Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-03162 (2) I `I {` DANNY G. HECKENDORN DEBRA S. HECKENDORN Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 99- 31c..L CIVIL TERM : IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, /v 1999, upon consideration of the attached petition, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before , the conciliator, a&k4 k, ti1.•?loi Co (Rr{GW S? on the day of _ ,1999, atm., 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: - CustodyConciliator X1 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 TELEPHONE: (717) 249-3166 cc: Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire X11: ?...1?- J???i1.I\1. 11\Z L1r;., iA /o /y 99 lf?y i?a? 7L • DANNY G. HECKENDORN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEBRA S. HECKENDORN : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. : No. 99-3/4 -2- CIVIL TERM JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant : IN CUSTODY COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY 1. The plaintiffs are Danny G. Heckendorn and Debra S. Heckendorn, residing at 25 Fairfield Street, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 2. The defendant is Joseph R. Matcheson, residing at Lackawanna County Prison, 1372 M.Washington Ave., Scranton, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiffs seek custody of the following child: Name Present Residence Age- Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr. 25 Fairfield St. Newville, PA 11/2 Yrs. The child was born out of wedlock. The child is presently in the custody of maternal uncle and aunt who reside at 25 Fairfield Street, Newville, PA. During the past 11/2 years, the child has resided with the following persons and at the following addresses: Person Address Dates Jennifer R. Benner (Mother) Scranton, PA 12-2-97 - 1130.98 Sharon Faison (Friend of Mother) Lake Wales, Florida 11-30.98 - 2-8.99 Danny & Debra Heckendorn 25 Fairfield St. Newville, PA Feb. 1999-Present The mother of the child is Jennifer R. Benner, currently residing at 601 Bellview Dr., Lake Wales, Florida. Mother's parental rights were voluntarily terminated by Affidavit and Acknowledgement of Surrender, Consent and Waiver of Notice from Polk County, Florida, November 30, 1998. A copy of same is attached and marked as Exhibit "A". She is married. The father of the child is Joseph R. Matcheson, currently residing at Lackawanna County Prison, Scranton, PA. He is unmarried. FCUk?? UU?,?.A 01, 'e- joacl?/ DANNY G. HECKENDORN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEBRA S. HECKENDORN : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. : No. 99-3/4 -L CIVIL TERM JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant IN CUSTODY COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY 1. The plaintiffs are Danny G. Heckendorn and Debra S. Heckendorn, residing at 25 Fairfield Street, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania . 2. The defendant is Joseph R. Matcheson, residing at Lackawanna County Prison, 1372 M.Washington Ave., Scranton, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiffs seek custody of the following child: Name Present Residence A99 Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr. 25 Fairfield St. Newville, PA 11/2 Yrs. The child was born out of wedlock. The child is presently in the custody of maternal uncle and aunt who reside at 25 Fairfield Street, Newville, PA. During the past 11/2 years, the child has resided with the following persons and at the following addresses: Person Address Dates Jennifer R. Benner (Mother) Scranton, PA 12-2.97 - 11-30-98 Sharon Faison (Friend of Mother) Lake Wales, Florida 11.30.98 - 2-8.99 Danny & Debra Heckendorn 25 Fairfield St. Newville, PA Feb. 1999-Present The mother of the child is Jennifer R. Benner, currently residing at 601 Beliview Dr., Lake Wales, Florida. Mother's parental rights were voluntarily terminated by Affidavit and Acknowledgement of Surrender, Consent and Waiver of Notice from Polk County, Florida, November 30, 1998. A copy of same is attached and marked as Exhibit 'IN. She is married. The father of the child is Joseph R. Matcheson, currently residing at Lackawanna County Prison, Scranton, PA. He is unmarried. 4. The relationship of plaintiffs to the child is that of maternal uncle and aunt. The plaintiffs' household includes the following persons: Name Relationship Danny G. Heckendorn Maternal Uncle Debra S. Heckendorn Maternal Aunt Amy N. Thornton Debra's daughter Danny G. Heckendorn, Jr. Adopted by Heckendorns, brother of Joseph Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr. Brother of Danny Jr. and subject of Complaint 5. The relationship of defendant to the child is that of father. The defendant currently resides in Lackawanna County Prison. 6. Plaintiffs have not participated as a party or witness, or in another capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody of the child in this or another court. Plaintiffs have no information of a custody proceeding concerning the child pending in a court of this Commonwealth. Plaintiffs do not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child. 7. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting the relief requested because: a) Plaintiffs can provide the child with a home with adequate moral, emotional and physical surroundings as required to meet the child's needs; b) Plaintiffs are willing to accept custody of the child; c) Plaintiffs continue to exercise parental duties and enjoy the love and affection of the child. S. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the child have been named as parties to this action. All other persons, named below, who are known to have or claim a right to custody or visitation of the child will be given notice of the pendency of this action and the right to intervene: N . me Address Basis of Claim NONE Wherefore, plaintiffs request the court to grant custody of the child. Date Lindsay Dare Baird, Esquire 37 South Hanover Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff I verify that to best of my knowledge and belief, the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of IS Pa.C.S.§4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Danny Heckendorn, Plaintiff '/. s . ?ela?e? Eebra S. Heckendorn, Plaintiff IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA FAMILY DIVISION IN THE INTEREST OF: CASE NO.: MATCHESON, Joseph Richard Jr. W/M, DOB: 12-02-97 A MINOR CHILD AFFIDAVIT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SURRENDER, CONSENT AND WAIVER OF NOTICE I, JENNIFER REBECCA BENNER, being first duly sworn, testify and say: 1) I am the biological mother of Joseph Richard Matcheson Jr., a white male child, born on the 2nd day of December, 1997, at County of Lackawanna, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2) I believe it is in the best interest of this child to release the child to Dan and Deb Heckenorn to be adopted. 3) By this surrender, I give up my right to receive notice of and all future hearings or proceedings regarding this child, including legal adoption hearings. 4) By this surrender, I give up my right to receive notice of any and all future hearings or proceedings regarding this child, including legal adoption hearings. 5) I HEREBY CONSENT PERMANENTLY, COMPLETELY AND FINALLY, TO: a) The termination of my parental rights to this child with custody to Dan and Deb Heckenorn for adoption. b) The permanent deprivation of my present parental right to this child. Exhibit "A" In the Interest of Joseph R. MATCHF.SON , Jr. Family Div. Case No. Surrender Affidavit (Mother) Page Two 6) I hereby give up all right to further information concerning the whereabouts of this child, or the identity or location of any ado ptive parent of this child, and I give up my right to have any Court compel Dan and Deb Heckenorn to give me any such information. 7) I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE that I have read this form concerning this child, and I clearly understand its meaning and it is correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I have freely and voluntarily signed this Affidavit and Acknowledgment of Surrender, Consent and Waiver of Notice in order to release this child for adoption. SIGNED AND SEALED at this 30" day of November, A.D., ism our presence. ?.- (Wi n ess) ??l•C ??C ?` (ii jee (W ness) Bartow, Polk County, State of Florida, 1998. Signed, Sealed and Delivered F ENNI ER REBECCA BENNER Mother/Affiant STATE OF FLORIDA } COUNTY OF POLK } 1, the undersigned authority authorized to take administer oaths and take acknowledgments in the State and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that on this date JENNIFER REBECCA BENNER did execute before me the foregoing AFFIDAVIT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SURRENDER, CONSENT AND WAIVER OF NOTICE, freely and voluntarily and for the purposes contained therein. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this 30" day of November, 1998, by the Affiant, , o is knnwn to m o who produced identification. _ Y PUBLiC ____ ?''?';u iagMM LL a e of Florida at Large u9vses.wr rcc+ty Commission Expires: I,•'X1,?ts..••'?pwaTlxu `"28.1099 --) (?. ?? IN THE CIRCUIT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA. FAMILY DIVISION IN THE INTEREST OF: CASE NO.: MATCHESON, Joseph Richard Jr. W/M, DOB: 12-02-97 A MINOR CHILD AFFIDAVIT OF MOTHER STATE OF FLORIDA } COUNTY OF POLK } Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared JENNIFER REBECCA BENNER, who after being duly sworn, deposed and said: That she is the birth mother of Joseph Richard Matcheson, Jr., a white male child, born on the 2'd day of December, 1997, at County of Lackawanna, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. That she was not married at any time within the 12 month period prior to the birth of the child. The biological father of the above named child is Joseph Richard Matcheson, and his last known address is Lackawanna County Jail, Dunmore, Pennsylvania, and his Social Security Number is 203-34-9303, and his birth date is July 25, 1949. The child was born out of lawful wedlock. The child is not his by adoption. The child has not been established by a Court proceeding to be his child. He has not acknowledged in writing, signed in the presence of a competent witness, that he is the father of the child, and has failed such acknowledgment with the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Children & Families. He has not provided the child with support in a repetitive, customary manner. In the Interest of Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr. Family Div. Case No. Affidavit of Mother Page Two No legal guardian has been appointed by any Court for the person or estate of the child, so far as is known to me. WITNESSES: (Witness) (JJJ\ (Witness) 18ENNIFER REBECCA BENNER AFFIANT SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me t 3Uh day of November, 1998 A.D., by the Affiant, who produce r-i ?fr'< ; t C P.-K as identification. Q-A Y PUBLIC State of 1L_ My Commission Expires: ?t1Nwr?: aii a,+`fY,;•., ANOElA t. ttvut+,tu. :., My COhNNBSI 0 i W., o I: `w$p i;a; BaWaATAV 6 Mec,.4.':70 NOW 11 ? a c5 A DANNY G. HECKENDORN and, DEBRA S.HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs v JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant JUL 16 1990 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-3162 CIVIL IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this eday of July, 1999, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs, Danny G. Heckendom and Debra S. Heckendom, shall enjoy legal and physical custody the Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr., born December 2, 1997. 2. This is a temporary custody order which is subject to modification after the adoption/involuntary termination proceedings docketed at docket number 78 Adoptions 1999 is resolved. cc: Lindsay D. Baird, Esq. _ Cep rnue.(k? +J?t f/49 . Joseph R. Matcheson 's- P CF T. ,'rrri ni,:C ?AfiY 99 AL 19 PH 2: 27 DANNY G. HECKENDORN and, DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant Prior Judge: Edward E. Guido CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-3162 CIVIL IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr., born December 2, 1997. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on July 15, 1999, with the following individuals in attendance: The Plaintiffs, Danny G. Heckendom and Debra S. Heckendom, with their counsel, Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire; the Father did not attend but he referred two letters to the Court which were given to the Custody Conciliator. 3. Father is currently incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution at Dallas. Mother has signed a relinquishment of rights with respect to the minor child. The Plaintiffs are the matemal aunt and uncle. The Plaintiffs have also tiled an adoption petition to try to adopt the child and a hearing is scheduled before Judge Guido on that matter with the issue of an involuntary termination of the Father's rights being litigated at that hearing. 4. In light of the Father's current jail status and the fact that the Plaintiffs are in fact the primary custodians of the minor child, the Conciliator recommends an order in the form as attached. ?/,/ o a a /-;/ DATE Hubert X. Gil y, Esquire Custody Co iliator ???? ?? L 9 ?- 3/b .1 ?°c21C ti/ /q / G waim ?-a w IZ4 a n4) hDc ?? 9J?a v %LtL_ o M f 7Z ?o ne. AL- inP 0 AO-4??opa tl O • i u / O? , / ' -ga-s? ??p s ?sr1 ?Y.6 ELI (X? ? ?' 0 G S? x aA 001 Wi J O ;p7zm,n,t6 a?)? A y ?iC??g9l DANNY G. HECKENDORN and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs vs. : 99-3162 CIVIL JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this 6 r day of April, 2000, with his consent, it is ordered and directed that further proceedings in this matter be handled by the Honorable Edward E. Guido. BY THE COURT, Lindsay Dare Baird, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Joseph R. Matcheson, Pro Se - AK-9966 SCI-Dallas Drawer K Dallas, PA 18612 Kevi . Hess, J. - 113 ((y g16-10d :rlm Cpl ? ' C._ c7: ? ? r ' . ? r.?. ::,i ?.. , ='F` i is ::.. ? ., .-, cn /?j .1' ?`J`? Name Q?Iy(f Num er -/-1-(010 i ,'lit<i PolUlb tr" `I ' ' U S POSIhGt State orrectional Institution at Dallas l r ut e 1 ` ?` Drawer K, Dallas, Pa. 18612-0286 L D l 1 ?6ua..? 17013-3397 %? I.$ %-:L'r v?b'LSC III I I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I III I I III I I III I I I If I I I It I I I I if I I 1 1 C IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ADOPTION OF J.R.M., JR. NO, 78 ADOPTIONS 1999 N REPETITION FOR 1NVOLIJNTARY TERAMINA I N A IUDICATION AND DECREE NISI BEFORE C f[1 DO. J. DECREE NISI AND NOW, this a91't" day of SEPTEMBER, 2000, petitioners' request to terminate father's parental rights to J.R.M., Jr. is DENIED. This decree nisi shall become final unless exceptions are filed by any party within ten (10) days. By the Cour Edward E. Guido, J. i I Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Petitioners James K. Jones, Esquire i J.R.M., Sr. Natural Father :sld LOVE m 1 c. 7?/AG 7 /?,•s ca ?' y ,'•n/ /1'Ifj /CA SdAl Lu/1S Tod Y J?/£ IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ADOPTION OF J.R.M., JR. NO. 78 ADOPTIONS 1999 IN RE: PETITION FOR INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION ADJUDICATION AND DECREE NISI BEFORE OUTDO, J. OPINION AND DECREE NISI Petitioners have filed a petition to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of J.R.M., Sr. to J.R.M., Jr. Numerous hearings were held before this Court. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearings, we are forced to deny the petition. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Petitioners are D.G.FI. and D.S.H., husband and wife, residing in Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. J.R.M., Jr. is a male child born on December 2, 1997. J.R.M., Sr. [hereinafter Father] D.O.B. 7-25-49 and J. R. S. [hereinafter Mother] D.O.B. unknowns are the natural parents of J.R.M., Jr. 2. Father has been incarcerated since February 10, 1998. 3. Father will be released from prison sometime in the first half of 2001. 4. Mother voluntarily relinquished her parental rights on November 30, 1998, so that J.R.M., Jr. could be adopted by petitioners. The termination of parental rights was confirmed by the Circuit Court of the I & Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida. 5. Petitioners have had custody of J.R.M., Jr. since February 1999. Mother Ncas born sometime in 1980. 78 ADOPTIONS 1999 6. Petitioners have previously adopted J.R.M., Jr.'s half brother. Both J.R.M., Jr, and his half brother are children of Mother. 7. When Father was initially incarcerated, Mother would take J.R.M., Jr. to visit with him at prison. 8. Father has not seen J.R.M., Jr, since March of 1998, when Mother relocated from Pennsylvania to Florida. She did not provide Father with her new address. 9. Father did everything in his power to find the whereabouts of Mother and J.R.M., Jr. He followed every lead and wrote numerous letters in an attempt to find his child. 10. Father consistently tried to send cards and gifts to J.R.M., Jr, through family members. 11. Father also tried to send gifts to J.R.M., Jr. through Angel Tree, an organization that helps prisoners remember their children at Christmas. 12. Father has contacted church agencies, family members, and various children and youth organizations in an effort to find and reestablish contact with J.R.M., Jr. CON LUSIONS OF LAW Petitioners have failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Father's parental rights should be terminated. DISCUSSION Petitioners seek to tenninate father's parental rights to J.R.M., Jr. under Section 2511 of the Adoption Act.Z The particular provisions upon which they rely provide as follows: '25 Pa. C.S.A. § 2511. 1) 78 ADOPTIONS 1999 (a) General rule.-The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds: (2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent. (b) Other considerations.-The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child.... 23 Pa. C.S.A. y 2511 (a)(2) and (b). It is well established that a party seeking termination of parental rights bears the burden of establishing by "clear and convincing evidence" that the grounds exist. Adoption of Atencio, 539 Pa. 161, 166, 650 A.2d 1064, 1066 (1994). "The standard of clear and convincing evidence means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to conic to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." Matter of Sylvester, 521 Pa. 300, 304, 555 A.2d 1202, 1203-1204 (1989). For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we believe that petitioners have failed to meet their burden. We start by noting that we are thoroughly convinced that the "developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare" of J.R.M., Jr. would best be served by allowing him to be adopted by the petitioners. Petitioners have already adopted his half brother with whom J.R.M., Jr. has been emotionally bonded since birth. Furthermore, petitioners are the only real parents that J.R.M., Jr. has ever known. They have provided a nurturing and loving home for him since he was a toddler. Unfortunately for J.R.M., Jr. we may not inquire into his best interest until we are satisfied by clear and convincing 3 78 ADOPTIONS 1999 evidence that his tither is incapacitated and that the incapacity cannot or will not be remedied. In ri:: A igi_QtL UL, 511 Pa. 590, 515 A.2d 883 (1986). Father's inenrceralion can certainly be considered an "incapacity" which has caused the child to be without "essential parental care." See 1n the Matter of Adoption of C.A.W., 453 Pa. Super. 277, 683 A.2d 91 1 (1996). However, since father will be released from prison no later than May of 2001, we cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that the incapacity "cannot or will not be remedied." See Jones A12peal, 449 Pa. 543, 297 A.2d 117 (1972) undl Adoption of M:L[I„ 348 Pa. Soper. 65, 501 A.2d 648 (1984). In M11 1. the Superior Court nffirnted the termination of father's parental rights under Section 2511 (a)(2) since his sentence of life imprisonment was an incapacity that could not be remedied. I lowever, referring to the Jones case (a case in which the Mother's parental rights were not terminated, albeit for other reasons) the M.J.H. Court stated: although it is not clear what the term of the mother's prison sentence was, it was of a short duration (up to six years), as compared with the life term that appellee is sentenced to serve. Thus, it could not be said in jmjg? as it can in this case that the parental capacity cannot be remedied. 3,18 Pa. Super, at 79, 501 A.2d at 655. (emphasis added) Under the circumstances of this case, and the law as we understand it, we have no alternative but to deny the petition to terminate father's parental rights. 4 i 78 ADOPTIONS 1999 DECREE NISI AND NOW, this 2L day of SEPTEMBER, 2000, petitioners' request to terminate father's parental rights to J.R.M., Jr. is DENIED. This decree nisi shall become final unless exceptions are filed by any party within ten (10) days. By the Court, /s/ Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J. Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Petitioners James K. Jones, Esquire J.R.M., Sr. Natural Father :sld 5 1 w ?' rj ?' aLA) &66?0 9. ?? /7 3 -3397 y DANNY G. HECKENDORN and DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-3162 CIVIL IN RE: CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 2000, by agreement of the parties, the Plaintiffs, Danny G. Heckendorn and Debra S. Heckendorn, shall enjoy full legal and physical custody of the child, Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr., born December 2, 1997, subject to periods of visitation with the natural father, Joseph R. Matcheson, as follows: 1. The parents shall take the child to visit with the father at SCI-Dallas, or any other institution in which he is incarcerated which is not further away than SCI-Dallas, one weekend day every other month commencing August, 2000. 2. Such other times as the parties may agree. It is the Court's desire that the inmate use his best efforts to obtain a transfer to SCI-Camp Hill so that more frequent visitation may take place. The Court will aide the father in that regard in any way it can. This Court shall retain jurisdiction in this matter. Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Joseph R. Matcheson AK-9966 SCI-Dallas Drawer K Dallas, PA 18612 :lfh By the Co Edward E. Guido, J. q-11-00 RX3 1 C \? •.. ? DANNY G. AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN : IN'fllli COURT 017 COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF V, JOSEPH R. MATCHESON DEPENDANT : CUM131:RLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • 99-3162 CIVILACTIONLAW IN CUSTODY AND NOW, Tuesday, May 21, 2002 upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa P. Greevy, Esq. the conciliator, at 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043 on Monday, June 24, 2002 at 10:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: /s/ Melissa P. Greevy, 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 (rearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOIJR A7'FORNEY AT ONCE. 1F YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ON13, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL KELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 0 2 1 iP.`i MAY 13 2002 G' ?Q a 9 9-342- ' 1 ?1LlL o ? ? ?JLO' ? ?cu?G??.Le-?? ?/ 00 Z_ , V AAAA API y MAY 13 2002 wmt,? ?o //Oy a o© Z kAZ 6Q a 9 9-,N2- ip??C? ?8? ao Z , 7n-aab-D13 21??? 4000" /f,?a?'icfl,io ?mce?zgaim . t? oa? aa- ?,ve??. •°°?°? 993/62 f . 77- / / L/ a . 17l0 z_.._ ' Ll? .. C\j r -. =^ CI, ``• _ -to ?,A ka: ?I9 3i6Z APR 2 z?o't_ 1 I Pia. 94-3i?? 7A 0 9. . Q Gin?uX%1 /l'1C.? lc C / / b /7/G Z 13 Z 1-0 .? 99--3i6 z- _ _ 6 LINDSAY DARE BAIRD ATTORNEY AT LAW 37 SOUTH HANOVER CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-3307 TEL. (717) 243.5732 FAX (717) 243-0110 March 28, 2002 Mr. Joseph Matcheson Capital Pavilion 2012 N. 4th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1538 Dear Mr. Matcheson: The Heckendorns have shared your two latest letters with me. Please recall that the letter dated March 14, 2002, was sent from Dallas and had no forwarding address for you in it. The Heckendorns have not made any agreement with you regarding Joey. The existing Court Order provides for supervised visits with you at SCI Dallas. There is no obligation for any visits at this time. Feel free to file for a conciliation conference and hearing before Judge Guido. My clients were very pleased to read that you are willing to help with Joey's support. To that end, they are providing your new address to the Domestic Relations Office. As an aside and for your clarification, It is DRO that required the DNA test. You slated that you had an attorney to assist you in this matter. All future contact will need to be by your attorney through this office. You are requested to cease communicating with the Heckendorns directly. Sincerely, indsay D Baird, Esquire LDB/njb cc: Mr. and Mrs. Danny Heckendorn l?p>v? Pa. /9s?5 n224N Re Th /t aoo,. i -1 ':iia+32..11 _ Gi j ? o0 ? / n 4 " 99 -sib Z fl, 7 V-c fop e O OA `1 ? 1 a /I el-4 e/ - ?A Cj c, c l - ? ,( /? ?,/ M4 i &04 IMQ d -KQ ? o (?,? U90 ? 'k? O.Z t n D ? y6. l/ U? ? real a n }s I-// r111-` COrr/ T ?= ?,vmmav 0 A, fig fo ?11a?a c? ??. .Z/Y /??/'1lYlL/? .. ?c?u e. 7 e %?7 Q f'%?% / ? e Ael 74111;:91112,," ? o / pq f1, Coo r f fL z,, / ,?Ot/e ?du???/e `?l )7 fi?ior?i 71 ? t? You r IfU11101?5 CCU 1-41)6 a/y/7 ourT c?v??Lr? Al yfh Sf,? /s A211&'44 ?? 7?0 ? 2-,XU m % n (.f 7 /o l? . L Sfq w? /? // ?II))E' ?l?rrs11 h10 ??cl C2 -'/ rh C?I, S'/hcC Nei?1? ?raitsT??oc;:V `l Pvm ?6f- i fo ?clr?? vY???iis rm?r?CJi<r e. __ .. _ ___ ?C?./' 1` i' 7???1f f?G 7 !/?;f? 5?,? ?-vr 1 ilk - / /j 2 mace s ??1yAa / /j 40 7o 7?)-115- 'Ii5 i i L - .=t i} J L l I NL June 4, 2002 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is regards to Resident Joseph Matcheson. Resident Matcheson has been a resident with Capitol Pavilion since March 18, 2002. Resident Matcheson is required to obtain employment while he is a resident at Capitol Pavilion. Resident Matcheson only has an account with Capitol Pavilion in which his and other resident finances are handled through the Fiscal Office of Capitol Pavilion and his counselor. Resident Matcheson is required to hand in all of his paychecks and any other kind of money such as (money from family members and/or social security) to the Fiscal Office. Resident Matcheson does not have anyt&rrinantes then his account at Capitol Pavilion. I have included a copy of Resident Matcheson statement of account information while he has been resident at Capitol Pavilion. I hope this information is sufficient to your needs. If you have any further questions, you can contact meat (717) 236-0132. Thank you! Sincerely, 1 4GarlViel Hatter Fiscal Officer 614/02 at 1122:16.15 Flrelree - Capitol General Ledger For the Period From May 1, 2002 to Jun 30, 2002 Fitter Criteria includes: I) A IDs from 31910 to 31910. Report order is by 11). Report is printed in Detail Forum I. Account ID Date Jrnl Trans Description Debit Amt Account Descriptlon Reference 31910 511102 Beginning Balmrcc ---_- Nlutchcsou,Joseph 5/21/02 CRJ Joseph Matchcson - Gross 5/17 paychk 5/21102 CRJ Joseph Matchcson -Taxes 15.92 5/l7 paychk 5/21/02 CR1 Joseph Matchcson - Rent 15.05 5/17 paychk 5/21/02 I11 Lackawanna Co. Clerk ofCouns - 10.03 Matchcson, court costs 5121102 PJ Joseph Matchcson - 512112001 50.00 5/20-5/24/0 request Current Period Change 6/1/02 Beginning Balance 6;36102 Ending Balance Page:I Credit Amt Balance 116.25 91.00 116.25 -25.25 -25.25 -25.25 i%/?i'2 kn d r: r I-, 1.. r A2 ? t. 1.1, Ll1W i Q ? r D1713RA HECRENDORN, PLAINTIFF VS JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CtJ/I'19PA).IAA116 DOCKET NUMBER 00889 S 1999 PACSES CASE # 005101593 PWITION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SUPPORP AMID/OR DISMISS ANY ARRILARS FROM PLAIRTIFF'S FILING TO PRESENT' TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE EDWARD GUIDO OF THE SAID COURT; THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR HONORABLE COURT TO DISMISS THE. PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR CHILD SUPPORT IN THE ABOVE, CAPTIONED FILING AND SUBMITS THE FOLIOWIN(3 IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST: 1. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN IS NOT THE MOTHER OF THE JOSEPH MATCHESON JR., THE SUBJECT CONCERNING THIS SUPPORT. 2. THE PLAINTIFF, DE13RA HECKENDORN IS NOT THE {JIFF OF THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR. 3, THE, DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., IS THE FATHER OF JOSEPH MATCHESON JR, THE SUBJECT OF THIS SUPPORT MATTER. 4. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN, IS MISLEADING THE COURT IN HER FILING BY STATING THAT SHE IS THE MOTHER OF OF THE. CHILD AND FURTHER MISLEADING THE COURT WITH THE ABSENCE OF THE FACT THAT SHE IS NOT MARRIED TO THE. DEFENDANT. 5. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKF,NDORN WAS NEVER MARRIED TO THE DEFENDANT AND HER ONLY RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHILD IS SHE. IS THE AUNT OF THE CHILDS MOTHER. 6. THE DEFENDANT AVERS THAT THE HECKENDORN'S I(EPT THE CHIIA AWAY FROM THE DEFENDANT AND HIS FAMILY AFTER TARING THE CHILD FROM THE MOTHER, DURING THIS PERIOD THE DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED, THIS 14AS A MAJOR ISSUE WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS REACHED FOR THE HECI(ENDORN'S 110 BRING THE CHILD TO VISIT THE DEFENDANT AT THE PRISON. z 7. THE' AFOREMENTIONED AGREEMENT ALSO INCLUDED NO SUPPORT FROM THI?. DEFENDANT, SURELY, THE DEFENDANT WANTS TO TARE CARE. OF HIS CHILD AND THIS MATTER WAS ALREADY AGREED UPON WITH THE VISITATION AGREEMENT, THE HECRENDORN'S FILED FOR SUPPORT WHILE THE DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED IWN IT WAS ALREADY AGREED THAT A PRIVATE AGREEMENT WOULD TARE PLACE. AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS RE[,EASED FROM CUSTODY. S. THE PLAINTIFF'S AFOREMENTIONED FINN; FOR SUPPORT IS IMPROPER AND ILLEGAL, THE LAW IS CLEAR THAT AN INCARCERATED PERSON IS 140T LIABLE FOR SUPPORT AND THE FILING-WAS IMPROPER SINCE IT 14AS ALREADY AGREED THAT NO SUCH FILING WOULD OCCUR UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 9. THE A130VF MENTIONED AGREEMENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS MATTER IS BRING TOTALLY CONTRADICTED 13Y THE PLAINTIFF, IF THE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT AFFORD TO CARE FOR THE CHILD THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE I14SISTED ON TAKING THE CHILD WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT'S FAMILY III[d. GLADLY TAKE CUSTODY OF THE. CHILD. WHEREFORE; THE DEFENDANT REQUEST THE HONORAHL,E COURT TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SUPPORT FOR THE WITHIN MENTIONED REASONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE., DISMISS ANY C[AIMS FOR SUPPORT FROM OCTOBER 1999 TO THE PRESENT DUE TO THE DEFENDANT'S INCARCERATION. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, SEl' MATCHESON SR., DEFE14DA14T DEBRA HECKFNDORN, PLAINTIFF VS JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON /PLEAS OF ?'L R NiL_ DOCKET NUMBER OOB89 S 1999 PACSES CAS13 # 005101593 PETITION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SUPPORT AND/OR DISMISS ANY ARRFBRS FROM PLAINTIFF'S FILING TO PRESENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE EDWARD GUIDO OF THE SAID COURT; THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., RFSPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR HONORABLE COURT TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR CHILD SUPPORT IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED FILING AND SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST: 1. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKF:IDORN IS 140T THE MOTHER OF THE JOSEPH MATCHESON JR., THE SUBJECT CONCERNING THIS SUPPORT. 2. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN IS NOT THE WIFE OF THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR. 3, THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., IS THE FATHER OF JOSEPH MATCHESON JR, THE SUBJECT OF THIS SUPPORT MATTER. 4. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN, IS MISLEADING THE COURT IN HER FILING BY STATING THAT SHE IS THE MOTHER OF OF THE CHILD AND FURTHER MISL-HADING THE COURT WITH THE ABSENCE OF THE FACT THAT SHE IS NOT MARRIED TO THE DEFENDANT. 5. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HF,CRENDORN WAS NEVER MARRIED TO THE DEFENDANT AND HER ONLY RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHILD IS SHE IS THE AUNT OF THE CHIIDS MOTHER. 6. THE DEFENDANT AVERS THAT THE HECKENDORN'S KEPT THE CHILD AWAY FROM THE DEFENDANT AND HIS FAMILY AFTER TARING THE CHILD FROM THE MOTHER, DURING THIS PERIOD THE DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED, THIS WAS A MAJOR ISSUE WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS REACHED FOR THE HECKENDORN'S TO BRING THE CHILD TO VISIT THE. DEFENDANT AT THE PRISON. 4 2 7. THE AFOREMENTIONED AGREEMENT ALSO INCLUDED NO SUPPORT FROM THE DEFENDANT, SURELY, THE DEFENDANT WANTS TO TAItF CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THIS MATTER WAS ALREADY AGREED UPON WITH THE VISITATION AGREEMENT, THE HECIGiNDORN'S FILED FOR SUPPORT WHILE THE DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED WHEN IT WAS ALREADY AGREED THAT A PRIVATE AGREEMENT WOULD TAKE, PLACE AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM CUSTODY. 8. THE PLAINTIFF'S AFOREMENTIONED FILdNG FOR SUPPORT IS IMPROPER AIJU ILLEGAL, THE LAW IS CLEAR THAT AN INCARCERATED PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR SUPPORT AND THE FILING WAS IMPROPER SINCE. IT WAS ALREADY AGREED THAT NO SUCH FILING WOULD OCCUR UNDER THESE. CIRCUMSTANCES. 9. THE ABOVE MENTIONED AGREEMENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS MATTER IS BEING TOTALLY CONTRADICTED 33Y THE PLAINTIFF, IF THE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT AFFORD TO CARE FOR THE CHILD THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE INSISTED ON TARING THE CHILD WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT'S FAMILY WILL. GLADLY TARE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD. WHEREFORE; THE DEFENDANT REQUEST THE HONORABLE COURT TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SUPPORT FOR THE WITHIN MENTIONED REASONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DISMISS ANY CLAIMS FOR SUPPORT FROM OCT0I3EII 1999 TO THE PRESENT DUE. TO THE DEFENDANT'S INCARCERATION. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, OSI' i MATCHESON SR., DEFENDANT Y DEBRA HECKFNDORN, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS VS OF CU a4h" CW1 N/ j/ JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., DOCKET NUMBER 00889 S 1999 DEFENDANT PACSES CASE # 005101593 PETITION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SUPPORT AND/OR DISMISS ANY ARREARS FROM PLAINTIFF'S PILING TO PR ENE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE EDWARD GUIDO OF THE SAID COURT; THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR HONORAHI,E COURT TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR CHILD SUPPORT IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED FIL,IN(; AND SUBMITS THE FOI.IDWING IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST: 1. THE. PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECIU24DOR14 IS NOT THE MOTHER OF THE JOSEPH MATCHESON JR., THE SUBJECT CONCERNING THIS SUPPORT. 2. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN IS NOT THE WIFE OF THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR. 3, THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESNJ SR., IS THE FATHER OF JOSEPH MATCHESON JR, THE SUBJECT OF THIS SUPPORT MATTER. 4. THE PLAINTIFF, DE13RA HECKENDORN, IS MISLEADING THE COURT IN HER FILING BY STATING THAT SHE IS THE MOTHER OF OF THE CHILD AND FURTHFI( MISLEADING THE COURT WITH THE ABSENCE OF THE FACT THAT SHE IS NOT MARRIED TO THE. DEFENDANT. 5. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN WAS NEVER MARRIED TO THE DEFENDANT AND HER ONLY RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHILD IS SHE IS THE AUNT OF THE CHILDS MOTHER, 6. THE DEFENDANT AVERS THAT THE HECKENDORIJ'S HEPT THE CHILD AWAY FROM THE DEFENDANT AND HIS FAMILY AFTER TAHING THE CHILD FROM THE MOTHER, DURINK; THIS PERIOD THE DEFENDANT IJAS INCARCERATED, THIS WAS A MAJOR ISSUE WHEN THE. AGREEMENT WAS REACHED FOR THE HECRENDORN'S TO 13RING THE' CHILD TO VISIT THE. DEFENDANT AT THE. PRISON. z 7. THE AFOREMENTIONED AGRFEMl NT ALSO INCLUDED NO SUPPORT FROM THE DEFENDANT, SURELY, THE DEFENDANT WANTS TO TARE CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THIS MATTER WAS ALRRADY AGREED UPON I4ITH THE VISITATION AGR1413MENT, THE, HECRI;NDORN'S FI[,ED FOR SUPPORT i4ElILE THE DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED WHEN IT WAS ALREADY AGREED THAT A PRIVATE AGREEMENT WOULD TARE PLACE AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS REIEASED FROM CUSTODY. 