by mutual agreement of the
parties' attorneys. Mother shall be responsible for the costs of said counseling. Mother
shall sign a release if necessary so that Father and/or Father's attorney shall have the right
to discuss the matter with the counselor.
3. The parties shall return to another Conciliation Conference on April! 0,
2002 at 10:30 a.m.
ee:~as J. Williams, Esquire, counsel for Father
jJeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire, counsel for Mother
>
to~ 1~
02- J 4-02 RX5
"'!!f:;""")''''''''~it'''~~I~^
-" T~
"
~,-'
~ -,
"'~,..."
......I'<~ '~'~"'I~' ~ ,~,,'!I
C"'c
"' ~.," ~-,~ "" _"c~,,~, n. ~>Cc '-" ,,~"~V ,';t-~" -" {1'-"- r'r'rr~' ""~:'TI'-l<':r'J~;<:'" (' j"~lhJ:'iV":r ---:-. -';,r-'"
I,
~/liVd;'\'7j:"l''''11 '
I II\y~~,,:,",,'11 .A,);\ V.:rr-l
"Lu .1 ;:,);.1 r\'\h'/"1.\.l_~"ci::ftJn,')
u ~'l
:[,1 U:'i)
i'd!
_ "'/, ",III,. c, i.
~ 7
C'''i I....'"
Qj..:J.:; ell
,liLJIll,[ ~~_fi!_~,,,,,.,,.,~J, ,J ~il.U.,~ir~~Wf'il~~~;'Ej~".,;,;q".<q-~""~'r~;"11~~~--ij~~1,-~i~!\~~_~~;--
\l"^~" =
,
FEB (l '1 200219
CHARLES D. IDLL,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
LISA DIAZ,
Defendant
: NO. 2001-7121 CIVIL TERM
: IN CUSTODY
PRIOR JUDGE: None
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
Lee Thomas Wells
December 13, 1990 Mother
2. A Conciliation Conference was held February 6, 2002 with the following
individuals in attendance: The Father, Charles D. Hill, with his counsel, Thomas J.
Williams, Esquire, and the Mother, Lisa Diaz, with her counsel, Jeanne B. Costopoulos,
Esquire.
3. The Honorable Oscar Spicer of the Court of Common Pleas of Adams
County previously entered Orders dated July 16,1993, January 25,1994, November 27,
1996 and May 29,1997. The Orders provided for Father to pay for a Home Study before
any custody was to be granted. Father never paid for a Home Study.
4. Mother filed a Petition for Court to Decline Jurisdiction at the above
docket number on February 4, 2002. Said Petition is pending before this Honorable
Court. The Conciliator recommends the Petition be denied based on the child residing in
Cumberland County for nearly seven (7) years. Most if not all contact and witnesses
impacting on the best interest of the child should be in Cumberland County.
5. A Petition to Terminate Parental Rights was recently filed in Adams
County. Neither Father nor his counsel have received a copy of said Petition to date.
,,,,~,,,",,,~~.-,,,,,,,O_"" <~~.,", ~~, ~_ ~~,
I
- - ~ ,. . ~ I "" - _
-
-
~~r----
.
6. Father's position on custody is as follows: He seeks phased-in contact
with the child. Father claims the last time he had contact with the child was by telephone
in 1997. But when he called again, the telephone number had been changed. Father
asserts that Mother has thwarted his attempts at contact. Father admits to not having sent
any cards, letters, gifts, or support for at least seven years. Father maintains that
jurisdiction should be Cumberland County since the child has resided in Cumberland
County for nearly 7 years. Father is willing to have the child talk to a counselor to
determine whether reestablishing contact with Father would be detrimental to the child.
7. Mother's position on custody is as follows: She believes that it would be
detrimental to the child to establish contact with the Father. She is willing to have the
child speak with a counselor to determine whether it would be detrimental to the child to
have contact with Father. Mother is willing to pay the expense of the counselor. Mother
denies she has thwarted Father's attempt at contact. Mother believes that Cumberland
County should decline jurisdiction because of the prior Orders in Adams County. Mother
admits that the child has lived in Cumberland County for nearly seven years.
8. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached scheduling
a Hearing. The only issue to be determined at the hearing is the jurisdictional question.
The parties agree to the other provisions of the recommended order. It is expected that
the Hearing will require one hour.
d. -7 -O:J-
Date
~~~
aequ me M. V emey, EsqUIre
Custody Conciliator
o~'''';''''"''''''"_''''~~~
.~ "T,!,~. l I
'"
,~
- - ~~,',~"~
.'-F~'
;;'t..,".,~, ^~-~
CHARLES D. HilL,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: No. 01-7121 CIVIL TERM
Defendant
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: CUSTODY
LISA DIAZ,
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUMQFLAW IN SUPPORT OF HER
PETITION FOR COURT TO DECLINE JURISDICTION
AND NOW, the Defendant, Lisa Diaz, by and through her attorney, Jeanne B. Costopoulos,
Esquire, submits the following Memorandum in support of her Petition for Court to Decline
Jurisdiction:
L FACTS:
Lee Thomas Wells (hereinafter referred to as the ''Child'') was born to the parties on
December 13, 1990. In 1993, Plaintiff Charles D. Hill (hereinafter referred to as "Father"), filed a
custody action against Defendant Lisa Diaz (then Lisa Hill, hereinafter referred to as "Mother") at
Adams County Court of Common Pleas docket no. 93-8-501. The initial Adams County custody
order dated July 16, 1993 ordered general physical and legal custody to rest with Mother, because of
the small amowrt of time Father had, up to that point, spent with the child. Father was awarded
alternating Saturdays and Sundays from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on each day. It was further Ordered
that Mother be pennitted to inspect Father's residence to detennine its suitability for the child, who,
at that time, was two years old. However, when Mother attempted to inspect Father's residence, he
infonned her that he did not actually reside at the residence he had given as his domicile and that he
would not seek ovemight visitation if Mother would not pursue an inspection of his residence.
""'_"",:O'''''''''~'1'JIIfflI ,~,l" !lli. ,Ill
"r
~ ~ ?
~~,.
<. "
"~I>>~ ,.,~~~
,
A second conciliation conference which had been scheduled on October 19, 1993, to discuss
expansion of Father's visitation was continued after Father indicated that he did not wish to pursue
overnight visitation at that time.