8. THE PLAINTIFF'S AFOREMENTIONED FILII4G FOR SUPPORT IS IMPROPER AND ILLEGAL„ THE LAW IS CLEAR THAT AN INCARCERATED PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR SUPPORT AND TH13 FILING. WAS IMPROPER SI14CE IT WAS ALREADY AGR1313D THAT NO SUCH FILING WOULD OCCUR UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCE'S. 9. THE A130VE MENTIONED AGREEMENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTA14CFS OF THIS MATTER IS HEING TOTAI,I.Y CONTRADICTED HY THE PLAINTIFF, IF THE. PLAINTIFF COULD NOT AFFORD TO CARE FOR THE CHILD THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE INSISTED 014 TARING THE CHILD WITHOUT THE C014SE4T OF THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT'S FAMILY WIL[, GLADLY TARE CUSTODY OF THE CHID. WHEREFORE,; THE DEFENDANT REQUEST THE HONORABLE COURT TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SUPPORT FOR THE WITHIN MENTIONED REASONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE., DISMISS ANY CLAIMS FOR SU1313ORT FROM OCT013ER 1999 TO THE PRESENT DUE TO THE DEFENDANT'S INCARCERATION. RESPECI'FU[,I.Y SUBMITTED, SEP MATCHESON SR., DEFFd4D1{tdT DEBRA HECKENDORN, PIAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS VS of ?: f 1 /Y! n' l /j f) A/ /) (pU uT? JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., DOCKET NUMBER 00889 S 1999 DEFENDANT PACSES CASE # 005101593 PETITION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SUPPORT ANRIOR DISHISS ANY ARK&RES FROM PIS NTZFF•S FI6IIr. To PREsE T!' TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE EDWARD GUIDO OF THE SAID COURT; THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., RESPECTFUId,Y REQUEST YOUR HONORABLE COURT TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR CHILD SUPPORT IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED FILING AND SUBMITS THE FOLIAWING IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST: 1. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN IS NOT THE MOTHER OF THE. JOSEPH MATCHESON JR., THE SUBJECT CONCERNING THIS SUPPORT. 2. THE. PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN IS NOT THE FIFE OF THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR. 3, THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., IS THE FATHER OF JOSEPH MATCHESON JR, THE SUBJECT OF THIS SUPPORT MATTER. 4. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN, IS MISLEADING THE COURT IN HER FILING BY STATING THAT SHE IS THE MOTHER OF OF THE. CHILD AND FURTHER MISLEADING THE. COURT WITH THE ABSENCE OF THE FACT THAT SHE IS NOT MARRIED TO THE DEFENDANT. 5. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKF.NDORN WAS NEVER MARRIED TO THE DEFENDANT AND HER ONLY RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHILD IS SHE IS THE AUNT OF THE CHILDS MOTHER. 6. THE DEFENDANT AVERS THAT THE HECKENDORN'S KEPT THE. CHILD AWAY FROM THE DEFENDANT AND HIS FAMILY AFTER TAMING THE CHILD FROM THE MOTHER, WRING THIS PERIOD THE DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED, THIS WAS A MAJOR ISSUE ldHEN THE. AGRD24ENT WAS REACHED FOR THE HECKENDORN'S TO BRING THE CHILD TO VISIT THE DEFF14DAIJT AT THE PRISON. 2 7. THE AFOREMENTIONED AGREEMENT ALSO INCIUDED NO SUPPORT FROM THE DEFENDANT, SURF,L.Y, THE DEFENDANT WANTS TO TARE CARE. OF HIS CHILD AND THIS MATTER IVAS ALREADY AGREED UPON WITH THE VISITATION AGREEMENT, THE. HECKENDORN'S FIIED FOR SUPPORT LVHII.E THE DEFENDANT {VAS INCARCERATED WHEN IT 14AS ALREADY AGREED THAT A PRIVATE AGREEMENT WOULD TAKE PLACE AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM CUSTODY. 8. THE PLAINTIFF'S AFOREMENTIONED FILING FOR SUPPORT IS IMPROPER AND ILGEGAI„ THE LAW IS CLEAR THAT AN INCARCERATED PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR SUPPORT AND THE FILING 14AS IMPROPER SINCE IT WAS ALREADY AGREED THAT NO SUCH FILING WOULD OCCUR UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 9. THE ABOVE MENTIONED AGREEMENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS MATTER IS BEING TOTAL,IY CONTRADICTED 13Y THE PLAINTIFF, IF THE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT AFFORD TO CARE FOR THE CHILD THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE INSISTED ON TAKING THE CHILD 14ITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT'S FAMIIY WILd, GLADLY TAKE CUSTODY OF THE. CHILD. WHEREFORE; THE DEFENDANT REQUEST THE HONORABLE COURT TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SUPPORT FOR THE WITHIN MENTIONED REASONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DISMISS ANY CLAIMS FOR SUPPORT FROM OCTOBER 1999 TO THE PRESENT DUE TO THE. DEFENDANT'S INCARCERATION. RESPECTFUI,I,Y SUBMITTED, JO :PH MATCHESON SR., D:FELJDAIVT - AD* C aOoz r r ?Iyt °,/ • /l•ClL Z6 Cq / !. KbI 0? x) * / a ? cr / eA rev,.f? l AU - J22.. l?ooo PYS510 Lackawanna County Clerk/Judicial Records Page 1 Civil Lase Inquiry 1999-05196 MATCHESON JOSEPH R SR (vs) HECKENDORM DANIEL & DEBRA Reference No.:: Case Type...... CUSTODY Filed........: 10/'21/1939 1999 Judgment.,,.. - 00 Judge Assigned: e.........: Execution Date 0/00/5000 Disposed Desc.: Jury Trial .... Disrosed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ Case Comments --- ---------- Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.e General Index Attorney Info MATCHESON JOSEPH R SR PLAINTIFF 1371 N WASHINGTON AVENUE TOWER #2 D18 SCRANTON PA 18509 HECKENDORM DANIEL DEFENDANT 25 FRIRFIELD STREET Q NEWVILLE PA 17241 HECKENDORM DEBRA DEFENDANT 25 FAIRFIELD STREET NEWVILLE PA 17241 M•################•Y###Y#####################################Y.###.?.#.###.?.X.######### # Date Entries M. , ####Y########ih Y#######%#####•Y#Y'il##M•####Y#1h####M'######ir#•if###il•lF #ir•X•###Y!4 Y##M#Y###ia# -- -• - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY --•- 10/21/1999 PETITION FOR JOINT CUSTODY & VISITATION. 10/21/1999 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE IN FORMA PAUPERIS. _-------------------------------------------- 10/27/19'J9 ORDER DATED 10-27-99. I.F.P. GRANTED. BY THE COURT: HARHUT, J. (NOTIFIED) -------------------------- _------•---•------------------------ 3/01/2000 ORDER FOR CONCILIATION CONFERENCE TO BE HELD ON 3-14-00 AT 10:15 AND ORDER TO ATTEND KIDS FIRST SEMINAR. BY 'THE COURT: NOTIFIED 3•-2-00 3/01/2000 ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO ATTEND A "KIDS FIRST SESSION" DATED 2-14-00 TO DANIEL AND DEBRA HECKENDORN. BY THE COURT: NOTIFIED 3-2-00 3/01/22000 ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO ATTENDA "KIDS FIRST SESSION" DATED-- - 2-14-00 TO JOS. R. MATCHESON, SR. BY 'THE COURT: NOTIFIED 3-2-00 -----------------------•-----------------------_-------------------- 3/01/2000 CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT FILED. - -- -------------------------------------------- 3/01/2000 LETTER FROM JOE MATCHESON DATED 2-27-00 FILED. ------------------------------------------------------ ------- 3/23/2^000 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN RESPONSE TO DEFT'S MOTION TO DISMISS BY JOSEPH MATCHESON. 3/23/2000 COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY FILED ---- -----------------------------------------------'--------------- 4/07/2000 STATUS REPORT FILED -------°----------------------------------------'------ ----------- 4/07/2000 ORDER DATED 4-7-00, HARHUT, J. NOTIFIED 4-7-00 5/01/2000 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE DATED 4-•19-00 FILED ---- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5/02/2000 'ORDER DATED 5-2-00. WE DIRECT THE LACKAWANNA COUNTY CLERf< (IF TUDICIAL RECORDS TO TRANSFER THIS CASE TO CUMBERLAND COUNT Y. IIARHUT, .I. NOTIFIED 5-2-00 5/12/2000 FTI_E TRANSFERRFLI TO PROTHONOTARY OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 01= CUMBERLAND -COUNTY BY CERTIFIED MAIL - RECEIPT It 7099 3400 0001 4231. OV105 - LAST ENTRY - - - -- - - -- •- -- - - - ##Y####YY#k#d1r#M#YM it#Y####Y########YY Y##Y#Y•X#M#YYY##Y#Y#Ydf#####Y#Y#YY Y#Y######## # [End of Case Information Y. PYS510 Lackawanna County Clerk/Judicial Records Page 2 Civil Case Inquiry 1999-0519G MATCHESON JOSEPH R SR (vs) HECKENDORM DANIEL & DEBRA Reference No..: Filed........: 10/2,/1999 Case Typpe..... : CUSTODY Time...... 2:52 Tudgnent....... .00 L'yecution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: Jury T'r-ial.... Disposed Desc•.: Disposed bato. 0/00/0000 Higher Crt C MY#MY11Y##YYYY 41 4( YMYYYR#Y#YY4#YYY#XYYX4 Y#YYYY##YM#Y#Y?Y 4 7#4 Y YY Y YYYYYY• 1 0 Y Y4 1 M /?i,` ?hN i M da) d //, '?V Jt, n T292002 DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant GUIDO, J. -- NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY TEMPORARY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ?Y day of CJ1 2002, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs, Danny G. Heckendorn and Debra S. Heckendorn, shall have full legal and physical; custody of the child, Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr., born December 2, 1997, subject to periods of supervised visitation with natural Father, Joseph R. Matcheson, as follows: A. For a period of one and one half (1-1/2) hours two (2) times per month to commence on November 2, 2002. Father shall have supervised visitation. The visits shall be supervised by Plaintiffs and shall occur at the Newville Community Center, to commence at 10:30 a.m., unless otherwise agreed. In the event that Father has not appeared for his arranged visit by 11:00 a.m., the Plaintiffs and child are free to leave. If the parties change the time of the visit by mutual agreement, Plaintiffs may leave if Father has not arrived within one half hour of the agreed upon time. In the event that Father cannot attend his scheduled visit, he shall provide notice to Plaintiffs counsel seventy-two (72) hours in advance of the scheduled visit. 2. In order to avoid confusion and distress to this child, Father shall refrain from referring to him by his legal name, Joe or Joey. Plaintiff shall consult with the child's therapist, Dr. Wanda Mays to obtain more specific input with regard to 1) what the child should be told about the various roles the parties play in parenting him; 2) whether it would be helpful to the child for the Plaintiffs to identify themselves as uncle and aunt rather than mother and father; 3) whether it is helpful to inform the child that the Defendant is the father; and 4) any specific clinical recommendations regarding the impact on the child of being referred to by his legal name. NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM 3. It shall be acceptable for the Defendant Father to include his own father and his father's wife in an upcoming visit. 4. The parties recognize that the child has been raised by the Plaintiffs. In light of the recommendations of Dr. Mays, increases in Father's custodial time should occur in a gradual progression. The parties shall be guided by the child's therapist in making the. determination as to when to commence unsupervised custodial time or to increase Father's contact with the child. 5. The Custody Conciliation Conference shall reconvene on February 10, 2003 at 11:00 a.m. at the office of the Custody Conciliator, Melissa Peel Greevy, 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043. BY E COURT: Edward E. Guido, J. Dist: /Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire, 37 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Joseph R. Matcheson, 701 North Fourth Street, Room 301, Harrisburg, PA 17101 ?CJ.t..CJtu`- ? 5 ID-30-0 a. I I l^T OCT 2 9 2002 DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY Defendant 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 THE CUSTODY OF Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr. December 2, 1997 Paternal Aunt and Uncle 2. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held as planned on October 14, 2002 with the following individuals in attendance: the Paternal Uncle and Aunt, Danny G. Heckendorn and Debra S. Heckendorn, and their counsel, Lindsay Baird, Esquire; and the Father, Joseph R. Matcheson attended pro se. 3. The parties reached an agreement in the form of Order as attached. Although Father objects to the Heckendorns having given the child the nickname Branden because of the confusion and upset that it causes the child, the Father has agreed not to call him by his legal name, Joe or Joey. Additionally, because of comments made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff Debra Heckendorn regarding his health status, the Defendant has agreed to sign a consent to release confidential medical information to the Conciliator. He will sign this consent form at the office of his physician Dr. Goldman. The Plaintiff does not seek the details of the Defendant's medical condition. Rather, she simply seeks to know that the Defendant does not have any communicable diseases which m potentially be transmitted to the child. Da e ? Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire Custody Conciliator :164216 >^ ?? •L DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant GUIDO, J. -- MAR 0 4 2003 ?j IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY ?1T.EMPORARY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this (A day of March, 2003, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, this Court's Order of October 29, 2002 is modified as follows: 1. The supervised visits provided to Father shall occur at the YWCA - Carlisle facility on an alternating week basis. Initially, the visits shall be supervised by staff from the YWCA and the Paternal Aunt and/or Uncle may be present. However, there shall be an interim goal which would allow the child to have gradually less contact with the Paternal Aunt and Uncle during the supervised visits, substituting the YWCA staff as the supervising adult. 2. The Custody Conciliation Conference shall reconvene on June 2, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. at the office of the Custody Conciliator, Melissa Peel Greevy, 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043. Dist; Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire, 37 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Joseph R. Matcheson, 1204 North Second Street, 1 "' Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17102 r?- n,,,r f,. ?.?. . . . %-rr• u . t , , . ; ? ,,,? ..,?-??, ?n??z1, ,,?,? .a DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY 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: Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr. December 2, 1997 Paternal Aunt and Uncle 2. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held as planned on February 10, 2003 with the following individuals in attendance: the Paternal Aunt, Debra S. Heckendorn, and her counsel, Lindsay Baird, Esquire; and the Father, Joseph R. Matcheson attended pro se. This conference was held as planned at the most recent Custody Conciliation Conference of October 14, 2002. 3. At the time of the conference, the Defendant Father was provided with a copy of a February 7, 2003 report from the child's therapist, Dr. Wanda Mays. The therapist recommends continued supervised visits with the supervision to be provided by a person with whom Branden is comfortable. She recommends any changes should be done in a gradual fashion. 4. Father is seeking a change in the Order which would provide him with supervised visits through the YWCA in Harrisburg. He seeks this change because he claims that the Heckendorns have interfered with his visits and because he is having transportation problems. At present, Father is employed at the Harrisburg News, Monday through Friday, where he works from 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Additionally, he works from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., or later, on Saturdays at the Wyndam. His car is not operable at this time. In order to facilitate his more recent visits, he has been borrowing vehicles from his supervisor at work, or getting a ride from a friend. Father expects to be able to obtain y NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM another vehicle in about two months. Father is satisfied with the present length of the visits and accepts the frequency on an alternate week basis. Father seeks the change of location to the Harrisburg YWCA for supervised visits because they have greater flexibility in hours, no fee for supervised visits, and are much more conveniently located for him to participate. Although Father is willing to cooperate with the supervised visits at this time, he is specific in stating his long term goal to have shared custody of the child and that those custodial periods would include overnight periods of partial custody. Father resides in Harrisburg. 5. The Paternal Aunt's position is as follows: Mrs. Heckendorn is willing to continue to participate with the supervised visits as they have been arranged by mutual agreement at the McDonalds in Carlisle. However, she does not believe that she should have to drive to Harrisburg to facilitate Father's visits. She reports that for a period of two years she drove round trip to Dallas, Pennsylvania each month so that the child could see his Father while he was incarcerated. Now that Father is employed and living independently in the community, she believes that it should be his responsibility to provide transportation associated with the supervised visits. Mrs. Heckendorn also does not want to participate in payment for any fees that may be associated with supervised contact. Mrs. Heckendorn presently works the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift, but is typically off on a Monday or a Friday each week. Therefore, those days would be most convenient for her to participate in any week day supervised visits that may be ordered. 6. The parties were unified in their request that this matter not be relinquished to the jurisdiction of the Court. They prefer to meet with the Conciliator on a each four month basis, with the option to return upon petition. 7. After consideration of the fees at the Carlisle YWCA, which are income based, the time the 4 year old child would have to spend in the car for visits to occur (about 20 minutes), and the transportation resources of the parties, the Conciliator makes a recommendation to the Court in form of Order as attached, as a modification of this Court's previous Order of October 29, 2002. a??rlo.3 Date elissa eel Greevy, Esquire Custody Conciliator 167859 •-. . s ?? V ?? DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant GUIDO, J. --- .:.j JUN 0 9 2003 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY TEMPORARY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this / G * day of June, 2003, upon consideration of the Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered an directed as follows: 1. Hearing. A hearing is scheduled in Courtroom Number 5, of the Cumberland County Courthouse, on the 140011'_ day of Ar,t?!' 2003, at $':3A o'clock N.M., at which time testimony will be taken. For the purposes of the hearing, the Father, Joseph R. Matcheson, shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties or the parties pro se shall file with the Court and opposing counsel/party a memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list of witnesses who are expected to testify at the hearing, and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. These memoranda shall be filed at least ten days prior to the hearing date. BY TV'- COURT: Edward E. Guido, Dist: Ondsay D. Baird, Esquire, 37 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Oseph R. Matcheson, 1204 North Second Street, 1" Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17102 v C RK4 aG-io •43 m •r? p- ¦: J 1 y DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr. December 2, 1997 Paternal Aunt and Uncle 2. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on June 2, 2003 at 9:00 a.m., with the following individuals in attendance: Plaintiff, Debra S. Heckendorn, the Maternal Aunt and Defendant Joseph R. Matcheson, the Father. Mr. Heckendorn did not attend. Although the Heckendorn's continue to be represented by counsel, she was not available on the date of this conference. Mr. Matcheson attended, pro se. The Conciliation Conference was scheduled as part of a plan at the conciliation which occurred on February 10, 2003. The Custody Conciliator has met with parties in this matter on no less than three occasions since June, 2002. 3. The Maternal Aunt's position is as follows: She is satisfied with the present supervised visits being conducted at the Carlisle YWCA. She believes things are going better there than they were when visitation was occurring at McDonald's because the child prefers the YWCA. The Maternal Aunt requests medical records on the Father because she questions whether he may have hepatitis C and whether or not he has completed treatment. She also questions whether he may have other communicable diseases of a serious nature. The Maternal Aunt reports that the child's therapist is recommending that, with the July, 2003 visits, that the Maternal Aunt begin to sit outside the door of the visitation room during the child's visits with Mr. Matcheson. NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM 4. Father's position on custody, is as follows: Initially, Father reported that the visits were going fairly well. He acknowledged that he fell asleep at one visit, recently, because he was so tired from working seven days per week. Mr. Matcheson would like to have gradually increasing periods of unsupervised partial custody, structured as follows: 1) whole day visits for a period of four months to occur on the weekends; 2) overnight visits from Friday evening through Saturday afternoon, on alternate weekends, to begin no later than December, 2003; 3) equally shared transportation; 4) thirty days of partial custody in the summertime. Mr. Matcheson believes that, while the child may not like it, he is ready for full day visits now, and will come to enjoy these visits once he sees how much fun they can have together. Mr. Matcheson does not want to see the child separated from his brother. Mr. Matcheson is dissatisfied with the quality of the interaction that occurs during the supervised visits at the YWCA because he believes that the Plaintiff is listening to the interaction between he and the child and looking for some reason to make a complaint against him. He also alleges that, because the Heckendorn's told the child that they are his parents, that they have harmed his relationship with the child. He feels very strongly that the child should be told that he is the child's Father. 5. This Conciliation was extremely contentious. Both parties accused each other of lying on multiple occasions. Because the Plaintiff is not willing to expand the time in the fashion and at the pace which the Defendant desires, a hearing will be necessary. Because the child is receiving mental health care at this time and apparently suffering from separation anxiety disorder, it is anticipated that it will be necessary for there to be expert testimony related to the child's well being and such very basic issues as the name by which he is to be addressed. The Conciliator makes no recommendation with regard to any changes to the Custodial Order at this time. Date Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire Custody Conciliator :214286 f A DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEBRA A. HECKENDORN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON : NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 24T1{ day of JULY, 2003, the hearing scheduled for FRIDAY, AUGUST 1, 2003, at 8:30 a.m. is rescheduled for 11.00 a.m. on the same date. By Zindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Joseph R. Matcheson u ?R Q - 1204 North Second Street ?Q I't Floor J Harrisburg, Pa. 17102 O 7 :sld E. GtTido. J. DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs/Respondents V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant/Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2003, after hearing, we enter the following custody order which shall replace any prior orders entered in this matter: 1. The Plaintiffs, Danny G. Heckendorn and Debra S. Heckendorn, shall have full physical and legal custody of the child, Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr., born December 2, 1997, subject to periods of supervised visitation with Natural Father, Joseph R. Matcheson, as follows: A. Every other Monday at the Carlisle YWCA from 3:45 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. B. One Saturday per month at the YWCA in Harrisburg for two hours. The Heckendorns may elect to have the Saturday visitation at the YWCA in Carlisle as long as they pay the charge for said visitation. They shall notify Mr. Matcheson within seven days whether or not they are choosing to elect this option. In either event, the arrangements with the YWCA shall be made by Father. He shall give the Heckendorns at least 14 days notice of the date and times he intends to exercise said visitation. 2. All parties shall participate in counseling with Dr. Mays to assure a transition to unsupervised visitation which best serves the interests of this child. Plaintiffs shall bear the costs of the sessions in which they or the child participate alone. The Defendant shall bear the costs of the session in which he participates alone or jointly with the child. 3. Father shall sign a medical release in favor of the child's pediatrician who may obtain and review Father's medical records to determine if there is any medical condition which would pose a problem when this Court awards unsupervised visitation. The pediatrician shall advise the Heckendorns and Father if there is no such condition, or, without going into detail, whether such a condition might exist. If the parties are unable to reach a satisfactory resolution for dealing with any condition that might exist, the matter shall then be brought before this court to determine how to proceed. 4. Father shall refrain from calling the child Joseph or Joey until further order of this Court. We will review this matter upon petition of either party after Mr. Matcheson has participated in at least three sessions with Dr. Mays and has executed the release in favor of the child's pediatrician. B} Edward E. Guido, J. Lindsay Dare Baird, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs/Respondents Joseph R. Matcheson, Sr. > Defendant/Petitioner, Pro se srs RKS 0?•Oy-Q3 ,, F '• . <; ! ? .??? l,t;;;..;,... _. _? ., =:; _.. , . DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEBRA A. HECKENDORN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 12TJ' day of FEBRUARY, 2004, we will treat the attached letter as a request for modification. The Court Administrator is directed to refer this matter to conciliation. By the Court, 64 Edward E. Guido, J. Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Joseph R. Matcheson 1204 North Second Street I" Floor Harrisburg, Pa. 17102 cuf l3 -oy Court Administrator :s(d OF TI-:c rl,:rl;c ac:rra,v 20011 F E'6 13 Fu i 11: 09 j February M4 In Res No. 99-3162 Civ Your Honors Please nceept this letter as Petition for Hr2r.ing in the above numbered case. I have complied with all requirements as set by this court. I now request Hearing to continue so that I may obtain more custody and child visitation with my son, Joseph Richard T,"atcheson, Jr.. Copies of this are sent to Atty. Lindsay D. Baird, Esq. Thank you for your speedy roply. Respectful y, j O eph R. !,!a chocon, Sr. /1204, INT. 2nd St Apt//1 Harrieburj, Pn. 17102 ? 5 DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEBRA A. HECKENDORN : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM AMENDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 4TH{ day of MARCH, 2004, the Order of Court dated February 12, 2004, is amended to reflect that the above captioned case is scheduled before Judge Guido on WEDNESDAY. APRIL 21. 2004, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom # 5 of the Cumberland County Courthouse. Edward E. Guido, J. Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Joseph R. Matcheson 1204 North Second Street I"Floor Harrisburg, Pa. 17102 Court Administrator :sid FILED-OFECE OF THE PR07H0?!()T, :r`.Y 2004 -4 ri°i 1: 52 PC Jf %YL `'"d?4.k I ??,? Lc.?3y Cc?vr?. o a3a X0/3 ,me Collet( 180l2ae659J'C? )/,7 UO q4 C, ,.?f ay ?Dy /-1 15 I NCI SL??.. ?? 1 F 14; t't i ' i . I 1 I 1 / C '91 I, i ?. I I ? l i i DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA A. HECKENDORN PLAINTIFF V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON DEPENDANT IN T HE COURT' OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 99-3162 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday February 23, 2004 upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa P. Greevy, Esq. the conciliator, at 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043 _ on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 at 10:30 PM for a Pre-Hcaring 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 live or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COUR'T'. By: _ !s/ Abit?IISStLL' -GTSes?}s ESq. Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATI ORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE. GO TO Olt'1'E111'IIONE TTlli OFFICE SET' FORTFI BELOW TO FIND OUTWHERE YOIJ CAN GETLEGAL I IELP. C'untbcrland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle. Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone 171;1249-3166 DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA A. HECKENDORN ..1 F:IV«tl.T FEB 12 2004 cJ 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 12TH day of FEBRUARY, 2004, we will treat the attached letter as a request for modification. The Court Administrator is directed to refer this matter to conciliation. By the Court, Edward E. Guido, J. Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Joseph R. Matcheson 1204 North Second Street I" Floor Harrisburg, Pa. 17102 Court Administrator :sld 5 February 200LL in Re: No. 99-3162 Civ Your Honor: Fleane accept this latter a Petition for hear.inE in the above numbered case. I have complied with all requirements as set by this court, I now request Hearing to continue so that, I may obtain more custody and child visitation with my son, Joseph Richard Matcheson, Jr, Copies of this are sent to Atty. Lindsay P. Baird, Esq. Thank you for your s=eedy rc^ly. Res nectful]y, cseph R. heson, Sr. y/ 1204. Di. 2nd St pt7%1 H'arrishurg, Fa• 17102 DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA A. IN '1'111? C'OUlt7' 01? COMMON PLEAS OI, HECKENDORN PLAIN'T'IFF . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 99-3162 CIVIL ACTION LAW JOSEPH R. MATCHESON DEFENDANT IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday, February 23, 2004 _, upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before -Melissa P. Greevy, Esq. the conciliator, at_ 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043 on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 at 10:30 PM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, 13y: At MdAwT. Gree3ty, ESLj. Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR A'I-I'ORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE. GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH 131-LOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GIET 1.1?GAL HELP. ('timberland Comity Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA A. HECICENDORN V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON FES 12 2004 0 ? IN THE COURT OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 121H day of FEBRUARY, 2004, we will treat the attached letter as a request for modification. The Court Administrator is directed to refer this matter to conciliation. By the Court, 0000 6040p Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Joseph R. Matcheson 1204 North Second Street I" Floor Harrisburg, Pa. 17102 Court Administrator :sld Edward E. Guido, J. 5 February 2004 Ir. Res No. 99-3162 Civ Your Honors Please accept this letter as Petition for Hearing in the above numbered case. I have complied with all requirements as set by this court. I now request Hearing to continue so that I may obtain more custody and child visitation with my son, Joseph Richard Matcheson, Jr. Copies of this are sent to Atty. Lindsay P. Baird, Esq. Thank you for your speedy reply. Respectful y, oseNh Ma cheson, Sr. 1204 Td. 2nd St Apt#l Harrisburg, Pa. 17102 DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA A. IN TH COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HECKENDORN PLAINTIFF . C11M13L•ItLAND COUN'I'Y,1'ENNSYLVANIA V. • 99-3162 CIVIL ACTION LAW JOSEPH R. MATCHESON DEPENDANT IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday, February 23, 2004 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before _ Melissa P. Greevy, Esq. the conciliator, at_ 301 Market Street Lemoyne PA 17043 on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 at 10:30 PM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve lice 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 live or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: lsl _ _ Mle*55A P. Greev7, Efq. (/ Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATiORNEY OR CANNOTAFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERI. YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle. Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 CURTIS R. LONG Prothonotary Cumberland County One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Joseph R. Matcheson 1204 North Second Street 1 st Floor Harrisburg, PA 17102 ti DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA A. HECKENDORN PLAINTIFF V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • 99-3162 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday, February 23, 2004 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa P. Greevy, Esq__, the conciliator, at 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043 on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 at 10:30 PM for a Pre-Bearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT. By:. /s/ McIBSA P. Greevv,:Ewl (., Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE. GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WIIERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 SOLIIh Bedford Street Carlisle. Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 CURTIS R. LONG Prothonotary Cumberland County One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Lindsay D. Baird, Esq. 37 S. Hanover St. Carlisle, PA 17013 r ?r i ?, : x DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEBRA A. HECKENDORN : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1211 day of APRIL, 2004, the hearing scheduled for April 21, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. is rescheduled to WEDNESDAY. MAY 26.2004 at 8.30 a.m. in Courtroom #5 of the Cumberland County Courthouse. Edward E. Guido, J. Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Joseph R. Matcheson 1204 North Second Street 15` Floor Harrisburg, Pa. 17102 Court Administrator ce?e? ry?,iaVic-W vy :sld fll.[ U-OrF iG .?_ 7? , .,? a Wm. (7171 .4a-57a`2 LINDSAY DARE BAIRD AT"))?NF.Y AT LAW ;17 VOIITI7 I IANQYP:R CARI.IKI.F„ PENNKYLYANLI 17111:3:1307 APR 0 6 2004 PAS 17171 343.8110 April 5, 2004 The Honorable Edward E. Guido One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Heckendorn v. Matcheson Docket No. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM Dear Judge Guido: My clients, the Heckendorns, called to inform me that Ms. Heckendorn's father is gravely ill and is not expected to recover. They are leaving for Florida tomorrow to be with him. As a result, we are respectfully requesting a continuance in the custody hearing scheduled for April 21, 2004, at 2:00 P.M. Mr. Matcheson is receiving a copy of this letter as notification. I do not know his position regarding our request. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully submitted, mdsay Dare Baird, Esquire LDB/nfa cc: Joseph R. Matcheson 1204 North 2n, Street, 1" Floor Harrisburg, PA 17102 J -. 5 ?? DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs/Respondents V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant/Petitioner NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 26th day of May, 2004, after hearing, we amend our order of August 1 of 2003 to add the following provisions: 5. The father shall sign a release provided by the Heckendorns' counsel to allow them to get access to his prison medical records. 6. Father shall contact the child's pediatrician, Dr Pion, to authorize discussion of cautions the Heckendorns may take with the child in connection with father's medical conditions. 7. Father's siblings, parents or nieces may accompany him on his periods of visitation with the child. 8. All parties shall sign releases with Dr. Mays to authorize her to provide information to this Court and/or counsel of the various parties regarding the treatment of the child. In all other respects, our order of August 1, 2003, shall remain in full force and effect. By e Court, E war EGui oao , J. Lindsay Dare Baird, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs/Respondents Joseph R. Matcheson, Sr. Defendant/Petitioner, Pro Se CCC&YS Pcb ?s? G o?f•uf ?/?? '. ? ? ? ?:_, ,J? I i ;, 1 THE COURT: That's -- that was my take on it. 2 That was miss Grove ease take on it. So if you want to appeal my 3 order you've got 30 days. If you want to have me modify it, you 4 have ten days to file a petition with me for modification, 30 5 days to file an appeal with the Superior Court. Or follow the 6 order. Any time after you get your three sessions in and after 7 you provide the medical information to their pediatrician, any 8 time after that, you can come back to me, okay.? Or if Dr. 9 /PHAEUZ says to you, okay, Mr. Match son, I think it's time 10 that -- I think the child would be comfortable with you, we can 11 try it on this basis or that basis, then come on back to me. 12 MR. SKWRAO: Okay. So everything will have to go 13 through you and I learned what ex parte is. 14 THE COURT: Right. You did. 15 /PREPS concluded at 1245.) 16 THE COURT: Good luck. 17 MR. STPHAO: Thank you judge. 18 MR. SKWRAO: Thank you. 19 20 j, 21 j i 22 I. i; 23 24 25 " 26 27 28 29 30 ICA[svAI ?? a3A - Qd/3 Y IN RE: ; IN'rim COURT' OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBFIU AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ADOPTION OF ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION JOSEPH RICHARD MATCHESON, JR, : NO. 78 ADOPTIONS 1999 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, January 29, 2001, it appearing that the petition to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of the natural father was denied by order dated September 29, 2000, the Court Administrator is authorized to impound the above referenced case. By the Court I-dwurd E. Guido, J. :bb DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEBRA A. HECKENDORN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 24TH day of JULY, 2003, the ]tearing scheduled for FRIDAY, AUGUST 1, 2003, at 8:30 a.m. is rescheduled for 11.00 a.m. on the same date. By t ourt, Edward E. Guhdo. J. Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Joseph R. Matcheson 1204 North Second Street 1" Floor Harrisburg, Pa. 17102 :sld I?„? . U• " ?.. , I.I. ..? CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR AL? ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA 17013 y JUL032 •'d'"" 31 rosrA? JOSEPH R. MATCHESON CAPITAL PAVILION 2012 N. FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17102 m 1!1Q'_/'D ? INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS OOT TTEMPTED NOT KNOWN ND SUCH NUMBER/ STREET NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED OR r -1-0-01 TORWARD HEN A oc S ! ?1 DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant GUIDO, J. -- TEMPORARY ORDER OF COURT IN CUSTODY AND NOW, this a'j day of July, 2002, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs, Danny G. Heckendorn and Debra S. Heckendorn, shall have full legal and physical custody of the child, Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr., born December 2, 1997, subject to periods of supervised visitation with natural Father, Joseph R. Matcheson, as follows: A. For a period of two (2) hours on the following dates: July 13, 2002, August 10, 2002, September 7, 2002 and October 5, 2002. These visits shall be supervised by Plaintiffs and shall occur at the LeTort Park, to commence at noon, unless otherwise agreed. In the event that Father has not appeared for his arranged visit by 12:30 p.m., the Plaintiffs and child are free to leave. If the parties change the time of the visit by mutual agreement, Plaintiffs may leave if Father has not arrived within half an hour of the agreed upon time. In the event that Father cannot attend his scheduled visit, he shall provide notice to Plaintiffs counsel seventy-two (72) hours in advance of the scheduled visit. 2. The Custody Conciliation Conference shall reconvene on Wednesday, October 9, 2002 at 1:00 p.m. at the office of the Custody Conciliator, Melissa Peel Greevy, 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043. At the time of the Conference and as per the agreement of the parties, further expansion of Father's custodial time shall be considered. 3. Plaintiffs shall consult with a mental health professional, such as a licensed clinical social worker or licensed psychologist regarding the appropriateness of what to tell the child about the various roles that these adults play in parenting him and in particular whether it is helpful for Plaintiffs to identify themselves as aunt and uncle rather than mother and father, whether it is helpful to inform the child that the Defendant is the father, and the potential impact of changing the name by which they refer to the child. To the extent that 0 ii1Y002 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW there are expenses unreimbursed by health insurance, and upon recommendation of the Conciliator, it is deemed that these services are reasonable and therefore Father shall be required to contribute to them in a fashion consistent with the support guidelines and the existing support order in this case. BY THE COURT: Edward E. Guido, J. Dist: Lindsay D. Baird, Esq., 37 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Joseph R. Matcheson, pro se, Capital Pavilion 2012 North Fourth Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102 ccw-`f F now, sic. ;om in i 1au61alty -A-lc icif, I Meru ut,tr. acs rr; !ir19 ??i0 tho st;a! U, ;''I o of Pz. Proshonrrtara?- A60 1 2002 DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr. December 2, 1997 Paternal Aunt and Uncle 2. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on June 24, 2002 with the following individuals in attendance: the Paternal Aunt and Uncle, Danny G. Heckendorn and Debra S. Heckendorn and their counsel, Lindsay Baird, Esquire; and the Father, Joseph R. Matcheson attended pro se. The Conference was reconvened as a result of a letter Mr. Matcheson wrote to the presiding Judge, Edward E. Guido, seeking to modify the Order of July 14, 2000. 3. Father is presently employed at the Harrisburg News Company from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, while he continues to reside at the Capital Pavilion, which he describes as a private prison. Father is presently on parole for writing bad checks. He hopes and expects to be released from the Capital Pavilion on or about July 1, 2002. Prior to his transfer to the Capital Pavilion, Father had been incarcerated at SCI Dallas. Father states that he is seeking temporary supervised visits two hours a month at the home at the Plaintiffs. However, his longer term goal is the transfer of the custody of the child to him or joint custody with the Plaintiffs. 4. The child's biological mother apparently has had rights terminated pursuant to an order of the Florida court which was not provided at the time of the Custody Conciliation Conference to the Conciliator. Judge Guido's present Order provides full legal and physical custody to the Plaintiffs. The paternal aunt, Debra S. Heckendorn, is presently employed outside home on a 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift. and husband works day shift, by their mutual agreement to keep the child from having to be in full-time day care. The child has been placed them since on or before February 8, 1999. Therefore, the bulk of this child's life has been spent in the care of Plaintiffs and, because of Father's incarceration, Father has had little opportunity to develop a relationship with the child. At the time of the conference, the child had not seen Father since July 2001, at the request of Father. 4. The parties reached an agreement modifying the present Custodial Order and the parties discussed Father's request to change some of the provisions of the legal custody order. However, they ultimately decided to leave the present Order intact in light of the agreements of the parties and the Plaintiffs continuing responsibilities for the care and custody of the minor child. The attached Temporary Order is entered upon agreement of the parties and the Custody Conciliation Conference will reconvene in October 2002. G yr C2 YA D ate Melissa Peel Greevy, E quire Custody Conciliator :159966 JOSEPH MATCHESON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY VS. CIVIL DIVISION - LAW DANIEL HECKENDORN CUSTODY AND DEBRA HECKENDORN,. 99 CIV 5196 DEFENDANT ; O R D E R AND NOW, THIS DAY OF 2000, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED, THAT THE DEFENDANT"S MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED AND THE PLAINTIFF"S MOTION FOR JOINT CUSTODY AND VISITATION SHALL CONTINUE WITH JURISDICTION IN LACKAWANNA COUNTY. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT JOSEPH MATCHESON JR., TIME SUBJECT OF THIS CUSTODY PETITION SHALL NOT BE TRANSPORTED FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA UNTIL THE WITHIN CUSTODY MATTER IS RESOLVED. A HEAPING IS SCHEDULED ON THE DAY OF 2000, IN LACKAWANNA COUNTY COURT, COURT ROOM # AT _M. AND THE SHERIFF"S DEPARTMENT OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY SHALL TRANSPORT THE PLAINTIFF TO THE SAID HEARING FROM SCI DALLAS AT THE SCHEDULED DATE AND TIME, BY THE COURT: J. I!lhh?a 'ia'.;C'.IE5011, :1: fHE COURT IF CONMUN i'J.I hf, L.l I',1`C;:PP .:F LAS KAZANNA Cn I NTV s . CIVIb 17i:CI.`.o1": - LAW D14RA d2VAEP UUNN n9 QV VIM . PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN RE,'',I'ONSE TO DEFEMDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS T•ii:. PLA TNTIIr, Ji;,:RM i9ATC:1C•W, SUBM Ito I'll 1_ FUMING ' ?ING Sbt') E DC iOF THE rLASNT1FV _ nOTION FOR JUINII. .:116'1ODY AND V161TAI ICS: 1. ;1 D';1 `1''r 1_ D . 2. AWITTU. _. AUN11`17W 1:0 PA.PT NNU .^.E.IdUD IN PART. WSW aAb GKA T '10 ' .-'S IN `)c _. •?li?i2 i ,`-M13 r..,LAPG '. JL'I'"I'' Ali a'li N'l' Pi!(' :NiiR I.LG AL. _ EOCdI ORE:S3 ACE „i wrm wNbw FALSE PUTENCB, TH!'. :?iL,'.Ji2r.•.. ,?:!i?C?!?..:'i'AiiCiP+ 5iiL!;I';!J::1; iU:'1J "H ALL:;ra,i; 'Plitt Le.G.1LI'. OF TWO COST"i,Y : A. ;l)?li?G:. R. NA'IC• ES-1, j R. :;?N.;1•i'LcIi L AC ii.".t ANNA i;tiiJNTY Uri 01 KE frAl CP'1 , .'i v i 10 THE .=i A IaTIE' .. , .:C',UH ;5%TC.a.KvN ANN jEjUjFLR rJuN;k m AiCHigow, CUP;'`oN 1.... i iFE UP : L:\1ri"IF'r AT THA i1M1i.. H. i'ii': WSID':i: i'TIP ,1,...'r.'Pli AN) 1ErIN[FrN I% Li' N '' FT. I-,'. T i I_ r5E PI A1:i?1,r,' _ 171r•• „cr''.A117N. .:HORT11Y AFTER 'r'1c i..t 1:!AEF .., IVAt C,.KAVION, JPw, r: d'1i ..k % P&.%. r:,liia.i'i CAL PL;I T:Fw ki11TC! WAY hE IF? by J'!W ii",TF01' IN LGCt;AWAN iA wr Ali .alf.i.:I. AT ;'i;ll ' 1m KNAIFEF FA'. Jt.._...^' 111. A?:r II,_ 2 C. JI'JNIFER LACEED THE ABILITY TO TAKE CARE OF HER CHILDREN A?.D THE FLAIYJTIFF'S FAMILY It! SCRANTON WAS READY AND WILLING 1'? TAF.E. CUSTOIiI' OF ThE PLAINTIFF'S SON. JENNIFER WAS iovi-'sTr %;A7Ell FOR ALUSE OF 11LR CHILDRLN AND SUBSEQUENTLY LEFT TI'E Ail,".A AN) RETURNED TO FLORIDA. 1;:.? D. UNAPLIE TO PROPERLY CARE FOR HER CHILDREN SHE GAVE THEM AiA'i TO TWO SEPARATE FAMILIES, HER FIRST SON, DANNY WENT W'ITII THE DEFENDANTS' , WHO ARE DANNY'S UNCLE AND AUNT, THE 1-1'.,A1:NT'fFF'S SON JOTS.?IH WAS GIVEN TO A FRIEND IN FLORIDA. r s1,, E. DURING THT i PERIOD THE PLAINTIFF'S FAMILY ATTEMPTED TO LGCATE JOSEPH JG., Tn MOVE TO SECURE CUSTODY OF JOSEPH Jlt. WA EST'ECIALLY MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF'S NEICE, SHARON PIA CIIESON SANCHE"", IF NOT FOR JENNIFER'S VINDICTIVE MANEUVERS, THE PLAINTIFF'S NEICE DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE S1:C1.1I?LI r,U"'i05`.', IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE DEFENDANT'S IN TL'1.5 CAP'110NED CASE DID NOT WANT JOSEPH JR AT THAT TIME AND ONLY rr;;1< AI,-1 TO SA7ISFY JENNIFER'S EMBARRESSMENT FOR FAILING TO 6E A FIT MOTHER. L:,I, F. THE PLA.INTiFF IS THE FATHER OF THIS CHILD AND THE BACK DOOR CU:;T'OLY EESTABLISHED BY THE HECKENDORN'S CAME ABOUT IN AN T1,LEGAL FASHION FROM AN UNFIT MOTHER. THE hECI`EP:DOi;PJ'S WERE NOT EVEN JENNIFER'S FIRST CHOICE, SHE GAVE JO:F1iPN JR. A0AY TO A FRIEND IN FLORIDA WHILE CONTINUALLY HIDDING JOSEPH Jl<. FROP1 THE MATCHESON ; FAMILY. 1--.11, G. _f,E' NFCX'EI\DOI:N' S ARE NOT EVEN IMMEDIATE FAMILY AND ARE HOT A SIABLE ENVIRONMENT. FOR JOSEPH JR., THIS IS INDICATED ii,, ;\ LErTER 0HICH STATr-S THAT THE DEFENDANT'S THREATEN TO S'cNL; JOSEPH JR. BACK TO FLORIDA, THE HECKENDORN'S ARE DSFT.rJIT-,LY NOT SEEKING THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD AND TmE CUSTODY OF JOSEPH JR. I;OULD BE BETTER SERVED WITH THE PI.Alf;1'11-FlS FAMILY IN SCRANTON, PA LAC,?AWANNA. THE MATCHESONS ARE, MORE IMMEDIATE FAMILY TO JOSEPH JR. AND THE E'ATHEIR,/!3ON RELATICNShIP .JOULD BE MAINTAINED UNTIL THE PLAT.NTlF'F IS RELEASED FROM CUSTODY. (, II i 1 3 4. ADMITTED, HOWE'?I•:ii, Tf.E CHILD'S RESIDENCE CAME ABOUT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND IN A FASHION WHICiI DFORIVFD THE PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAI4ILY FROM SECURING CUSTODY IN SCRANTON, PA, LACNAWANNA COUNTY. 5. DENIED, P LAINTIFF HAS NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CUST ODY ACTION AND IT IS THE PLAINTIFF'S POSTION THAT ANY AC'T'I ON TAKEN O'JTMDE OF LACIiAWANNA COUNTY WITHOUT AFFORDING THE PLAIN F'IFF AND HIS FAMILY DUE PROCESS IS ILLEGAL AMD THE SAID ORDERS OF SUCH ACTIONS SHOULD BE REVERSED. 6. A.DNITTED IN PART AND DENIEL) IN PART, IT IS ADMITTED THAT AN OPOER TJAS ISSUED AND IS e?TTACHEr), IT IS DENIED BECAUSE ACTION WAS DETC•RIIINED UNDER FALSE PRETENCE AND WITHOUT LEGAL JURISDICTION IN C'IJNBERLaNI? COUNTY. THE PLAINTIFF AND HIS FA.M.A TJERE DEPRIVED OF PRCCEjS AND THE THEIR RIGHT TO A CUSTOLY PETITION AND THEREFORE DEPRIVING THEM OF DUE PROCESS RIGHT BY ILLEGALLY HIDDING THR SUBJECT OF SUCH ACTION. V -j" VR:' NIIEREIiORL; T!lE PLArNT'IFF RESPECTrULLY REQUEST THAT DE'I:IfDANT'S MOTION FOR DISt.ISSAL OF ABOVE CAPTIONED PETITICN BE D'c!vlal': AND I'HE PLAINTIFF FURTHER REQUEST THAT TPE PETITIO!4 FQR JGMT CCSTODY AND VISITATICN SHOULD CONTINUE IN THE PI.0i'-N J1117ISDIC'1'ICN OF LACNA, aAll,!A COUNTY ?MH A HEARIM0 To Rii;GLVF AND SETILF VIE SA11) REQUEST AS THE COURT ALLOWS. THE PTAlti'1'1FF F'URTUiR R1:;iiJES'1' THAT UNDER THE 1-IRCU14STANCES AND IN TNE' tiEST INTERL•ST OF JOSEPH JR., ME JOINT CUSTODY .0 OUL1J Bb GRAN'FEl) I'Ci THE PLAINTIFF AND HIS NIECE, SHARON IIAI'i;HL:.-,0 .3kKc!1EZ AT II RLSIDLNC£ IN SCRANTkiN, PA., L1C;ii;lti\:cP.A COUNTY. RESPECSFULL'I SU6,ILTTL•"D, JJ EPL-. t'G,TC!rF;SG1J A;( 9515u L ATPZR 'i, 100' FOT,LII:S ROAD DALLA!i, PA Mil::-02t !i DANNY G. HECICENDORN DEBRA S. HECICENDORN Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 99- 3/(-z- CIVIL TERM : IN CUSTODY COD.9PLAINT FOR CUSTODY 1. The plaintiffs are Danny G. Heckendorn and Debra S. Heckendorn, residing at 25 Fairfield Street, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The defendant is Joseph R. Matcheson, residing at Lackawanna County Prison, 1372 M-Washington Ave., Scranton, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiffs seek custody of the following child: Name Present Residence Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr. 25 Fairfield St. Newville, PA 11/2 Yrs. The child was born out of wedlock. The child is presently in the custody of maternal uncle and aunt who reside at 25 Fairfield Street, Newville, PA. During the past 11/2 years, the child has resided with the following persons and at the following addresses: Persou AAdress DAL" Jennifer R. Benner (Mother) Scranton, PA 12-2-97-11-30-98 X Sharon Faison•(Friend of Mother) Lake Wales, Florida 11-30-98! Danny 8c Debra Heckendorn 25 Fairfield St. Newville, PA Feb. 1999-11resent The mother of the child is Jennifer R. Benner, currently residing at 601 Bellview Dr., Lake Wales, Florida. Mother's parental rights were voluntarily terminated by Affidavit and Acknowledgement of Surrender, Consent and Waiver of Notice from Polk County, Florida, November 30, 1998. A copy of same is attached and marked as Exhibit "A'. She is married. The father of the child is Joseph R. Matcheson, currently residing at Lackawanna County Prison, Scranton, PA. He is unmarried. l l 1 rile ,;, l ;l„ l ,•( . ; ,?,_ Sharon Matcheson-Sanchez 709 Prospect Ave Scranton PA 18505 April 05 1999 Lindsay Dare Baird, Attorney 34 South Hanover Street Carlisle PA 17013 Dear Ms. Baird: 1 would like to introduce myself to you and others who are involved in the custody issue of Joey Matcheson. My name is Sharon Matcheson-Sanchez, I am Joe's niece and little Joey's cousin. I want all concerned to know that, little Joey has a family here in Scranton PA, who love him very much & until recently were unaware of his well being. Jennifer took him away without a word to anyone, we didn't even know if the children were OK, as we were well aware Jennifer was on drugs at the time. As a matter of fact, Children & Youth were at her apartment the morning after she left Scranton for Florida, to take custody of the children because they had received so many complaints, for what reason I am not aware of as they would not discuss that with me. The too few times I was given a chance to spend time with little Joey, were wonderful. He is such a good little baby. My children aged 14 & 12 loved having little Joey around and doted on him the whole time he spent with us. He also has many other cousins who live nearby. When I visit his father (my uncle Joe), all he talks about is his baby. I know that Joe has had problems in his life, but now all he lives for is little Joey. He has so many plans and hopes that are natural for any parent to have. Joe and 1 had previously discussed the option of me taking care of little Joey because we both felt Jennifer was not going to be able to do so, just because of the hardships she was facing and would continue to face being a single parent with 2 kids. I contacted an agency to see how I could become a foster parent. Then Jennifer disappeared without a word to anyone. Recently, when I was finally able to contact Jennifer, she told me she disappeared because a boyfriend beat on her and she had him wrested and he had previously threatened to kill her if she ever did anything to get him arrested. 1 have nothing against Jennifer and I tried to be her friend whilst she was here and help out when 1 was able. I hope Jennifer is able to move onto a better life then what she had previously ,l (meaning the deplorable conditions under which she lived day by day.) But a person's choice is their own, even if they can't see the harm its doing to their loved ones. At least she finally saw the light and left that guy Bob Hazen before he really hurt her and the kids. It hurt me that she couldn't confide.in me of her plans to get away. I spent a lot of time calling people she knew, even went to the Greyhound bus terminal to see if they may have seen her. I called her mothers work place, she had quit, so then I called around and was finally able to get a number to where Jennifer was staying. I keep in touch with Jennifer via the phone and I wish her the best in life. Little Joey has a lot of fancily here who love him dearly and are financially able to support him. He even has an uncle in California who is a minister of God & is willing to take care of him. Little Joey could grow up in a loving family atmosphere with lots of relatives, if he was placed with us. Jennifers family background was not a loving or productive one and there are some chines we are aware of that you may not be and to place a young child into an atmosphere of which she grew up under, is beyond me. (These thin s she made us aware of are her own words, also validated in the way she acted day to day and reflect her negative feelings & opinions towards her family members in Florida .) I can tell you Joe will not give up his parental rights ever. Joe wants his family here in Scranton to have temporary custody of little Joey until he is able to be with his son. Ask Jennifer. She knows that I would take good care of little Joey & love him. 1 know that Jens uncle will never have anything good to say to little Joey about his real father, if anything, and there is lots to tell. I saw Joe with his son and he loves him dearly. We all would love to have little Joey back here with his family where he belongs, where he could grow up with all the love and support one child could receive from such a large family. Also, if Joe is not able be with his son as soon as we had hoped for, at least later, when little Joey is older and is able to understand the circumstances of his fathers incarceration, he would have the opportunity to visit his father if he wished. Living with Jennifers uncle would deny this opportunity and as I understand it, Jennifers uncle plans to change little Joeys name completely. The natural parent has the right to be with their child and as Jennifer chooses not to be with little Joey, Joe says he wants us to take care of his son until he can. Little Joey is who he is when he was born and so named, and is who he is now, Joseph Richard Matcheson,Ir. Sily, If LGL' i Sharon MalcheVVeson-S:mchet-? TEL. (717) 253.3732 LINDSAY DARE BAIRD ATTORNEY AT LAW 37 SOUTH HANOVER CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013.3307 PAX (717) 243.8110 September 7, 1999 James K. Jones, Esquire 7 Irvine Row Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Heckendorn Dear Jim: I had an opportunity to speak with the Heckendorns regarding the visitation at SCI - Dallas. They are still rather emphatic that they will not do that. Please know that they would be happy to accept letters or gifts for Joey/Branden and Mr. Matcheson would be able to visit at the Heckendorn's with supervision once he is released. If your client does not accept the adoption on those terms, mine will file for support immediately (true, he will not pay now, but will reimburse Assistance later), and will likely seek to have Joey returned to his mother in Florida rather than deal with any threat of driving the child to a corrections facility. For the sake of the little boy, we hope Mr. Matcheson will understand. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. LDB/njb cc: Mr, and Mrs. Heckendorn Very truly yours, indsay Dare Baird JJaE¢lc??Vl, ?oycin d{ttatlwy at law y1o•y1z ?aru d{vcnuc .Smwrtvn, J?uuwayfvaafa 18503 tyw,u 717-969.0400 9- 717.343.2433 September 22, 1998 Mr. Joseph Matcheson c/o Lackawanna County Prison 1371 North Washington Avenue Scranton, PA 18509 RE: Jennifer Benner v hcgnh Matchecon 98 CIV 3602 PFA Dear Joe: I write regarding the above-referenced case and your letter to me dated September 14, 1998. As you know, I appeared with you at the PFA hearing before Judge Harhut. And after the hearing, during which petitioner Jennifer Benner was the only person to testify, the Court denied the petition requesting a PFA. In denying her petition, the Court entered an Order directing that you and she not have any contact with each other except through counsel, that she have custody of the child until further order of the court, that you may petition for visitation (or custody) and that any violation of the Order would be subject to civil contempt. I was pleased to be of assistance to you, certainly in consideration of the positive outcome for you. Regarding your request in your above-referenced letter to me that I represent you in your custody and/or visitation matter, please be advised that I will not be available to represent you as you request. By copy of this letter I am advising attorney Sylvia Hahn of same. Please guide yourself accordingly. P kilt/an AN cc: Sylvia Hahn, Esquire --- _- .? _ . _.. _ ? ,r, i, ', h Y x6b 42 . `1f i XMcp - - -3 3000 ;n Rr? !Yo'y9-31&2- ?qOw sMf6 ?6Z -, A 6 4 O t, tip f 1 a,/ L' NC.?. C& VI 9?Z'Yi 9 ? iC??J'kY -A Gli:. 1 6.1 n A „5?, rt,7L ! ?p R•n )e t ?1. . `laN c -4A / C.Ci (1 F? WILLIAM P. MNALDI APR 7 12 iu PH '00 Lh (e 0U,4TY: JOSEPH MATCHESON, • IN.THE:?QQU?T OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff I' ?iCts Of'LAICkAWANNACOUNTY Vs. DANIEL HECKENDORN and DEBRA HECKENDORN, Defendants 99CV5196 ..........................................................................:...................................................... ORDER NOW, this / " day of April, 2000, a telephone conference call regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for Wednesday, April 19, 2000 at 2:30 PM. BY THE COURT, T? n-? - ,NpNNA COG FAMILY CON) The Honorable Edward Guido Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 1. .1110.411 11,1114.11111,111,111111111 r 1 U JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Sit. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PETITIONER PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY VS. DAIyT ]. AVD,.DEARA IIECKEPII)ORN a DEFENDANTS: NUMBER _ N TITION FOR JOINT CUSTODY AND VISITATION l? T4i PZT'ITIONER, JOSFPH MATCH ESON SR., RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND VISITATION WITH SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. THE PETITIONER IS CURRENTLY INCARCERATED AT THE STATE CORRECTIONAL. INSTITUTE AT DALLAS IN LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. MAILING ADDRESS - AK9966, DRAWER K, DAM AS, p& 18612-0286. 2. THE DEFENDANTS ARE DANNY HECKENDORN AND HIS WIFE DEBRA HECKENDORN, BOTH RESIDE AT 25 FAIRFIELD ST. NEWVILLE, PA 17291. 3. THE PETITIONER, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., IS TIIE FATHER OF JOSEPH R. MATCHESON JR. WHO IS CURRENTLY RESIDING WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED DEFENDANTS. 9. JENNIFER BENNER, THE MOTHER OF JOSEPH JR., IS THE NIECE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED DEFENDANTS. JENNIFER 13ENNER GAVE CUSTODY TO THE DEFENDANTS WITHOUT THE PETITIONERS CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE. 5. THE PETITIONER IS CURRENTLY BEING CONTACT WITH HIS SON, THE DEFENDANTS PREVENT THIS PETITIONER FROM CONTACT DEFENDANTS HAVE HAD JOSEPH R. MATCHESON JR. SINCE FEBRUARY 8, 1999. DEPRIVED OF ANY ARE EONP11JUING T9 6R',' 03'SiTS', THE. INr 1T?EIR CUSTODY.'' 4. THE PETITIONER :F.E K1.1 ;101 N T' CUSTODY AND SPECIIF.L al(RANGEMBNTS VOR VIS1TATION AT SCI. DALLAS. 7. THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING JOINT CUSTODY WITH HIS NIECE, SNMi:); SaNCUEZ, 739 P-.Wii?E:CT -WE., ?,: PA.`iTGN, PA 18505 AND THE DEFENDANTS UNTIL HIS RELEASE FROM INCARCr'r'A'I'10M. 6. THE P!il''i'J.'IOi±TEt AVERS THAT IT IS CURRENTLY I11P0ESIHLE FOR HIM TO RECEIVE; VISIT FROM IIIS SON DURING THE CUSTODY OF THE DEFENDANT IF JOIET'P C0:3TGT)Y WITH 'P=:F PETITIONERS NIECE IS ORDERED THE PETITIONERS I11RCE CO11,D BRING THE BABY TO VISIT HIS FATHER AT SCI-DALLAS. IN ANDI.TION, THE PETITIONER COULD HAVE CONTACT WITH HIS SON WHILE HIS NIECE HAS CUSTODY. WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONER RES2ECTE-CILL'Y REQUEST' YOUR HONORABLE COURT TO GRANT THE WITHIN REQUESTED RELIEF AS FOLLOWS: ISSUE AN ORDER UPON THE DEFENDANTS TO DELIVER JOSEPI4 R. MATCHFSON JR. TO THE PETITIONERS NIECE, SHARON SANCHEZ AT 709 FROSPECT KvE., SC'S''ANTCN, PA RAC!I lr'EE'K7111) UNTIL THE PETITIONER IS RELEASE FROM CUSTODY. OR IN THE ALTERNATivE, P. F,?IR PERIOD OF CUL:TODY TO BE OETLR'NINED NY THE COURT. IN THE E!%ENT CUSTODY IS NOT GRANTEL TO THE PETITIONER'S 141ECE, 191E PETI17ONEF Rk;Q'UL,;T Ti1AT THE DEFENDANTS RE ORI)EM' TO i=RING :TOSM? MiTC1!(SON JV. TO TIIE PETITIONER'S NIECE FOR A PERIOD OF T'II'tE III W111cli A WEEKLY VISIT CAN TAKE PLACE. RESPECTFULLY SUHHITTED, JOSEPH 11hTCHESON, PETITIONER JOSEPH R. MATCHESON SR. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PETITIONER PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA VS COUNTY DANI;$1, A,UD DEBRA IIECKENDORM DEFENDANTS NUMBER G3 ' N l G CIQ APPLICATION FOR LEAVE IN FORM PAUPERIS THE- PETITIONER, JOSEPH R. MATCHESON SR., REQUEST THE 110 TRRABI:E COURT TO ALLOW THIS INDIGENT PETITIONER TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS DUE TO THE INABILITY OF THE PETITIONER TO PAY THE FEES, COURT COST AND TRANSPORTATION FOR THIS MATTER. THE PETITIONER'S INDIGENT STATUS IS ESTABLISHED AS FOLLOWS: 1. FORMA PAUPERIS WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED FOR THIS PETITIONER IN LACKAWANNA COUNTY AS A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT ON JANUARY 29, 1998, THIS FINANCIAL CONDITION STILT, EXIST. 2. THE PETITIONER IS CURRENTLY INCARCERATED AT THE STATE CORRECTIONAI, INSTITUTION AT DALLAS, PA. THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC DEFENDERS SINCE HIS ARREST ON JANUARY 29, 1998. 3. THE PETITIONER, JOSEPH R. MATHCESON SR., IS IN INCARCERATED FOR TILE AFOREMENTIONED ARREST AND THIS INCARCERATION IS DEPRIVING THIS PETITIONER OF INCOME AND THE ABILITY TO PAY THE COST OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. It JOSEPH R. MATCHESON SR., DO IIERE15Y VERIFY THAT THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF NY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND RECOLLECTION. ANY FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF SECTION 4904 OF THE CRIMES CODE. (18-PA C.S 4904), RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES. PH R. MATCHESON SR., DALLAS,PA •PYS510 Lackawaa County Clerk/Judicial RErds Page 1 Civil Case Inquiry _ 1999-05196 MATCHESON JOSEPH R SR (vs) HECKENDORM DANIEL & DEBRA Reference No..: Filed........: 10/21/1999 Case Type.....: CUSTODY Time.........: 2:52 Judgment.... .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------- Case Comments -- ----------- Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: t+*++t+tt+t++++tt+tttt+++++++++++tt+t++++++++++++++++t++++tt+t+t+t++ +t+++tttt•tt General Index Attorney Info MATCHESON JOSEPH R SR PLAINTIFF 1371 N WASHINGTON AVENUE --c TOWER #2 D18 p SCRANTON PA 18509 o '6 R HECKENDORM DANIEL DEFENDANT - 25 FAIRFIELD STREET o NEWVILLE PA 17241 Q HECKENDORM DEBRA ' DEFENDANT ¢ 25 FAIRFIELD STREET a: NEWVILLE PA 17241 ttt+t+'t+++++ttt+t+++t+++++++++++t+tt++tt+tt++++ttt+tt*+t+t++++++++++ tt ?+ t+ * Date Entries tt+t++tttttt+tttt+t+++++++++t+++++tt++++++t+tt+tttt++++++t++tt+++*++ t+ t? 'tt + ++ - - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - IV 10/21/1999 a? 10/21/1999 3/10/27/1999 1J? 3/01/2000 S? 3/01/2000 t,? 3/01/2000 -7/3/01/2000 81,/ 3/01/2000 9,/ 3/23 /2000 /p?3/23/2000 li?4/07/2000 1a,/ 4/07/2000 13? 5/01/2000 PETITION FOR. JOINT CUSTODY & VISITATION. ------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICATION FOR LEAVE IN FORMA PAUPERIS. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER DATED 10-27-99. I.F.P. GRANTED. BY THE COURT: HARHUT, J. (NOTIFIED) ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER FOR CONCILIATION CONFERENCE TO BE HELD ON 3-14-00 AT 10:15 AND ORDER TO ATTEND KIDS FIRST SEMINAR. BY THE COURT: NOTIFIED 3-2-00 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO ATTEND A "KIDS FIRST SESSION" DATED 2-14-00 TO DANIEL AND DEBRA HECKENDORN. BY THE COURT: NOTIFIED 3-2-00 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO ATTEND A "KIDS FIRST SESSION" DATED 2-14-00 TO JOS. R. MATCHESON, SR. BY THE COURT: NOTIFIED 3-2-00 ------------------------------------------------------------------- CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT FILED. ------------------------------------------------------------------- LETTER FROM JOE MATCHESON DATED 2-27-00 FILED. ------------------------------------------------------------------- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN RESPONSE TO DEFT'S MOTION TO DISMISS BY JOSEPH MATCHESON. ------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY FILED -- - - - ---- --- --- - ----- - - --- - --------- - - ----------------------- ------- STATUS-REPORT-FILED------------------------------------------------ ORDER DATED 4-7-00. HARHUT, J. NOTIFIED 4-7-00 ------------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE DATED 4-19-00 FILED --------------------------------------------------------------------COUNTY CLERK 1y /5/02/2000 ORDERDICIALDATRECORDSED TRANSFERCTHISECASEKTO CUMBERLAND COUNTY F HARHUT, J. NOTIFIED 5-2-00 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5/12/2000 FILE TRANSFERRED TO PROTHONOTARY OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY BY CERTIFIED MAIL - RECEIPT # 7099 3400 0001 4231 0005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - +tt+++t+t+++++ttt+t+++++t+++++ttt+t+++t+t*+++#tt++ttt++t++++++++++ttt+++tttt+t++ * End of Case Information t V` •PYS510 Lackawa. i County Clerk/Judicial Rc 'rds Page 2 N Civil Case Inquiry 1999-05196 MATCHESON JOSEPH R SR (vs) HECKENDORM DANIEL & DEBRA Reference No..: Filed........: 10/21/1999 Case T e.....: CUSTODY Time.........: 2:52 Jud men .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ Case Comments ---------- -- Higher Crt 1.: (I-q) p? JOSEPH MATCHESON, Plaintiff vs. DANIEL HECKENDORN and DEBRA HECKENDORN, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY r r. c m a O N 99CV5196 °CO D '21 ORDER r n= rr z> r Y? s v n? oy ?r =o ?01-1 @L? NOW, this day of May, 2000, after a telephone conference/hearing in the above matter, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Jurisdiction lies in Cumberland County. Therefore, we direct the Lackawanna County Clerk of Judicial Records to transfer this case to Cumberland County. BY THE COURT, a -, J. Sharon Matcheson-Sanchez 709 Prospect Ave Scranton PA 18505 April 05 1999 Lindsay Dare Baird, Attorney 34 South Hanover Street Carlisle PA 17013 Dear Ms. Baird: I would like to introduce myself to you and others who are involved in the custody issue of Joey Matcheson. My name is Sharon Matcheson-Sanchez, I am Joe's niece and little Joey's cousin. I want all concerned to know that, little Joey has a family here in Scranton PA, who love him very much & until recently were unaware of his well being. Jennifer took him away without a word to anyone, we didn't even know if the children were OK, as we were well aware Jennifer was on drugs at the time. As a matter of fact, Children & Youth were at her apartment the morning after she left Scranton for Florida, to take custody of the children because they had received so many complaints, for what reason I am not aware of as they would not discuss that with me. The too few times I was given a chance to spend time with little Joey, were wonderful. He is such a good little baby. My children aged 14 & 12 loved having little Joey around and doted on him the whole time he spent with us. He also has many other cousins who live nearby. When I visit his father (my uncle Joe), all he talks about is his baby. I know that Joe has had problems in his life, but now all he lives for is little Joey. He has so many plans and hopes that are natural for any parent to have. Joe and I had previously discussed the option of me taking care of little Joey because we both felt Jennifer was not going to be able to do so, just because of the hardships she was facing and would continue to face being a single parent with 2 kids. I contacted an agency to see how I could become a foster parent. Then Jennifer disappeared without a word to anyone. Recently, when I was finally able to contact Jennifer, she told me she disappeared because a boyfriend beat on her and she had him arrested and he had previously threatened to kill her if she ever did anything to get him arrested. I have nothing against Jennifer and I tried to be her friend whilst she was here and help out when I was able. I hope Jennifer is able to move on to a better life then what she had previously )tt EX U ill (meaning the deplorable conditions under which she lived day by day.) But a person's -hoicc is their own, even if they can't see the harm its doing to their loved ones. At least she finally saw the light and left that guy Bob Hazcn before he really hurt her and the kids. It hurt me that she couldn't confide.in me of her plans to get away. I spent a lot of time calling people she knew, even went to the Greyhound bus terminal to see if they may have seen her. I called her mothers work place, she had quit, so then I called around and was finally able to get a number to where Jennifer was staying. I keep in touch with Jennifer via the phone and I wish her the best in life. Little Joey has a lot of family here who love him dearly and are financially able to support him. He even has an uncle in California who is a minister of God & is willing to take care of him. Little Joey could grow up in a loving family atmosphere with lots of relatives, if he was placed with us. Jennifers family background was not a loving or productive one and there are some thines we are aware of that you may not be and to place a young child into an atmosphere of which she grew up under, is beyond me. (These thines she made us aware of are her own words, also validated in the way she acted day to day and reflect her negative feelings & opinions towards her family members in Florida.) I can tell you Joe will not give up his parental rights ever. Joe wants his family here in Scranton to have temporary custody of little Joey until he is able to be with his son. Ask Jennifer. She knows that I would take good care of little Joey & love him. I know that Jens uncle will never have anything good to say to little Joey about his real father, if anything, and there is lots to tell. I saw Joe with his son and he loves him dearly. We all would love to have little Joey back here with his family where he belongs, where he could grow up with all the love and support one child could receive from such a large family. Also, if Joe is not able be with his son as soon as we had hoped for, at least later, when little Joey is older and is able to understand the circumstances of his fathers incarceration, he would have the opportunity to visit his father if he wished. Living with Jennifers uncle would deny this opportunity and as I understand it, Jennifers uncle plans to change little Joeys name completely. The natural parent has the right to be with their child and as Jennifer chooses not to be with little Joey, Joe says he wants us to take care of his son until he can. Little Joey is who he is when he was born and so named, and is who he is now, Joseph Richard Matcheson Jr. Sine ly, haron Matchcson-Sancha TEL. (717) 243.5732 LINDSAY DARE BAIRD ATTORNEY AT LAW 37 SOUTH HANOVER CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013.3307 FAX (717) 243.8110 September 7, 1999 James K. Jones, Esquire 7 Irvine Row Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Heckendorn Dear Jim: I had an opportunity to speak with the Heckendorns regarding the visitation at SCI - Dallas. They are still rather emphatic that they will not do that. Please know that they would be happy to accept letters or gifts for Joey/Branden and Mr. Matcheson would be able to visit at the Heckendorn's with supervision once he is released. If your client does not accept the adoption on those terms, mine will file for support immediately (true, he will not pay now, but will reimburse Assistance later), and will likely seek to have Joey returned to his mother in Florida rather than deal with any threat of driving the child to a corrections facility. For the sake of the little boy, we hope Mr. Matcheson will understand. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. LDB/njb cc: Mr. and Mrs. Heckendorn Very truly yours, ?indsa'y Dare Baird "IC 1 , J M j ?. 1Oat,z1ck cJV(. o9an Alovmy ai faw 310-312 GQ(lwns alvtn eCetwtt"' fuNau??vw:ia 165oj 9G= 9m7-969-o4co Sax 717.343.2433 September 22, 1998 Mr. Joseph Matcheson c/o Lackawanna County Prison 1371 North Washington Avenue Scranton, PA 18509 RE: Jennifer Benner v oa ph Matcheson 98 CIV 3602 PFA Dear Joe: I write regarding the above-referenced case and your letter to me dated September 14, 1998. As you know, I appeared with you at the PFA hearing before Judge Harhut. And after the hearing, during which petitioner Jennifer Benner was the only person to testify, the Court denied the petition requesting a PFA. In denying her petition, the Court entered an Order directing that you and she not have any contact with each other except through counsel, that she have custody of the child until further order of the court, that you may petition for visitation (or custody) and that any violation of the Order would be subject to civil contempt. I was pleased to be of assistance to you, certainly in consideration of the positive outcome for you. Regarding your request in your above-referenced letter to me that I represent you in your custody and/or visitation matter, please be advised that I will not be available to represent you as you request. By copy of this letter I am advising attorney Sylvia Hahn of same. Please guide yourself accordingly. PMR/an cc: Sylvia Hahn, Esquire OFFICE OF'THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR 45" JUDICIAL DISTRICT LACKAWANNA COUNTY COURT HOUSE WILLIAM J. MURRAY SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA 18503 CourtAdminitmator 570 963-6773 FAX 570 963.6477 May 4, 2000 Joseph Matcheson AK-9966 1000 Follies Road Dallas, PA 18612 Dear Mr. Matcheson: JAMES P. MINELLA Drpury Court Adminutrator JEFFREY J. MCLANE Deputy Court Adminutrator I am enclosing a copy of your file as of May 4, 2000. I am unable to copy any transcripts. You must contact Erin Walker, who was the Court reporter in your case. She will tell you the cost of the transcript. If you have any further questions do not hesitate to contact my office. Sincerely yours, J Mc e Du ou dministrator Cc: Judge Chester Harhut Erin Walker file .- U L3) 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 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY EPH MATCHESON, Plaintiff, -vs- 99 CIV 5196 IEL HECKENDORN and r RA HECKENDORN Defendants. O - ?7 O'= N J V f7 ;t, N r 2> x r-, TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS p HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHESTER T. HARHUT, J. BEFORE THE HONORABLE EDWARD E. GUIDO, J. CHAMBERS OF JUDGE HARHUT LACKAWANNA COUNTY COURTHOUSE SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA APRIL 19, 2000 P P E A R A N C E S: R THE PLAINTIFF: R THE DEFENDANTS: JOSEPH MATCHESON, PRO SE LINDSAY BAIRD, ESQ. Erin M. Walker Official Court Reporter ORIGINAL } 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 (At this time the phone conference commenced.) JUDGE GUIDO: Judge Guido here, Judge Harhut. I have Ms. Baird here also. JUDGE HARHUT: And I'm here in my office. This is Judge Harhut. Is Mr. Matcheson there? MR. MATCHESON: Yes, I am. JUDGE HARHUT: Okay. I guess the inquiry is we've had a Petition for Custody filed here in Lackawanna County. JUDGE GUIDO: Right, and we have a custody order entered here on June 9, 1999, and the children have been living here in Cumberland County since February of 1999. 1 think Mr. Matcheson can confirm that. MR. MATCHESON: I don't know where they've been living. I was told they've been living there. JUDGE HARHUT: I don't know where they're living. JUDGE GUIDO: I took testimony in a proceeding in Termination of Parental Rights of Mr. Matcheson. That is under advisement. The record is open. JUDGE HARHUT: So you have a termination 2 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 petition down there. We have a custody petition up here. You have had a custody proceeding down there, apparently, and the child has been there. Is that what the facts are? JUDGE GUIDO: Yes. I found as a fact at the termination hearing that the child has been here I believe it was February of 1999. JUDGE HARHUT: There's a little question. The child has been there in excess of six months. MR. GUIDO: Absolutely. JUDGE HARHUT: I believe you would have jurisdiction over all proceedings regarding the child. JUDGE GUIDO: We're prepared to exercise that. We will send down whatever Mr. Matcheson filed up there, and we'll rule upon that in the custody action up here. MR. MATCHESON: I disagree with that, your Honor. JUDGE GUIDO: The number of our custody action is 99-3162. JUDGE HARHUT: Ours is 99 Civil 5196. JUDGE GUIDO: And ours was filed in May of 3 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 99. I believe ours was actually pending before yours. JUDGE HARHUT: I believe it was pending before ours. Mr. Matcheson filed October 21, 1999. JUDGE GUIDO: Okay. If you are going to send that down here, then, Mr. Matcheson, I will rule upon what is filed and we'll give you a hearing on that if that is okay with Judge Harhut. THE COURT: Mr. Matcheson wanted to say something. Do you have something to say? MR. MATCHESON: Oh, yes, sir. JUDGE HARHUT: This is an ongoing case way before Cumberland County had it. The latest thing that I filed is the one that you have before you now. But I had written to you and asked you to accept letters and petitions for custody as far back as I believe March, April, of 1998. You referred those letters to different people, court administrators and other people. I have all these papers stacked up but there's no place for me to look at them here. I have a multitude of evidence here. JUDGE HARHUT: Judge Guido will look at 4 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 that. The rule is if a child is in a jurisdiction for six months -- MR. MATCHESON: Well, your Honor, I am saying the jurisdiction, which we legally had, Your Honor granted the mother of these children custody and said that I may file for visitation and custody at a later date during a hearing in 1998. We tried to file. The children were snuffed from Pennsylvania to Florida and hidden from me for a period of time, I'm not sure exactly how long, and then when these people in Florida had the children, something happened down there. My family found them and were moving to have custody taken when the children were then snuffed back up into Pennsylvania, hidden from me and my family, despite repeated attempts to find them and to call 'people who have them and their attorney. We were met with a wall of silence. We did not know where the children were, so we could not file. So they kept those children hidden to establish jurisdiction in their home county. JUDGE HARHUT: Well that fact will have to be determined, and I think since the children 5 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 have been in is it York County? JUDGE GUIDO: Cumberland. JUDGE HARHUT: Cumberland County for in excess of six months, those issues would have to be disputed there, and that testimony would have to come in at that proceeding, Mr. Matcheson. So I think under the rules with the child being there, and there's a question of how the child got there and whatever happened in between, I really don't know -- MR. MATCHESON: I believe you have jurisdiction, your Honor. Judge Harhut I'm speaking to, because you're the one that granted the first court order when the case started in Lackawanna County. JUDGE HARHUT: The difference is the child is there, and I believe that Cumberland County would have the jurisdiction and that would be my ruling because of the physical presence of the child there. JUDGE GUIDO: I ought to forthsend you a copy of that order, and whatever petitions are filed up there, we will schedule a hearing forthwith for Mr. Matcheson. MR. MATCHESON: Will I be transported for 6 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 this hearing? JUDGE GUIDO: We'll deal with that, Mr. Matcheson. Mr. Matcheson, could I have your address? MR. MATCHESON: Do you have my name in front of you? JUDGE GUIDO: Yes, I do. MR. MATCHESON: In the back of my name my number would be AK-9966. JUDGE GUIDO: AK-9966. MR. MATCHESON: One thousand Follies Road, Dallas, Pa. JUDGE GUIDO: How long will you be in prison, sir? MR. MATCHESON: Sir, I haven't the slightest idea. The way it looks now I'll be here until my maximum sentence is finished will be 13 months from now. JUDGE GUIDO: Okay, we'll get working on this. Judge Harhut, thank you. JUDGE HARHUT: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Matcheson. MR. MATCHESON: Judge Guido, is there any chance you could order visitation? I have not seen my child since he's two months old. ;1 7 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE GUIDO: I will take a look at the file and I will schedule a hearing on that and take a look at that forthwith. MR. MATCHESON: Thank you. (Whereupon the phone conference was concluded.) 8 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 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me in the hearing of the above cause, and that this is a correct transcript of the same to the best of my ability. I u 11-1- bun awt, Erin M. Walker Official Court Reporter . The foregoing record of the proceedings upon the hearing of the above cause is hereby approved and directed to be file.d. 100 A Da e E ..: (1? JOSEPH MATCHESON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY i Vs. i DANIEL HECKENDORN and DEBRA HECKENDORN, Defendants 99CV5196 ................... ORDER n1 NOW, this day of April, 2000, a telephone conference call regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for Wednesday, April 91 2000 at 2:30 PM. _ -? s BY THE COURT, w = c @ s y - r ??- J. 1 it-KHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JF LACKAWA.NNA COUNT( CUSTOC / ACTION - LAIN naant i1(h' II'4®/ PIVI CeC - (AcCreSS) Attorney Status: Natural Parent _ Accclive Parent _ Grancparents Other PARTIES ARE Separatec _ Divcrcea _ Unwed _ Other .....:.......................................... CHILCREN. Name) !Aces -7" Pot, ? C Attemey Status: _V-4atur3l Parent 'C=I e?3r-_nt _ ?r;rcparer.t, Ca?,er ?IVIL.Jr f<?? RE'-:E= SCt GH7 tccy _ P3mal CJS;CCy Visrtaucn .... ....... Accress) C . c?acl CUS-CCY CRCER;CISPCSITICN _ Se;aea.-yr=emert En;er=c _ Rio =cr=emer;. _. „ Rereral :o CL,F ? cyr' Ct-er :r_er E-:--c b\, D_ Gl1lSS 2?xfJ Y'(7" PRICR -=EAThIEN- rISTCR'r ,dental -e cc: -CI .........................._ ...... CLIP PROGRAM DISPOSITION Plaintiff Child/Children Ceiendant OATS _ OATS _ OATS SCC _ SCC _ SCC _ SAFC SAFC SAFC Family Services _ Family Ser vices - Family Services _ Other Other Other Appointment Date: Time: AM / PM Location: ..................................................................... . .................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................... STENO: NAL. MEDIATOR: MASTER: ?o Sa ?wlrl ?, DATE: BY THE COURT V?? J. f? DANNY G. HECKENDORN DEBRA S. HECKENDORN Plaintiffs V. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :No. 99- 14f-i CIVIL TERM JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, 5 (C? F' Defendant IN CUSTODY COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY 1. The plaintiffs are Danny G. Heckendorn and Debra S. Heckendorn, residing at 25 Fairfield Street, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania . , 2. The defendant is Joseph R. Matcheson, residing at Lackawanna County Prison, 1372 M.Washington Ave., Scranton, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiffs seek custody of the following child: Nam Present Residence ?e Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr. 25 Fairfield St. Newville, PA 11/2 Yrs. The child was born out of wedlock. The child is presently in the custody of maternal uncle and aunt who reside a a 1 25 Fairfield Street, Newville, PA. 57- During the past 11/2 years, the child has resided with the followinpers3'ns anr- at the following addresses: '' Person Address Dates ?--.-j Jennifer R. Benner (Mother) Scranton, PA 12.24-7:- 11.y??.98"72 Sharon Faison (Friend of Mother) Lake Wales, Florida l l-3b=9 99 Danny & Debra Heckendorn 25 Fairfield St. Newville, PA Feb. 19$9.1?ment:=- U, -?_ The mother of the child is Jennifer R. Benner, currently residing at 601 Bellvieav Dr., Lake Wales, Florida. Mother's parental rights were voluntarily terminated by Affidavit and Acknowledgement of Surrender, Consent and Waiver of Notice from Polk County, Florida, November 30, 1998. A copy of same is attached and marked as Exhibit "A". She is married. The father of the child is Joseph R. Matcheson, currently residing at Lackawanna County Prison, Scranton, PA. He is unmarried. /`'J'nIIIit 11 r L','l [.l ?.. rQ1 JOSEPH MATCNESON, TN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS v PLAINTIFF OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY VS. CIVIL DIVISION - LAIN' DANIEL HECKF.NDORN CUSTODY AND DEBRA HECKENDORN 99 CI:V 5196 DEFENDANT'S PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF, JOSEPH MATCHESON, SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE OPPOSING THE DISMISSAL OF THE PLAINTIFF'5 MOTION FOR JOINT CUSTODY AND VISITATION: 1. ADMITTED. 2. ADMITTED. 3. ADMITTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, CUST,fSDYII'JAS GJNTEP, r) o TO DEFENDANT'S IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT ABSENT dOPE:F?r- LEGAL PROCEDURES AND GRANTED UNDER FALSE PRETETJCE 6 THSYZ rim N FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUND AND CHALLENGE TWLEOA'LIT?-f ;n c_ a OF THEIR CUSTODY: oZ ?r A. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON JR. WAS BORN IN SCRAN 14 7 PA LACKAWANNA COUNTY ON DECEMBER 2ND, 1997 TO THE PLAINQ FF JOSEPH MATCHESON AND JENNIFER bENNER MATCHESON, COMMON LAW WIFE OF PLAINTIFF AT THAT TIME. B. THE CHILD RESIDED WTIH JOSEPH AND JENNIFER IN SCRANTON, PA UNTIL TYE PLAINTIFF'S INCARCERATION. SHORTLY AFTER THE PLAINTIFF'S INCARCERATION, JF.NNIYRr FILED A P.F.A. AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF WHICH WAS DENIED BY JUDGE IknU UT IN LACKAWANNA COUNTY COURT. AT THAT TIME JENNIFER HAI) JOSEPH JR. AND HER OTHER SON IN nER CUSTODY. Cx H. /A C. JENNIFER LACKED TI;E AGILITY TO TAKE CA';E OF HF_R CHILDREN AND THE PLAIN•iIFF'S FAMILY II; SCRANTON WAS READY AND WILLING PTAKE CUSTODS OF THE PLAINTIFF'S SON. JENNIFER WAS iNVL''STii;ATE'J FOR Af•USE OT' ;IER CHILDRLN AND SUBSEQUENTLY LEF : THE AREA AN".) RF•TJRNLD TO FLORIDA. P-Xi D. UNABLE TO PROPERLY CAFE FOR HER CHILDREN SHE GAVE THE;•I AIJA'i TO TWO SEPARATE FAMILIES, HER FIRST SON, DANNY WENT WITH THE DEFENDANTS', WHO ARE DF:.NNY'S UNCLE AND AUNT, THE PLAINTIFF'S SON JOScill WA GIVEP! TO A FRIEND IN FLORIDA. Gxh'04m E. DURING THIS PERIOD THE PLAINTIFF'S FAMILY ATTEMPTED TO LOCATE JCSEFH JR., THE MOVE TO SECURE CUSTODY OF JOSEPH JR. WAS ESPECIALLY MADE I3Y THE PLAINTIFF'S NEICE. SHARON MATCHESON SANCIiE':, IF NOT FOR JENNIFER'S VINDICTIVE MANEUVERS, THE. PLAINTIFF'S NEICE DEFINITELY WOULD. HAVE SECURED CUSTODY, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE DEFENDANT'S IN THIS CAPTIONED CASE DID NOT IJANT JOSEPH JR AT THAT TIME AND ONLY TOOK HIM TO SA'IISF'Y JENNIFER'S EMGARRESSMENT FOR FAILING TO BE A FIT MOTHER. F_nM 68" F. THE PLAINTIFF IS THE FATHER OF THIS CHILD A14D TfiE BACK DOOR CUSTODY ESTA2LISHED BY THE 11ECKENDORN'S CAME ABOUT 114 AT: ILLEGAL FASHION FROM AN UNFIT MOTHER. 'IHii hECEENDORN'S MERE NOT EVEN JENNIFER'S FIRST CHOICE, SHE GAVE JOSEPH JR. A0AY TO A FRIEND IN FLORIDA WHILE CONTINUAL;_Y HIDDING JOSEPH JR. FROM THE MATCHESON FAMILY. C-Xh x/711 G. hE HECKENDORN'S ARE NOT EVEN IMMEDIATE FAMILY AND ARE NOT A STA3LE ENVIRONMENT FOR JOSEPH JR., THIS IS INDICATED IN A LETTER dliICii STATES THAT THE D'EFENDANT'S T%RFATEN TO S NU JOSEPH JR. BACK TO FLORIDA, THE HECKENCORN'S ARE DEFINITELY NOT SEEKING THE 13ES'i INTEREST OF THE CHILD AND TAE CUSTODY OF JOSEPH JR. 'vOULD BE BETTER SERVED WITH THE PLAINTIFF'S FAMILY IN SCRANTON, PA LAC;;AHA.NNA. TIi'3 MATCHESONS ARE MOPE IMMEDIATE FAMILY TO JOSEPH JR. AND THE FATHER./SON RELATICN: AIP :JOULD BE i:AINTAINED UNTIL. THE PLAINTIFF IS RELEASED FROll CUSTODY. J=Xh 3 4. ADMITTED, HONEVE'R, TiE CHILD'S RESIDENCE CANE ABOUT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND IN A FASHION WHICH DEPRIVED THE PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY FROM SECURING CUSTODY IN .'s-"CRAIVTON, PA, LACEAWANNA COUNTY. FXI(\ "ell f- Ito i% 5. GEKIiiD, PLAINTIFF HAS NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CUSTODY ACTION AND IT IS THE PLAINTIFF'S POSTION THAT ANY AC'!'IGN TAKEN OUTSIDE OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY WITHOUT AFFORDING THL Pru'im'IIFF AND HIS FAMILi DUE PROCESS IS ILLEGAL AND THE S?,ID ORDERS OF SUCH ACTIONS SHOULD BE REVERSED. 6. ADPiITTED IIi PART AND DENIED IN PART, IT IS ADMITTED THAT AN ui)ER WAS ISSUED AND IS ATTACHED, IT IS DEIJIF.D BECAUSE ACTION WAS DETERMINED UNDER FALSE PRETENCE AND WITHOUT LEGAL JURISDICTION IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY. THE PLAINTIFF AND HIS FA:iIL1' WERE DEPRIVE-L' OF L'UZ PROCESS AND THE THEIR RIGHT TO A CL'STOCY PETITION AND THEREFORE DEPRIVING THEM OF DUE PROCESS RIGHT DY IILFGALLY HIDDING THE SUBJECT OF SUCH ACTION. G?,}? X811 :JHEFEFORL; THE PLAINTIFF RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT D[•E'IJDANT'S MOTION FOR DISRISSAL OF ABOVE CAPTIONED PETITION BE L' RI'cD AND THE PLAINTIFF FURTHER REQUEST THAT THE PETITION F'CR JC111T CUSTODY AND VISITATION SHOULD CONTINUE IN THE E'iiD?Zi: JUE ISDICIICN OF LACXA`vvANI;A COUNTY vIITH A HEARIM?' TO P,iSCLVh' AND SETILF THE SAID REQUEST AS THE COURT ALLONS. THE PLAII:':'IFF FURTHER REQUEST THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES A-ND Iii T"IF BEST IN'T'EREST OF JOSEPH JR., THE JOINT CUSTODY Si'.JL'LL He. GRANTED TG T;?E PLAINTIFF AND HIS NIECE, 5HMa0N I. AICHES0;t`KC!icz AT HELP RESIDENCE IN SCRANTSR, PA, L1CaAl:,a;cl:A COUNTY. RESE'EC?'i'ULLY SUuIIIrTED, ?j?n 7 ^ O .iti is Pit : Arc!iE v,4 AF 9556 ?D'3AI1' ;? :?, 1',.I (1, FoT.,LI7..?'. R?' l UALLA:, PA ir'. -(j,-766 AMERICANS WITH DISaRrr rTn?S a[?T OF 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County is required by law to comply with the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the Court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the Court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. BY = COURT: t DATE: -- / y -) "?L (IM, b U f a7 G a voo e? 99 -sl1(o 02, 0 V/j /9024 ., EA? n 0 ?S6 / L /Lob OP ;r C\i ILL .. J ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also eornplete eceived by (Please nl CI an B. Date of Delivery 1 Item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. Q ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse C. Signature l? so that we can return the card to you. x ? Agent ' ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, 13 Adtlrassee or on the front if space permits. 0. Is delivery 66dm;s tliNaent from item 1? ? Vas 1. Article Addressed to: - b r d H / k It YES, enter delivery address below: ? No ii r a ec e Je Dont 5 Fa i r P;'('O- Id Stra!+ Jl/eu/u(I(e? Nat 171??FI 3. Se Type Zrufie d ertdied Mail ? Express Malt 13 Registered ? Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mail ? C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? Yes 2. Arti a Numb r (Copy, m service label) Z lot -744: 16-L PS For 381' , July-1 BB Domestic Return Receipt 102595-99M-1769 e 1„ - 0 n ,. t Y Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. Re eivod It = (Please item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.. Y) ate of Delivery ?i ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. C. Signature ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, x r4 Agem i or on the front if space permits. z O Addressee 1 , Article Atldressotl to: D. Is delivery „A f )rom item 1? ? y,?d If YES, enter delivery address below: No na eckCnc?o?n a5' fair-??efc0 Sfrnr?-? , JVewv??le? ?a. 174j -- 3. ,S??eN' Type lid '.c ified mail ? Express Mail i ? Registered Q-Aetarn Receipt for Merchandise ? Insured Mail ? C.O.D. d. Restricted Delivery? (Errre Fee) ? dos 2. Article Number (copy from service label) 14 O 6 4 if pip PS Form 3811, July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 192595.99 M-1799 i 1? ' I itt`,1 I e\ E complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete eceived by (Please nr Cl art B. Dale of Delivery 1 item 4 it Restricted Delivery is desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse C. Signature so that we can return the card to you. ? Agent ¦ Attach this card to the back of the Tailpiece, ? Addressee + or on the front it space permits. D. Is delivery tlress different from item I? ? Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES, enter delivery address below: ? No Oont/Jebpa Hecke,ldorn F Fa i t% Pile- Id 54 rce-f- Neulu?ll?,?ar 17941 3. servic Type NLed Mail ? Express Mail ? Registered ? Return Receipt for Merchandise ? insured Mail ? C.U.D. r- ..... ~ ?? 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? Yes 2. Art Number (Copy fr m servrca label) Z I PS For ''3811', July 1 99 Domestic Return Receipt 102595.99 M4 789 r t 1 , I A ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete eceived by (Please nt Cl onto I B. Date of Delivery -, Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired CZI% ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. G Signature ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, ? Agent or on the front if space permits. ? Addressee 0. Is delivery dress dlCemnt from Item 17 ? Yes 1. Article Addressed to: b d 0 H k If YES, enter delivery address below: ? No er orn ra e Qor)tl ec a s Fa i r ff,p- id %friva+ Nervu(11¢, f'a, 17a?J 3. Serve Type rtNed Mail ? Express Mail 0 Registered ? Return Receipt for Merchandise yr C3 Insured Mail ? C.O.D. i Restrict.-'. Dative', (G1ra real ? Yes I. 2. Adi a Num r (CopY.fr m service latxll Z PS For '381' , July y f gs Domestic Reheo Receipt i02595 99 M 1789 1 i` I („) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY Plaintiff/Petitioner ?1oSe ? n ? sosv?r, FAMILY COURT VS. Dcfendant/Rcspondcnt -Cv- Q4?i?bra Necker oar, 99 5190 ?? 3 ?•U? TO: ORDER .......................... Telephone: C a c: NOW, this day of - +20?, you are mandated and ordered by The Family Court of Lacl awanna County to attend the next available conflict awareness class called: "KIDS FIRST Children Coping with Divorce & Family Conflict" YOU ARE TO ATTEND THIS CLASS ON: Day(s)/Date(s)/Tlme: 0 I I D 141?e [ Lease Frzirw? I iRrw We reverse side for details) PLEASE BE ADVISED Failure to attend this conflict awareness class may lead to contempt of court proceedings and will be considered in custody decisions BY THE COURT ?IJ. ) -11 i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY nn Plaintiff/Petitioner t 0C Q? K, II'?D+;tt-hC?,SQ?v,},Sf, FAMILY COURT VS. Defendant/Respo dent CV 1,1QCIi?1 DQh?HeckeAlorh ...............9 9 5"19 b TO: ORDER L.k?ri?1 } 4??? Ja??enra??rn &(vvrl(e, :4- Telephone: -' `fir'- r- u.• _ic NOW, this ? day of U A 2042 you are mandated and ordered by The Family Court of Lackawanna ?County to attend the next available conflict awareness class called: "KIDS FIRST Children Coping with Divorce & Family Conflict" YOU ARE TO ATTEND THIS CLASS ON: Day(s)/Date(s)/Tlme: _ M arc ? ? 4 (See reverse si for details) PLEASE BE ADVISED Failure to attend this conflict awareness class may lead to contempt of court proceedings and will be considered in custody decisions BY THE COURT C% T 1 AA I I _l?lgI ChrSVr\ . PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANT ORDER You, bn n i- l) m N rkOh d0 ( r\ (NeOglfI (Defendant), have been sued in Court to (OBTAIN) (MODIFY} custody, patial Custody or visitation of the following children: THf. -, OURT OF COMMON PLE ?.3 `OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION - LAW CUSTODY C, Q / -? RCN yUg You, as a parent, are directed to attend the "KIDS FIRST" Seminar on the assigned date listed below: Plaintiff: WQIYC(3 ?rr`? aaAn ?, Defendant: M A It C k , Lo _t 6o o f $:.?0 A-- FAILURE TO REGISTER AND COMPLETE THE PROGRAM WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT AND MAY RESULT IN A FINDING OF CONTEMPT AND THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS. You, are ordered to appear in person at Family Court, Lackawanna County Courthouse. 3rd Ficcr on MA (Le k 14 )OQp atJ : b .M.,for: Conciliation Conference Hearing before the Court If you fail to appear as provided by this Order for custody, partial custody or visitation may be entered against you or the Court may issue a warrant for your arrest. YOU SHOULD TABM THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP, NORTHERN PA LEGAL SERVICES, INC. SNB Plaza - 12th Floor 108 North Washington Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (717) 342-0184 LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Lackawanna Bar Association 204 Wyoming Avenue - Suite 205 Scranton, PA I8503.1410 (717) 969.9600 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR 45" JUDICIAL DISTRICT LACKAWANNA COUNTY COURT HOUSE WILLIAM J. MURRAY SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA 18503 CourtAdminimator 570 963.6773 PAX 570 963.6477 January 19, 2000 Joseph Matcheson, AK-9966 Drawers K Dallas, PA 18612-0286 Re: Joseph Matcheson Custody 99 civ 5196 Dear Mr. Matcheson: - i jel JAMES P. MINELLA Dtpury Court Adminiutrator JEFFREY]. Md.ANE Dtpury Court Adminuaator r- C G? r xo O J I have not received any finished paperwork from you about your case. The paperwork was sent back to you in November 1999 and I have not heard from you. I am again enclosing the paperwork, that must be submitted to me properly filled out. I am sorry for any inconvenience and I will personally handle the paperwork once I receive it. Sincerely yours, Wdinistrator Cc: Judge Chester Harhut 99 civ 5196 -?N, JOSEPH R. MATCHESON SR., PETITIONER VS IN TIIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY DANIEL AND DE13RA IiECKENDORII DEFENDANTS NUMBER ______?_??_?? O R D E R r. a w. _ w AND NOW THIS j ,_,?DAY IT rr, IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED THAT THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS THISOUI,D IN(PlRk ALL COURT/-IG ZST AND TRANS ORTAT N OF THE R END ALL-HZAI3XNGS. 13Y THE COURT; J 0 JOSEPH R. MATCIIF.SON SR. PETITIONER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PL1iAS OF LACKAWANNA V5 COUNTY D IEi?AF:I) DLBRA HECKENDORM =? - DEFENDANTS NIIMRER/. ?? S/?? CV ul ti N APPLICAWOM FOR 1.E'AYZ It'i FORMA PP.i:PERIS a {lCTttaRAFS??,E COURT TO ALLOW THIS Tr11)T 3,1.3"'1 PETIT101HER TO PROCE=U FOR HA PAU?M?15 );Ills T,-, '131!1: 10 PA'i THF. FEES. C011i2T ;7q ;r 'N'D )'F'•1tC3,i":PTA'p1nr; g0rl g11 r9 NATTER. THE PETITIONER'S IN IrLOT 51".1115 i.5 E 9.`IMIL I Y!:!:D !•,F 1. FOw1h PAUPECIS idAc; AI,:`3'.Itl ?,1'h!iLii;i'J (t r•(" `,t;l r"ET11'liti'+h;2 1M 1,A!:'!Aldi+tliiP, C';n1t1": ^,1311 :AL, I;l' JANUARY 29, IY99, TINS FI:'1,11JCIM. 2. T!tc YET1'iI rIE'R IS CGi iu:di'f1,Y A.T I!l Sl'A'f CORRECTIONW, lNST1'I'UTI0Ii ^ T if li!•S BE'Eli kF.F1tfiSRT''I}:1` P y •'..' i,YC i't JANUARY 29; 199 , $. 7'iih YL'1'li'I(iiilSl;, ..?.i'!. ,. ?. J -?1; i•_ Jr Iidi.,Alu, • kt, U Abil,i 1'. 1 .... I / \ill S lit., i J Fl: i.1 :! 1 I'li ? f I ? i ( ,. ':lt:,,. AtJ1 01. IL 1'1jd•: Cn1! OF COrll10N C 11 1: ii R AMi ilOb, Ti:IS 1999. IT TS li r. is F•iii (ilt Uiiia. i, .;:U i, iii:fi ii llai Ti!A'i T!iE rt?i I`i'i0i: fili'S APPl.i(:,i!'1011 iO PIiOCF,c:1: li+ i•ORLIA Pf;U'Pi'.1(I5 THIS SHCIULI; INCLUDI, ALL COURT COST ANY) TP.AIISPORTATIOF.' OF THE ei.i?'IiOfdE1P AS i4ECrI;;bAlo' 'ii) A'P'PEND ALL ii1.AIUNGS• BY 111114 COURT; J r rs JOSEPH R. HATCHES ON, On. IN TIME COURT OF COMMON. PETITIONER PLEAS OF LkCKAWANNk COUNTY v t:. . DANIEL AND DEBRA HECKENDORN : 9? -/ - ? DEFENDAHTFi: ? ? NUI11's? /y / ( kTITIUti FOR JOINT C059'ODY ]AIL` V3SITNTION - S THE PE TITIONER, JOSEPH IIATC HESON SR., RESPECTFULLY :SUMMITS THE FOLLO»ING PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND VISITATIOii,"-WITIL SNI AI ,PIR'CUHST ANC'SS : 1. THE PETITIONER IS CURRENTLY INCARCERATED AT THE STATE CORRECTIONAI, INSTITUTE AT DALLAS IN LU?ERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. HAILING ADDRESS - AK9966, DRAWER R, DA11.AS, PA 18612-0286. 2. THE DEFENDANTS ARS DANNY S:ECKENi?ORN AND HIS WIFE DEBRA IIECKENDORN, BOTH RESIDE AT 25 FAIR FIELD ST. N WVILLE, PA 17241. i 3. THE PETITIONER, JOSEPH HATC11USON SR., IS THE FATHER OF JOSEPH R. ISATCHESON JR. hH0 IS CURREN'T'LY RESIDING WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED DEFENDANTS. 4. JENNIFER BEN: ER, THE ISOTHER OF JOSEPH JR., IS THE NIECE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED DEFENLANTS. JENNIFER bbX.%.ER GAVE. CUSTODY TO TnU DEFENI)4O S 0101001 TKh PI'TITIONRRS OXSENT 011 KNOWLEDGE. 5. THE PETITIONER IS CURRENTLY RUING DEPRIVED 01 ANY CONTACT WITH HIS SON, 'PILE DEFENDANTS AP G:,GTINUINC, 'TO PREVENT THIS PETITIONER FROM CONTACT OR VISITS, THE DEFENDANTS HAVE HAD JOSEPH R. HATCHESON JR. IN THEIR CUSTODY SINCE FEBRUARY 8, 1999. 6. THE PETITIONER SEEKS ARRANGEMENTS FOR VISITATION AT 7. THE PETITIONER IS REQUES' NIECE, SHARON SANCHEZ, 709 18505 AND THE DEFENDANTS INCARCERATION. (""N JOINT CUSTODY Pad) SPECIAL SCI DALLAS. PING JOINT CUSTODY WITH HIS PROSPECT AVE., SCRAL+?TONI PA UNTIL HIS RELEASF. 'FROM 8. THE PETITIONER AVERS THAT IT IS CURRENTLY IMPOSSIBLE FORT HIM TO RECEIVE VISIT FROM HIS SON DURING THE CUSTODY OF THE DEFENDANTS. IF JOINT CUSTODY WITH THE PETITIONERS NIECE IS ORDERED THE PETITIONERS NIECE COULD BRING THE BABA( TO VISIT HIS FATHER AT SCI-DALLAS. IN AUDITION, THE PETITIONER COULD HAVE CONTACT WITH HIS SON WHILE. HIS NIECE HAS CUSTODY. t WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR HONORABLE COURT TO GRANT THE WITHIN REQUESTED RELIEF AS P FOLLOWS: ISSUE AN ORDER UPON THE DEFENDANTS TO'', DELIVER JOSEPH R. MATCHESON JR. TO THE PETITIONERS NIECE,: SHARON SANCHEZ AT 709 PROSPECT AVE., SCRANTON, PA EACH WEEKEND UNTIL, THE PETITIONER IS RELEASE FROM CUSTODY. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A FAIR PERIOD OF CUSTODY TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT. IN THE EVENT CUSTODY IS NOT GRANTEI> TO THE PETITIONER'S NIECE, THE PETITIONER REQUEST THAT THE DEFENDANTS BE ORDERED TO BRING JOSEPH R. MATCHESON JR. TO THE. PETITIONER'S NIECE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH A WEEKLY VISIT CAN TAKE PLACE. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, EPH MATCHESON, PETITIONER OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR 45" JUDICIAL DISTRICT LACKAWANNA COUNTY COURT HOUSE WILLIAM J. MURRAY SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA 18503 JAMES P. MINELLA CourtAdminittraror 570 963.6773 Deputy Court Administrator FAX 570 963-6477 JEFFREY J. MciANE Dtputy CourtAdminirtrator November 5, 1999 Joseph Matcheson, DC-4 Lackawanna County Prison 1371 North Washington Avenue Scranton, PA 18509 Dear Mr. Matcheson: I am in receipt of your letter address to Judge Harhut, I am also enclosing the paperwork that must be completed properly and returned to my office for scheduling. I have contacted you several times in reference to the paperwork (the letters are enclosed.) Once the paperwork is completed, you must serve all parties involved. If you have any further questions do not hesitate to contact my office. Sincerely yours, c ep / dministrator Cc: Judge Chester Harhut _ Filed 99 civ 5196 _.? rv i A"•- WILLIAM P. RINALDI E" yw LERK OF JUDICIAL RECORDS Lackawanna County Court House r "? Scranton, Pennsylvania 18503 wtt wZ<<vo -??orr h sospoq l 4Q, sponge ear et degcP / see{ at ether from In r; Joe Matcheson o ?o?,e other if?orn in, `, `NQ ton it. Is to ?? r ?t t/ ns!if? r at this laeo due. /. s n t[7 Sr!?tlc? °t •t I, JOSEPH MATCHESON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY VS. CIVIL DIVISION - LAW DANIEL HECKENDORN CUSTODY AND DEBRA HECKENDORN,. 99 CIV 5196 DEFENDANT ; O R D E R AND NOW, THIS DAY OF 2000, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED, THAT THE DEFENDANT"S MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED AND THE PLAINTIFF"S MOTION FOR JOINT CUSTODY AND VISITATION SHALL CONTINUE WITH JURISDICTION IN LACKAWANNA COUNTY. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT JOSEPH MATCHESON JR., THE SUBJECT OF THIS CUSTODY PETITION SHALL NOT BE TRANSPORTED FROM THE. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA UNTIL THE WITHIN CUSTODY MATTER IS RESOLVED. A HEARING IS SCHEDULED ON THE DAY OF 2000, IN LACKAWANNA COUNTY COURT, COURT ROOM # , AT _M. AND THE SHERIFF"S DEPARTMENT OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY SHALL TRANSPORT THE PLAINTIFF TO THE SAID HEARING FROM SCI DALLAS AT THE SCHEDULED DATE AND TIME. BY THE COURT: J. C. op''l JOSEPH R. HATCHESON, SR. PETITIONER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY Qi L VS. -' DA f c N? Aj1D,PEARA 1{ECKENDORN DEFENDANTS : NUMBER q9?S/9? G: h z N ITION FOR JOINT CUSTODY AND VISITATION C%lj 3 ? G P*ITIONER, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND VISITATION WITH SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. THE PETITIONER IS CURRENTLY INCARCERATED AT THE STATE CORRECTIONAL, INSTITUTE AT DALLAS IN LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. MAILING ADDRESS - AK9966, DRAWER K, DALLAS, PA 18612-0286. 2. THE DEFENDANTS ARE DANNY IfECKENDORN AND HIS WIFE DEBRA HECKENDORN, BOTH RESIDE AT 25 FAIRFIELD ST. NEWVILLE, PA 17291. 3• THE PETITIONER, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., IS THE FATHER OF JOSEPH R. MATCSESON JR. WHO IS CURRENTLY RESIDING WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED DEFENDANTS. 4• JENNIFER BENNER, THE MOTHER OF JOSEPH JR., IS THE NIECE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED DEFENDANTS. JENNIFER BENNER GAVE CUSTODY TO THE DEFENDANTS WITHOUT THE PETITIONERS CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE. 5. THE PETITIONER IS CURRENTLY BEING DEPRIVED _ OF - ANY CONTACT WITH HIS SON, THE DEFENDANTS ARE L'ONT'INUING T PREVENT THIS PETITIONER FROM CONTACT OR','tV, `S" THE, '. DEFENDANTS HAVE HAD JOSEPH R. HATCHESON JR. IN,,4"rlEIR CUSTODY\ SINCE FEBRUARY 8, 1999. H ?i r 6. THE PETITIONER SEEKS JOINT CUSTODY AND SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR VISITATION AT SCI DALLAS. 7. THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING JOINT CUSTODY WITH HIS NIECE, SHARON SANCHEZ, 709 PROSPECT AVE.., SCRANTON, PA 18505 AND THE DEFENDANTS UNTIL, HIS RELEASE FROM INCARCERATION. 8. THE PETITIONER AVERS THAT IT IS CURRENTLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO RECEIVE VISIT FROM HIS SON DURING THE CUSTODY OF THE DEFENDANTS. IF JOINT CUSTODY WITH THE PETITIONERS NIECE IS ORDERED THE PETITIONERS NIECE COULD BRING THE BABY TO VISIT HIS FATHER AT SCI-DALLAS. IN ADDITION, THE PETITIONER COULD HAVE CONTACT WITH HIS SON WHILE HIS NIECE HAS CUSTODY. WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR HONORABLE COURT TO GRANT THE WITHIN REQUESTED RELIEF AS FOLLOWS: ISSUE AN ORDER UFON THE DEFENDANTS TO DELIVER JOSEPH R. MATCHESON JR. TO THE PETITIONERS NIECE, SHARON SANCHEZ AT 709 PROSPECT AVE., SCRANTON, P+\ EACI2 WEEK3IID UNTIL THE PETITIONER IS RELEASE FROM CUSTODY. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A FAIR PERIOD OF CUSTODY TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT. IN THE EVENT CUSTODY IS NOT GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER'S NIECE, THE PETITIONER REQUEST THXT THE DEFE"iDANTS BE ORDERED TO BRING JOSEFII R. MATCHE°ON JR. TO THE PETITIONER'S NIECE FOR A PERIOD OF TINIE IN WHIM A WEEKLY VISIT CAN TAKE PLACE. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, JOSEPH MATCHESON, PETITIONER JOSEPH R. MATCHESON SR. PETITIONER r. s IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA VS COUNTY DAN_qI, ADD DEBRA RECKENDORM n /I o ? (/J ?/rJ V c = DEFENDANTS NUMBER C H `3 r!aj U' s N ePrz.ICSrz<ote FOR Lsars IN FORM P>sorselS a TIIF_ PE7`If?ONER, JOSEPH R. MATCHESON SR., REQUEST THE v a -, ILORRA&M COURT TO ALLOW THIS INDIGENT PETITIONER TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS DUE TO THE INABILITY OF THE PETITIONER TO PAY THE FEES, COURT COST AND TRANSPORTATION FOR THIS MATTER. THE PETITIONER'S INDIGENT STATUS IS ESTABLISHED AS FOLLOWS: 1. FORMA PAUPERIS WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED FOR THIS PETITIONER IN LACKAWANNA COUNTY AS A CRIMINAL, DEFENDANT ON JANUARY 29, 1998, THIS FINANCIAL. CONDITION STILL EXIST. 2. THE PETITIONER IS CURRENTLY INCARCERATED AT THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT DALLAS, PA. THE PETITIONER ILAS BEEN REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC DEFENDERS SINCE HIS ARREST ON JANUARY 29, 1998. 3. THE PETITIONER, JOSEPH R. IfATHCESON SR., IS IN INCARCERATED FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED ARREST AND THIS INCARCERATION IS DEPRIVING THIS PETITIONER OF INCOME AND THE ABILITY TO PAY THE COST OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. I. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON SR., DO HEREBY VERIFY THAT THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND RECOLLECTION. ANY FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF SECTION 4904 OF THE CRIMES CODE. (18-PA C.S 4904), RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES. SEP11 R. MAMMON SR., DRAWER K, DALLAS,PA rlN. lJ JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, SR. PETITIONER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY VS. DAI EI, &ND„J)EBRA HECKENDORN „. DEFENDANTS: NU418F.R N ITION FOR JOINT CIJST0DY AND VISITATION I? G TT{B PZT'ITIONER, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND VISITATION WITH SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. THE PETITIONER IS CURRENTLY INCARCERATED AT THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE AT DALLAS IN LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. MAILING ADDRESS - AK9966, DRAWER K, DALLAS, PA 18612-0286. 2. THE DEFENDANTS ARE DANNY HECKENDORN AND HIS WIFE DEBRA )JECKENDORN, BOTH RESIDE AT 25 FAIRFIELD ST. NEWVILLE, PA 17291. 3. THE PETITIONER, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., IS THE FATHER. OF JOSEPH R. MATCHESON JR. WHO IS CURRENTLY RESIDING WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED DEFENDANTS. 9. JENNIFER BENNER, THE MOTHER OF JOSEPH JR., IS THE NIECE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED DEFENDANTS. JENNIFER BENNER GAVE CUSTODY TO THE DEFENDANTS WITHOUT THE PETITIONERS CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE. 5. THE PETITIONER IS CURRENTLY BEING CONTACT WITH HIS SON, THE DEFENDANTS PREVENT THIS PETITIONER FROM CONTACT DEFENDANTS HAVE HAD JOSEPH R. MATCHESON JIZ SINCE FEBRUARY 8, 1999. DEPRIVED OF ANY ARE CONTINUING TO . ORVJSjTS', THE. IN-'TrIF.IR CUSTODY,' i `. q? 2 Gi 4/999 C®ROS r 6. 