On January 25, 1994, a custody conference was held at which time the Adams Count court
administrator was directed to schedule a hearing. Furthermore, a home study of Father's residence
was Ordered, the cost of which was to be paid by Father. Father failed to cooperate with the home
study. He further failed to exercise his alternating Saturday and Sunday visitation in that on the few
times he decided to exercise visitation he never once kept the child for the entire allotted time period
of 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. In addition, Father would leave the child with his girlfriend during his
visitation periods. On one occasion, Mother dropped the child off at Father's apartment and shortly
thereafter observed Father's girlfriend with the child at Wal-Mart. She took the child to Father's
apartment where he was watching his girlfriend's children and he told her to go ahead and take the
child home. Thereafter, he voluntarily ceased all contact with both Mother and the child
In the fall of 1996, Mother filed a petition requesting child support. Following the issuance
of a bench warrant at the support docket, Father f1I.ed a request for a custody conference. A
conference was held in chambers before the Honorable Oscar F. Spicer on November 27, 1996.
Although Father failed to appear for the conference, Judge Spicer reluctantly permitted to participate
by telephone. Following the conference, Judge Spicer suspended Father's visitation rights since he
had not exercised them for almost three years. He further ordered completion of the home study
previously ordered on January 25, 1994 and that a hearing be scheduled.
-<-'''''"'~~~-'''ilV~.
!
I"
, ~
~'_~"""l~"
~
Father again failed to cooperate with the home study, alleging that since January 25, 1994 he
never came up with enough money to afford it Despite Father's claim of being without funds to pay
for the home study for over four years, on May 29, 1997 Judge Spicer ordered Father to pay the
home study fee within ten days, the failure of which would result in dismissal of his request for a
hearing. The May 29, 1997 Order further provided that upon payment of the home study fee, the
case would then be assigned to a conference hearing officer.
Father never provided the funds for the home study fee. Instead, he applied his funds
approximately eight years later to the filing of the instant Cwnberland County custody action entitled
"Complaint to Confinn Custody" at the above term and docket nwnber.
It should be noted that, to date, Adams County has not formally relinquished jurisdiction of
custody docket no. 93-S-501.
II. ISSUE:
WHETHER PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO 23
Pa.C.S.A. Section 5364?
Suggested answer in the affirmative.
ill. ARGUMENT
Father's "Complaint to Confinn Custody", despite its title, constitutes a petition to modil)r
the current order of Adams County dated November 27, 1996. Adams County has not relinquished
jurisdiction. In fact, if father were to pay the home study fee today, Adams County would then
assign the case to a custody hearing officer pursuant to Judge Spicer's May 29, 1997 Order.
23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5364(H)(1) states:
,..,,,-,,,~,,,,;:r~1f_ . _~
,,",J~ ,~
I~
~.
-
_:1M ,. ,. ~".,~_ttre
"If another court has made a custody decree, a court before which a petition for modification
is pending shall not modifY the decree of the other court unless it appears to the court before
which the petition is pending that the other court which rendered the decree does not have
jurisdiction under jurisdictional prerequisites substantially in accordance with this subchapter
or has declined to asswne jurisdiction to modifY its decree and the provisions of subsection
(t)(2) will not be violated by an exercise of jurisdiction by the court before which the petition
is pending."
To substitute some of the above language to apply to the instant case, Father's "Complaint to
Confirm Custody" is a "petition for modification", Adams County is "another court [which] has
made a custody decree", and Cwnberland County is "a court before which a petition for modification
is pending". Therefore, 23 Pa.C.SA Section 5364(H)(1) can be re-stated as follows:
Since Adams County has entered an order regarding custody, Cwnberland County shall not
modifY the Adams County order, UNLESS:
(1) Adams County does not have jurisdiction under jurisdictional prerequisites.
OR
(2) Adams County has declined to asswne jurisdiction to modifY its decree.
AND
(3) 23 Pa.C.SA Section 5364(t)(2) will not be violated by an exercise of jurisdiction by
Cwnberland County.
As to (I) and (2) above, Adams County has jurisdiction pursuant to 23 Pa.C.8A Section
5344 and Adams County has not declined jurisdiction to modifY its previous order. Therefore,
Cwnberland County should not modifY the Adams County order.
Even if this court does find that Adams County does have jurisdiction under jurisdictional
prerequisites or that Adams County has declined to asswne jurisdiction to modifY its decree,
Cwnberland County should still not modifY the Adams County order because 23 Pa.C.SA Section
5364(t)(2) would be violated if Cwnberland County exercises jurisdiction.
23 Pa.C.SA Section 5364(t)(2) states:
'~r";,:\"";;"""J",,, ""..> ~,
o ~_
.
-
.
" . . . If the petitioner has violated any provision of a custody decree of another court, the court
shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction unless the contestant can show that conditions in the
custodial household are physically or emotionally bannful to the child The burden of proof
on this issue is on the contestant requesting the court to take jurisdiction."
As applied to the instant case, Section 5364(t)(2) essentially states:
"...If Father has violated any provision of an Adams County custody order, Cumberland
COWlty shall decline to exercise jurisdiction unless Father can show that conditions in
Mother's household are physically or emotionally bannful to the child. The burden of proof
on this issue is on Father, who is requesting Cumberland CoWlty to take jurisdiction."
Father has violated Adams CoWlty Court orders dated January 25, 1994, November 27, 1996,
and May 29, 1997. All three orders require Father to pay a home study fee. He has failed to pay the
home study fee. Under such circumstances, 23 Pa.C.SA Section 5364(t) requires Cumberland
County to decline to exercise jurisdiction unless Father can show that conditions in Mother's
household are physically or emotionally bannful to the child. Father has not alleged any such
conditions in his "Complaint to Confinn Custody".
IV. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to either dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint or transfer it to Adams COWlty docket 93-8-501 at Plaintiff's expense.
BY:
Respectfully submitted,
~ - ,
J~e B. Costopoulos, Esquire
1400 N. Second Street
Harrisburg,PA 17102
Phone: (717) 221-0900
Supreme Ct. ill No. 68735
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
DATED:
5/'I/ai
"l'<'''''''''''$>''---!:li!If'M.~" .~__"_
"~
-.,
'E
~c _
, '
CHARLES D. HILL,
Plaintiff
: IN 1HE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA
v.