41113 FETITIONER ;. E1JK; JOI?;'• ("USIODY Atli) SPECIAL ARRANGETi ENTS FOR VIS17hTION hT SCI DALLAS. 7. THE PE'T'ITIONER IS REQUESTING JOINT CUSTODY WITH HIS NIECE, SNARJfi SANCiTEZ, 7:79 P;i) ?E T WE. =CRANTON, PA 1.8505 AND THE DEFENDANTS UN'T11, HIS RELEASE FROM TNCARCERA'PIOTT. 8. THE PRI'I'VIONEU AVERS T11AT IT IS CURRENTLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR }TIN TO RECEIVE VISIT FROM HIS SON DURING THE CUSTODY OF THE DEFENDANTS. IF tJOINT CUSTODY WITH TiJF PETITIONERS NIECE IS ORDERED THE PETITIONERS NIF'CE COSILD BRING THE BABY TO VISIT HIS FATIIL'R AT SCI-DALLAS. ID M)DITION, TiiF. PF.TITT!iNER COULD HAVE CONTACT WITH HIS SON WHILE HIS NIECE HAS IMSTODY. WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONER RES?ECTF' ILLY REQUEST YOUR HONORABLE. COURT TO GRANT THE WITHIN REQUESTED RELIEF AS FOLLOWS: ISSUE; AN ORDER LEON THE DEF'NDANTS TO DELIVER JOSEPH R. MA.TCTIESON JR. TO THE PETITIONERS NIECE, SHARON SANCHEZ AT 709 FROSPECT LvE. , E'::1 ANT'CN, P;1 EAC!i W =MID UTITIL THE PE'1`ITIONEF. IS RELEASE FROM CUSTODY. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, K FAIR PERIOD OF CUSTODY TO BE UEYERMINED fsY THE COURT. IN THE EVENT CUSTODY IS NOT GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER'S NIECE, TIIE' PET'111OTJ s'. 9FQJL_T T!s3T THE DEFE!lDAN'^9 P° ORI)FrFr TO 12RIVC JOSCPP 7. 11ATCI+CcON •1R. TO TIIE PETITIONER'S AIIECE FOR A ITRIOD OF TIME INI Pillic" A WEEKLY VISIT CAN TAKE PLACE. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, JUSEPII MATCHESON, PETITIONER JOSEPH R. MATCHESON SR. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PETITIONER PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA VS COUNTY DANI•41, NND DEBRA HECKENDORM DEFENDANTS NUMBER r• :o ) (V APPLICATION FOR LEAVE IN FORMA PAUPERIS y TH>v PETITIONER, JOSEPH R. MATCHESON SR., REQUEST THE HORRABIt COURT TO ALLOW THIS INDIGENT PETITIONER TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS DUE TO THE INABILITY OF THE PETITIONER TO PAY THE FEES, COURT COST AND TRANSPORTATION FOR THIS MATTER. THE PETITIONER'S INDIGENT STATUS IS ESTABLISHED AS FOLLOWS: 1. FORMA PAUPERIS WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED FOR THIS PETITIONER IN LACKAWANNA COUNTY AS A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT ON JANUARY 29, 1998, THIS FINANCIAL CONDITION STILT. EXIST. 2. THE PETITIONER IS CURRENTLY INCARCERATED AT THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT DALLAS, PA. THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC DEFENDERS SINCE HIS ARREST ON JANUARY 29, 1998. 3. THE PETITIONER, JOSEPH R. MATIICESON SR., IS IN INCARCERATED FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED ARREST AND THIS INCARCERATION IS DEPRIVING THIS PETITIONER OF INCOME AND THE ABILITY TO PAY THE COST OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. I, JOSEPH R. MATCHESON SR., DO HEREBY VERIFY THAT THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND RECOLLECTION. ANY FALSE STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF SECTION 4904 OF THE CRIMES CODE. (18-PA C.S 4904), RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO AUTHORITIES. PH R. MATCHESON SR., DRAWER K, DALLAS,PA >- Ly r • ?- ?- U1 ?-? Cr: ? 1:J} l_.) f ?' L?. L- (?) . 'i y ._. ?... ?,1 i `- - _. _ G c: <? . ,• COPY w I. S?/? R jar .? JWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ' NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTHOUSE ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA 17013.3387 (717) 240-6290 FAX (717) 240.6462 Commissioner Martin Hom Department of Corrections Box 598/2520 Lisburn Road Camp Hill, Pa. 17001-0598 Dear Commissioner: I am writing in regards to a request for transfer by an inmate, Mr. Joseph Matcheson - AK 9966, currently housed at the Dallas facility. Mr. Matcheson has not seen his son in over two (2) years and in my court order of July 14, 2000, (copy enclosed) I authorized visitation between he and his son. However, Mr. Matheson's incarceration at the Dallas facility has placed a substantial burden on the court appointed guardians of his son to comply with my order. It would be appreciated if consideration could be given to transferring Mr. Matcheson to one of the following facilities, Camp Hill, Huntington or Smithfield. Camp Hill would be preferable as it would place the least inconvenience on his son's guardians. EGG/sld cc: Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Guardians Sincerely, lam„ Ed Guido Joseph Matcheson Natural Father COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY EDWARD E. GUIDO JUDGE August 10, 2000 Commissioner Martin Horn Department of Corrections Box 598/2520 Lisburn Road Camp Hill, Pa. 17001-0598 Dear Commissioner: COURTHOUSE ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA 17013.3387 (717) 240.6290 FAX (717) 240.6462 I am writing in regards to a request for transfer by an inmate, Mr. Joseph Matcheson - AK 9966, currently housed at the Dallas facility. Mr. Matcheson has not seen his son in over two (2) years and in my court order of July 14, 2000, (copy enclosed) I authorized visitation between he and his son. However, Mr. Matheson's incarceration at the Dallas facility has placed a substantial burden on the court appointed guardians of his son to comply with my order. It would be appreciated if consideration could be given to transferring Mr. Matcheson to one of the following facilities, Camp Hill, Huntington or Smithfield. Camp Hill would be preferable as it would place the least inconvenience on his son's guardians. EEG/sld cc: Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Guardians Sincerely, 4, p?O Ed Guido Joseph Matcheson Natural Father AUG 3 - 2000. •''' ?^ d JCL D 7 oaf, e A.A a 9 W^ ` M A5 /off- S9g a 5 ao loja-, 1700/-059e uc/m ??-9910 n r 3 ?h a /w IXJ V ?G/1 l L/ J D C. Z. s /lam w 1 1 \ \ ? 1 S, C, Z a .m••.. Y .J 0 -. w w l .... _.. - 74 A Iki /4r- W,4?? p Name ---- - - 6hI ,AZ E_ IF: A! { u C s, n Numbers _ _ -,M1 auG ?'ca 1/ tt ! "T OF r l:E.. 1.ai10Sdw 0.3 'J State Correctional Institution at Dallas 1000 Follies Road, Dallas, Pa. 18612 "6 "-. l pa'. 0 1`7©l3 Z i_iltivr aa_ I111l1I11II/bill l 11111111111111111111 If IlINIII/II e N. . DANNY G. HECKENDORN and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant NO. 99-3162 CIVIL IN RE: CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 2000, by agreement of the parties, the Plaintiffs, Danny G. Heckendorn and Debra S. Heckendorn, shall enjoy full legal and physical custody of the child, Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr., born December 2, 1997, subject to periods of visitation with the natural father, Joseph R. Matcheson, as follows: 1. The parents shall take the child to visit with the father at SCI-Dallas, or any other institution in which he is incarcerated which is not further away than SCI-Dallas, one weekend day every other month commencing August, 2000. 2. Such other times as the parties may agree. It is the Court's desire that the inmate use his best efforts to obtain a transfer to SCI-Camp Hill so that more frequent visitation may take place. The Court will aide the father in that regard in any way it can. This Court shall retain jurisdiction in this matter. Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Joseph R. Matcheson AK-9966 SCI-Dallas Drawer K Dallas, PA 18612 lfh By the Co Edward E. Guido, J. C -fqa?ld rj-19-00 R?3 RIES I and to proceed with its Luszczynslds' slims prior of the default judgment, chose to violate the trial See Miller Oral Surgery, o, 416 Pa.Super. 310, 611 D (af willing a $300,000 de- entered against the defea- ting the trial court's Order amation and docunents to tpeal denied, 633 Pa. 651, (1993); Spilove v. Cross Atc., 223 Pa.Super. 143, 57 n. 4 (1972) ("Entry of a mt is a proper course of party unreasonably fails to Igatoeies, thus preventing tion from going forward."). going reasons, we conclude art dirt not abuse its disere- ning AIIC with a default 3 repeated violations of the ers. ith respect to AIIC's at- in this appeal the issue of d court properly concluded zynshfs possessed it valid Bradley's bad faith claim s conclude that AIIC failed :serve that issue for cut C believed that it, had a the Luszezynskis uuderly- proper way for A11C to laim for appellate review :n to rile au appropriate don at, otherwise to raise the trial count, before it, the trial court's Orders.7 ch AIIC admits that it violat. filed a Motion for Protective a' 29, 1997, that Motion call. : cousuved to raise any issue culiday of nradlcy's assign. czynskis and, therefore, AIIC. C any such issue for ntll' Ic. tut Motion could rcaonably have raised such all issue, oncluded it cannot, ullou its I obligated to abide by that pear for the ordered depos6 IN RE CJ. Pa. 89 Cheas729 A.2d 89 tl'aSupar. 1999) AIIC, however, failed to file with the trial foster care. The Superior Court, No. 1284 court any pleading or other motion that Pittsburgh 1998, Cirillo, President Judge even arguably raised the issue of the valid- Emeritus, held that visitation between in- ity of the assignment until it filed its Peti- carcerated parents and their children was Lion to Set Aside Writ of Execution, after properly limited to times when parents it violated the trial court's Orders. AIIC's were in nearby county prison for court Petition was riled too late to have pre- proceedings. served that issue properly for our review. Affirmed. By choosing to violate the trial court' Orders rather than complying with the Cavanaugh, J., concurred in the re- procedural rules of law for the preserva- suit. tion of issues for appeal, AIIC has preclud- ed our review of its contention regarding the validity of the assignment to the 1. Infunts x252 Luszczynskis " 1120 Order affirmed. &W,11 UMBIB MttN Lt re C.J., D.O.H. 1/20/811, ILL, D.O.E. 13/19/88, R.J., II, U.O.B. 3/21/90, CJ., D.O.B. I/ll/92, A.J., D.O.R. 1/21/91, 111J., D.O.B. 12/7/913. Appeal of U.J., Father. Appeal of ILL, !!!other-. No. 1281 Pittsburgh 1998. Superiol• Court of Peunsylvauia. Submitted Feb. 22, 1999. Filed April 23, 1999. In child dependency case, f lea•cerut- ed parentsi appealed front decision of the Court of Common Pleas, Armstrong Coun- ty, Juvenile No. 1997-20023, Nickleach, J., limiting visitation with their six children in tion. By snlncyuently redoing to comply with the trial coal's Oidcrs, AIIC failed w continue to plebelve lur uur lckicw any issue Irlaiing kl the vahdily of Iliadley's assip i nnt•nl. a. Lecu it AIIC propelly had preserved the issue n•galJblg dle validity of tile ah'iFilluclit, In child dependency matters, a re- viewing court must accept the facts as found by the trial court unless they are not supported by the record. 2. Infants 4249, 252 When reviewing judgment in child de- pendency case, a reviewing court is bound by the facts as found by the trial court., but not by the trial court's inferences, deduc- tions, and conclusions therefrom; rather, the reviewing court must exercise its hide- pendent judgment in reviewing the court's determination, as opposed to its findings of fact, and must order whatever right Intl justice dictate. a. Infants x251 Decisions f l child dependency clatters are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and thus the scope of review is of the broadest possible nature. 4. Infants 0-222 Trial court's finding, in child depen- dency case, that. it would not be in best futerests of children to make long trips to visit incarcerated parents at their remote prison locations, was supported by testinur ny of caseworker and tlerapists. we agree with the :vial cowl that the June 25, 1997 assignment was a valid assignment. Ad- ditionally, vice reject AIIC's contention nil ap- peal than dial assignment was inadmissible hearsay because AIIC tailed to make and Inc- belle a beaisay objection when that assign. local was offered and admitted into evidence. 90 Pa. 729 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES 6. infnnis a1G4.1 One of the primary purposes of the Juvenile Act is to preserve the unity of the family whenever possible. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 0301. 0. Infants 0-230.1 County Department of Children and Youth Services must adhere to a "best interest" standard when petitioning file court for approval to reduce parental visi- tation with child. GG Pa. Code § 3130.68. 7. Administrative Law and Procedure 0-382.1 Administrative rules may be classified as either interpretative or legislative. S. Infants 0-222 Administrative regulation governing visitation between dependent children nil(] parents was interpretive, binding only Lhe county Department of Children and Youth Services and not the court.. 55 Pa. Code § 3130.68. 9. Infants e:-222 Parent and Child (a-207) The polestar and paramount concern in evaluating parental visitalion, in depen- dency as well as non-depelidenev Ann- tions, is the best interests and welfare of the children. 10. infants x230.1 Once a child is aljudicated dependent, the issues of custody and continuation of foster care are determined according to it child's best interests. 11. Constitutional I,aw 0-274(5) Because of the constiLulionally pro- tected liberty interest parents ),live to visi- tation hvith their children, pa•entd visitl- Lion is usually not denied or limi(ed unless visitation with the parent poses a grave threat to the child. 12. Infants 0-222 In child dependency carps, the Man- dar•d against which visitation is pleasured depends upon the goal n11n111nled in the family service plan. 13. Infants 0-222, 2216 Children who have hoer adjudicated dependent nay not, he 8epar11tad from their parents unless evidence is presenter) showing 1110, such an sepa•nlio? Was clearly necessary, 14. infants 0=178, 2216 Termination of parental rights and placement for foster care are conducted under the standard of clear and convincing evidence. 15. Infants 0-'22'2.280.1 Where reunification remains tine goal of a family service plan, visitaMon will no( he denied or reduced unless it, hoses it grave 1111-0111. to the dependent child. M. Infants 0-222 If I110 god of a family service plan is not roaifncation of the family, then visita- tion any he limited or denied if it. is in the best. interests of the dependenl. child or children. 17. hnfnnlm 0=222 In child depenloley eases, the "bvA interests" sivldard fur denying or Ituitiug visitation is less pro(eetive of parents, visi- tation rights Linn Ilse ");rave threat" rlan- da•d. 18. Infants 0=222 Where. goal of family service plan re. unlined reunification, grave threat slau- dad applied to restriction of visitation be- tween incarcerated parents and dppcndew children. 19. Infants x222 Visitation between inc•ureral0d par. puts and Iheh six dependent children was properly Muffed In t,ianes lcla•n parents were in nearby woolly prison for road Ilroepedinks, given Ihal. Iranspnaiing ehll- (Irpll ill pareinla' remnle prison Inwalllms would amount. In a grave Ihre l la the children, 21). Infants er222 Visitation holmeell file enls find their six depends courtly prison Ilelll• cldldr would nnl. Iloilo it grave 11114 sal as to warrant denial of A evidence (flat, pnreulm wer their children. 21. Infants 0-222 The slide hod Ito obllg port hlearecrated parents to their children. Cindy 1,, ('111111.10, Milan appellant., Slephfinle ,h McFadden, D.J„ oppellaut, I'nula C. I,I1stalles, Kitt pellvem, .hones A. Favero, Kita1 strung County Children at vices, parlicipatlug party. Before CAVANAUMI, J and CIIMAM, President Jr CI IMAM, i4•emident Judl 111 '1'Ids is it child depo which incarcerated pan•0111s, have appealed from the .11 deeklon to 1111111, bu1, not dim Lion Willi their six chlldrel care, we alum. 112 la May of 191)7, 1 County Department of Cliff( Services (CYS) filed n petilb of Common fleas regaestt I, 1111. vlrlhm was nn unroll rill. Tm, 01 Ihr children 1 dehng11r11i timed nit 11ds Cool 2. 5411114. "1 Ilir%r irpotts h: looud "indicn(rd" when I filed, ,rhilr Snow wine mill. Hon, A. 11 neprnrs Ihr rtlnrges we ovi Irlulyd In 1111- Children drm'r. Inns lrrord'prllNnn rhmges war bawd on 031 11 JES IN RE C.J. Pa. 91 Cll. as 729 A,2d 89 (Pa.Super. 1999) the goal mandated in the 20. Infants 0=222 minor children of D.J. and R.J. be declared Ian. Visitation between incarcerated par- dependent pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 92 :22,'220 ents and their six dependent children at Pa.C.S. 9 0301 et seq. CYS represented have been adjudicated county prison near children's residence that various reports over the course of the would not pose a grave threat to children, previous year had alleged that each child . from not separated so as to warrant denial of visitation, absent had either committed criminal sexual con- mess presented evidence is presented evidence that parents were unfit to see duct in the home,' or had been medically ch =separation was clearly ch their children. neglected and/or physically abused by their parents:° Attempted in-home ser- 78, 220 21. Infants ,8-222 vices bad been discontinued five months The state had no obligation to trans- previously due to the parents' hostility slid r of parental rights and port incarcerated parents to visitation with non-cooperation. Finally, the parents had foster care are conducted their children. both been arrested on the date the petition and of clear and convincing --- was filed and were incarcerated awaiting Cindy L. Cularie, Kittanning, for R.J., trial, causing the children to be without .'l2, 230.1 appellant. supervision. Therefore, the children had remains the goal been removed by the police and placed in ice plan, visitation ice plan, will not Stephanie J. McFadden, Kittanning, for temporary foster care. The court ap- •educed unless it poses a D.J., appellant. proved the arrangement, added provisions the dependent child. Paula C. Lastrapes, Kittanning, for ap- for CMS's receipt of records, and ordered pellees, psychological evaluations of the two alleg•- '22 James A. Favero, Kittanning, for Arm- edly delinquent children. Parents then of a family service plan is strong County Children and Youth Ser- stipulated that the children were all depen- i of the family, then visits- vices, participating party. dent due to neglect and/or discipline and ited or denied if it is in the consented to CYS taking temporary custo- A the dependent child or Before CAVANAUGH, JOHNSON, ii., dy of their children. The court sinmlta- and CIRILLO, President Judge Emeritus. neously ordered psychological counseling for foul- children, evaluation of both par- ,22 CIRILLO, President Judge Emeritus: cuts, and supervised visitation. pendency cases, the "best 111 This is a child dependency case in 113 The six children were placed in and for denying or limiting which incarcerated parents, R.J. and D.J., foul. different foster hones, one of which is protective of parents' nisi- " " have appealed from the Juvenile Court's outside the county.' During the parents' grave threat in the stan. decision to limit but not discontinue visita- initial confinement in the nearby county tion with their six children, all in foster prison while awaiting trial, joint visits with :22 care. Weaffirvn• all children arid both parents were held of family service plan re- 112 In May of 1997, tine Armstrong twice a month at. the Armstrong County +ation, grave threat Stan. County Department of Children and Youth jail in Kittanning. Thereafter, the parents restriction of visitation be- Services (CYS) riled a petition in the Court were convicted, sentenced, and transferred led parents and dependent of Common Pleas requesting that the six to distant state correctional institutions 1. The victim was an unrelated ten-year-old parents had attempted to rape an in-home girl. 'Iwo of the children were adjudicated nurse who had been providing care to one of 22 delinquent bnacd ou this conduct, the Minor children with extensive medical )etween incarcerated par- 2. Some of these iepons had already beell uceds. A dilfeient petition states there were Inlllllple "littl'S,IIg professionals" victill112ed. as si x dependent children w found "iudicaled" when the penliole \eas Ile\ae.er, there is no tm7her realyd indica- to tittles when parent: 9 tiled, while some were still und-a' investiga- Illin UI pal'Clll] Char'ge's, CO,I\'ICIIUIIy OI' SC,I- r county prison for court lion. fence,. ren that transporting chil- 3. n uppe:\rs the ch:uges were in sane nwn- 9' remote prison locations per lelafcd to the children and their depen- 3. The record ,indicates that this location w'as to a gravy threat to the dvucy. One remold petition alleges that the chosen based on the special incdical needs of charges w=ar hm.ed on an incident to which the child placed there. ua > - twat Y dyad°m.E °uS???Y, n s av L br, a " m y s V •'a° •? w G o w c w a' ? o ? o m,`1_" " "" F ? 'E ?. .Ai .p• ,'.- = m rur;: "7 i L?L?? v y? N F .? C? s O U O K R 0.!n u a L .? ? U G ,C G? y G R C t. G w G y ?' ^ tS c v-p; ? u; p •O h? L a m d F. ??$ ?s ? m? ? C R ,r u, 7 E E .E E •? G? z p' J y 5 •t3 a = aLi u .^ ? e? pGi •E O 5 0, aLi a o? °c ? u •? ttLO w ? •o c o a '? R d; ? .4. ?, g ?' t?o, L? a? F? v ..C. v .aL O? O C F m •r ?? a« R F G .vi U C?? G? iG •? R R d ..L.• ?' v "_- •r. tryo ty/? L. R •L C• t¢? v? F •'? R N h as C G > .O. O G r.a is a.? w d ?' '? > w d v 'L G a .. {y i C .. (U L ..? 0 O ?vo£`°-? o?c ?ac>E a.?°oE=??>.n t' =€° EFic ?a ?V LF?G ??•. IV ua o :E a ?, .. v ti •S c pL?? a a c"'d •a _ e e € e..E q =• q a> ,? T a L Fo o L N '? ^' •- C `t ^ ..Z F a R 5 s F a w u` o y .g' p L, F a a o o T V0. ?z o•o ?a.S c. Wa 00 O F R- ?. C t Y a 'r G •i 4 ." a ,a .^- a Qi N .? V .5 G W C .•'?' v v L O N 0.,x 7 v. O F O .? X L F w G •? •E a v? .- Ci .^. w a .E G Q, IS G r F y u n`p m ivi •a'ya ' F r C a' ? '^ Lq : v N w O r X U :' C Y ?+ .C G C .C IF ui 74 f4 t? G O L' yr ti '.?_, L C w U^ rn yr a i.+ ^? ... ^. a „F, w w u a, E S C ti F C +? a L L to a v ' u i v m r .N a o G w '..+ rn ." t? h ?'i G r. W C c C 2 ?. •? F ,? r 4• G' t5' a X n ?• C t..C O S G C r 't=-' F w - E C c>t fn G .? pCC11 O F F " 'C = .tE`, ttc? fi? F '`$ '•? r' L_ 4 •.t'• R 'y;V as d d 'O ^ •? a .F? ttl .?' C •E .O '? F N.a ¢' C- f a 2 v .G' nL tu' O G Q. ..a S y, ? ? U T Y. 6? a o T '_ t. R uGC?? p, r •+ G' t- 'W OR •? w+ ^.r F .t - 'O O u O a G h a u .E c m u '" b .?' ° w Z 'n. " s a. x C-' •E r c E r E. r '? r F ,? ts v o r pGi w s •3' 'G o 'm u -• tLd c , ' a m V • ° bb 40 J yI w >? A Yi ,L . «+ 47 ^a, r T L a I/. L C o 'S w ? ? ? ? G1 a .C ? 'w u F ? O G C .FC = = L' ?' E rt ', G-' 4 ? ?' u. c G w u. L' t'4u. R , '.C?. 4q •V ? R a G .- G R y F O' yy ? t/? ?. - 66?? rtrt .L ?• ? 'p .? :.. F m A G v v d y W O it L. J'O {''•.r .•.' G V T t L «, C F. 4 1• ?I,C G ,C L I. C r y ?S 41 c .? t? '? I.: p' ?. ? °A' ,??, ? ,Ga •? ? W u o P •y " „? G G r^ W " •C O 0. 'D pj CI •C .1: Oti p t u •.. p? ?. L: C r. >. .?• R bl' G •(i F+ 6• « O '?^ N ` ° u V_ F F- ? F .? tG ^. '?„ C• O a 'v? C? N "' U y C a E a u> to 7 ^.. a .+ G Y 4' C ^ .C.. L ?..•?i >> u.Lr a? y G r F a O F L u C a v? G a .=_ ? 4 , M1 4 r: Y. t•J C t", O C a V wR ea a gt s. o r s- s E C r ? c ?' .'O.+ « ^O s '+ t F ° `a'• ?r-. 'r L S E 4• ?9 i'' L ? h ? w '!: Qu (' tq 4 ?• UD ,WW W m N a F 5 O W W a _U n Q. ?'•°• E Gc? E aS «a 'm ° R d R E pi pGi t e, E .° E ?' eo E v E eo ^ i cL r" to a L •? L ••? F A R U u« C Vy[)v? a K+ ? d i [6 P L C . ,o a . C € w G tG ,G ° t L ? c w F r' fl F 17, -zs a T c °' h d O Q y r ?o p s.ty ..? uUY•. C t0 d's -a L F m ?L?.''ti •D W ua ? F R G u E •? v 1 o k C T C, ^ ? 1 1 T ? ty? 4 tC C U '4 If. '? cc ` p 4.. C •? .O. •, a ^ t k a r E w ` x a ? ? ?•Lr ? a Stu c •? E ? ` o R •L ?' C C' Y+ C R T t? .CL i= E ? F ^Cfi ? E' ` w J 0. p C F w u . A a -; uieX' 4'.] N V• U ry C Q O pUU(?N •i:?U u U N h ? s N N V (y N 6 `Q ^ w ?q ?n•1 b ?^ N G U It `o c 'Y' ? ? o ? « o ? ? ? S d e: ,t1: G^?a. ?' ?c L" ? •ei` '` .'r. .': r L? .?- r ?'= G ?, ° r ? d v o.o o ? ; w w mme q.c a .c •E c ° •?? a•, c c - c• ?' •+ 'r ?. •r? f '(...i- 4 S 'c t .G 'CC• ^ ° «" t vl R c?' L i• L L L T a E O ._ ..?! v C. 'C.. C'.S L' G' C ?. C. V- C C .?11C-- F L G a, hD G O U 'n . w C ti C ?_' " •.Y! U a •v_. ? v ? .R ? L •.- .. N .V. r. ? R C. G_ 'G F` ? ? %? a E ?, C p V U '? Cq eJ ^« V, o o s? vpp. G o« c r^ r F E R a a << `} p 2 r c S E D yL ¢ It !-? T u ?y F. ?+ a•' tti G ^.a. r a u ?.' 't = - ? T ? ` p 4. r ? " 41, .=. d G a .: ? U v uyu h R a t O •E V tf. G .. G t a? v ^.1 •5L. C ?' v. G. S G r. ^fl C m N_ O ^ ? ° E c u ?' s?! L E ? ? % c ?c'' ? ? E ? ? ?. a? ?t r. L ^' ^• ^ ? s ? c r ? ?- '" ° - y^, ?. c c w c a..-, ,_ •• c V v. ;E ? ' c c... ar. ` ? ?. _ E .`. - r .-: .`_ a ? •' F vc .v ? i. `c ? %r l T - Cp° Y ;i y c .C r r J> C C C` 1% ?[ '^ tG 2 I°i `. y Y F u £ C. L I= .. R ?. L .? v v y C F°( w C m N ,? ;. F R C C .? u ?' .x.• L .V L E C .?.-. L (. •- r 2 L L G F r '. R C U, L_ r u.. UC C[^, R d L ?, ? _ .. GU ["..) ? F = R = y ^ '? ? C b C f n y - ? - C T U ? L' ? G "? OS. G• v o C' ? Vi Vi ' v' L. .?' T 3 4 r s N,' v« G bM1- C L S l y, v t? ?. .. c L tl .L v C R. C a'L. - v .? ? V l• r' N n: sEJPIES 'rag CYS:, motion and )unt- o once every six months, to Armstrong County jail (fn le same tole as the depen- earings required under 42 6351. Simultaneously, the three-page memorandum ig its rationale, stion is presented 1'or our is [trial] court el•r in limit. tween incarcerated parents hildren to times when the Kittanning for court pro- n child dependency mat- ecept the facts as found by unless they are not sup- record. lit the litterest of iper, 507, 674 A.2d 702, 704 Ira the Matter o,/'l,uis R., 518, 635 A.2d 170 (1993)). 1 by the facts, we are not rial court's inferences, de- !onclusiolls therell•om; we mr independent judgment e coui-Vs determination, as findings of fact, and must. right and justice dictate. ?V., 325 Pa.Sulwr. 39, 472 (era Gone ). We review for ion. Wiseman r,• Wall, 718 ?a.Super.1998). Our scope •dingly, is of the broadest. Id. See (1180 Ili re Read, 0 (Pa.Supm:1997). trial court has provided wan(huu of findings th; t it. ntly with the order herciu t document sets 1'orl.h Tile gs in addition to those re- our of the six children are eir two therapists tcst.iffed ial SUIVIcc' r10p:In1, ..Ilalel- :nunts du Juvenile All. +cr- S, the Child Ph,ly livc Sv. P.S. seelions 22(11-222.1, and cl, 23 Pa.C.S. sectioll 2511 ,r C, 393 Pa.Supa'r. 1, 573 A.2d lo). IN H E CJ. Ila. 93 Clue u,, 729 A.2d 89 19991 ould not Ile ill theil' hest interests The parents are resent f • th • 7 their parents at Lhe remote SCI p ol ese eolll t proceedin s and ar t t d ' 1ocations. The CYS caseworker for all six g e ranspor e 1 or that Illll•pose. Vishations call be arrang'ell children testifier) that previous visitations while the pm•enls are present for these with the parents hall been chaotic, given hearings. the children's limited attention spoils and special needs. During prior visitation with 11 l0 As appellees have pointed out, p:uc there is very little Case' law 1•eg'ardfllg' ro- The e childrml fought with each other duction (or even regarding outright denial) (SOnleliuws physically) and on at least of visits of incarcerated pm'ents with tlcir . one occasion it child acted out sexually dependent children ill fosLer care. Addi- with an older sibling. All of the children tiunally, life dist,inctiall between the riht g have physical and/or emotional prob- visilaliou, and who must pay fm Lhe lends. Close and constant supervision attendant expenses of visitaliou, has not would be required on any trips to be e been xplorer) in file context of fmprironed ovadn pareul s. For these reasons, the CYS case worker testified that, is her opinion, it Would not, be in the children's best interests to make the Imlg trips that would be necessary for visitation at the SCI locations. 'fhe trial coull tinuud these facts and professional opinions fully supported and agreed with (hem. It wisely opined: "We think it would be extremely difficult 1'or the chil- dren to endure Snell lengthy trips given their physical and emotional conditions." Thus, the trial court declfnerd to order visnittial ;d (lie SCI locations. 'T'hese findings lead eoucfusions of (he trial eoort are amply suppol led by the evidence. 119 The more controversial ospoct of Lhe triad cour('s nasluormolunl is the f ll- lowiug'sl:uculeul: r1 wtlggeAioll Wax made that the iff t•mwporl the, parelds to Kil(auninp for vfsilatiou sessions. 'Phis we will ael Ito. The parents are slate priaouers roufincd in shoe f lstitutoua. 11' at, were to (rausprd'L these prisoners huo- dreds of miles to tisit their' children, we world be selling it precedeol, I'er all slate. Ill i-illers del he Lraaspol'Led for (lie purpose of visiting (heir families. Such a policy would create chaos ill f lit, prison s;vsll•ul, nil to 11mi(ion the Ireuendous expen"c of ).fine :wd unnaey ill Irau,purl- iuApri:anurls arras rife Slade. '1 hk Coort olafutoios rovicw hearings claa;r :1ix awoths as re.loned I.y low'. 15, 61 `1111 One of the primary par. poses of the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. H 6301 et seq., is to preserve the unity of tine family Whenever possible. In, re A1ary Kathryn T., 427 Pa.Super. 515, 629 A.2d 988, 995 (1993) (citation oall.te(l). There is, however, no Statute providing specific guidance to the courts in evaluating fi'e- quency of pareulal visitation once children have been adjudicated dependent. ALB., xapr0 at. 706 n.:3. CYS, nonetheless, is h0nnd by the follow ng a(hoiois(rative reg- ulation, which reads in pel tinenL part Visiting : and coomwnication policies (a) The county agency shall provide op- portm,fly fur visits betvaen the child Will pareols as frequeod) as possible lilt( no less Ilvaquenlly than once ovcly Z tvechs at it lime and place eoltvanient to (be parties and if) a loc,dion toll Trill porulil. mdlua ilderactiou, onless dAt iog is: (1) Clearly nut f l keeping with t.lle placement goad-for exawple, ill adol) tion or fudepaodeot living. (2) Freely refused f l writing by the parens i3) N.,( io the child's best iotrreai anal is limited or probibitvd by court order. do Emcpt f l it cirealo.,lnuoo in Much lla• cuauty aFruc,1' has reanoo to : uspecl that it child is of risk o1' abuse as define,) in Clial k•r:3190 (rchoillA to child plotec- 94 I'll. 729 ATLANTIC REPORTi;It, 2d SERIES five setvices-child nbnse), the county agency may not reduce file opportuni- ty for visitation between parents mill (heir child in placement, to less than once every 2 we6ks without prior coma approval of the reduction. 55 Pa-Code § 3130.68 (eniphnsis adde(j). Thus, CYS must adhere to it "best Inter- est' standard when petitioning file court for approval before it may reduce parental visitation. It has clone so here. [7) 912 We (lo not find this regula- tion binds us, however. Administrative rules may be classified as either interpre- tative or legislative. Commonwealth 1). DePasquale, 509 Pa. 183, 186-87, 501 A.2d 626, 628 (1985). Lt that case, our supreme court quoted the following succinct expla- nation of the distinction: Mules have force of law when issued pursuant to a grant of legislative power to make law through rules. The conclu- sion, very solidly based, is that rules ai'e legislative when the agency is exercising delegated prover to make law through rules, and rules are interpretive when the agency is not exercising such dele- gated power in issuing them. r • w rt 181 When a tole is issued pursuant to delegated power, the court is bound by it as if it were a statute, and the court can do no more than inquire into its validity. But when a rule is not issued pursuant to delegated power, the coat's inquiry is not into validity but is into correctness or propriety; the coma may substitute judgment to whatever extent it finds desirable. Id. at. 187, 501 AN at 628-29 (quoting K.C. Davis, 2 Administrative Ln(a Then. Ilse § 7:10 at 54, § 7:13 at 59 (2d ed.1979)). Applying this analysis, the rules Are clearly internal, or interpretive, and bind only CYS. The "best interest" 7. Another minor source of confusion in the briefs has been the attempt to apply nom dependency custody cases m the ptrsent coo sla dti d quoted in the regulation must. rally he met, by CYS; the regulation does not, set a standard for the court order that CYS must, procure. Since the regulation is of the interpretative rather than the legislative type, we. at-(,, not bound by if., 1113 Case law, hmvever, does establish two different st:vulards potentially applica- ble to the context of parental visitation with dependent children. This profusion of standards has caused some confusion among the parties, which is understanda- ble. A review of the published cases will reveal a periodic re-appearance of a shut- la• confusion. The conflict, between the various standards, the preceding regula- tion, and the procedure followed herein is at the heart of this appeal( [9,101 it 14 The polestar and para- mount concern in evaluating parental visi- tation, in dependency as well as nol-de- pendency situations, is the best interests and welfare of the children. Albright it Commonwealth ex rel. Petters, 491 Pa. 320, 323, 421 A.2d 157, 158 (1980); M.B., supra at 705 (citing hi re Long, 313 Pa.Su- per. 47, 459 A.2d 403 (1983)). "Once a child is adjudicated dependent; the issues of custody and continuation of foster care are determined according to a child's best interests." lie is J.&W, 438 Pa.Super. 46, 651 A.2d 167, 169 (1994). Thus, it has been said that "[tlhe sole concerns of a court called upon to enforce a parent's right of visitation are the welfare and best interests of the child." Mordant i,. Molina, 343 Pa.Super. 298, 494 12d 856, 858 (1985). [111 915 However, because of the constitutionally protected liberty interest parents have to such visitation, parental visitation is usually not, denied or limited unless visitation Nvith the parent poses a grave threat to the child. Smttosky ii. Kamer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct.. 13M, 71 L.Cd.2d 599 (1982); Given it Snerringrr, trovcisy. These do not apply and must be shatply distinguished except as expressions of the most general Policy. 431 Pa.Super. 66, 635 (1993); AI.B., suptn at Rhine, supra ). In fact; It has long been the ulouwealth that "only v clearly shows that [par associate with [their] [t.heyl he denied the ri; Commonwealth . am Stra age, 179 Pa.Super. 885, 886 (1955). See a B., [314 Pa.Supe•. 391 (1983)1; lit, lutelast Pa-Super. 275, 283, 41! (1983) ("visitation has denied only where the shown to suffer from moral deficiencies th grnve'threat to the chil Kathryn. T., 427 Pa.Sul 988 (1993); lie re Ado J.C., 326 Pa.Super. 14; (1984). M.B., supra at 706 (Ca' renting). [12471 1116 In de' SUCH as this, the stands visitation is measured al; the goal mandated in tt plan" Where, as here, remains the goal of the fa visitation will not be de unless it poses a grave ti pan ; Dutton, B., supra a ever, the goal is no longe the family, then visitatim or denied if it is in the bee child or children. Dome interests" standard, is thi protective of parents' visit the "grave threat" standai 6. Further standards preva of dependency proceedings Act. Children who have b( pendent may not be separe ents unless evidence is i that such a separation is If? the !n(eirsts of S.S., 43E A.2d 174, 176 (1994). Ter tat lights, and placement conducted under the stall 1PRI13S Merl in the regulation annst V CYS; the regulation does dard for the court order that •ocu•e. Since the regulation erpretative rather than the )e, we are not bound by it. law, however, does establish standards potentially applica- mtext of parental visitation at children. This profusion has caused some confusion irties, which is understanda- m of the published cases will Ae re-appearance of a simi- . The conflict between the lards, the preceding regula- procedure followed herein is f this appeal.7 4 The polestar and pava- n in evaluating parental visi- tendency as well as nun-de- tations, is the best interests of the children. Albright a th ex rel. Fetters, 491 Pa. A.2d 157, 158 (1980); M.B., ,citing 191 re Long, 313 Pa.Su- A.2d 403 (1983)). "Once a licated dependent, tine issues d continuation of foster care ld according to a child's best z iv ?.S. W., 438 Pa.Super. 46, ', 169 (1994). Thus, it has at "[tjhe sole concerns of a upon to enforce a parent's lion are the welfare still best as child." Niadva v. Niadna, r. 298, 494 A.2d 856, 858 However, because of the ly protected liberty interest to such visitation, parental lsually not denied or limited ion with the parent poses a to the child. Santoxky v. U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1:388, 71 (1982); Green v. Sneeringer, ?ese do not apply and roust he igulshed except as expiessioos ul will policy. 431 Pa-Super, 66, 635 A,2d (1993); M.B., sapra at 705 (discussing Rhine, srlpra ). In fact: It has long been the law fn this Conn- monwealth that "only when the evidence clearly shows that lparels) arc unfit to associate with [their] children should [they] lie denied the right to sec them." Commonwealth ex rel. Tnraer v. Strrinpe, 179 Pa.Super. 83, 86, 115 A.2d 885, 886 (1955). See also hi. 9•e Damon ll., [314 Pa.Super. 391, 460 A.2d 1196 (1983) ]; ha 191lcrest of Rhine, 310 Pa.Supe•. 275, 283, 456 A.2d 608, 613 (1983) ("Visitation has been limited or denied only where the patent has been shown to suffer front severe mental or moral deficiencies that constitute a grave'threat to the chill."); In re Mary Kathryn T., 427 Pa.Super. 515, 629 A.2d 988 (1993); HI re Adoption of Michael J.C., 326 Pai.Supe•. 143, 473 A.2d 1021 (1984). MR, supno at 706 (Cavanaugh, J., dis- senting). 112-171 1116 At dependency cases such as this, the standard against which visitation is measured also depends upon the goal mandated fn the family service plan" Where, as here, reut[ification still remains I.lie goal of the family service plan, visitation will not be denied or reduced unless it poses a grave threat. M.B., sa- pra; Daarou. B., supra at 1198, if, how- ever, the goal is no longer ivunffncatioh of the family, then visitation may be limited or denied if it, is in the best interests of the child m• children. Danion B. The "best interests" standard, fn this context, is less protective of parents' visitation rights that[ the "grave threat" standard. 8. Further standards pics'ail it[ other' aspnts of dependency proceedings under the luva•nile Act. Children who have been adludicaied de- p,.:ndent may not be eel m'aled lino, their par eats unless ceidcncc is mesmicd hllowing- 11131 such a sepmalian is dourly aeccsam)'. lu lit In(rtusls ,I S.S., 438 Pa.Sulm. 02, 051 A.2d 174, 170 (1994). 'fcuuiualion of p:u'cn- [A tights, and Platcmem for litsicr cats, is conducted wider the staudaid ul dear and IN RR C.I. Pit 95 Cite as 739 A1d 89 (P.super. 1999) 1074, 10751 [181 1117 It is clear that the grave threat, standard applies to this case, for the goal of the family service plan remains reunificatioa.9 "Inn rare instances, howev- er, we have approved restricting or tempo- rarily suspending visitation even though there has been no showing of such severe anent l at- moral deficiencies in the parent as would constitute a grave threat to the child's welfare." id, 918 Damon B., supra, presented its with such a rare case. Therein, the "grave threaC' standard, as here, may be said to have Conflicted with the "best interest" standard. We were there presented with all order reducing a non-incarcerated mother's visitation with her son from twice a month to once every quarter. Less Chun a year after his birth, Donlon B. and his six siblings had been adjudicated depen- dent dam to unsanitary conditions in the bonne. Although efforts were made through CYS to return the children and address the home situation, they were un- successful, and Damon was quickly placed with foster parents. Three years later, his foster parents filed a notice of intention to a lopt, although visitation was still occur- ring twice a month and the family service plan goal remained reunification. After a hearing, the Trial court found that motim- had improved ]let, housekeeping and par- eating skills and was adequately patenting. the two children who had been returned to het However, it also found that because of Dallloll's strong psychologleal bond with his new family, if he were to be returned to mother, serious emotional harm would result.. Tine hial court thus ordered CYS to change its permanency plan from reuni- fication of the family to a different goal, amt reduced visitation to once every three convincing ceidcncc. Id. at 177. Ill, lacl that Ihesc aandaids atu not "heat fnleresas•• has cauwd confusion in the past. Id. Set also I'a.it.C. 11.1915.1 el sry. I'll Im9ber rules le- gaidmg vimialiou. 9. We arc wilbout power to review tile applw primeness ul This final. Ser disruw,mi mfia of Doui,m B., Auryw. 96 Pa. 729 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES months. I(t at 1197-98. Mother appeal- ed. 919 On appeal, this coma found fie trial coal-( had erred. That court. had reduced visitation but had found specifical- ly that mother had no severe mental or moral deficiencies which would constitute it grave threat to the child. After examining the two potential standards, we clarified that the grave threat, standard applied. However, we affirmed, for we found the visits had been counterproductive and had caused the child extreme emotional stress, including physical symptoms. We thus im- plied that a grave threat existed, albeit not attributable to any present deficiency of mother,'" We relied particularly upon the fact that the order was a temporary one; we also reversed as erroneous the trial court's direction to CYS to change its fotni- ly service plan goal. Id. at 1198-99. 9 20 In Greco, snpro, we were present- ed with another such "rare case" in which the trial judge had applied the improper "best interest" standard. As in Danrou. B., we had before its more than sufficient facts of record to uphold the denial of visitation under the "grave threat" standard: Where a father engages fn the premedi- tated killing of the inother of his infant child, a fibHeriori he possesses a nlot."ll deficiency constituting a grave threat to the child.... )tarring criminal acts committed upon the child, we call thinic of no action in which a parent coin(] engage posing a graver threat to a child's welfare than killing the other par- ent Green, supra at 1077. [191 921 As fu Dacron. B., the order restricting parents' visitation herein is temporary, and the family service plan goal remnins reunification. It, is nlso clear that the trial court in this cost, 'is .s in that. one, applied it "hest interest" standard. "other than the correct st ndard thatvisi- tation only only be reducer) if there is it "grave thread' to the children. Regard- less, as in those cases, it is clear that, given the two visitation locations available, one of them is unacceptable; extreme stress would occur if the children were to be ordered to visit the parents in their SCI locations, and this would amount to a grave threat to them. There is ample evidence to this effect, as well as it fully s•tpported finding by the trial court. We, therefore, affirm the portion of the order regarding transportation to the parents' SCI locations. [201 922 We have before us no find- ing under either the "grave threat" or the "best interest" standard regarding visita- tion in the Armstrong County prison. Nonetheless, there is ample evidence of record to" us to find that supervised visita- tion fu that location would not pose a grave threat to the children. There is no finding on the record that the parents are unfit to see their children. In fact, the psycholo- gists and the CYS enseworicer t:esl,ifted uniformly that they were in favor of con- t,inumg visitation with parents, and that. it would he in the chilchr»s best interests. Their concerns were based upon either the location of visits, or the difficulties associ- ated with the children traveling to parent locations. 923 As the trial comt has aptly ob- served, however, there is a difference be- tween the right, of the parents to visitation, and the mater of who pays for the trans- portation and otter airangeniens. At- though parents may have the right, to visit., their ability to do so is a nnatter of their 10. Our review of the law convinces us that prior to the case of Damon B., the standmxi had been limited to severe parental ntmml or mental deficiencies causing a grave threat, and it is often still so recited. See, e.g., d1.1i., supra at 706 (Cavanaugh, .i., dissenting). However, since 1983, the standard has, as in Dnrnou B., sometimes been phrased ihns: "As a usual tide, parental visitation is not deniecl except tehere a grave lineal it) the child can be shmvn." M.B., soopia at 705, Due to the continued recital of both versions of the stan- dard, our Inw is not clear if a grave threat caused by something or someone other than the parents would meet the xtand:nd. REIC own volition. Had they not snit the criminal offense(s) ability to visit would be govt ent circumstances. The : chose to commit these critr tell to their present mnbilit, is not attributable to anyor hilt themselves. [211 924 The state ha to transport these or any o• visitation with their childr court's point regarding e: state is most certainly ca-r, van, v. Straw, 437 Pa.Super. 882, 884-85 (1994) (limiting oners to attend hearings rc tion with their children)," 9 25 Order affirmed. 9 26 CAVANAUGH, J, result. w OKn"UMBn SKRa Cynthia .1. REICHEN: Appellee, y. Bruce K. REiCHENE Appellant. Superior Court of Pen Argued March 23, Filed April 29, 1 Forster husband, a re farnia, petitioned to niodif? provision of Massachusetts The Court of Common Plea ty, Family Division, N. Hancher, J., denied petife 11. The Issue of patrnts' obit the state and/or county tort for transportation to and 31ES :unification, It is also clear curt in this case, as in that "best interest" standard, correct standard that visi- y be reduced if there is a to the children. Regard- Ise cases, it is clear that, tisitation locations available, is unacceptable; extreme :cur if the children were to isit the parents in their SCI this would amount to a to them. There is ample is effect, as well as a fully ing by the trial court. We, •m the portion of the order Isportation to the parents' We have before us no find- :, the "grave threat" or the standard regarding visita- Armstrong County prison. ,here is ample evidence of a find that supervised visita- ation would not pose a grave aildren. There is no finding chat the parents are unfit to ren. In fact, the psycholo- CYS caseworker testified they were in favor of con- on with parents, and that it ie children's best interests. . were based upon either the is, or the difficulties associ- !hildren traveling to parents' e trial court has aptly ob.. er, there is a difference be- t of the parents to visitation, r of who pays for the trans- other arrangements. A]- may have the right to visit., n do so is a matter of their 7arental visitation is not denied a grave threat to the child call II.B., supra at 705. Due lu the ital of bush versions of the slan- t is not clear if a grave lhleal neddng or sonnvoue other than 2uld meet the standard. REICHENBACHER Y. REICHENBACHER Pa. 97 Cllea8729 A.2d 97 (Pa.Super. 1999) own volition. Had they not chosen to coin- husband appealed after denial of his mo- mit the criminal offense(s) they did, their t.ion for reconsideration. The Superior ability to visit would be governed by differ- Court, No. 1522 Pittsburgh 1998, Del Sole, eat circumstances. The fact that they J., held that action had to be remanded for chose to commit these crimes is what has hearing to determine applicability of stat- led to their present inability to visit. This ute governing court's jurisdiction to modify is not attributable to anyone or anything another state's child support order. but tlternaelvnss 1211 924 The state has no obligation to transport these or any other parents to visitation with their children. The trial court's point regarding expense to the state is most certainly correct. See Sulli- van, v. Skate, 437 Pa.Super. 534, 050 A.2d 882, 884-85 (1994) (limiting rights of pris- oners to attend hearings regarding visita- tion with their children)." `1125 Order affirmed. If 20 CAVANAUGH, J. concurs in the result. w O 5 ru N11.111111iM r Cynthia J. REICHENBACHElt, Appellee, Bruce K. REICHENBACHER, Appellant. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Argued March 23, 1909. Piled Aprit 29, 1999. Former husband, it resident of Cali- fornia, petitioned tin modify child support provision of Massachusetts divorce decree. The Court of Conmmln Pleas, Bullet' Coun- ty, Family Division, No. 98-90160-1), Halaher, J., denied petition, and farmer 11. 'file iaeue of panvill" ability to loulbuise the stale anilor comity ColleclimWl systems lot Irau,purlation la and barn Armstrong Reversed and remanded; jurisdiction relinquished. Divorce 0-403(7) Post-divorce action to modify Massa- chusetts child support order had to be remanded for hearing to determine appli- cability of statute governing court's juris- diction to modify another state's child sup- port order, given allegations that father was California resident, mother and child were Pennsylvania residents, and divorce was entered in Massachusetts. 23 Pa, C.S.A. § 7011(a)(1). Michael D. Gallagher, Butler, for appel- lant Cynthia J. Reichenbacher, appellee, pro se. Before DEL SOLE, JOYCE and BECK, ILL DEL SOLE, J.: 111 Ilusband and Wife were divorced in 1993 in Massachusetts. Husband made child support payments to Wife for one minur Child pursuant to an agreement merged and incorporated into the divorce decree. In 1998, in the Coal, of Common Pleas of Butler Coady, Husband filed an exemplified record of the Massachusetts proceedings, including fine judgment of dj- vo•ce and the separation agreement.. Hus- band subsequeut.ly petidoned to modify the amount of child suppoi. The trial court declined to exercise jurisdiction and denied Husband's petition. Husband Cuuuty's jail teas nut belotc (Ile coml. See Sullirau, supta at 885. ?, EDWARD E. GUIDO JUDGE March 12, 2002 Joseph Matcheson - AK-9966 SCI-DALLAS 1000 Follies Road Dallas, Pennsylvania 18612 Dear Mr. Matcheson: COURTHOUSE ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA 1 70 1 3-3387 (717) 240-6290 FAX (717) 240.6462 99..316A s Ye .4 I am writing to inform you, according to the law I cannot accept any communication from anyone unless it is through their attorney. Please note for your records a copy of your letter was placed in the file as per your request. Sincerely, Edward E. Guido EEG/sld COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY Enclosure i JANUARY 19, 2002 JAM 2 8 2002 JOSEPH MATCHESON AK-9966 SCI-DALLAS 1000 FOLLIES ROAD DALLAS, PA 18612 HONORABLE :FUDGE EDWARD GUIDO RE 99-3162 CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA 17013 YOUR HONOR: I WISH TO PLACE THIS LETTER ON THE RECORD REGARDING THE A130VE MENTIONED CASE. AFTER THE LAST HEARING IN THIS CASE THE HECKENDORN FAMILY WHO HAS TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF MY SON BEGAN BRINGING JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, JR. HERE TO SEE ME, THE VISITS HAVE GONE WELL FOR THE MOST PART. AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSIONS, I OFFERED THE HECKENDORNS THE FOLLOWING: 1. ONCE FREE THERE WILL 13E NO FURTHER COURT ACTION OF ANY KIND, SHOULD COURT ACTION BE INSTITUTED BY ANYONE; FOR ANY REASON, THE AGREEMENT WILL BE NULLIFIED AND I WILL FILE FOR FULL, CUSTODY OF MY SON. 2. I WILL PAY SUPPORT UNDER A PERSONAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MYSELF THE HECKENDORNS, THE AMOUNT WILL BE ESTABLISHED AFTER MY RELEASE, I WILL, PAY AS MUCH AS CAN, THIS WILL HE MY DUTY AND HONOR, ANY ATTEMPT TO SECURE SUPPORT THROUGH THE COURT WILL BE CONSIDERED COURT ACTION AND I WILL PROCEED TO FILE FOR FULL CUSTODY OF MY SON. a 2 3. I WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE FULL CUSTODY OF JOEY, JR. EVERY OTHER WEEKEND, THESE ARE NEGOTIABLE IN CASES OF FAMILY CONCERNS Atli) SCHEDULED EVENTS. 4. JOEY'S RELIGION WILL. HE THE SANE AS NINE, I WILL. BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS CATECHISM, WE ARE OF THE EASTERN ORTHODOX FAITH, HE WILL. HE ALLOWED TO LEARN OF THE FAITH OF THE HECKENDORNS Atli) AT THE AGE OF 14 HE MAY CHOSE ONE OR THE OTHER. THE ORTHORDOX CHRISTMAS AND EASTER FALL ON DIFFERENT DAYS THAN AMERICAN ONES, I WILL HAVE CUSTODY OF JOEY FOR THOSE HOLIDAYS, THIS IS NON-NEGOTIABLE. 5. I WILL HAVE CUSTODY OF JOEY 30 DAYS OF EVERY SUMMER, DURING THIS TIME THERE WILL LIE NO SUPPORT PAYMENTS. 6. THE HECKENDORNS HAVE MIS-LEAD JOEY, JR. INTO THINKING THAT THEY ARE HIS REAL MON AND DAD, THIS MUST RE RECTIFIED, ALSO, THEY HAVE INDOCTRINATF.I) HIM INTO THINKING HIS NAME IS BRANDON, THIS IS AMORAL AND UNACCEPTABLE, IT MUST HE RECTIFIED WITH LOVING CARE AS SOON POSSIBLE. I DO NOT MIND A NICK NAME, BUT JOEY MUST KNOW AND USE HIS REAL AND LEGAL. NAME. IN SCHOOL ETC. 7. THE HECKENDORNS SAY I CANNOT HAVE THEIR PHONE NUMBER, THIS IS AN OBSTACLE TO SCHEDULED VISITS, SURELY, I AM NOT TO DRIVE 150 MILES FOR A VISIT ONLY TO FIND THEY'RE NOT HOME OR THEY HAD OTHER PLANS. 8. JOEY HAS A BROTHER WHO IS NOT MY SON, I DEVELOPED A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP 1vIT11 DANNY PRIOR TO MY INCARCERATION, THE HECKENDORNS HAVE. REFUSED TO LET NE SEE DANNY, JR., WHENEVER THEY BROUGHT JOEY TO VISIT NE AT SCI-DALLAS THEY REFUSED TO BRING DANNY WITH IIIS BROTHER. I PROPOSE THAT THIS MUST CHANGE UPON MY RELEASE FROM PRISON, I LOVE DANNY VERY MUCH AND I EXPECT THAT DANNY Atli) HIS BROTHER COULD HAVE JOINT VISITS WITH ME FROM TIME TO TIME AS PART OF OUR AGREEMENT. s IN CONCLUSION, PLEASE REVIEW THE WITHIN INFORMATION, I HAVE OFFER MY FRIENDSHIP TO THE HECKENDORNS, I HAVE TRIED EVERYTHING TO MAKE. THIS ARRANGEMENT BETTER FOR ALL CONCERNED AND ESPECIALLY JOEY, JR., IN THE EVENT ANY FURTHER COURT ACTION IS NECESSARY 13Y MYSELF, I FELT I SHOULD ESTABLISH WHAT WAS AGREED UPON AT THIS TIME AND WHAT IS EXPECTED FROM BOTH THE HECKENDORNS AND MYSELF FOR THIS ARRANGEMENT TO WORK, PLEASE RETAIN THIS LETTER FOR THE RECORD, I APPRECIATE YOUR FAIR JA)DGEMENT IN THE PAST MlD I TRUST YOUR FAIR JUDGEMENT IN THE FUTURE. THAHK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. RESPECTFULLY, ; - ?? - re ?§OSLIP?HfR MATCHESON, CC; ATTORNEY LINDSEY DARE BAIRD, ATTY. FOR THE HECKENDORNS DAN AND DEBRA HECKENDORN MAY 10 2000 LINDSAY DARE BAIRD ATTORNEY AT LAw 37 SOUTH HANOVER CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-3307 TEL. (717) 243-5732 FAX (717) 243.3110 May 10, 2000 The Honorable Edward E. Guido One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Heckendorn v. Matcheson, Docket No. 99-3162 IN CUSTODY In Re Adoption of JRM, Docket No. 99-78 ADOPTIONS Dear Judge Guido: Because of the uncertainty of the outcome of the hearing scheduled for this Friday morning, I thought it best to alert you and Attorney Jones what my plan-would be should Mr. Matcheson's parental rights not be terminated (either involuntarily or with the open adoption by consent). I would request access to Mr. Matcheson's past criminal records pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. Section 1904. Then, if applicable, I would request that 23 Pa.C.S. Sections 5303(b), (b.1)(1) and (2) be adhered to. In addition, I would request that the test in Etter v. Rose, 684 A.2d. 1092 (Super 1998) be applied to this matter. I have enclosed a copy of the case for ease of reference. Thank you for your attention and I hope this "head's up" is useful. Respectfully yom, L mdsay Dae' aird LDB/jam Enclosure cc: James K. Jones, Esquire 1092 Pa. 684 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES Michael L. ETTER, Appellant, V. Wanda ROSE. Superior Court of Penasylvan a. Submitted Sept. 23, 1996. Filed Nov. 14, 1996. Incarcerated father requested visitation at prison with his minor son. The Court of Common Pleas, Perry County Civil Division. NO. 91-1359. Rehkamp, J., denied request. Father appealed. The Superior Court. No. 00461 Harrisburg, 1996, Tamilia, J.. held that trial court failed to weigh all factors in deter. mining child's best interests. Reversed. 1. Infants C-19,3(4) When considering request for visitation, court's primary concern is what Le in best interest and permanent welfare of child; this determination will be made on case-by-case basis and premised on weighing of all factors which legitimately affect child's physical. in. tellectual. moral and spiritual well-being. "_ Parent and Child x207) While encouraging on-going, healthy parent/child relationship is aim of judicial system. Of paramount concern rnmz be, after considering all factors, what is best for child. 3. Parent and Child x52(17, 21) Trial court's failure to weigh all relevant factors in determining child's beat interests required reversal of order denying incarcer. ated father's request for visitation at prison with that child; trial court established policy that consisted of but one factor, Le., mother's wishes, and result was illogical asd inconsis- tent in that child was permitted to visit his stepfather, who was also in prison, but not 1. Although the child's actual age doesn't appear in the record, appellant indicates his son was born October 19. 1986 and lived s.idn both pu- bes, his mobil parents, until he wu two and one-half Thereafter. the child resided mih his his natural father because child would suffer trauma by prison visitation with him 4. Parent and Child x2(17) There is presumption that visitation with incarcerated parent is not in best. interest of child; however, parent must be afforded hearing in which both parties are permitted to establish relative benefits or harm to child occasioned by visitation with father while in prison and all relevant factors must be con. sidered, including child's age, distance and hardship to child in traveling to visitation site, ]dnd of supervision at visit, identification of person(s) transporting him and by what means, effect on child physically and emo- clonally, whether father has and does exhibit genuine interest in child, whether he main- mined reasonable contacts in past and any other relevant matters impinging on child's best interest 5. Convicts 0-6 Incarcerated parent's presence is not re- quired at hearing on parent's request for visitation in prison with parent's child. Michael L. Etter, pro se. Wanda Rose, pro se. Before McEWEN, President Judge. and TAMILIA and HOFFMAN, JJ. TAMILIA. Judge: Michael L. Etter appeals from the 3larch 25. 1996 Order denying his request for visita- tion with his minor son at the prison where appellant is presently incarcerated.[ The court reasoned it would not be in the child's best interests to allow such visitation, and it is the court's policy to deny a request for a mino. s visitation with an inmate when the custodial parent objects.: Appellant argues the court abused its dis- cretion by denying his request for visitation in that the court erred by applying the "best interest" standard and improperly based its decision on personal and biased opinions. Appellant also contends the court's policy of mother while father hay become a repeat offend- er in the criminal justice system. 2. Appellee mother has not fded a brief in this matter. EWER r. ROSE Gteu65/ A2d 1095 trabuptr. 1996) denying visitation when the custodial parent [4,51 While objects contravenes the legislature's intent to permits denial guarantee a child's continued contact with because of inc both parents and unconstitutionally denies thereis 5 basis visitation without allowing him the opportuni. to be rebutted ty to respond to the objections of the child's such visitation i mother. [il When considering a request for visi- tation, the primary concern of the court is what is in the best interest and permanent welfare of the child. In Interest of C.F., 4,76 Pa-Super. 83, 647 A2d 253 (1991). This de- termination will be made on a case-by-rase basis and premised on a weighing of all factors which legitimately affect the child's physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being. Id. The trial court had before it for consideration appellant's petition and mothers response. In denying appellant's request, the trial judge reasoned a "prison is not conducive to establishment of a positive parent/child relationship...." (Slip Op., Rehkamp, J., 5/16/96, p. 2.) 12.31 While encouraging an on-going, healthy parent/child relationship is certainly an aim of the judicial system, of paramount concern must be, after considering all fac- tors, what is best for the child. We cannot agree that the trial court carefully weighed all factors in determining the best interests of the child. Rather. the court established a policy which consisted of one factor, the wishes of the mother. the custodial parent By doirg so, the court did not consider the best inerests of the child but treated two categories of visitation, that approved by the mother and that not approved by the mother. Although in general we believe "[vliolation of the laws with its resulting confinement sub- sumes very serious restrictions on the free- dom to do many things and to exercise many rights, the least of which is to have a normal relationship with one's family[,]" saiuxn v. Pa. 1093 there is no case law which of virltatlon with a parent rceration alone, we believe or creation of a nresurrindnn the chil d. Appellant must, however, beaf. forded a hearing in which both parties are permitted to establish the relative benefits or harm to the child occasioned by visitation with father while in prison. All {{eelevant factors must be considered, includinelage of the child°)distarce and hardship. to the child in traveling to the visitation siteL?the Idnd of supervision at the visit` identification of the person(s) transporting him and by what means the elect on the child physically and emotionally, ether the father has and does exhibit a genuine interest in the child,-3?heth. er he maintained reasonable contacts in the past and`anr other relevant matters imping- ing on the child's best interest. We empha. size that for all of the reasons presented in both the majority and Dissenting Opinions in Surinam. supra. the trial court is not obliged to require the attendance of appellant at any further hearing. Appellant has indicated to this Court that he will be eligible for parole from his current term of incarceration in January, 1997. Since the likelihood is present that partial custody will be granted to father, it would be appropriate to explore seriously visitation be- fore his release.' We find the trial court abused its discre- ti0n nd CO mithd ermr in refllable tci?j. uo vwithout fullv explorin¢ the merits of the petition Accordingly, we reverse the Order denying appellant's request for visitation with his minor son while incarcerated and remand for a hearing consistent with this Opinion. Shauj 437 Pa.Super. 534. SC: 65o A2.d 882, 886 (1994) (Dissenting Opinion by Tatnilia, J.), in this case, the result is filogical and inimAsistent in that the child is permitted to visit his step-father, who is also in prison, but not his natural father because be would suf- fer tratana by prison visitation with him. !. We tote that appellant's objection to appellee taking his son to visit her cwtent husband at his place of incarceration is understandable. but is Order reversed. Jurisdiction relinquished. w p ?lltxti,nt[tRnM not m1n= to the resolution of hie visitation petition. iI i it I i ?f A Mock-Mays Associates 57 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: 717-258-0214 Fax: 717-258-3158 July 21, 2003 The Honorable Edward E. Guido Cumberland County Court 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Dear Judge Guido, Danny and Debra Heckendom have asked that I write a letter to the Cumberland County Court describing my concerns and recommendations for Brandon (Joey) Matcheson, D.O.B. 12/02/97. 1 have been counseling Brendan and his mother since August of 2002 around the issues of visitation with his biologic father, Joseph Matcheson. I am a psychiatric nurse / licensed professional counselor with extensive experience working with children and their families. I am a partner in a private practice in Carlisle, PA, Mock-Mays Associates, and also teach part-time at Johns Hopkins University. To date I have had ten sessions with Mrs. Heckendom and Branden. We have held all sessions in my office with Mrs. Heckendom present with Branden because he has been fearful of his mother leaving the room and he is unable to see her. At our last session, July 14, 2003, Branden was at last comfortable enough that his mother could wait in our waiting room while he talked and played with me. This behavior is very unusual for a child his age however not surprising considering the trauma and turmoil in Brendan's life before coming to live with the Heckendorn's. He struggles with Separation Anxiety. In the DSM-IV-TR, the publication of the American Psychiatric Association to help persons standardize their discussion of a mental health issues, separation anxiety is defined as follows: Developmentally inappropriate and excessive anxiety concerning separation from home or from those to whom the individual is attached. Brendan meets all of the criteria for this disorder and indeed has verbalized to both me and his parents that he is afraid "someone will come and take me.° In addition to his anxiety in my office around separating from his mother, Branden is afraid to fall sleep unless hie can see and/or touch either Mr. or Mrs. Heckendom. He has slowly adapted to separating from them so he could attend the Head Start Program he was enrolled in this past year. And, he continues to be afraid when he cannot see his mother during the visitations with his biologic father, Joseph Matcheson. We have been working slowly to move Mrs. Heckendom out of the room at the YWCA where the supervised visits take place, and at the last meeting she was to sit in a chair just outside the door where Brandon (Joey) and Mr. Matcheson were visiting. At this point the plan for visitation at the YWCA is that Mrs. Heckendom will move from waiting just outside the door where Mr. Matcheson and Brandon are visiting to Mrs. Heckendom waiting in the lobby while the visit takes place. All these steps must be made very gradually and only as Brandon becomes comfortable with the current step will another next step be undertaken. In other words, we should permit Branden to wade into the swimming pool rather than dropping him into the deep end. To continue with this metaphor, dropping him into the deep end would cause him irreparable harm. PLARJT7FF'S EXHIBIT ? ? +?fa fs ';I 1 Mrs. Heckendom is delightful to work with. She comes to all scheduled appointments, she and her husband attempt to carry through on all suggestions I have made, I have observed appropriate parenting and discipline by Mrs. Heckendom, and she clearly cares for him as evidenced by my observations of a wonderful, bonded mother-son relationship. Branden is not a discipline problem either at home or at school. This fall he will begin Kindergarten in the Big Spring School District. I am against overnight visits for Branden (Joey) with Mr. Matcheson. As I mentioned, Brandon suffers from separation anxiety and forcing him to spend an overnight when at this point he cannot even fall asleep without seeing or touching one of the Heckendom's would be severely traumatic to this already traumatized child. I would use the same reasoning for non-supervised visits. Because of the concerns of the Heckendom's and my concerns as I work with this family, I would make the following recommendations: 1. Supervised visits should remain in effect. Mrs. Heckendom should continue gradually separating from Brandon during the visitation with Mr. Matcheson until she is able to wait for him in the lobby of the YWCA. There should not be any non-supervised and/or overnight visits with Mr. Matcheson. 2. Brendan has decided his name is Brandon, not Joey, and all parties should call him by that name. 3. 1 cannot emphasize enough that any changes should be made very gradually and these changes should keep in mind the best interests of this traumatized child. If you have any questions or I can be of further help, please don't hesitate to give me a call at 717-258-0214. Sincerely, Wanda Mays, EdD, RN, PC Cc: Client file Lindsay Baird, Esq. ' _ •••• •'U LrtiE? Mock-Mays Associates 57 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: 717-258-0214 Fax: 717-258-3158 May 20, 2004 The Honorable Edward E. Guido Cumberland County Court 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Heckendorn v. Matcheson Dear Judge Guido, This is a letter to the Cumberland County Court describing my meetings with Joseph R. Matcheson, Senior per order of the court dated August 4, 2003. Mr. Matcheson was required to participate in at least three counseling sessions with me. On August 7, 20031 telephoned Mr. Matcheson and arranged an appointment as soon as possible which was September 4, 2003. I met with him on that date as well as September 11, 2003 and October 2, 2003. He paid my full fee each time we met. Mr. Matcheson always arrived on time, appropriately dressed and was pleasant, warm, and friendly to the staff and myself. A kind thing lie did for our office was that several times he brought to be discarded magazines for the waiting room. We were appreciative. The focus of the sessions was bi-fold. First I wanted to find out about him and his wishes regarding a relationship with his son, Joseph R. Matcheson, Junior (D.O. B. December 2, 1999), and. secondly 1 wanted to educate him about children and especially Joey (Branden) and the unique struggles 11e has and continues to have. The first session was dedicated to obtaining a fairly detailed history of Mr. Matcheson's relationship with Joey (Branden), with Joey's (Branden's) mother, and with Mr. And Mrs. Iieckendorn. The second session focused on education, and the third on what his hopes were for the future in regards to his relationship with Branden (Joey). Mr. Matcheson listened respectfully to me and my opinions, however he left the last session in essentially the same place as when he came to the first session. The following are the issues at hand in his opinion: 1. Mr. Matcheson insists that Branden be called and officially use the name Joseph Richard Matcheson, Jr. (Joey). Ile realizes that the court requires him to refrain from calling his son Joey, however he states he continues to call him Joey whenever possible and that his family will never call him anything but Joey. His only concession re: the name was that the Heckendorn's may use Branden as a nickname. He indicated that 11e believes his name will keep him connected to his Russian Orthodox heritage. 2. He wants Joey (Branden) to call him "Daddy", not Uncle Daddy or anything like that. Branden (Joey) currently calls him Joe. 3 . He wants 5o/So legal custody of his child so that he will be contacted for all decisions. lie eventually wants to have complete custody of Joey (Branden) and is convinced that when he is older that Joey (Branden) will ask to come live with Mr. Matcheson. PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT X ? •.?L- 0 w ?? i 4. Mr. Matcheson believes that Mr. And Mrs. Heckendorn have told Joey (Branden) that they are his mother and father, and he believes they need to tell Branden "the truth" and that the Heckendorn's should be punished in some way because of this. 3. He understands "separation anxiety" and does not question my opinion, or that Joey has the symptoms of it, but he believes that "the Heckendorn's gave it to him." He believes that Mrs. Heckendorn, especially, puts the fear into Joey's mind that he will be kidnapped or that taken away. Mr. Matcheson states he intends to pursue full custody of Joey (Branden) and defined his idea of moving toward that slowly. I kept reminding him that any changes needed to be done gradually and over a long period of time to allow Joey (Branden) to adjust to each one. His idea was that he wanted to be able to take Joey to visit with his family in Scranton on the Russian Orthodox Christmas which would necessitate visitation for the entire day as well as Mr. Matcheson transporting Joey (Branden) in a vehicle. This did not happen. He wants to start overnights after a few times of having Joey (Branden) for the entire day, hopefully by July 1, 2004. And then at a minimum he wants visitation every other weekend. I realize this last sentence conflicts with his wish for full custody, however this is how he addressed his custody concerns. It is my opinion that Mr. Matcheson attended the counseling sessions to fulfill the order of the court. While he conceded that Joey probably does suffer from Separation Anxiety, he blames everyone but himself for this. lie remained adamant about the Joey/Branden name issue, and he has his own agenda re: increasing the amount of time he spends with Joey (Branden). I felt I was at square one following the 3 counseling sessions. I continue to believe based on my interviews with Mr. Matcheson and my work with Joey (Branden) that the visitation schedule to increase the amount of time that Mr. Matcleson spends with Joey (Branden) should proceed in small incremental steps. It is my observation that while Branden (Joey) continues to improve, he does still suffer from separation anxiety. If you have any questions or I can be of further help, please don't hesitate to give me a call at 717-258-0214. Sincerely, i I da,?? Wanda Mays, EdD Cc: Client file Lindsay Baird, Esq. Joseph Matcheson, Sr. CLIENT NAME.• JOG, rr?o Bch QfJO(? DATE OF ORIENTATION: Z 1 '? 1 cnj DATE OF FIRST VISIT: l0 j 1'bI (Q> LENGTHAND FREQUENCYOF VISTTS: 'Z hwQD Or1CSL G r,?h # DATE OF VISIT OUTCOME OF VISIT WHO CA ELLED THE VISIT WHYTHE VISIT WAS CANCELLED RESCHED- VIED WHEN h I l n ciAl a i cut :i to a? ,ov ? • 3 alalto? ho??s 31 ao o gnc.Q.49.?c? Q>_? ?.a cps t X99 Nn ca V r S I o 50 m?t1 (S v'. ?4 s c c _ c v2nO P Em a Date Type of Contact I Action Taken Initials -de ru? 17/LL, (, Ntj 1v? ?2ua?E? cv) ?'»n l 3 ,,ju)y nl2 . VY?• :.r? ue I\ VI J?? It'lca,t. 31, Supervised Visit Contact Sheet Case: i?`Q?G c c,e-1 3oA1a`( Y5')o (411VO y II (U(OL( Cal le e? _{.t, Cc 7 (lied ( '.)) L• (LU "s. 1 7L: Lc.i , u c:.( 1 L ?4'. cct' > V1-Q% (le nee Ceell ilk- frc ei ueJ Dti. 1 5 SCe ec? w I1w, . ? llkcla'u,?-. S?^?r+ulix?, Stu. wto a no Ultsi SQLtCl W"O CYl {tQ+r? L,xtt -R) i lojuI:n 1 d i1, ? Luu.)) lYl?i Do) /j 1 k.V?G6? r, t I 9L)c --,t wt?)e z? ,1, 1 IVt ("! T --- C.(?.lle.? r ??e n sek ciku 1 b?, ,? Itck'? r r y l y?llpu?" 14 It's VIC,ZCcrnlzc?k6 LLb 1v, IZL IU Lk+LQ1 Y? Y.I tT (Pc:l- \ ?L cY.httr,c? (1 cn, Jtilc: ,t d M7 ?hA n> Lc?,c 1112,^ i1a UlY (S Ce c, p2 rlu t --- ?c Jit' HOt( /" `a) lec x G Supervised Visit Contact Sheet Case: febcua`j 9, voy (J)OA. `6 v<;i i- Ilk (\luieliP5ui1 ar;?? an?t?;?iF ("-I-\ Alms . k?, c Lkk(; bcOkt,') ll ?CCU? Ott ao aArt(wPlff((P (,(( ((°.i i k `7(`??? ?l2il c u? ?ct,PIo iii 1kid U)('10 .• ?i ?Rtlc? ? 1Y???1rnc > Ylla, 11 Q,014WA •M '1)1 0t" Supervised Visit Contact Sheet Case: ly ?? jZ1.Ek.> ?,d?e?n I) ?, I S i t' ? ca•Q.u-?.xa?s ,b n.n? ?? ? ???1 J I! ?/ I :_ l Yr?,'1c6. 1 11'e k"1\ 1/10 1 ?1Gd L, 11 1 ?1u7 It. U1? ?)ci. 1 ?Cetly'C((C, J iJI' Cv,V 10 t?41, IT I?I'J,Ij, ??' I l ?? Supervised Visit Contact Sheet Case: ??? •,J ?"U1> u:? /-/l/A C. yPA ?? f 3I? 3 S nc?-61 e - ? r e u?d?R? 06AU,I ies cut IWA 1a Q?urw?d C ?:Qtl ? 7 tb cue bact (at t«f ?? it Date Type of Contact Action Taken Initials 3h 0 5, ?'t?t4c d- mg rn ()41 i le L) 15 i rtLh AAc - NJJ fY? ?kxa? fUSY.Q ?t?0 L LM SIe r SlY' 41vl,t.ed Uistl- r-{11? u ?r 4? ?SU V S?k1?tsi'd L'?ylZ?lllr ' j'lcM t'xiO I0 > J L WJ IS 1rL M . /ltc?tl' 'l..r sr' h G ? ? ? J` l1t?n l,uut l? c.?'? ? e.C ,1? ?pk7 r6l ''nn vl,n r (11,1.111 ?/?l I]t ?t2111w 4?? 4?V1 l.?,t('lrl ? ?x?t ? t f??'rl " !1kEc?Qu ?? lJt ?t 17kh G l t-a c'?iu li<< 11u l.tx.ld? bu (S Date Type of Contact Action Taken Initials Alm Whw it mv, ,Ii?vUR?i -IIVI.? and ?UVI??i^I,mip l ?1 A ctia to ?vl-f vt. JV? .b.ui J M is l-04 Jl&W, &Cb. t (ctl n e ate, L) L,61.