: No. 01-7121 CIVIL TERM
USA DIAZ,
Defendant
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: CUSTODY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire, hereby certifY that I am this day serving a copy of the
foregoing document upon the person, and in the manner, indicated below, which service satisfies
the requirements of the P A Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of the same with the
United States Post Office at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, through first class mail, prepaid, and
addressed as follows:
Thomas 1. Williams, Esquire
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3093
BY: ~
J e B. Costopoulos, E~e
COSTOPOULOS & WELCH
1400N. Second Street
Harrisburg, P A 17102
Phone: (717) 221-0900
Supreme Ct ill No. 68735
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
DATED:
5/ r/u~
"",-",~,~'-"W"~,*;'""~",, '" "~4m "L" ,""", ,
'1-
~~~ "~
~,~ .. "" "" ~ , =,
.
.
CHARLES D. ffiLL
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
01-7121 CIVIL ACTION LAW
LISA DIAZ
DEFENDANT
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, Tuesday, January 08, 2002 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint,
it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Jacqueline M. Verney, Esq. , the conciliator,
at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 at 9:30 AM
for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or
if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary
order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may
provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order.
The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existiug Protection from Abuse orders,
Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing.
FOR 1HE COURT,
By: Isl
Jacqueline M. VernfOl. Esq. .~
Custody Conciliator
The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans
with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations
available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements
must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the
scheduled conference or hearing.
YOU SHOULD TAKE 1HIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE TIIE OFFICE SET
FOR1H BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone (717) 249-3166
".'"'-"'''"'''"''~--~'Ill~_,~__ml!Jl~.", _~
- ~ - ~
~~"
,"
r ",~~,.
. * ~ .~~ " ~,
,_. - ,. -~~- ',,,,
, "-',w.<~'"~""'-'''O,<~M."
~.",',_,'.o-,_, .",,,,'<' j'o', , .,,'~, -,,,'~,, .____,_,.
j,
~~.~~~~J
~~p ~~lL,
~r'Z~44vn
ViNIt~lA8NN3d
}JJ'lnrn flVrnH::]t~'VWVI
~ .~. ,--, 1."",,, _,~", , I.....
(; r :c~
I),.J
1',,-
,.., ";:.~ ,,'" ~';n
tl' - l'Ci; ~~d
A!::t./J(:.;
lid
rE
,
Ii
'-'-r~__J,'R~m~~~~!l'I~~0,'!~!ltfllll~!'II~J~f!!;~"~~i'~!fl'jlIlj!~!i"!~"'-""",'Jo1I,+_y\~:,,,,-,W;
e (7 $. /
("'t? J. I
t:?c?,J. , I
'::,;;,,'--;;",-,
-",~-' p
F: \FILES\.DAT AFILE\Gendoc.cur\I0453-cus.comltde
Crealed:'j2J17/0102:1O:18PM
Revised; j2119J0110:50:42AM
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 01- 7/JJ Ct-ot.l ~
CHARLES D. HILL,
v.
LISA DIAZ,
Defendant
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this _ day of , upon consideration of the attached Complaint,
it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before
, the conciliator, at
on the _ day of , 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 entry of a temporary or permanent order.
FOR THE COURT,
By:
Custody Conciliator
The Court of COlllUlon 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
aceolllUlodations 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 TillS 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
i<~"'~,~%'(,~',
_ = -- "," ~r "" r1
, - ""
-- "-
, ~,
;<<"
CHARLES D. HILL,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V AN1A
v.
NO. 01- 7f J.t
Q;0~l ~~
LISA F. DIAZ,
Defendant
IN CUSTODY
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT TO CONFIRM CUSTODY
1. Plaintiff is Charles D. Hill, an adult individual currently residing at 236 Buford
Avenue, Gettysburg, Adams County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant is Lisa F. Diaz an adult individual currently residing at 21 Whitehorse
Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. Plaintiff seeks custody of the child, Jordan Lee Hill, aIkIa Jordan Diaz, aIkIa Lee
Diaz, aIkIa Lee Thomas WeIJs, who was born on December 13, 1990.
4. The child was born in wedlock.
5. Since the child's birth, the child has resided with the folJowing persons at the
folJowing addresses for the folJowing periods oftime:
6. The relationship of the Plaintiff to the child is that of father. He is divorced and
living separately. The Plaintiff currently resides with the folJowing:
Name Relationship
MieheIJe Williams Girlfriend
7. The relationship of the Defendant to the child is that of mother. She is married and
living separately. The Defendant currently resides with the folJowing:
Name Relationship
Jorge Diaz Husband
Jordan Lee HiIJ Son
Unknown(s) Child(ren) of Defendant
8. The parties have participated in previous litigation concerning the custody of the child
in Adams County Court, No. 93-S-501; however, a final determination was never made.
";;"1Ii"~'~""\'l>'''>mfJ~
" "" -~,
~I, . j'
" . " ~-
-^ ~ "
",,"
.. ".
~.~
Jl:*,
9. Defendant has refused to permit contact and has affIrmatively interfered with
Plaintiff s attempts to see his son.
10. The Plaintiffhas no information of a custody proceeding concerning the child pending
in any other court.
11. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting
custody to Plaintiffbeeause: As his natural father, he can best provide a stable and nurturing home
for his son.
12. Plaintiff does not know of any person not a party to these proceedings who claims to
have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests your Honorable Court to set a time and place for a hearing
at which Plaintiff requests the Court to grant him the Custody Order. Pending said hearing, Plaintiff
requests temporary custody.
MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
By Th~~2., :':,:!:~
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: December 19, 2001
-i0'-:"""~_''''''''''
,) <,~-"-~",,,--~",.
'i"""'_' ". ~-.-
~. - ", ,?:'-- -
, ^, ,,~"
,-=
Wi,
-
VERIFICATION
The foregoing Complaint for Custody is based upon information which has been gathered
by my counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the doelUllent is that of counsel and
not my own. I have read the doelUllent and to the extent that it is based upon information which I
have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
To the extent that the content of the doelUllent is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in
making this verification.
This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false
averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties.
Date: 7)0/<:)/
~ po ~)It#
Charles D. Hill
-~',"",H"""
, .~ '- r"'" ~,,' .,-'
,'-
, " ~" " - ,~ -"
~~
~..
~ ,"..
:-~ -'~' ',-: _: .... -:~ '-~ .."'~" ,-
~
f~~
39-
~ ~ ~
--0 (}J
~ r
f
~
REef/VEL
NOV 022001
I\IIDwr
(') 0 ("'ij
C .7:
~.::. (:':I .---<
-0 OJ ;"q _tl
m t;:; (~
:z:
:z: t N , ~-T!
~ v 0 '-'
<-. ~~
4_ ,
r"o
<: )."";m "
~c , :J::: ::i.~ ''"C\
. 0
~8 5 c~ rn
:z: --,
;:'11 "'"
=< ::0
(J1 -<
"._.",.111.[""",-
,~~,..\t~,l~J ___""~:~~~~.,,)(,~,~ "5"1J~~~)!~i;P;~;<3'jWc;""""'Y'2:i""",~jf11,9i\'!P"'fNi-~~lf~~AIf.~R~J~'#il?mjt~liFt~!~~;
{&yt'
F:\FlLES\DAT AFILE\Gendoc_cur\10453-acc.ger/tde
Created: l2/17/0102:1O:18PM
Revised: 12/2110108:29:0SAM
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES D. HILL,
v.
NO. 01-7/Z1
LISA DIAZ,
Defendant
IN CUSTODY
ATTORNEY'S ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE
1, Tracy M. Sheffer, Esquire, attorney for Defendant Lisa Diaz in the above- aptioned
action, hereby accept service ofthe Custody Complaint in the above action on
on her behalf and certify that I am authorized to do so.
BATTERSBY & SHEFFER
~,
ffer, Esquire
';';''"'':'''--W'''jh'~ ,,_
--_~___' " . .,_"V_ ~.
n' f- "",,~?-
" ,- '. -,~
,w__
-~'I~ -
. ,>, ~
.~
~.<'\"\"l"
,,# C 'Ie. i\1i'i
":l.'~"" 1l\l,\L<
"v ,,~ f,i
,:, ","' \.1
\~",\"" ('
,1\1
. ("'1\1
"",l~,
,!~<
"
,00.1"<",
.~,.II!,J.!T,~~.", II'mPll~~
"~,~ ~, 10 ~=,.
Q C::.' (~)
~"- S\o)
'lJ$: -,I
'0-' :;::.s.
OJr.~
~:x! ~
(fC
)=:
:<: .,:
<C' ~.:::-!.:~
."'"
-- ('''
ZC';
5>!;-; ~
';'....
"'-
:::;:! ~
u\
1
65
f[jj
~ _;~~~~~!Ollmllm'!lil'.iti1:~;.g:-""1jj:W~,"'1:j1_l"''''','!0':!))'j'r:'''0f;:'4;,::i*C''''~i\llf!'~t~1'ffi'.b1lf''F-i!i(~~lJli!.~~!!!!i~~ii'b~\"';1
'>
CHARLES D. HILL
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
LISA DlAZ
: NO. 2001-7121 CIVIL TERM
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 10TH day of APRIL, 2002, after having reviewed the briefs
submitted by the parties, Defendant's Petition for Court to Decline Jurisdiction is
DENIED.
Edward E. Guido, 1.
~s Williams, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
.--c'
,
loofiile Costopou10s, Esquire
/For the Defendant
:sld
t-~
O~ -II-O~
~O'. ~Orf\C\..S
R'XS
~\\\O-~, 2s~
'\'~"'. '-~, ~, "-',"""-'"",,,>.'"
, ,-
"" ~-
~
\41"
.
MAY 1 6 2002 J>
CHARLES D. HILL,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
V.
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.
LISA DIAZ,
Defendant
: NO. 2001-7121 CIVIL TERM
: IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~/ S~ay of /n/f Y ,2002, upon
consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as
follows:
1. A Hearing is scht<du}ed in Court ROOyO. 5 ,of the Cumberland'
County Cqwt House, on theJ~-{f)day of vu./ ,2002, at I: 3t:J
o'clock, L. M., at which time testimony will be taKen on the issue of whether Father
should have contact with the child. 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 contact, 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, Mother shall have
sole legal and sole physical custody of the child.
L:.d~tedE. t::'1N'~ 1.
e~omas J. Williams, Esquire, counsel for Father j1' /
~aune B. Costopoulos, Esquire, counsel for Mother / f.- ~ '
51-')-02
,."",";w~~",",~
" r
, ..,
,,,T"
"~
(
.
\fiN\fiY1ASNN3d
Alf'nn Ct.)\tl'l::;8Wn8
91 :01 W" ?Z ,V-ill 20
A8V'j{)(! :.
'I~--
,BlljQ"IR_=, ~ "~." ~jl\i!l,""" ,~~,__.,~';:"r r~~It~~~~,~IN-~_,;tF'''1'''f''''F'''''''' ""-'!~-"" ~<~.",;;')wr;;"!'\'.11"'\'!ilt1l;"''''3''~';J'''f;'fj",.jfll'tn?W'1'~\~fflm;'l~!_!~~j~jml'"
CHARLES D. HILL,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
LISA DIAZ,
Defendant
: NO. 2001-7121 CIVIL TERM
: IN CUSTODY
PRIOR JUDGE: Edward E. Guido, J.
CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned CustQdy Conciliator submits the following
report:
I. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this
litigation is as follows:
NAME
DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF
Lee Thomas Wells
December 13, 1990 Mother
2. A Conciliation Conference was held May 15, 2002 with the following
individuals in attendance: The Father, Charles D. Hill, with his counsel, Thomas J.
Williams, Esquire, and the Mother, Lisa Diaz, with her counsel, Jeanne B. Costopoulos,
Esquire.
3. Prior Orders of Court were entered by this Honorable Court dated
February 14, 2002 and April 1 0, 2002. The first Order provided for the child to see a
counselor to determine whether it would be detrimental for the child to have contact with
Father. The second Order denied Mother's Preliminary Objections with regard to
jurisdiction.
4. Father's position on custody is as follows: He seeks phased-in contact
with the child. Father claims the last time he had contact with the child was by telephone
in 1997. But when he called again, the telephone number had been changed. Father
asserts that Mother has thwarted his attempts at contact. Father admits to not having sent
any cards, letters, gifts, or support for at least seven years. Father seeks an opinion from
Georgi Anderson on how reunification should proceed that would be the least detrimental
to the child. Father has sent letters to the child recently.
, '''''f'''~'~~"!IW!ffln~~''"-t''~~,)l~_"~=~~
F
". '-~
=,
t,\:]lj'
I
5. Mother's position on custody is as follows: She believes that it would be
detrimental to the child to establish contact with the Father. Georgi Anderson has
evaluated the child and opines that it would be detrimental to force the child to have
contact with his Father. Mother is unwilling to have Georgi Anderson provide an opinion
regarding reunification because she believes that any agreement on her part would be
perceived by the child as disloyalty to the child. Mother indicates that the child has
reacted negatively to the receipt ofletters from Father.
6. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached scheduling
a Hearing. It is expected that the Hearing will require one half day.
[;- It. -01---
Date
: lid v_~~!~
Custody Conciliator
----"iR,"-i';-'flT-(l.~, q"""l'-""',~~ _~ _
~_",!llf!il_l
. 1
", ,"-"
. ~-"~
, "
~._~, .
"
1II!!Iffi'1'U
.
?'::'''~ --, .~~~ ,. --~~~ - -~ ,
F:\Fll.ESIDA T AFll.E\Gendoc.cur\l 0453-hearing.mem2flde
Created: 12f17/0102:10:18PM
Revised: 07fli/0212:18:02PM
10453.1
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES D. HILL,
v.
NO. 01- 7121
LISA DIAZ,
Defendant
IN CUSTODY
FATHER'S HEARING MEMORANDUM
1. WITNESSES:
1. Charles Hill (Father).
The parties met in the fall of 1988. They dated for a while, then moved in together on
Washington Street in Gettysburg. They were married in the spring of 1989. In March of 1990, Lisa
became pregnant. In May of 1990, Lisa moved out to live with her mother. The child, Lee, was born
December 13, 1990; however, Father was unaware ofthe birth and did not see his son until February,
1991. Father and Mother got back together briefly in the spring of199l, but soon separated (for the
[mal time) and Father wcntto live with his dad in York. The divorce was finalized October 13, 1992
in Adams County.
Initially, Mother was very reluctant to allow Father to have custody of the baby, apparently
feeling that Father was unable to properly care for the young boy, and so Father's custody was very
sporadic. In 1993, Father filed in Adams County to enforce custody rights. By Order dated July 16,
1993, he was given custody from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. every other Saturday and Sunday, and
alternate major holidays. That lasted a couple of years, until about 1995, when Mother complained
to the Court that where Father was living was not appropriate for the child. Father was ordered to
arrange and pay for a home study and, until the completion of that, he would not have custody rights.
Father never did the home study and has not seen his son since 1995. Mother, who was either
married or about to be married, told Father that she would not enforce child support ifhe did not
bother her about seeing his son.
Father is 41 years old. He had been working at Gettysburg Transformer, but was laid offlast
swnmer, and received unemployment compensation benefits. He has since gained employment at
GYM, but is again presently on lay-off. He continues to reside in Gettysburg with his girlfriend,
Michelle Williams, a pharmacist at the Giant Food Store in Gettysburg.
_'""",w"",..".~,~ ,
i' [1 - -r
"'--
.""
"'~~.,...........~ 1- ...""'~
,,~ "< ~~, .
2. Michelle Williams.
Witness has known Father for seven years and will testify as to his long standing desire to
have a relationship with his son, particularly, to be sure his son understands and appreciates the
African-American side of his ancestry. Witness will also describe Father as having a reticent
personality such that he instinctively avoids confrontation and is easily discouraged by obstacles.
Witness is impressed by his determination to establish a relationship with his son.
Father has not had good paying jobs and it was a real sacrifice to save money and put it aside
for this litigation. It was difficult both emotionally and financially, and his determination to follow
through is reflective of how important it is for him.
Witness will testify that she has been supportive, but that the effort, desire and wherewithal
to start this and see this through has come from Father.
II. EXHJBITS:
Father may refer to newspaper clippings of his son's activities, as well as some letters that
he wrote to his son.
ill. POSITION:
Through his attorney, Father contacted Mother last fall about establishing a relationship with
his son, offering to start over at the very beginning (such as letter writing and phone calls) and see
where it went from there. Father's offer was met with a flat "no" and a form to sign to voluntarily
relinquish his parental rights. Through his attorney, Father made it clear that he had no intention of
relinquishing his parental rights and was going to pursue a relationship with his son, hopefully with
the cooperation of Mother, but pursue it nonetheless, regardless of the obstacles placed in his path.
In the meantime, certain events have been disclosed which now makes Father's original plan
impossible.
Although no doubt acting with the best of motives, Mother has created a sitnation which
makes reconciliation between Father and son much more difficult. It seems that Mother has told the
child thatthe man she married was his father, and it has only beenreeently that the child realized that
was false. Mother has also told the child that Father has come into their lives to take the child away
and to wreck the family. This has created a great deal of emotional difficulty for the child, who
naturally wants to protect his family and has come to view Father as an evil man, notwithstanding
that the boy has no real recollection of Father at all. Mother then has greatly compounded the
problem by then telling the child it is his decision whether he wants to see Father. Under these
,,,\;",,,,,,,,'~~': -"
-- !'~
..
.- ~~.~- ."~"""'''''''''"-~~'~T~'' ~i""-
c,,'C-~~-~" ^ ," .
'-''''*''''''''l'J
circumstances, this 11 year old boy is terrified of seeing Father. Thus, Father's original plan to
reconcile with his son in a cooperative, compassionate and sensitive manner is out the window, and
we are left with pursuing this court action.
Father strenuously objects to placing this II year old boy in a position of having to decide
about this new man in his life. That only compounds an already difficult situation.
As a result, Father is requesting that the Court order Mother to:
1. prepare the child emotionally for contact with Father, including an
appropriate history and assurance that Father is a decent man who loves his
son and has no intention of disrupting the child's family.
2. have the child answer Father's letters, with the child giving some
background, including some personal information about himself.
3. schedule a couple telephone calls after an exchange ofletters.
4. schedule a brief face-to-face meeting with the child after the telephone calls,
possibly for lunch or an ice cream cone, at which Mother or her designee may
come along, if she so desires.
5. schedule a couple short visits for Father and child to be alone together,
perhaps a Saturday movie matinee, watch a parade, visit Hershey Park, or the
like.
6. schedule a family affair where the child can meet some of his relatives on
Father's side.
7. consider overnight visits, depending on how things are going.
8. if desired by either of the parties, appropriate counseling for the child and/or
the family.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
By5 L~ Jl...-. .
Thomas J. Willi sqUlre
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3093
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiff Charles D. Hill
Date: July 11, 2002
^,=
-- -,
'-~--r'
"1-'
_ ~ k
---~
lli::~""-'~" ,,- ~-"-'" -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Tricia D. Eekenroad, an authorized agent for Malison Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby
certify that a copy of the foregoing Father's Hearing Memorandum was served this date by
depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire
1400 North Second Street
Harrisburg, P A 17102
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
ny4~M / fJ, ~ald
C TnCi~~. Eekenroad
Ten East High Street
Car1is1e,PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: July 11, 2002
o..,q~,";,~"'f_~ _ '"_'" ,_~,
"'1"'" 0_.,
,,-,
"'~~._F'"__~,"~_ I"' ",~m
:-"~'_.-
,.'~, ~--
""
JUL 1 2 ZOOt '{Y
F:\FILES\DAT AFTI-E\Gendoc,cur\10453-hearing.mem2ftde
Created: 12117101 02:10:18 PM
Revised: 07/11102t2:18:02PM
10453.1
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES D. HILL,
v.
NO. 01- 7121
LISA DIAZ,
Defendant
IN CUSTODY
FATHER'S HEARING MEMORANDUM
1. WITNESSES:
1. Charles Hill (Father).
The parties met in the fall of 1988. They dated for a while, then moved in together on
Washington Street in Gettysburg. They were married in the spring of 1989. In March of 1990, Lisa
became pregnant. In May of1990, Lisa moved outto live with her mother. The child, Lee, was born
December 13, 1990; however, Father was unaware of the birth and did not see his son until February,
1991. Father and Mother got back together briefly in the spring of1991, but soon separated (for the
final time) and Father wentto live with his dad in York. The divorce was finalized October 13, 1992
in Adams County.
Initially, Mother was very reluctant to allow Father to have custody of the baby, apparently
feeling that Father was unable to properly care for the young boy, and so Father's custody was very
sporadic. In 1993, Father filed in Adams County to enforce custody rights. By Order dated July 16,
1993, he was given custody from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. every other Saturday and Sunday, and
alternate major holidays. That lasted a couple of years, until about 1995, when Mother complained
to the Court that where Father was living was not appropriate for the child. Father was ordered to
arrange and pay for a home study and, until the completion of that, he would not have custody rights.
Father never did the home study and has not seen his son since 1995. Mother, who was either
~J married or about to be married, told Father that she would not enforce child support ifhe did not
(m., bother her about seeing his son.
@ Father is 41 years old. He had been working at Gettysburg Transformer, but was laid offlast
ri , summer, and received unemployment compensation benefits. He has since gained employment at
\g GVM, but is again presently on lay-off. He continues to reside in Gettysburg with his girlfriend,
Michelle Williams, a phannaeist at the Giant Food Store in Gettysburg.
'~'I""_"Wlll'l'~-f>:r, If~, '-'" ""_ ~_",,_
'I
~,
, ~
~ '- ~~
-
~ ~_ ~~c~~ ~.I,l~''"''''"_
-"""F"""""
iif--
<Iii>
.
2. Michelle Williams.
Witness has known Father for seven years and will testify as to his long standing desire to
have a relationship with his son, particularly, to be sure his son understands and appreciates the
African-American side of his ancestry. Witness will also describe Father as having a reticent
personality such that he instinctively avoids confrontation and is easily discouraged by obstacles.
Witness is impressed by his determination to establish a relationship with his son.
Father has not had good payingjobs and it was a real sacrifice to save money and put it aside
for this litigation. It was difficult both emotionally and fmancially, and his determination to follow
through is reflective of how important it is for him.
Witness will testify that she has been supportive, but that the effort, desire and wherewithal
to start this and see this through has come from Father.
II. EXHIBITS:
Father may refer to newspaper clippings of his son's activities, as well as some letters that
he wrote to his son.
ill. POSITION:
Through his attorney, Father contacted Mother last fall about establishing a relationship with
his son, offering to start over at the very beginning (such as letter writing and phone calls) and see
where it went from there. Father's offer was met with a flat "no" and a form to sign to voluntarily
relinquish his parental rights. Through his attorney, Father made it clear that he had no intention of
relinquishing his parental rights and was going to pursue a relationship with his son, hopefully with
the cooperation of Mother, but pursue it nonetheless, regardless of the obstacles placed in his path.
In the meantime, certain events have been disclosed which now makes Father's original plan
impossible.
Although no doubt acting with the best of motives, Mother has created a situation which
makes reconciliation between Father and son much more difficult. It seems that Mother has told the
child that the man she married was his father, and it has only been recently thatthe child realized that
was false. Mother has also told the child that Father has come into their lives to take the child away
and to wreck the family. This has created a great deal of emotional difficulty for the child, who
naturally wants to protect his family and has come to view Father as an evil man, notwithstanding
that the boy has no real recollection of Father at all. Mother then has greatly compounded the
problem by then telling the child it is his decision whether he wants to see Father. Under these
;";-''''P,,,r.;'';~$<<<i'i'l~_, _"~~_ _,
~.
. "
~" ,
~ '" ~ ~ ~ ="
~~1'
~
~'" ~'~ ~-".~
""
circumstances, this I 1 year old boy is terrified of seeing Father. Thus, Father's original plan to
reconcile with his son in a cooperative, compassionate and sensitive manner is out the window, and
we are left with pursuing this court action.
Father strenuously objects to placing this 11 year old boy in a position of having to decide
about this new man in his life. That only compounds an already difficult situation.
As a result, Father is requesting that the Court order Mother to:
1. prepare the child emotionally for contact with Father, including an
appropriate history and assurance that Father is a decent man who loves his
son and has no intention of disrupting the child's family.
2. have the child answer Father's letters, with the child glVlng some
background, including some personal information about himself.
3. schedule a couple telephone calls after an exchange ofletters.
4. schedule a brieffaee-to- face meeting with the child after the telephone calls,
possibly for lunch or an ice cream cone, at which Mother or her designee may
come along, if she so desires.
5. schedule a couple short visits for Father and child to be alone together,
perhaps a Saturday movie matinee, watch a parade, visit Hershey Park, or the
like.
6. schedule a family affair where the child can meet some of his relatives on
Father's side.
7. consider overnight visits, depending on how things are going.
8. if desired by either of the parties, appropriate counseling for the child and/or
the family.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
By 1"~~.
Thomas J. Wi i s, Esqll1re .e.....\.-
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3093
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiff Charles D. Hill
Date: July 11, 2002
"<:;;"3i'@'-7r,~w
.
-,"
r, ~
~" -
1" ~"'~
j""')!"--"~
, ,
""
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Tricia D. Eckemoad, an authorized agent for Malison Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby
certify that a copy of the foregoing Father's Hearing Memorandum was served this date by
depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire
1400 North Second Street
Harrisburg, P A 171 02
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
~~M/ (0, ~md
( Tilci~~. Eckemoad
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: July 11, 2002
.>~"*'j~;,,,,,,,~ ..........
C'
1 '
,,' ~
~ , ~
-,~
1'--
~:~M
, -~
, ",
CHARLES D. HILL
V.
LISA DIAZ
/
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 2001-7121 CIVIL TERM
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 15TH day of JULY, 2002, it appearing to the Court that we have
no available time to reschedule the custody hearing before September, the request for a
continuance is DENIED.
Thomas Williams, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Jeanne Costopou1os, Esquire
For the Defendant
:sld
,~'!",-<~", ", "-: '^-",~'_'h,'V":,"'O', ~ ',., -,~,,,-, - ^ ".';1" '--" "" - '-n--,T'?":"II"'l_.;,>
Edward E. Guido, J.
_ ~~ 1!lfc!O;J..
,&. -f.
.
,"
r~ ,
, I" ;t>.-_~~=".
~~,; '''''-'~ ,
__, __ ~ _, _~, M.. "~"",._".,",<,,,. "Z,.",~~~
- - -- "[
'm'i!tT~~";;
\.J1~,r,,'ji\"'<;N'l'"ld
v,.1, .1^.....1 1\.::J
AmnC(J GV'l::!jtW'ino
6 I :0 \~~ 9 I -lnr 20
'Lf~l:n;";'''I' ,'-",:-'
I\CJ 11 ' 1..-" .~' ,~" l\.."- " f
, - 3:Jl:j:io~O~11:i
'0
~
1(8
..s3
)J J I ~ lm~f "" .J. '_"^, ILl )~.J2~~";m~'F"""~~'>_~'fi"1'j"'~~")W}\'~:'i'IW~~~~~~~,~~~~~_
,~,,_r,,<", 1'"_',_ ."'t'O'-OC_""Z'" '_~"';O ",__",~'" _, ",<" _ -,~,"!_ '_',"",_ ."ro_, r'_ -:-'~., "P, ^, -:"C'_ C"__ 7"':"~ i--;:'
plaintiff
: THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES D. HILL,
v.
: No. 01-7121 Civil Term
Defendant
: CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
: CUSTODY
USA DIAZ,
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW this
day of
, 2002, upon consideration of Defendant's
Motion for Continuance, it is hereby ORDERED that hearing on the custody of Lee Thomas Wells is
continued to the
day of
. 2002 at
o'clock .m. in
Court Room _ of the Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, 17013.
BY THE COURT:
Edward E. Guido, J.
Distribution:
Jeanne B. CostopouIos, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
'''\'_.'''':'''''1'''''~,> ~_...,.","""", ...nlLt:,~ ,~<.
~ I' ~
"
m<<_ IllIl:
."~'I~' _,.o_<lffi
~~~- ,=~
Plaintiff
: THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES D. HllL,
v.
: No. 01-7121 Civil Term
Defendant
: CIVIL ACTION -AT LAW
: CUSTODY
LISA DIAZ,
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
AND NOW comes the Defendant, Lisa Diaz, by and through her attorney, Jeanne B.
Costopoulos, Esquire, and files the following Motion for Continuance, respectfully representing
as follows:
1. A custody conference in this matter was held on May 15, 2002 before Jacqueline
M. Verney, Esquire, Custody Conciliator.
2. The parties were unable to reach an agreement regarding custody at that time and
a custody hearing was scheduled for July 24, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m.
3. Undersigned counsel is scheduled to attend a continuing legal education seminar
on that date and respectfully requests a continuance of this hearing.
4. Thomas J. Williams, counsel for Plaintiff, has no objection to a continuance of this
matter if it can be rescheduled within a week or two of the original hearing date; otherwise, he
opposes a continuance.
";"''''''';--'''!~1'l\~,
^' _. ,oW ,..~_~ril,~ J. ,
-
~~,- ~ ~ ~"-
;;'{. ,... ',~" ,~~
.
<
WHEREFORE, Defendant, through undersigned counsel, prays this Honorable Court will
grant a continuance of this matter.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Dated:
7/7/01
f
Ie e B. Costopoulos, Esquire
COSTOPOULOS & WELCH
1400 North Second Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102
PA Supreme Court ill No. 68735
Telephone: (717) 221-0900
Fax.: (717) 221-0904
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
",.&""-':~~,~,~,
T
~ ~", ' .,
,
'c
~fLJ^" "^ ,-- 0'- ,--' '-'~~ ,.
Plaintiff
: THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENN'SYL VANIA
CHARLES D. HILL,
v.
: No. 01-7121 Civil Tenn
Defendant
: CIVIL ACTION . AT LAW
: CUSTODY
USA DIAZ,
ATTORNEY VERIFICATION
Undersigned counse~ Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire, hereby verifies and states that:
I. She is the attorney of record for Lisa Diaz.
2. She is authorized to make this verification on her behalf
3. The facts set forth in the foregoing motion are known to her and not necessarily to
her client.
4. The facts set forth in the foregoing motion are true and correct to the best of her
knowledge, information and belief
5. She is aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date:
1(,(oJ--
BY:
anne B. CostopouIos, Esquire
1400 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Telephone (717) 221-0900
PA Supreme Court J.D. No. 68735
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
"'-'''V','Jt"m~~~ ,
, -+,~
, .
~liKlt.."-,,,",~ ~,~---&
.
Plaintiff
: TIIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES D. HIlL,
v.
: No. 01-7121 Civil Term
Defendant
: CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
: CUSTODY
LISADIAZ,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1, Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire, hereby certifY that I am this day serving a copy of the
foregoing document upon the person, and in the manner, indicated below, which service satisfies the
requirements of the P A Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of the same with the United
States Post Office at Hanisburg, Pennsylvania, through first class mail, prepaid, and addressed as
fullows:
Thomas J. Williams
MARTSON DEARDORFF WilLIAMS & OTTO
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Dated:
f/111.f-..
~ ----
J e B. Costopoulos, Esquire-
1400 North Second Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102
P A Supreme Court ill No. 68735
Telephone: (717) 221-0900
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
hc---'~"''''';;''''~Wi'WIijI_~,~""!,,,"
- - "~
.
, "
~ > ~~ 'I -~
~~--,~~,
~ ",;""<_",.'I~1l'iilFiil~it ~ I!f '.
-- ~ " -- -- ?~~;A '~-'''-'---~~'~-"~--', '<^'-~'~I~"j.'U'- '.--' ,-- -- ""Y--,"",,",,--~-" .. k'~~~_. ~--~- ~-"~~-'~l-mJ:fllllifln ~'!r",---,:-w'Tt'
C') C"
('" !'--
<--
~~g f~~':
-.:>-- ,..-
~('
-<
~
~..;';:C'
5~;
-.:.
\.:;:J
r<'
~..~~~~~~-l~"!:!::,~""~.,J'~,~~~~jjli!lijfJw:_,'f?t~"1f,,,+ff:;''-';
--___;''5,,'0,,"
-";;;:"~-i"Jo;,st~F:f.f"l,-q~~~\~'1iK;"'~'ih,il'lf~,,'__--'';,1r>j"P'jl!'lJH!iilJ$iit1;;!~~1 --
;~;~,.."" ,,----," ..-,,~- - -
F:\FlLES\DA T AFILE\Gendoc.cur\l 0453-mol.lIjlb
Created: 07/19J0212:35:17PM
Revise~: 07J23/0211:12:25AM
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES D. HILL,
v.
NO. 01-7121
LISA DIAZ,
Defendant
IN CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW, this~ day ofJu1y 2002, in accordance with the foregoing Joint Motion For
General Continuance and Stipulation of Counsel, the hearing scheduled for Wednesday, July 24,
2002, is hereby continued generally for the reasons set forth in the Joint Motion, subject to being
rescheduled on a future date, if necessary, upon the request of either party.
Edward E. Guido, Judge
t i;~~oJ- RXS
to"
Qct.O. COS\-opoJOg
iG \\ ~(kvy\ s .
'?!l'r'-l".oJF _
~.. -,.., --',- ~,(.,-,- --
r.. ~
I
, ~
\;Iir~'v'filASNi\13d
!J..~, 111J:l (1i'."'i"1,,;:Jf.'FIJn'"'
I "'__0 '.. , -,.J,,_I V
"'I .Q Uti "I? '-11'11'" :i0
~l 'v ~', ~ . c.. l.
l.bVJC:'\;'~):'"
:OLJ,:!D-(j:rjj~
"",~Jl
"",_'f'"' __ c' ,_,.~_~~,)_JII~,!,l
-~
:!o
,~,~Ii!ilI~1?iTI r<<
.0' ~
,-- ""~-I'",',,"'""'-''''
\. .1;
I'
-.
'_H' 'liilflll'hl1lili''''
,,',' ,
e_;
,- (J
!~: :
~
"
"
:~
I;:,
W-~~""HiI,ii?~t~-;'''';i'l'~1:"~,1(;f!;;Wtj~,''~~'~;;e''~!,"7;i'Fj1!(f4j~WjlJ;-:;"I~~i8r;f,~j,~i"fl1l0i"1il!ffilI!iJiIll~W!li~}-';
87/1gi2802 15:52
71 72431507
~DI,!,IO
PAGE 03/03
F,\i"lLt-S\DAiAt"llS..omQ~,GU1.104'~.mtlll{;1b
c~~; i2,'J7,'Dlo1:IO'18PM
kev,~ed, iJ7fl~IO;)OI:IO:COl'M
lG4511
v,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
cUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 01- 7121
Cl'IARLES D, HILL,
Plaintiff
LISA DIAZ,
Defendant
IN CGSTODY
JOINT MOTION FOR GENERAL CONTINUANCE
AND STIPULATION OF COUNSEL
AND NOW, comes both parties by and through their respective attorneys, as follows;
1. Bothparties are now desirous of a reconciliation between Charles D. Hill andhis son,
Jordan Lee Hill" a.k.s. Lee Thomas Wells, born 12!13!9<J, Il.lld have jointly engaged the services of
Georgi Anderson, BCD, LCSW, as a facilitator to this reconciliation,
2. Both parties and theu son mettodaywith Geol'gi Anderson, which was the first contact
between father and sOn in about seven years.
3. Both parties desire to continue the process of reconciliation, utilizing the services of
Georgi Anderson; cousequently, a decision on what ultimate custody arrangemenls are in the best
,interests of the child, cannot be properly made at this time.
4. The parties jointly request the Court to continue generally the hearing presently
scheduloo for Wednesday, July 24,2002, to allow the nascent process ofreconcil1ation between father
and son to conti.l1l\e, such hearing could be rescheduled at the request of either party at a fumre date,
if necessary.
WHEREFORE, the parties jointly request the Court to enTer an Order in the form attached,
Respectfully submitted,
MARTSOl::DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
~ .~
By I ' ____
Thomas J. Willi.am Esquire
Ten Ea.t High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3093
(717) 243-3341
Attorney for Charles D. Hill, Father
By
Je e B. Costopoulos, Esquire
14 0 Korth Second Street
Harrisburg, P A 17102
(7 I 7) 221-09QO
Attorney for Lisa Dia""Mother
Date: July 19,2002
"w'w;>:~^
, --~ ""'
,~ '-," , l
_~ ~_~., ". ,_r ,
~
'$;" "~' ". ", ~.
. - ~ ,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Trieia D. Eekemoad, an authorized agent for Malison Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby
certify that a copy of the foregoing Joint Motion for General Continuance and Stipulation of Counsel
was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage
prepaid, addressed as follows:
Jeanne B. Costopou10s, Esquire
COSTOPOULOS & WELCH
1400 North Second Street
Harrisburg, P A 17102
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
CIa D. Eckemoad
en East High Street
Carlisle,PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: July 23, 2002
'4"'H"'-;,H_~. .~""""'"
'-"f"'
'" "-.-
.
F-~ ,~~..~
1
"'"
'"
~"". '~- ,-"-_t> ',' ,,-.~"-> .~ ~~ ,.
.,-...-.. ill1ilili1T'n!Irl"'rrf"
.
0 '-~...-' 0
C f"-0 -"
~:: <-
vCt: ~ ~J
L1}Cn , .."-
""---',' ~ p,
zr- i:j
-;J')): G~,
-</. ,~,
,.- C
'.- -,:;- 'T,
~-.- - "
):.-. C ~~=~~
Z c N
::; .
C r~.)
~
Z 2;';
-;J .h
-, -<
(.."5
-fiJ
" -~ .
,,_ ""'" -;e~ [_~~,~,~.j r. ',-,F,'-
~~l ki ~,~~;;'@!F-~ .:~...~~~"@j\jllWd~1.~$-W;'i!"$"~0l'''3'Y-l''';:;I:}:;"t#ln:--f"~:!<~"~''<;"iP'Y;~~~ii',~:@1W}N,~~7'~i!rf+'J'H~lFtN~~~~~;;