- u Ou 41116,16.1kol ? l/WA ,,,t1( V4 -YO 0- 144 [&(j 6L h PceOul) -did X'V", Date 51516a') Type of Contact lwek) Action Taken _hTt ,t) (-,+7 u ifi Initials l / J wcu.kf, o vk?,t 1- h51?. ??Qu!(V3 2C15 .?^ 11131 _ rvLr>. acknO rr? n^uk KLA . (n (t f rwst,1 kk.L . n? Ir Ifn4-- r 0 X1-21 a 4 W -' Vj4f minim ?,?(cc? ?jv,,??rn.?o 11c a Date 4/h/o3 Y9, I/o3 '-161103 Type of Contact TIC q. T C. , ?1i l`Y?1) OSi-1- ' I ?v s d T Ic IL Action Taken f qA Q6tc?t Cn"l. i?. Nine. Ne c*cJ&A- .AkwLloiEin [All MOIL- m it, rvv. (W o. kbw'O(ko) 0y) 461v no :h,U., m 'biurIjn i,, iv. V(p l.1 Nit I LQnMOAIX-A 11!OtAld 00.41 V, 0bdact-,J ArAut 4' ?l?c.l?ke ?Y.?b1n2? bttoth.X14. ??ul!a,?? ?c?r:rP 1011 c<Oa Initials /J AG) r1I`1 Date •?IrI IV.J of IoffContact I Jr t L t/) Action /Taken ,)l'I Initials 3?1?X03 LcYti l.h?G h.i-.buttu.(k.A U41 Ii 0 .1)1)1, i,l,l.i:1l.C(1IC? [t. ? 01A ch???rltit?Yl WVN-I(t)1\k ?? - ---------- ?li'c"1^Ien?ClhL4'\.) &'IuIdl? C[`? ?- l•4.l•I ?.x)I(1J T Ic 4C) out. • (?(?1.? C>Z;11 U7?I - -.. Y1f1CiICal??t)vtl (rtI M6..?11 (? f r , 3i, 1c3 i fe R Ovt,) <? ?) ni.I(jJe,j1, 0(cl)(1 11d(1l•1 l.' w1l 1,ZL1,??.?J c?-1 it l Mock-Mays Associates 57 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: 717-258-0214 Fax: 717-258-3158 May 20, 2004 The Honorable Edward E. Guido Cumberland County Court I Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Heckendorn v. Matcheson Dear Judge Guido, This is a letter to the Cumberland County Court describing my meetings with Joseph R. Matcheson, Senior per order of the court dated August 4, 2003. Mr. Matcheson was required to participate in at least three counseling sessions with me. On August 7, 2003 I telephoned Mr. Matcheson and arranged an appointment as soon as possible which was September 4, 2003. I met with him on that date as well as September 11, 2003 and October 2, 2003. He paid my full fee each time we met. Mr. Matcheson always arrived on time, appropriately dressed and was pleasant, warm, and friendly to the staff and myself A kind thing he did for our office was that several times he brought to be discarded magazines for the waiting room. We were appreciative. The focus of the sessions was bi-fold. First I wanted to find out about him and his wishes regarding a relationship with his son, Joseph R. Matcheson, Junior (D.O.B. December 2,1997), and secondly I wanted to educate him about children and especially Joey (Branden) and the unique struggles he has and continues to have. The first session was dedicated to obtaining a fairly detailed history of Mr. Matcheson's relationship with Joey (Branden), with Joey's (Branden's) mother, and with Mr. And Mrs. Heckendorn. The second session focused on education, and the third on what his hopes were for the future in regards to his relationship with Branden (Joey). Mr. Matcheson listened respectfully to me and my opinions, however he left the last session in essentially the same place as when he came to the first session. The following are the issues at hand in his opinion: 1. Mr. Matcheson insists that Branden be called and officially use the name Joseph Richard Matcheson, Jr. (Joey). He realizes that the court requires him to refrain from calling his son Joey, however he states he continues to call him Joey whenever possible and that his family will never call him anything but Joey. His only concession re: the name was that the Heckendorn's may use Branden as a nickname. He indicated that he believes his name will keep him connected to his Russian Orthodox heritage. 2. He wants Joey (Branden) to call him "Daddy", not Uncle Daddy or anything like that. Branden (Joey) currently calls him Joe. 3. He wants 50/50 legal custody of his child so that he will be contacted for all decisions. He eventually wants to have complete custody of Joey (Branden) and is convinced that when he is older that Joey (Branden) will ask to come live with Mr. Matcheson. 4. Mr. Matcheson believes that Mr. And Mrs. Heckendorn have told Joey (Branden) that they are his mother and father, and he believes they need to tell Branden "the truth" and that the Heckendorn's should be punished in some way because of this. 5. He understands "separation anxiety" and does not question my opinion, or that Joey has the symptoms of it, but he believes that "the Heckendorn's gave it to him." He believes that Mrs. Heckendorn, especially, puts the fear into Joey's mind that he will be kidnapped or that taken away. Mr. Matcheson states he intends to pursue full custody of Joey (Branden) and defined his idea of moving toward that slowly. I kept reminding him that any changes needed to be done gradually and over a long period of time to allow Joey (Branden) to adjust to each one. His idea was that he wanted to be able to take Joey to visit with his family in Scranton on the Russian Orthodox Christmas which would necessitate visitation for the entire day as well as Mr. Matcheson transporting Joey (Branden) in a vehicle. This did not happen. He wants to start overnights after a few times of having Joey (Branden) for the entire day, hopefully by July 1, 2004. And then at a minimum he wants visitation every other weekend. I realize this last sentence conflicts with his wish for full custody, however this is how he addressed his custody concerns. It is my opinion that Mr. Matcheson attended the counseling sessions to fulfill the order of the court. While he conceded that Joey probably does suffer from Separation Anxiety, he blames everyone but himself for this. He remained adamant about the Joey/Branden name issue, and he has his own agenda re: increasing the amount of time he spends with Joey (Branden). I felt I was at square one following the 3 counseling sessions. I continue to believe based on my interviews with Mr. Matcheson and my work with Joey (Branden) that the visitation schedule to increase the amount of time that Mr. Matcheson spends with Joey (Branden) should proceed in small incremental steps. It is my observation that while Branden (Joey) continues to improve, he does still suffer from separation anxiety. If you have any questions or I can be of further help, please don't hesitate to give me a call at 717-258-0214. Sincerely, Wanda Mays, EdD Cc: Client file Lindsay Baird, Esq. Joseph Matcheson, Sr. UHF t. _ Dr. Wanda Mays 57WPomfretSt. CIIII L:TITM Carlisle, PA 17013 Fh1 ui' 1 (; . ?'1 .n: Cu\ti.VsEc2L<livfl GyjNTy C?P- ? Cov-2?- ?t?sE S ?` U ASE Cto, -u sL. l rte- tic l 3 171 0 1L'ttil ??i•1 7111 i?I111I I7111111NIII'lll??II III llli l'III'III?IIII'll'1111' II 1 w DANNY G. HECIENDORN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PL "S OF DEBRA S. HECKENDORN : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. : No. 99- 314 Z CIVIL TERM JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant IN CUSTODY Ii COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY I 1. The plaintiffs are Danny G. Heckendorn and Debra S. Heckendorn, residing at 25 Fairfield Street, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The defendant is Joseph R. Matcheson, residing at Lackawanna Prison, 1372 M.Washington Ave., Scranton, Lackawanna County, Penns) 3. Plaintiffs seek custody of the following child: Name Present Residence Age Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr. 25 Fairfield St. Newville, PA 11/2 Yrs. The child was born out of wedlock. The child is presently in the custody of maternal uncle and aunt whoeside at 25 Fairfield Street, Newville, PA. During the past 11/2 years, the child has resided with the following p rsons and at the following addresses: Person Address Da es Jennifer R. Benner (Mother) Scranton, PA 12-2.97 - 1-30-98 Sharon Faison (Friend of Mother) Lake Wales, Florida 11-30-98 2-8-99 Danny Sr Debra Heckendorn 25 Fairfield St. Newville, PA Feb. 1999 Present The mother of the child is Jennifer R. Benner, currently residing at 60db Bellview Dr., Lake Wales, Florida. Mother's parental rights were voluntarily terminat y Affidavit and Acknowledgement of Surrender, Consent and Waiver of Notice rom Polk County, Florida, November 30, 1998. A copy of same is attached and marked as Exhibit 'W'. She is married. The father of the child is Joseph R. Matcheson, currently residing at Lackawanna County Prison, Scranton, PA. He is unmarried. 4. The relationship of plaintiffs to the child is that of maternal uncle and aunt. The plaintiffs' household includes the following persons: Name Relationship Danny G. Heckendorn Maternal Uncle Debra S. Heckendorn Maternal Aunt Amy N. Thornton Debra's daughter Danny G. Heckendorn, Jr. Adopted by Heckendorns, brother o Joseph Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr. Brother of Danny Jr. and subject of ,omplain 5. The relationship of defendant to the child is that of father. The de4ndant currently resides in Lackawanna County Prison. 6. Plaintiffs have not participated as a party or witness, or in another in other litigation concerning the custody of the child in this or another co Plaintiffs have no information of a custody proceeding concerning th pending in a court of this Commonwealth. Plaintiffs do not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights wi to the child. 7. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served granting the relief requested because: a) Plaintiffs can provide the child with a home with adequate moral, e and physical surroundings as required to meet the child's needs; b) Plaintiffs are willing to accept custody of the child; c) Plaintiffs continue to exercise parental duties and enjoy the love an of the child. 8. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been termii the person who has physical custody of the child have been named as parties action. All other persons, named below, who are known to have or claim a ri custody or visitation of the child will be given notice of the pendency of this and the right to intervene: Name Address Basis of Claim NONE Wherefore, plaintiffs request the court to grant custody of the child. child respect affection ated and to this ht to 5• ?? gq a `V I Date Lindsay Dare Baird, Esquire 37 South Hanover Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff I verify that to best of my knowledge and belief, the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 1S Pa.C.S.§4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 't/'v. e v Danny . Heckendorn, Plaintiff ebra S. Heckendorn, Plaintiff IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA FAMILY DIVISION IN THE INTEREST OF: CASE NO.: MATCHESON, Joseph Richard Jr. W/M, DOB: 12-02-97 I ------------------- A MINOR CHILD AFFIDAVIT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SURRENDER, CONSENT AND WAIVER OF NOTICE I, JENNIFER REBECCA BENNER, being first duly sworn, testify and say: I) I am the biological mother of Joseph Richard Matcheson Jr., a white male child, born on the 2"' day of December, 1997, at County of Lackawanna, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2) I believe it is in the best interest of this child to release the child to Dan and Deb Heckenorn to be adopted. 3) By this surrender, I give up my right to receive notice of and all future hearings or proceedings regarding this child, including legal adoption hearings. 4) By this surrender, I give up my right to receive notice of any and all future hearings or proceedings regarding this child, including legal adoption hearings. 5) I HEREBY CONSENT PERMANENTLY, COMPLETELY AND FINALLY, TO: a) The termination of my parental rights to this child with custody to Dan and Deb Heckenorn for adoption. b) The permanent deprivation of my present parental right to this child. Exhibit "A" In the Interest of Joseph R. MATCHESON , Jr. Family Div. Case No. Surrender Affidavit (Mother) Page Two 6) I hereby give up all right to further information concerning the whereabouts of this child, or the identity or location of any ado ptive parent of this child, and I give up my right to have any Court compel Dan and Deb Heckenorn to giv e me any such information. 7) I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE that I have read this form concerning this child, and I clearly understand its meaning and it is correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I have freely and voluntarily signed this Affidavit and Acknowledgment of Surrender, Consent and Waiver of Notice in order to release this child for adoption. SIGNED AND SEALED at this 30i' day of November, A.D., in our presence. (With ess) JJJ /,; It- (Witness) Bartow, Polk County, State of Florida, 1998. Signed, Sealed and Delivered JJ ENNI ER REBECCA BENNE?R Mother/Affiant STATE OF FLORIDA } COUNTY OF POLK } I, the undersigned authority authorized to take administer oaths and take acknowledgments in the State and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that on this date JENNIFER REBECCA BENNER did execute before me the foregoing AFFIDAVIT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SURRENDER, CONSENT AND WAIVER OF NOTICE, freely and voluntarily and for the purposes contained therein. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this 30" day of November, 1998, by the Affiant, o is kn wn to in o who produced identification. ?A -- - ?... A Y PUBT IC siq^ "re;: M1GELgtMEt°? e of Florida at Large ' `. MYFS ?ssroNacc+ae'j4 Commission Expires: ?Rf,th'"? Bari Thou pb M81Ch 28 1 .-? ?Y :Un?7lera? ? 'Y.. v ??C IN THE CIRCUIT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA FAMILY DIVISION IN THE INTEREST OF: CASE NO.: MATCHESON, Joseph Richard Jr. W/M, DOB: 12-02-97 A MINOR CHILD AFFIDAVIT OF MOTHER STATE OF FLORIDA } COUNTY OF POLK } Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared JENNIFER REBECCA BENNER, who after being duly sworn, deposed and said: That she is the birth mother of Joseph Richard Matcheson, Jr., a white male child, born on the 2" day of December, 1997, at County of Lackawanna, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. That she was not married at any time within the 12 month period prior to the birth of the child. The biological father of the above named child is Joseph Richard Matcheson, and his last known address is Lackawanna County Jail, Dunmore, Pennsylvania, and his Social Security Number is 203-34-9303, and his birth date is July 25, 1949. The child was born out of lawful wedlock. The child is not his by adoption. The child has not been established by a Court proceeding to be his child. He has not acknowledged in writing, signed in the presence of a competent witness, that he is the father of the child, and has failed such acknowledgment with the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Children & Families. He has not provided the child with support in a repetitive, customary manner. In the Interest of Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr. Family Div. Case No. Affidavit of Mother Page Two No legal guardian has been appointed by any Court for the person or estate of the child, so far as is known to me. WITNESSES: r (Witness) (Witness) JENNIFER REBECCA BENNER AFFIANT SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me t 30U day of November, 1998 A.D., by the Affiant, who producer' i f& -L %C t-±\St as identification. Q-, A Y PUBLIC State of 1_L---- _ ----- My Commission Expires: ;?? ?Ri MYfAMM186KIN?4??tiwA+y, ?? PES`? °` na"Th u NDWy FUIlril I P4 N?I?li ?? v? ?? r? V. V? ? C T-?i c? C' r r f T ?? ?. DANNY G. HECKENDORN DEBRA S. HECKENDORN Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 99- 31?Z CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, UGU),d- /C 1999, upon consideration of the attad petition, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel a before _?iYl )C ( I? the conciliator, at'Wc4*V%,CunF on the /5'- day of 1999, at m., for a Pre-Hearing Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be hea court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older ma present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide g entry of a temporary or permanent order. FOR THE COURT, Custody The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to con the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessibl and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having bu before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the conference or hearing. dispute; by the lso be Inds for ply with facilities 72 YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU D.#T HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE FFICE 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 cc: Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire yy? ?,?hf? A DANNY G.14ECKENDORN and, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, : NO. 99-3162 CIVIL Defendant : IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this >ts? ay of July, 1999, upon consideration of the atta4ed Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs, Danny G. Heckendom and Debra S. Heckendorn, shal enjoy legal and physical custody the Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr., born December 2, 1 2. This is a temporary custody order which is subject to modificatiO after the adoption/involuntary termination proceedings docketed at docket number 78 Adoptions 1999 is resolved. i BY THE C RT, Edward E. Guido cc: Lindsay D. Baird, Esq. ?,? nA T c? ,I?? y/y y Joseph R. Matcheson 7! Ail DANNY G. HECKENDORN and, DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs v JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-3162 CIVIL IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: Edward E. Guido CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF P1 OCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this li{igation is as follows: Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr., born December 2, 1997. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on July 15, 1999, with the following individuals in attendance: The Plaintiffs, Danny G. Heckendom and Debra S. Heckendom, with their cou sel, Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire; the Father did not attend but he referred two letters to the,'-ourt which were given to the Custody Conciliator. 3. Father is currently incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution at Dallas. I Mother has signed a relinquishment of rights with respect to the minor child. The Plaintiffs are the maternal aunt and uncle. The Plaintiffs have also filed an adoption petition to try to adopt the child and a hearing is scheduled before Judge Guido on that matter with th issue of an involuntary termination of the Father's rights being litigated at that hearing. 4. In light of the Father's current jail status and the fact that the Plaintiffs ar in fact the primary custodians of the minor child, the Conciliator recommends an order in the form as attached. VIII ,4 4 4 DATE Hubert X. Gil y, Esquire Custody Co ciliator &MIA, " 0 0 V ' e d 4 / O ???1 Lzt OJv 0--) I 1 on 4? 'v ? ?J 0-10 via -t?096 DANNY G. HECKENDORN and DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs VS. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS C CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV 99-3162 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this 6 day of April, 2000, with his consent, it is directed that further proceedings in this matter be handled by the Honorable BY THE COURT, Hess, J. Lindsay Dare Baird, Esquire - (20l y F 2sc?,,,? ?j?G jad For the Plaintiffs Joseph R. Matcheson, Pro Se AK-9966 SCI-Dallas Drawer K Dallas, PA 18612 and Guido. Am 1 1 ? W ns m ? o n o^ 1 m o d d,L? N 1"? vJ?, ? N ? O J I N d i W p ? d l N L n W I X1`1 Cn.; I III _,t?' fCe IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ADOPTION OF J.R.M., JR. : NO. 78 ADOPTIONS 1999 IN RE: PETITION FOR INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION ADJUDICATION AND DECREE NISI BEFORE GUIDO. J. DECREE NISI AND NOW, this 44? day of SEPTEMBER,, 2000, petitioners' terminate father's parental rights to J.R.M., Jr. is DENIED. This decree nisi sha final unless exceptions are filed by any party within ten (10) days. to By the Cour Edward E. Guido, J. Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Petitioners James K. Jones, Esquire J.R.M., Sr. Natural Father :sld COPY 764/ 7 .,44-IL . p , l n. r'* y IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ADOPTION OF J.R.M., JR. NO. 78 ADOPTIONS 1999 IN RE- PETITION FOR INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION ADJUDICATION AND DECREE NISI BEFORE GUIDO. J. OPINION AND DECREE NISI Petitioners have filed a petition to involuntarily terininate the parental rights of J.R.M., Sr. to J.R.M., Jr. Numerous hearings were held before this Court. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearings, we are forced to deny the petition. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Petitioners are D.G.H. and D.S.H., husband and wife, residing in Necvville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. J.R.M., Jr. is a male child born on December 2, 1997. J.R.M., Sr. [hereinafter Father] D.O.B. 7-25-49 and J. R. S. [hereinafter other D.O.B. unknown' are the natural parents of J.R.M., Jr. 2. Father has been incarcerated since February 10, 1998. 3. Father will be released from prison sometime in the first half of 2001. 4. Mother voluntarily relinquished her parental rights on November 30, 1998, o that J.R.M., Jr. could be adopted by petitioners. The tennination of parental rights confirmed by the Circuit Court of the I O'? Judicial Circuit in and for Polk Florida. 5. Petitioners have had custody of J.R.M., Jr. since February 1999. Mother was born sometime in 1980. 78 ADOPTIONS 1999 6. Petitioners have previously adopted J.R.M., Jr.'s half brother. Both J.R.M., Jr;. and his half brother are children of Mother. 7. When Father was initially incarcerated, Mother would take J.R.M., Jr. to visit?with him at prison. 8. Father has not seen J.R.M., Jr. since March of 1998, when Mother relocated f{-om Pennsylvania to Florida. She did not provide Father with her new address. 9. Father did everything in his power to find the whereabouts of Mother and J.R.M., Jr. He followed every lead and wrote numerous letters in an attempt to find his chit . 10. Father consistently tried to send cards and gifts to J.R.M., Jr. through family, members. 11. Father also tried to send gifts to J.R.M., Jr. through Angel Tree, an organization that helps prisoners remember their children at Christmas. 12. Father has contacted church agencies, family members, and various youth organizations in an effort to find and reestablish contact with J.R.M., Jr. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Petitioners have failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that F parental rights should be terminated. DISCUSSION Petitioners seek to terminate father's parental rights to J.R.M., Jr 's and Section 2511 of the Adoption Act.z The particular provisions upon which they rely prof ide as follows: 2 25 Pa. C.S.A. § 2511. 2 78 ADOPTIONS 1999 (a) General rule.-The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds: (2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental :are, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental ,,vell-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect Dr refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent. (b) Other considerations.-The court in terminating the rights o -a parent shall give primary consideration to the developm( ntal, h) and emotional needs and welfare of the child.... 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 2511 (a)(2) and (b). It is well established that a party seeking termination of parental rights be?irs the burden of establishing by "clear and convincing evidence" that the grounds exist. Adoption of Atencio, 539 Pa. 161, 166, 650 A.2d 1064, 1066 (1994). "The stan and of clear and convincing evidence means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without he 3itancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." Matter of Sylvester, 521 Pa. 300, 304, 555 A.2d 1202, 1203-1204 (1989). For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we believe that petitioners have failed to meet their burden. We start by noting that we are thoroughly convinced that the physical and emotional needs and welfare" of J.R.M., Jr. would best be served allowing him to be adopted by the petitioners. Petitioners have already adopted?his half brother with whom J.R.M., Jr. has been emotionally bonded since birth. petitioners are the only real parents that J.R.M., Jr. has ever known. They a nurturing and loving home for him since he was a toddler. Unfortunately for ?.R.M., Jr. we may not inquire into his best interest until we are satisfied by clear and convincing 3 78 ADOPTIONS 1999 evidence that his father is incapacitated and that the incapacity cannot or will not be remedied. In re• Adoption of J J , 511 Pa. 590, 515 A.2d 883 (1986). Father's incarceration can certainly be considered an "incapacity" which has i caused the child to be without "essential parental care." See In the Matter of Adoration of C.A.W., 453 Pa. Super. 277, 683 A.2d 911 (1996). However, since father will be released from prison no later than May of 2001, we cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that the incapacity "cannot or will not be remedied." See Jones Anneal, 449 Pa. 543, 297 A.2d 117 (1972) and Adoption of M J.H., 348 Pa. Super. 65, 501 A.2d 6 8 (1984). InI J H the Superior Court affirmed the termination of father's parental rights under Section 251 l(a)(2) since his sentence of life imprisonment was an incapacity that could not be remedied. However, referring to the ones case (a case in which the Mother's parental rights were not terminated, albeit for other reasons) the M.J.H. Court stated: ... although it is not clear what the term of the mother's priso sentence was, it was of a short duration (up to six years), as co spared with the life term that appellee is sentenced to serve. Thus, it ould not be said in Jones as it can in this case that the parental apacitt cannot be remedied. 348 Pa. Super. at 79, 501 A.2d at 655. (emphasis added) Under the circumstances of this case, and the law as we understand it, wel have no alternative but to deny the petition to terminate father's parental rights. 4 78 ADOPTIONS 1999 DECREE NISI AND NOW, this 29TH day of SEPTEMBER, 2000, petitioners' request to terminate father's parental rights to J.R.M., Jr. is DENIED. This decree nisi shall become final unless exceptions are filed by any party within ten (10) days. By the Court, /s/ Edward E Guido Edward E. Guido, J. Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Petitioners James K. Jones, Esquire J.R.M., Sr. Natural Father :Sid DANNY G. HECKENDORN and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant NO. 99-3162 CIVIL IN RE: CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 2000, agreement of the parties, the Plaintiffs, Danny G. Heckendorn and Debra S. Heckendorn, shall enjoy full legal and physical custody of the child, Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr., born December 2, 1997, subject to periods of visitation with the natural father, Joseph R. Matcheson, as follows: 1. The parents shall take the child to visit with the father at SCI-Dallas, or any other institution inlwhich he is incarcerated which is not further away than SCI-Dallas, one weekend day every other month commenc August, 2000. 2. Such other times as the parties may It is the Court's desire that the inmate use his best efforts to obtain a transfer to SCI-Camp Hill so that more frequent visitation may take place. The Court wI_11 aide the father in that regard in any way it can. This Court shall retain jurisdiction in thi matter. By the E. Guido, J. C? -010?-2a Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Joseph R. AK-9966 SCI-Dallas Drawer K Dallas, PA Matcheson 18612 lfh rl -/9-OU R?3 DANNY G. AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV V. 99-3162 CIVIL, ACTION LAW JOSEPH R. MATCHESON DEFENDANT IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Tuesday, May 21, 2002 , upon consideration of the Complaint, the conciliator, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa P. Grejee' at 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043 on Monday, June 24, 2at 10:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resoin dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, ano a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from A use orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hear' g. FOR THE COURT, By: /s/ Melissa P Greevq W Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply w. I the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reaso able accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please co tact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the c urt. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE T14IS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YO DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OF ICE 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 ??-8r s `, ?u MAY 13 2W2 `1& ,UyL fig/ o0 2-- , M.OW _. z_- 00 ?Q a 5 9-342- f;el2 1 114110 .)a Lc.? A?r7-a36-0tt ? ?? f ? ,¢,Qo*Q 17 r ( ? I ,,??rl"x ?l . 99-3 1 L 2- >1 9?en?l A. I / 71oz r -? a ?., } W " C 1 } 1 n ?Y lcaj l _ ^4 4 a? rC ?1IJI??Jd l ? r /7 1 L? (/ C.? r b? rte" alr? 1 r a/- f ,lie t A j j6 t/ b !• 9q-31 ?j /g7 7 ' b 938 "L' m 7 f? !J ?.t AAA a Op ? ?F 7776 z, 1 C:v 1'CL- - t?= 1 Olt r4l? (L 1 r q9-3i6 ? I .'.li ., k?M d4 ?. L?f O LINDSAY DALE BAIRD ATTORNEY AT LAW 37 SOUTH HANOVER CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-3307 TEL. (717) 243-5732 March 28, Mr. Joseph Matcheson Capital Pavilion 2012 N. 4th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1538 Dear Mr. Matcheson: The Heckendorns have shared your two latest letters with me. PI the letter dated March 14, 2002, was sent from Dallas and had no forwa for you in it. FAX (717) 243-8110 recall that address The Heckendorns have not made any agreement with you regarding J ey. The existing Court Order provides for supervised visits with you at SCI Dallas. Th re is no obligation for any visits at this time. Feel free to file for a conciliation confere ce and hearing before Judge Guido. My clients were very pleased to read that you are willing to help with J ey's support. To that end, they are providing your new address to the Domestic R lations Office. As an aside and for your clarification, It is DRO that required the DNA test. You stated that you had an attorney to assist you in this matter. All contact will need to be by your attorney through this office. You are reque cease communicating with the Heckendorns directly. Sincerely, Baird, Esquire re to LDB/njb cc: Mr. and Mrs. Danny Heckendorn 7?A ??L J? .f" - N t - w w r U d -l i } ? N Y '? ? ? 1 ? ly A N y O - - t i 11 m t -- ? ? ? r w O u- z3 ?; ? ? '? aCi ? • • 't3 _ ? O C a U T N ?"_-? ` W m f• y ? m y ? ? ? 111 N D. Y p.. N i 7 } N ? +.+ Z t 1 ? ? -g O ? -' I ti? V C r ? CU:.i ? R N x - 1 1 c N O 0 7 d I ? ?w c Qy `? -• - y y w Z p - - `' o a to I° =0 d R 1 m ?1 N co S a Y k CO O C cn ?.:1 Q O o A d -- - R E Y d y.! C _ _. = 1d y ? W Y Z ? 1.+ N Y v =? to cn C t r- CD LLI m r d ? .. ? II > K5 C ??-? C y . N d 1 ? S C l 1w C fl7 *J C'C l 1 Ez41 ? ? C9 1 1 _ 1 1 ? L i " i >/v %-+' ? l W e lick 17o, le2? pp ?f' r- } u?V n ,n ?s ' '4 4's -) F m?411t 7`0 -ie- T/Y r%7'/ti1/?1?'lJlP vYl, 7%(2, COoi a7 /)7 1 '` J I tau ?' lC?lllU/? COl1'I ,p la p?J.S ij ? ? / n'?'?/6ri 4,11 JI/I l /L tom f Pe 7LI) h ,` f? f of fs f ?? ; 19?7L 7L) /I ?Lj )4 o ?; ? c, - , ,., -t;??; mrr' .? n n e:.: _ ' ?_? _ v i - .?. -i ` y -. ? '7 i c _ June 4, 2002 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is regards to Resident Joseph Matcheson. Resident Matches, been a resident with Capitol Pavilion since March 18, 2002. Resident Matcheson is required to obtain employment while he is a resident at C Pavilion. Resident Matcheson only has an account with Capitol Pavilic which his and other resident finances are handled through the Fiscal O. Capitol Pavilion and his counselor. Resident Matcheson is required to. all of his paychecks and any other kind of money such as (money from members and/or social security) to the Fiscal Office. Resident Matche. not have any ey?1-nances then his account at Capitol Pavilion. I have included a copy of Resident Matcheson statement of account information while he has been resident at Capitol Pavilion. I hope this information is sufficient to your needs. If you have any further questio can contact meat (717) 236-0132. Thank you! Sincerely, Ga riel Hatter Fiscal Officer 1 has )itol in ce of nd in mily n does you r IL (j4/02 at n:22:16,15 Firetree - Capitol General Ledger For the Period From May 1, 2002 to Jun 30, 2002 Filter Criteria includes: 1) IDs from 31910 to 31910. Report order is by ID. Report is printed in Detail Format. Account lD Date Jrnl Trans Description Debit And Account Description Reference 31910 5/1102 Beginning Balance Matcheson, Joseph 5/21/02 CRJ Joseph Matcheson - Gross 5/17 paychk 5/21/02 CRJ Joseph Matcheson - Taxes 15.92 5117 paychk 5/21/02 CRJ Joseph Matcheson - Rent 15.05 5/17 paychk 5/21/02 Pi Lackawanna Co. Clerk of Courts - 10.03 Matcheson, Court costs 5/21/02 PJ Joseph Matcheson - 5/21/2002 50.00 5/20-5/24/0 request Current Period Change 91.00 6/1/02 Beginning Balance 6;34102 Ending Balance Credit AmR Balance -25.25 -25.25 -25.25 Page l C, - l? - ?f. L: t? K4, s= L r DF.I3RA HECKFNDORN, PLAINTIFF VS JOSEP14 MATCHESON SR., DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF C-UZrj Ar: d 1-"o DOCKET NUMBER 00889 S 1999 PACSES CASE # 005101593 PETITION TO DISKISS PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SUPPORT ANO/OR DISMSS ANY ARREAM FrAIN PLAINTIFF'S FILING TO PRESWr TO THE HONORABLE. JUDGE EDWARD GUIDO OF THE SAID COURT; THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., RESI>F.CTFULLY REQUEST YOUR HONORA COURT TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR CHILD SUPPORT IN THE AI3 CAPTIONED FILING AND SUBMITS THE FOIdOWING IIJ SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST: 1. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECINF.NDORN IS NOT THE MOTHER OF THE JOSEPH MATCHESON JR., THE SUBJECT CONCERNING THIS SUPPORT. 2. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN IS 110T THE. FIFE OF THE. DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR. 3, THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., IS THE FATHER OF JOSEPH. MATCHESON JR, THE SUBJECT OF THIS SUPPORT MATTER. 4. THF. PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN, IS MISLEADING THE. COURT ITS HER FII,ING BY STATING THAT SHE IS THE. MOTHER OF OF THE CHILD AND FURTHER MISLEADING THE COURT WITH THE ABSENCE OF THE FACT THAT SHE IS ISOT MARRIED TO THE DEFENDANT. 5. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECIiF•NDORN WAS NEVER MARRIED TO THE. DEFENDANT AND HER ONLY RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHILD IS SHE. IS THE AUYJT OF THE CHILDS MOTHER. 6. THE DEFENDANT AVERS THAT THE HECKENDORN'S INEPT THE. CHILD AWAY FROM THE DEFENDANT AND HIS FAMILY AFTER TAKING THE. CHILD FROM THE MOTHER, DURING THIS PERIOD THE DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED, THIS WAS A MAJOR ISSUE WHEN THE. AGREEMENT WAS REACHED FOR THE. HECKENDORN'S TO BRING THE CHILD TO VISIT THE DEFENDANT AT THE PRISON. z 7. THE AFOREMENTIONED AGREEMENT ALSO INCLUDED NO SUPPORT FROM THE DEFENDANT, SURELY, THE DEFENDANT WANTS TO TAKE. CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THIS MATTER WAS ALREADY AGREED UPON WITH THE VISITATION AGREEMENT, THE HECKI,NDORN'S FILED FOR SUPPORT WHILE THE DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED WHEN IT WAS ALREADY AGREED THAT A PRIVATE, AGREEMENT WOULD TARE PLACE AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM CUSTODY. 8. THE. PLAINTIFF'S AFOREMENTIONED FILING FOR SUPPORT IS IIq'ROPER AND ILLEGAL, THE LAW IS CLEAR THAT AN INCARCERATED PERSON IS NOT LIABLE. FOR SUPPORT AND THE FILING,WAS IMPROPER SINCE IT WAS ALREADY AGREED THAT NO SUCH FILING WOULD OCCUR UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 9. THE ABOVE MENTIONED AGREEMENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS MATTER IS BEING TOTALLY CONTRADICTED HY THE PLAINTIFF, IF THE. PLAINTIFF COULD NOT AFFORD TO CARE FOR THE. CHILD THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE I14SISTED ON TAKING THE. CHILD WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT'S FAMILY WILL GLADLY TAKE, CUSTODY OF THE. CHILD. WHEREFORE; THE DEFENDANT REQUEST THE HONORABLE COURT TO DISMISS THF. PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SUPPORT FOR THE WITHIN MENTIONED REASONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DISMISS ANY CLAIMS FOR SUPPORT FROM OCT0I3ER 1999 TO THE PRESENT DUE TO THE DEFENDANT'S INCARCERATION. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ;jS4111,61ATCHESON SR., DEFENDANT ,? % DEBRA HECRENDORN, PLAINTIFF VS JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOCKET NUMBER 00889 S 1999 PACSES CASE # 005101593 PETITION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SUPPORT AND/OR DISMISS ANY ARREARS FRoK PLAINTIFF'S FILING TO PRESENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE EDWARD GUIDO OF THE SAID COURT; THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., RF.SPECTFULL.Y REQUEST YOUR H0140RABLE COURT TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR CHILD SUPPORT IN THE AHOVI. CAPTIONED FILING AND SUBMITS THE FOLIDWING IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST: 1. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECHENDORN IS IJOT THE MOTHER OF THE MATCHESON JR., THE SUBJECT CONCERNING THIS SUPPORT. 2. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN IS I40T THE WIFE OF THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR. 3, THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., IS THE FATHER OF JOSEPH MATCHESON JR, THE SUBJECT OF THIS SUPPORT MATTER. 4. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN, IS MISLEADING THE COURT IN HER FII,ING BY STATING THAT SHE IS THF. MOTHER OF OF THE CHILD AND FURTHER MISLEADING THE COURT WITH THE ABSENCE OF THE FACT THAT SHE IS NOT MARRIED TO THE DEFENDANT. 5. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN WAS NEVER MARRIED TO THE DEFENDANT AND HER ONLY RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHILD IS SHE IS THE AUNT OF THE CHILDS MOTHER. 6. THE DEFENDANT AVERS THAT THE HECHENDORN'S [(EPT THE CHILD AWAY FROM THE DEFENDANT ARID HIS FAMILY AFTER TAKING THE CHID FROM THE MOTHER, DURING THIS PERIOD THE DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED, THIS WAS A MAJOR ISSUE WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS REACHED FOR THE HECKENDORN'S TO BRING Till'' CHILD TO VISIT THE DEFENDANT AT THE PRISON. z 7. THE. AFOREMENTIONED AGREEMENT ALSO INCLUDED NO SUPPORT FROM THE. DEFENDANT, SURELY, THE DEFENDANT WANTS TO TAKE CARE. OF HIS CHILD AND THIS MATTER WAS ALREADY AGRFFD UPON WITH THE VISITATIO14 AGREEMENT, THE HFCRENDORN'S FILED FOR SU13PORT Sq'HII,E THE DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED WHEN IT WAS ALREADY AGREED THAT A PRIVATE. AGREEMENT WOULD TAKE. PLACE AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM CUSTODY. B. THE PLAINTIFF'S AFOREMENTIONED FILING FOR SUPPORT IS IMPROPER AND ILLEGAL, THE LAW IS CLEAR THAT AN INCARCERATED PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR SUPPORT 94D THE FILING WAS IMPROPER SIIJCE IT WAS ALREADY AGREED THAT NO SUCH FILING WOULD OCCUR UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 9. THE A130VF MENTIONED AGREEMENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS MATTER IS BEING TOTALLY CONTRADICTED 13Y THE PLAINTIFF, IF THE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT AFFORD TO CARE FOR THE CHILD THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE. I14SISTED ON TARING THE CHILD WITHOUT THE. C014SF.NT OF THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT'S FAMILY WILL GI,ADI,Y TAKE CUSTODY OF THE, CHILD. WHEREFORE.; THE DEFENDANT REQUEST THE. HONORABLE COURT TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SUPPORT FOR THE WITHIN MENTIONED REASONS OR IN THE, AITFRNATIVF:, DISMISS ANY CLAIMS FOR SUPPORT FROM OCT013ER 1999 TO THF. PRESENT DUE TO THE DEFENDANT'S INCARCERATION. RESPFCTEU[,[,Y SUBMITTED, OSF MATCHESON SR., DEFENDANT .,- DEBRA HF.CKENDORN, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PI.F".AS VS OF C.OffiA,5R"L?._C l(1! Y JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., DOCKET NUMBER 00889 S 1999 DEFENDANT PACSES CASE # 005101593 I I PETITION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SUPPORT AND/OR DISMISS ANY ARREARS FROM PLAINTIFF'S FILING TO PRESENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE EDWARD GUIDO OF THE SAID COURT; THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., RF.SPECTFULIM REQUEST YOUR H0140RAI31 COURT TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR CHILD SUPPORT IN THE AHOV CAPTIONED FILING AND SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST: 1. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKFNDORN IS NOT THE MOTHER OF THE JOSEPH MATCHESON JR., THE, SUI3JECT CONCERNING THIS SUPPORT. 2. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN IS ISOT THE WIFE OF THE. DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR. 3, THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., IS THE FATHER OF JOSL13H I MATCHESON JR, THE SUBJECT OF THIS SUPPORT MATTER. 4. THF, PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HF.CKENDORN, IS MISLEADING THE. COURT IN HER FILING BY STATING THAT SHE IS THE MOTHER OF OF THE CHILD AND FURTHER MISLEADING THE COURT WITH THE ABSENCE OF THE FACT THAT SHE IS NOT MARRIF,D TO THE DEFENDANT. 5. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN WAS NEVER MARRIED TO THE DEFENDANT AND HER ONLY RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHILD IS SHE IS THE AUNT OF THE CHILDS MOTHER. 6. THE DEFENDANT AVERS THAT THE HEC1tENDORN'S KEPT THE CHILD AWAY FROM THE DEFENDANT AND HIS FAMILY AFTER TAKING THE CHILD FROM THE MOTHER, DURING THIS PERIOD THE DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED, THIS WAS A MAJOR ISSUE WHEN THIS AGREEMENT WAS REACHED FOR THE HECiCRNDORN'S TO BRING THE CHILD TO VISIT THE DEFENDANT AT THE PRISON. w 2 7. THE AFOREMENTIONED AGREEMENT ALSO INCLUDED NO SUPPORT FROM THF. DFFENDANT, SURELY, THE DEFENDANT WANTS TO TARE CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THIS MATTER WAS ALREADY AGREED UPON WITH THE VISITATION AGRFFMLIiNT, THE HECKENDORN'S FILED FOR SUPPORT WHILE THE DEFENDANT SVAS INCARCERATED WHEN IT WAS ALREADY AGREED THAT A PRIVATE AGRF.FMENT WOULD TAKE. PLACE AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS RF.LF.ASED FROM CUSTODY. 8. THE PLAINTIFF'S AFOREMENTIONED FILING FOR SUPPORT IS IMPROPER AND ILLEGAL, THE LAW IS CLEAR THAT AN INCARCERATED PERSOIV IS NOT LIAPIX FOR SUPPORT AND THE FILING WAS IMPROPER SINCE IT WAS ALREADY AGREED THAT NO SUCH FILING WOULD OCCUR UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 9. THE ABOVE MENTIONED AGREEMENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS MATTER IS BEING TOTALLY CONTRADICTED HY THE PLAINTIFF, IF THE. PLAINTIFF COULD NOT AFFORD TO CARE FOR THE CHILD THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE INSISTED ON TAKING THE CIiIID WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT'S FAMILY SVILL GI.ADL,Y TARE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD. WHERF.FORF,; THE DEFENDANT RHQUEST THE HONORABLE COURT TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SUPPORT FOR THE WITHIN MENTIONED REASONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DISMISS ANY CLAIMS FOR SUPPORT FROM OCTOBER 1999 TO THE PRESENT DUE. TO THE DEFENDANT'S INCARCERATION. RFSPECTFULIX SUBMITTED, /14, SRI MATCHESON SR., DEFF106T c ' DF.BRA HECKENIORN, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS VS of ' ?j /(? f rf /i L hL o(4 JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., DOCKET NUMBER 00889 S 1999 DEFENDANT PACSES CASE # 005101593 PETITION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SUPPORT AND/OR DISMISS ANY ARREARS FROM PLAINTIFF'S FILING TO PRESH TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE EDWARD GUIDO OF THE SAID COURT; 17-Y ABOVE. 1. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HFCKENDORN IS NOT THE MOTHER OF THE JOSEPH MATCHESON JR., THE. SUBJECT CONCERNING THIS SUPPORT. 2. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN IS NOT THE WIFE OF THE DEF NDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR. THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHFSON SR., RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR COURT TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR CHILD SUPPORT IN CAPTIONED FILING AND SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING IN SUPPORT OF THIS R: 3, THE. DEFENDANT, JOSEPH MATCHESON SR., IS THE. FATHER OF MATCHESON JR, THE SUBJECT OF THIS SUPPORT MATTER. 4. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECKENDORN, IS MISLEADING THE COURT N HER FILING BY STATING THAT SHE IS THE MOTHER OF OF THE. CHILD AND F RTHF.R MISLEADING THE COURT WITH THE ABSENCE OF THE FACT THAT SHE IS NOT RRIF.D TO THE DEFENDANT. 5. THE PLAINTIFF, DEBRA HECRFNDORN 1IAS NEVER MARRIED TO THE DF.F ANT AND HER ONLY RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHILD IS SHE IS THE. AUNT OF THE HI LDS MOTHER. 6. THE DEFENDANT AVERS THAT THE HECKENDORN'S ktEPT THE. CHILD AWA FROM THE DEFENDANT AND HIS FAMILY AFTER TAKING THE CHILD FROM THE M :R, DURING THIS PERIOD THE DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED, THIS WAS A JOR ISSUE WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS REACHED FOR THE HECI(ENDORN'S TO BRIN; THE CHILD TO VISIT THE DEFENDANT AT THE. PRISON. z 7. THE AFOREMENTIONED AGRFEI-ENT ALSO INCLUDED NO SUPPORT FR M THE DEFENDANT, SURELY, THE DEFENDANT WANTS TO TAIT CARE OF HIS CH E D AND THIS MATTER WAS ALREADY AGREED UPON WITH THE VISITATION AGREEMEN , THE HECI(FNDORN'S FILED FOR SUPPORT WHILE. THE DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATE WHEN IT WAS ALREADY AGREED THAT A PRIVATE. AGREEMENT WOULD TAII%E PLACP AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM CUSTODY. 8. THE. PLAINTIFF'S AFOREMENTIONED FILING FOR SUPPORT IS IMPROP R AND ILLEGAL, THE LAW IS CLEAR THAT AN INCARCERATED PERSON IS NOT I,IAL3 ,E FOR SUPPORT AND THE. FILING WAS IMPROPER SINCE IT WAS ALREADY AGREED T T NO SUCH PILING WOULD OCCUR UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. ER 9. THE ABOVE MENTIONED AGREEMENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS FAMILY IS BEING TOTALLY CONTRADICTED NY THE PLAINTIFF, IF THE PLAINTIFF LD NOT AFFORD TO CARE FOR THE. CHILD THEY SHOUID NOT HAVE INSISTED OIJ NG THE CHILD WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE DEFENDANT, THE. DEFENDANT'S WILL GLADLY TARE. CUSTODY OF THE CHILD. WHEREFORF,; THE DEFENDANT REQUEST THE. HONORABLE COURT TO DISMI S THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR SUPPORT FOR THE WITHIN MENTIONED REASONS R IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DISMISS ANY CLAIMS FOR SUPPORT FROM OCTOBER 1999 THE PRESENT DUE TO THE. DEFENDANT'S INCARCERATION. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, *JOPH MATCHESON SR., DEFENDANT 1-- ! . /I, J 'jI ,?? `, ? ?? i /}i'r !'J<J) ??/Yi, ? iiJ?? /yam%/J?' /?/i,C_? 21 it ? Z X, '!?? el?'72? / 114 i i f. ?r n PYSi510 1._arkawanna County Clerk/Ji.adi.cial Records Civil. Case Inquiry 1999-05196 MATCHESON JOSEPH R SR (vs) HECKENDORM DANIEL & DEBRA Reference No,.: Case Tyie..:,,.: CUSTODY Judgmeni.,..., .00 Judge Assignod- Disposed Desc.: -------------- Case Comments - Filed......... I i.me............ Execution Date JI_Iry Tri.a1.: , . . Disposed Date, - Higher, Crt 1. Higher Crt ?#.i(..M..IF.M..%..M..N-####?F#######N#########kl!k####1!•iE'.F######k###7F###Y#1e######### General. Index. Attorney Info MA`f'CHESON JIJSEPH R SR PLAINTIFF 13ZI N WASHINGTON AVENUE TOWER #C DILL SCRANTON PA 18509 HECKENDORM DANIEL DEFENDANT 5 FAIRFIEL.D STREET NEWVI.LLE PA 17214.1 HECKE:NDORM DEBRA DEFE'NDAN'T 17:5 FAIRFIELD STREE"F NEWVIL.LE: PA 17241 # Date Entries -' - - - - - -' - - FIRST ENTRY 10/21/1999 PETITION FOR JOINT CUSTODY t& VISITATION. 1.0/21/1999 APOLICATICIN FOR LEAVE IN FORMA PAUPERIS. __.._.__ _ _----_-_ 10'{117/ 1999 ORDER DATED 10--P7-99. I.F. P. GRANTED. BY THE COURT- HARH (NOTIFIED) 3/01/7000 ORDER FOR CONCILIATION CONFERENCE TO BE HELD ON 3--14-;?117. AND ORDER TO ATTEND KIDS FIRST SEMINAR. BY THE COURT; -d-00 3/01/2000 ORDER DIRECTING -14-00 TO DANII 3/01/2000 ORDER DIRECTING 2 14-00 TO .JOS. /QII /ck000 3,101. /2'000 3/23/2000 3/:=:3/2000 4/07/2000 4/07/2000 5/01 /217100 5/02/2000 5/12/?F:V100 PARTIES TO ATTEND A "KIDS -L AND DEBRA HECKENDORN. ----------- PARTIES 1`0 ATTEND A "KIDS R. MATCHESON, SR. BY THE ---- -------------- FIRST 3Y THE FIRS1" COURT v OC7 Page i 0/E'1/1999 . 5E- 0/00/0000 1171/00/L?002.1 w J. 10:1' IFIED SESSION" DATED C'OURTc NOTIFIED SESSION" DATED NOTIF:IF I) .-i- ' 00 CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT FILED. 1__F::"I'-TER FROM JOE MATCHESON DATED 0'-2'7--00 FILED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN RESPONSE TO DF_FFIS MOTION 'TO DISMI .JOSEPH MATCHESON. COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY FILED STATUS REPORT FILED ORDER DATED 4-7-00. HARHUT, J. NOTIFIED 4-"7--00 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS "'f CONFERENCE DATED 4--19-00 FILED ORDER DATED 5-2-00. WE DIRECT" THE LACKAWANNA CIOUN"fY fUDICIAL_ RECORDS TO TRANSFER THIS CASE: TO CUMBERLAND I-ORHUT', .I, NOTIFIED 5--2-00 __.._...--'---------°------------- _...-'---_. _..-'-------------.._.. FII._E TRANSFERRED TO PROTHONOTARY OF COURT OF COMMON P C.UMB.E.RL.OND COUNTY BY CERTIFIED MAIL -- RECEIPT It 7099 0005 _.. .... ..... _ _. _ ..... -- - -° - - - - LAST ENTRY BY =.1 ,HONE OF Y.. f1F 0001 4:'31. E::nd rlf Case Information #' DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, 1,° 2 9 2002 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA i Plaintiffs NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM v CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, IN CUSTODY Defendant GUIDO, J. -- TEMPORARY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ?Y day of d , 2002, upon the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered follows: ideration of directed as 1. The Plaintiffs, Danny G. Heckendom and Debra S. Heckendorn, shall have full legal and physical custody of the child, Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr., born December 2, 1997, subject to periods of supervised visitation with natural Father, Joseph R. M tcheson, as follows: A. For a period of one and one half (1-1/2) hours two (2) tim s per month to commence on November 2, 2002. Father shall have supe ised visitation. The visits shall be supervised by Plaintiffs and shall occur t the Newville Community Center, to commence at 10:30 a.m., unless oth rwise agreed. In the event that Father has not appeared for his arranged v sit by 11:00 a.m., the Plaintiffs and child are free to leave. If the parties chan e the time of the visit by mutual agreement, Plaintiffs may leave if Father h s not arrived within one half hour of the agreed upon time. In the event that ather cannot attend his scheduled visit, he shall provide notice to Plaintiffs c unsel seventy-two (72) hours in advance of the scheduled visit. 2. In order to avoid confusion and distress to this child, Father shall refrain from referring to him by his legal name, Joe or Joey. Plaintiff shall consult wit the child's therapist, Dr. Wanda Mays to obtain more specific input with regard to 1) w at the child should be told about the various roles the parties play in parenting him; 2) whe her it would be helpful to the child for the Plaintiffs to identify themselves as uncle and aun rather than mother and father; 3) whether it is helpful to inform the child that the Defendant s the father; and 4) any specific clinical recommendations regarding the impact on the c ild of being referred to by his legal name. NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM 3. It shall be acceptable for the Defendant Father to include his own father and his father's wife in an upcoming visit. 4. The parties recognize that the child has been raised by the Plai tiffs. In light of the recommendations of Dr. Mays, increases in Father's custodial time sho Id occur in a gradual progression. The parties shall be guided by the child's therapist i making the determination as to when to commence unsupervised custodial time or to incr ase Father's contact with the child. 5. The Custody Conciliation Conference shall reconvene on 1 2003 at 11:00 a.m. at the office of the Custody Conciliator, Melissa Peel Market Street, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043. BY TAE COURT: Edward E. Guido, J. Dist: Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire, 37 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 ? Joseph R. Matcheson, 701 North Fourth Street, Room 301, Harrisburg, PA 17101 R 5 10-30-0 10, 301 Ll?.:l'.. 1 '?j ?? ^ ??1 ? ? ? Imo: i r.) _ ?. ' , OCT a? ? 2002 DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL P 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the child who is the litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN THE CU Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr. December 2, 1997 Paternal Aunt and 2. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held as planned on C with the following individuals in attendance: the Paternal Uncle and , Heckendorn and Debra S. Heckendorn, and their counsel, Lindsay Baird, I Father, Joseph R. Matcheson attended pro se. 3. The parties reached an agreement in the form of Order as attach Father objects to the Heckendorns having given the child the nickname Brand( the confusion and upset that it causes the child, the Father has agreed not to ( legal name, Joe or Joey. Additionally, because of comments made by the De Plaintiff Debra Heckendorn regarding his health status, the Defendant has agi consent to release confidential medical information to the Conciliator. He consent form at the office of his physician Dr. Goldman. The Plaintiff does details of the Defendant's medical condition. Rather, she simply seeks to I Defendant does not have any communicable diseases ychc 11-m potentially I to the child. 'Date Melissa Peel Greevy, EE Custody Conciliator 164216 DURE of this OF r 14, 2002 Danny G. e: and the . Although because of him by his idant to the ?d to sign a 11 sign this A seek the )w that the transmitted DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant GUIDO, J. -- IN CUSTODY TEMPORARY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this CO*** day of March, 2003, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, this Court's Order of October 29, 2002 is modified as follows: 1. The supervised visits provided to Father shall occur at the YW A - Carlisle facility on an alternating week basis. Initially, the visits shall be supervised by staff from the YWCA and the Paternal Aunt and/or Uncle may be present. However, they shall be an interim goal which would allow the child to have gradually less contact with the Paternal Aunt and Uncle during the supervised visits, substituting the YWCA staff as th., supervising adult. i 2. The Custody Conciliation Conference shall reconvene on Ju a 2, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. at the office of the Custody Conciliator, Melissa Peel Greevy 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043. i Dist: Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire, 37 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 ?p?rn.Pu$. 3 _ V 7- Q-? Joseph R. Matcheson, 1204 North Second Street, 1" Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17102 MAR 0 4 2003 'r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the child who is the litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN THE Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr. December 2, 1997 Paternal Aunt and of this 2. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held as planned on Febr ary 10, 2003 with the following individuals in attendance: the Paternal Aunt, Debra S. Hec endorn, and her counsel, Lindsay Baird, Esquire; and the Father, Joseph R. Matcheson atte ded pro se. This conference was held as planned at the most recent Custody Conciliation C nference of October 14, 2002. 3. At the time of the conference, the Defendant Father was provide with a copy of a February 7, 2003 report from the child's therapist, Dr. Wanda Mays. he therapist recommends continued supervised visits with the supervision to be provided by a person with whom Branden is comfortable. She recommends any changes should e done in a gradual fashion. 4. Father is seeking a change in the Order which would provi e him with supervised visits through the YWCA in Harrisburg. He seeks this change because he claims that the Heckendorns have interfered with his visits and because he is having transportation problems. At present, Father is employed at the Harrisburg N s, Monday through Friday, where he works from 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Additionally, he wor s from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., or later, on Saturdays at the Wyndam. His car is not operable at this time. In order to facilitate his more recent visits, he has been borrowing vehicl s from his supervisor at work, or getting a ride from a friend. Father expects to be able to o tain NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM another vehicle in about two months. Father is satisfied with the present length of the visits and accepts the frequency on an alternate week basis. Father seeks the chan a of location to the Harrisburg YWCA for supervised visits because they have greater flexi ility in ours, no fee for supervised visits, and are much more conveniently located for him o partihcipate. Although Father is willing to cooperate with the supervised visits at this time, h . is specific in stating his long term goal to have shared custody of the child and that th se custodial periods would include overnight periods of partial custody. Father resides in H rrisburg. 5. The Paternal Aunt's position is as follows: Mrs. Heckendorn is willing to continue to participate with the supervised visits as they have been arrang d by mutual agreement at the McDonalds in Carlisle. However, she does not believe th t she should have to drive to Harrisburg to facilitate Father's visits. She reports that for a eriod of two years she drove round trip to Dallas, Pennsylvania each month so that the c ild could see his Father while he was incarcerated. Now that Father is employed and living i dependently in the community, she believes that it should be his responsibility to provide t ansrt ation associated with the supervised visits. Mrs. Heckendorn also does not want to partipocipate in payment for any fees that may be associated with supervised contact. Mrs. Heckendorn presently works the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift, but is typically off on a Mond y or a Friday each week. Therefore, those days would be most convenient for her to parti ipate in any week day supervised visits that may be ordered. 6. The parties were unified in their request that this matter not be r linquished to the jurisdiction of the Court. They prefer to meet with the Conciliator on a eac four month basis, with the option to return upon petition. 7. After consideration of the fees at the Carlisle YWCA, which are income based, the time the 4 year old child would have to spend in the car for visits to occur (about 20 minutes), and the transportation resources of the parties, the Conciliator makes a recommendation to the Court in form of Order as attached, as a modification o this Court's previous Order of October 29, 2002. C?-Ar 103 Date Melissa'Peel Greevy, Custody Conciliator 167859 { DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant GUIDO. J. --- JUN 0 9 2DD3 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY TEMPORARY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this / 0 #k day of June, 2003, upon consideration of the Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered an directed as follows: 1. Hearing. A hearing is scheduled in Courtroom Number 5, of the County Courthouse, on the Or day of /llilr% ? 2003, at o'clock N.M., at which time testimony will be taken.' For the urposes of the Father, Joseph R. Matcheson, shall be deemed to be the moving party and initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties or the parties pro se shall file and opposing counsel/party a memorandum setting forth each party's position list of witnesses who are expected to testify at the hearing, and a sun anticipated testimony of each witness. These memoranda shall be filed at la prior to the hearing date. BY TbIrE COURT: Edward E. Guido, J. Dist: bkhdsay D. Baird, Esquire, 37 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 .,teseph R. Matcheson, 1204 North Second Street, I" Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17102 v C Ruck hearing, the hall proceed ith the Court m custody, a mary of the ast ten days V OL- 10 -d3 ?.ni..?.; 'P17 r, ?,a;? r=_?c? ?,a, ?J ??? ?GI i.:.. '.? ? ...u __ DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, Defendant IN CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the child who is the litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr. December 2, 1997 Paternal Aunt and IROCEDURE s?bject of this i 2. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on June 2, 2003 'at 9:00 a.m., with the following individuals in attendance: Plaintiff, Debra S. Heckendorn, the Maternal Aunt and Defendant Joseph R. Matcheson, the Father. Mr. Heckendorn d d not attend. Although the Heckendorn's continue to be represented by counsel, she was n t available on the date of this conference. Mr. Matcheson attended, pro se. The Conciliatio Conference was scheduled as part of a plan at the conciliation which occurred on Febru ry 10, 2003. The Custody Conciliator has met with parties in this matter on no less than th ee occasions since June, 2002. 3. The Maternal Aunt's position is as follows: She is satisfied with the present supervised visits being conducted at the Carlisle YWCA. She believes thi gs are going better there than they were when visitation was occurring at McDonald's bec use the child prefers the YWCA. The Maternal Aunt requests medical records on the Fathe because she questions whether he may have hepatitis C and whether or not he has completed treatment. She also questions whether he may have other communicable diseases of a serious nature. The Maternal Aunt reports that the child's therapist is recommending that, with the July, 2003 visits, that the Maternal Aunt begin to sit outside the door of the visitatiorji room during the child's visits with Mr. Matcheson. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW 1. NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM 4. Father's position on custody is as follows: Initially, Father rep rted that the visits were going fairly well. He acknowledged that he fell asleep at one isit, recently, because he was so tired from working seven days per week. Mr. Matcheso would like to have gradually increasing periods of unsupervised partial custody, structured s follows: 1) whole day visits for a period of four months to occur on the weekends; 2) o ernight visits from Friday evening through Saturday afternoon, on alternate weekends, to egin no later than December, 2003; 3) equally shared transportation; 4) thirty days of pa ial custody in the summertime. Mr. Matcheson believes that, while the child may not like it, he is ready for full day visits now, and will come to enjoy these visits once he sees how much fun they can have together. Mr. Matcheson does not want to see the child separated fro his brother. Mr. Matcheson is dissatisfied with the quality of the interaction that occu s during the supervised visits at the YWCA because he believes that the Plaintiff is lis ening to the interaction between he and the child and looking for some reason to mak a complaint against him. He also alleges that, because the Heckendorn's told the child tha?t they are his parents, that they have harmed his relationship with the child. He feels very strongly that the child should be told that he is the child's Father. 5. This Conciliation was extremely contentious. Both parties accused each other of lying on multiple occasions. Because the Plaintiff is not willing to expand t e time in the fashion and at the pace which the Defendant desires, a hearing will be necess ry. Because the child is receiving mental health care at this time and apparently s ffering from separation anxiety disorder, it is anticipated that it will be necessary for there to be expert testimony related to the child's well being and such very basic issues as the name by which he is to be addressed. The Conciliator makes no recommendation with regard to any changes to the Custodial Order at this time. _ ?//o 113 Date Melissa Peel Greevy, Custody Conciliator :214286 DANNY G.14ECKENDORN AND : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEBRA A. HECKENDORN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 24TH day of JULY, 2003, the hearing scheduled for JOSEPH R. MATCHESON : NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM AUGUST 1, 2003, at 8:30 a.m. is rescheduled for 11:00 a.m. on the same date. By Edward E. Gu"ido, J. ?Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Joseph R. Matcheson 1204 North Second Street Is` Floor Harrisburg, Pa. 17102 sld I? RKg Or?,O-L5 -(2) t 1 DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs/Respondents V. NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant/Petitioner IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this lst day of August, 2003, after hearing, we enter the following custody order which shall replace any prior orders entered in this matter: 1. The Plaintiffs, Danny G. Heckendorn and. Debra S. Heckendorn, shall have full physical and legal custodylof the child, Joseph R. Matcheson, Jr., born December 2, 1997, subject to periods of supervised visitation with Natural Fa R. Matcheson, as follows: A. Every other Monday at the Carlisle from 3:45 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. , Joseph YWCA B. One Saturday per month at the YWCA in Harrisburg for two hours. The Heckendorns ay elect to have the Saturday visitation at the YWCA in Carlisle as long as they pay the charge for said visitation. They shall notify Mr. Matcheso within seven days whether or not they are choosing to elect this option. In either event, the arrangements with the YWCA shall be made by Father. He shall give the Heckendorns at least 14 days notice of the ate and times he intends to exercise said visitatio . 2. All parties shall participate in counsgling with Dr. Mays to assure a transition to unsupervised visitation which best serves the interests of this child. Plaintiffs s?.all bear the costs of the sessions in which they or the child participate alone. The Defendant shall bear the costs of the session in which he participates alone or jointly with the child.1 3. Father shall sign a medical release inlfavor of the child's pediatrician who may obtain and review Fat?er's medical records to determine if there is any medical condition I 1 which would pose a problem when this Court awards unsupervised visitation. The pediatrician shall advise the Heckendorns and Father if there is no such condition, or, without goinglinto detail, whether such a condition might exist. If the parties are unable to reach a satisfactory resolution for dealing with any condition that might exist, the matter shall then be brought before this Court to determine how to proceed. 4. Father shall refrain from calling the Joseph or Joey until further order of this Court. We will review this matter upon petition of either party after Mr. Matcheson has participated in atl least three sessions with Dr. Mays and has executed the release in favor of the child's pediatrician. B} Edward E. Guido, J. ,,I?indsay Dare Baird, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs/Respondents ?seph R. Matcheson, Sr. > / Defendant/Petitioner, Pro se srs MKS 6g•Oq-43 ? ? 1\ i^i 4 1.: ?? V ? ?? ?..ti L ? _ : ? _. -? .. DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DEBRA A. HECKENDORN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL' V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON : NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 121H day of FEBRUARY, 2004, we will treat the as a request for modification. The Court Administrator is directed to refer this conciliation. Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Joseph R. Matcheson 1204 North Second Street I" Floor Harrisburg, Pa. 17102 Court Administrator ANIA I letter to By the Court, Edward E. Gui Jo, J. :sld ? ? ?, Y^ur He -n- in Res No. ?P-3[62 Civ "bone . "Ol erpo race. ,"gyp r,o., ni l ed with Y 1. - oquji-e 1 !;s a` -Pt by +,h t { h Ir, e lurt. "1'1 1 l'n,n; r Kl„n r rr t 1 nr, -F] mp - "t 9y O t"t'. r. a - v-Pt ?f'%zr P,H PA Y& V .itatipn A my cit JO erh 11O P-0 L +ey n?lr j-.. Co-17v r P 14 aYr' -_r+ in A hty. Z*i„lc^_ay D. BArd, Etq. L_- --t?cu• nr,tfll?.irr lpm F, 2rr it Ilytil iry,. .Phur ;, M. 02 f EB 1 2 2004 c.J , f ppy DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA OF DEBRA A. HECKENDORN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSY ANIA V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 12T" day of FEBRUARY, 2004, we will treat the attack as a request for modification. The Court Administrator is directed to refer this n conciliation. letter to By the Court, Edward E , Gu do, J. Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Joseph R. Matcheson 1204 North Second Street I" Floor Harrisburg, Pa. 17102 Court Administrator sld . , 5 February 200L in Re: No, 99-1162 Civ Your Honer- Please a ^ept this tfer as Petition for W?T'ir l he above u nreL ed case m T have complied with all requirements as set by t1i. Court, T now request Hearing to continue so that 1 may obtain m "e (:astody and chili visitation with m: acn, JoSeDh Richard W ntch.es i+ jr. Ccnlas o_°_ this are cent to Atty. LinJsay Do Baird, EVq. Thank you for Your sgen 1j" =10- Respectfully, rs-nn R, Yatc%. son, Sr, 120 a. 2r_d St pt l Harrisburg, Pa. 1-71102 OW DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND DEBRA A. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HECKENDORN PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON DEFENDANT • 99-3162 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday, February 23, 2004 , upon consideration of the attaehid Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa P. Greevy, Esq4__, the conciliator, at 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043 on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 _ at 10:30 PM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the is ues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to ente 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 rounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Ab se orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled heari g. FOR THE COURT. By is Melissa P __Gr_eeVyFW. ' Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply wit the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accom odations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. A11 arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must atte d the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU O NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFI F SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEBRA A. HECKENDORN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JOSEPH R. MATCHESON : NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 12TH day of APRIL, 2004, the hearing scheduled for Apri 21, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. is rescheduled to WEDNESDAY MAY 26 2004, at 8:30 a.m in Courtroom #5 of the Cumberland County Courthouse. Court, Edward E. Guido. J. Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Joseph R. Matcheson 1204 North Second Street I" Floor Harrisburg, Pa. 17102 Court Administrator :sld APR 0 6 200,, LINDSAY DARE BAIRD ATTORNEY AT LAW 37 SOUTH HANOCFR CAR1.1SEE. PFNNSYIA_4N1A 17013-3307 Tr:F. (717) -143-573-1 The Honorable Edward E. Guido One Courthouse Square Carlisle. PA 17013 April 5, 2004 RE: Heckendorn v. Matcheson Docket No. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM Dear Judge Guido: Fp.x (717) ?43-5310 My clients, the Heckendorns, called to inform me that Ms. Heckendor gravely ill and is not expected to recover. They are leaving for Florida tomoi with him. As a result, we are respectfully requesting a continuance in the c scheduled for April 21, 2004, at 2:00 P.M. Mr. Matcheson is receiving a letter as notification. I do not know his position regarding our request. Thank you for your time and consideration. LDB/nfa cc: Joseph R. Matcheson 1204 North 2nd Street, 1st Floor Harrisburg, PA 17102 Respectfully sub?miftedd,, indsay Dare Baird, Esquire s father is ow to be y hearing of this DANNY G. HECKENDORN AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEBRA S. HECKENDORN, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs/Respondents V. NO. 99-3162 CIVIL TERM JOSEPH R. MATCHESON, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant/Petitioner IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 26th day of May, 2004, after hearing, we amend our order of August 1 of 2003 to add th following provisions: 5. The father shall sign a release providedby the Heckendorns' counsel to allow them to get access to his prison medical records. 6. Father shall contact the child's pediatrician, Dr. Pion, to authorize discussion of cautions the Heckendorns may take with the child in connection with father's medical conditions. 7. Father's siblings, parents or nieces may accompany him on his periods of visitation with the child. it 8. All parties shall sign releases with Dr. Mays co authorize her to provide information to this Court and/or d,ounsel of the various parties regarding the treatment of the chili. In all other respects, our order of August 1,!i2003, l shall remain in full force and effect. By e Court, ?I it Edward E. Guido, J. Lindsay Dare Baird, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs/Respondents Joseph R. Matcheson, Sr. c -p 01 a? 9 Defendant/Petitioner, Pro Se CCC&YS Pcb r? . -r r ? i SCOTT S.DUESTERHOEFT PLAINTIFF V. JULIE L. SIMMONS DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON CUMBERLAND COUNTY 99-3125 CIVIL ACTION LA IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Wednesday, April 06, 2005 , upon consideration it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Dawn S. at 39 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA_17055 Oil _ Wednesday, May for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to rf if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to a provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection Special Relief orders, and Custodv orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to schedu FOR THE COURT, By: /s/ Custody Conciliator OF VANIA attached Complaint, Esq. , the conciliator, at 12:30 PM the issues in dispute; or o enter into a temporary at the conference may Abuse orders, hearing. The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to co ply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable ccommodation,s available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our of ce. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You in ist attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE " FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 YOU DO NOT OFFICE SET ?s?2a .; _,, ?????? '? %? ?? I/ ,?, p>?,,,v„? j? ' ?? ?? '?? ? ? ? f1 ".t ` ? ti .c ?? 3 g- ?aq? ,?az ?..i ^°_. ?.....,: