HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-04567
1
r + a.
Michael J. Wilson PA Atty ID No.: 52680
Attorney at Law
816 Derby Avenue (717)774-7018
Camp Hill PA 17011-8367 (717) 774-7019 (fax)
"I'll"
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY A. SHAUB
Plaintiff
V.
No. 99-4567
LISA NADINE SCHMIDT
Defendant CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW this J1 day of August, 1999, IT IS ORDERED THAT a hearing for a
preliminary injunction on Plaintiffs Motion for Special Relief in the Nature of a Preliminary
Injunction shall be held on the Wday of 1999, in Courtroom (_
M., in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, I Courthouse Square, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania.
Counsel for Plaintiff is directed to immediately serve a copy of this Order upon the
attorney of record for Defendant by facsimile transmission and US Mail.
i
By the Court:
J.
FILEDIo OF N.: rARY
99AUG ! 7 ply 4: pU
s'n?an?a'l y
zw?
ift2.%? ? C7?LG. /S6lw-at-.
A
Michael J. Wilson PA Atty ID No.: 52680
Attorney at Law
816 Derby Avenue (717) 774-7018
Camp Hill PA 17011-8367 (717) 774-7019 (fax)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY A. SHAUB
Plaintiff
V.
LISA NADINE SCHMIDT No. 99-4567
Defendant CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW this day of August, 1999, after review and consideration of Plaintiffs
Motion for Special Relief in the Nature of a Preliminary Injunction and the response thereto by
Defendant
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT a preliminary injunction is hereby issued enjoining
the enrollment of the minor children into the Shiremanstown Bible Baptist School and further
directing the immediate re-enrollment of the children into the appropriate elementary school of
the West Shore School District.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a hearing for a permanent injunction on the merits
of this matter and the facts and legal issues raised herein shall be held on the - day of
1999, in Courtroom _, at _ - M., in the Cumberland County Court of
Common Pleas, 1 Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
By the Court:
Michael J. Wilson PA Atty ID No.: 52680
Attorney at Law
816 Derby Avenue (717) 774-7018
Camp Hill PA 17011-8367 (717) 774-7019 (fax)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY A. SHAUB
861 Mandy Lane
Camp Hill PA 17011
Plaintiff
V.
No. 99-4567
LISA NADINE SCHMIDT
511 Park Avenue
New Cumberland PA 17070
Defendant CUSTODY
MOTION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF
IN THE NATURE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1. Plaintiff is an adult individual who resides at the above-captioned address in
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant is an adult individual who resides at the above-captioned address in
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. Plaintiff and Defendant were husband and wife from October 1986 to 1995 during
which time they had born to them two children, Bryan Russell Shaub, born July 5, 1989 and
currently 10 years old, and Deanna Elizabeth Shaub, born November 3, 1992 and currently 6
years old.
4. On July 28, 1999, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Custody under the above captioned
docket requesting, inter alia, shared legal custody on matter effecting his and Defendant's two
children, which shared legal custody would include decisions regarding the education and
religious upbringing of the children.
5. During the last school year of 1998-1999, the minor children were enrolled in the 4'"
grade and 1" grade, respectively, of the West Shore School District (WSSD) and attended the
Hillside Elementary School and successfully completed their courses to advance to the next
grade.
6. Notwithstanding their past enrollment in said District, Defendant has confirmed to
Plaintiff in recent weeks of her definite unilateral enrollment of the minor children in the
Shiremanstown Bible Baptist School for school year 1999-2000, which school year is believed to
begin on August 30, 1999.
7. Defendant and the school had failed to inform or consult with Plaintiff concerning said
enrollment until after the process or procedure of enrollment had been completed.
8. Plaintiff and his counsel have informed Defendant and her counsel of his objection to
the enrollment of either minor child in said School.
9, Defendant and her counsel have informed Plaintiff and his counsel that she refuses to
de-enroll the children from the Bible Baptist school and re-enroll them in the WSSD.
10. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the acts and failures to act by Defendant
described above and those acts or failures to act not otherwise divulged to Plaintiff at this time
constitute violations of the rights of Plaintiff to otherwise enjoy and assert, at a minimum, shared
legal custody over said minor children, including but not limited to, educational decisions.
11. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the enrollment of the children into the
non-secular, theologically specific, education environment of the Bible Baptist school will cause
-2-
irreparable harm to and have a substantial and significant adverse interest upon the best interests
of the children with regard to their education in contrast with what has previously been a secular
educational environment in a highly regarded central Pennsylvania school district.
12. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the enrollment of the children into the
non-secular, theologically specific, education environment of the Bible Baptist school will cause
irreparable harm to and have a substantial and significant adverse interest upon the best interests
of the children with regard to their relationship with Plaintiff, their father, in that Plaintiff does
not subscribe to the primary theological beliefs of the religious faith subscribed to and taught by
the school to their students - for example, that one must be "bom again" to be delivered to
eternal life or the kingdom of God on judgment day and that any individual, such as Plaintiff,
who is not "bom again" is not "saved" and would consequently not receive such treatment.
13. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the issue of the enrollment of the children
into the Bible Baptist school or return to their former school must be fully heard and adjudicated
and that in the interim the "status quo" of their previous school year's enrollment in the WSSD
be maintained lest the children be required to leave said school during the school year and re-
enroll in the West Shore School District if Plaintiff should prevail on the merits of the issue,
which he believes is reasonably likely.
14. No adequate remedy is available at law to remedy the legal issues set forth herein.
Plaintiff respectfully requests a hearing and special relief in the form of a
preliminary injunction enjoining the enrollment of the minor children into the Shiremanstown
Bible Baptist School and, further, the immediate re-enrollment of the children into the
appropriate elementary school of the West Shore School District. Further, Plaintiff respectfully
-3-
requests a hearing on the merits of this matter and the facts and legal issues raised herein and, at
the conclusion of said hearing, prays for an order granting shared legal custody on matters
pertaining to the education decisions for the minor children, to include special relief in the form
of a permanent injunction enjoining the enrollment of the children in any school other than the
appropriate elementary school of the West Shore School District.
Proposed Orders are attached.
Respectfully submitted,
lk-4741zx-?
Michael J. Wilson
Attorney for Plaintiff
-4-
C'7 1
1 _ ]
?
F C
T ?
l • . If
. k? cl ?? A • 5h4Jb
Plaintiff
V.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL ACTION LAW
Defendant : NO.y'S6-1 CIVIL 19 q9
CUSTODY VISITATION
ORDER OF COURT
And now, this 1 09 , upon consideration of the attached complaint, it is hereby directed
that the above parties and their respective A counsel appear before JAS S4]5?----
Esquire, the conciliator., at
Pennsylvania, on the day of 1999, at c-? ; O O A.M./ .,
for a Pre-hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the
issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard
by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may be present at
the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for the entry of a
temporary or permanent order.
FOR THE COURT:
By: I ?l???QIlO ?G4 •1' ?Glm
Custody Conciliator (.l
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.
THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
1-800-990-9108
?41. 99 e?/ e-??s
? ?, ,?' ,
Michael J. Wilson PA Atty ID No.: 52680 JUL. 3 0 1999
Attorney at Law
816 Derby Avenue (717) 774-7018
Camp Hill PA 17011-8367 (717) 774-7019 (fax)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, FENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY A. SHAUB
861 Mandy Lane
Camp Hill PA 17011
Plaintiff
v. 99-1196,7
LISA NADINE SCHMIDT No. vt ??i/Lh 1
511 Park Avenue
New Cumberland PA 17070
Defendant CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
YOU, LISA NADINE SCHMIDT, have been sued in court to obtain custody, partial
custody or visitation of the children: Bryan Russell Shaub and Deanna Elizabeth Shaub
You are ordered to appear in person at
on the _ day of , 1999, at M. for
A conciliation or mediation conference.
- A pretrial conference.
A hearing before the Court.
If you fail to appear as provided by this order, an order for custody, partial custody or
visitation may be entered against you or the court may issue a warrant for your arrest.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES
The Court of Common Pleas of Perry County is required by law to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to
disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at
least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or
hearing.
By the Court:
Date:
Michael J. Wilson PA Atty ID No.: 52680
Attorney at Law
816 Derby Avenue (717)774-7018
Camp Hill PA 17011-8367 (717) 774-7019 (fax)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY A. SHAUB
861 Mandy Lane
Camp Hill PA 17011
Plaintiff
V.
No.
LISA NADINE SCHMIDT
511 Park Avenue
New Cumberland PA 17070
Defendant CUSTODY
BACKGROUND
COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY
1. Plaintiff is an adult individual who resides at the above-captioned address in
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant is an adult individual who resides at the above-captioned address in
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. Plaintiff and Defendant are the natural parents of Bryan Russell Shaub, bom July 5,
1989 and currently 10 years of age, and Deanna Elizabeth Shaub, bom November 3, 1992 and
currently 6 years of age.
4. Plaintiff and Defendant were husband and wife from October 1986 to 1995 at which
time they were granted a decree in divorce from the Court of Common Pleas of York County.
5. On or about January 31, 1995, Plaintiff and Defendant had entered into a Separation
and Property Settlement Agreement which, among other things, contained provisions for
Custody and Support of the afore stated minor children. (See Exh. A attached and incorporated
herein - excerpt from Agreement, para. 12, pp. 8-10).
6. The Agreement was incorporated into the decree of divorce for purposes of
enforcement on or about April 4, 1995 by the Court of Common Pleas for York County.
7. Since the signing of said Agreement the minor children have resided with Defendant
on a daily basis with the children visiting and staying overnight with Plaintiff at his present home
on a non-consistent basis.
FACTS PERTAINING TO PRESENT DISPUTE
8. During the period beginning approximately 1995 and through the present date,
Defendant has planned and carried out or plans to carry out certain major decisions involving the
religious teaching and upbringing, education, medical care, and day care of the minor children.
9. The minor children have not been baptized at birth or formally raised in any specific
religious and, upon information and belief, they have not received any instruction or education in
any faith and do not regularly attend any church.
10. Defendant during the relevant time period has followed or otherwise experimented
with the Methodist, Evangelical, Free Evangelical, and Christian Fellowship, and Plaintiff
believes, and therefore avers, that the minor children have been or are continually exposed to
conflicts in teachings and doctrines among said beliefs or faiths, and that such inconsistent
and non-uniform exposure to various faiths due to the personal experimentation of Defendant
may not be in their current best interests as young children.
11. Furthermore, the minor children are currently enrolled in the West Shore School
-2-
District and attend or would otherwise attend the Hillside Elementary School.
12. Notwithstanding their enrollment in said District and Plaintiffs objection, Defendant
has informed Plaintiff of her plans to enroll the minor children in the Shiremanstown Bible
Baptist School for school year 1999-2000.
13. Plaintiff has informed Defendant of his objection to the enrollment of either minor
child in said School.
14. Furthermore, Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the minor child, Deanna, has
contracted a blood disorder which causes her to sleep often and for relatively long periods of
time.
15. Defendant has failed to inform Plaintiff or give him specific information regarding
the diagnosis of illness suffered by minor child Deanna, the treatment and medication, if any, she
receives, and the prognosis for the illness.
16. Furthermore, Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the minor child, Bryan, had
removed from his left wrist area a birthmark by surgical procedure resulting in a scar where the
surgical procedure was performed.
17. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the surgical procedure was requested by
Defendant.
18. Defendant failed to inform or consult with Plaintiff concerning said medical
procedure before it occurred.
19. Defendant has failed to inform Plaintiff the reason or need for said procedure.
20. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the acts and failures to act by Defendant
described above and those acts or failures to act not otherwise divulged to Plaintiff at this time
-3-
constitute violations of the rights of Plaintiff to otherwise enjoy and assert, at a minimum, shared
legal custody over said minor children, including but not limited to, medical, religious and
educational decisions.
21. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the otherwise inconsistent visitation of
Plaintiff with the minor children constitutes a violation of the rights of Plaintiff to otherwise
enjoy and assert partial physical custody of the minor children.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff requests a hearing on the facts and issues raised herein and, at
the conclusion of said hearing, prays for an order granting shared legal custody on matters
pertaining to the education, medical care and religious upbringing of the minor children and,
further, an order granting partial physical custody to Plaintiff with regularly scheduled periods
for enjoyment of such custody.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael J. Wilson
Attorney for Plaintiff
-4-
VERIFICATION
Plaintiff, Jeffrey A. Shaub, verifies that the statements made in this Complaint for
Custody are true and correct upon his personal knowledge or information and belief. Plaintiff
understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. CS § 4904,
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
c -?
? A.rShau
Husband. Husband agrees to payoff the encumbrance, if any, on this
automobile and indemnify Wife from any liability thereto. The 1989
Honda Accord shall become the sole and exclusive property of Wife.
Wife agrees to payoff the encumbrance, if any, on this automobile
and indemnify Husband from any liability thereto.
The titles to the said motor vehicles shall be executed.
by the parties, if appropriate for effecting transfer as herein
provided, on the date of execution of this Agreement and the said
executed title shall be delivered to the proper parties on the
distribution date, or as soon as possible.
11. BANK ACCOUNTS: The parties are the owners of a
joint savings account and checking account at Pennsylvania State
Employees Credit Union. The parties agree that these accounts shall
be used to pay any joint obligations as previously mentioned and
existing at the time of the execution of this Agreement, and the
net proceeds divided fifty (50%) percent to Wife and fifty (50%)
percent to Husband upon the sale of the house.
Husband shall retain as his sole asset any funds in the
Advanced Industrial Services, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan.
Wife shall retain as her sole property any retirement or like
investment account that she may have.
----? 12. CUSTODY AND SUPPORT: The parties agree that then
custody of their minor children shall remain with Wife subject to
e
C1Nr617- A
liberal visitation rights granted to Husband at times to be
mutually agreed upon, but no less than every other weekend from
Friday at a time to be mutually agreed on to Sunday at 6:00pm and '
one day during the week. Holiday visitation to be agreed upon by
the parties. Husband shall have no less than four weeks of
visitation during the summer months, with no one block of
visitation being more than two consecutive weeks. Due to Husband's
unusual travel demands imposed by his employment, weekends will be
adjusted when necessary. Husband agrees to pay to Wife the sutra of
Two Hundred Fifty Four and 00/100 ($254.00) Dollars per week, which
figure represents $171.00 child support and $83.00 of the daycare
expense, for the support of their minor children. As long as Wife
is employed and health insurance coverage is provided through
Wife's employment for the children, wife shall maintain health
insurance coverage for the children. In the event Wife's is
unemployed and/or the children are n6X longer covered by Wife's
employer's health insurance, Husband agrees to maintain medical
insurance in the nature of Blue cross and Blue Shield or similar
insurance on said children or any other plan that is carried by his
employer for the benefit his children. Any extraordinary medical
and/or dental expenses of the children are to be divided between
the parties equally. (This also to include one-half of. any°
employer's required medical contribution by employee.) The support
9
payments outlined above shall begin immediately upon the execution
of this Agreement and the parties agree that said payment shall be
made directly by Husband to Wife unless and until Husband defaults
i
in the support payments, at which time Wife shall have the option
of requesting that support payments be made through the Domestic
Relations office of the county wherein Wife resides. In this
event, the parties agree to sign an amicable Order of Support with
the Court of such county so that future payments shall be made' in
accordance with the order of Court. The parties agree that this
provision relative to support payments may be enforced by an action
in accordance with Rules of Civil Procedure governing actions for
support. pe"-pa-yments-shal-l-ber
eualuated-€er-ad-jtl -ev arX-frDm the-ann versazy-date-
JAA/ .1 l0 95 /n 'r
-oaf * :_c ." eemeftt-. If any children of the parties attend college,
the parties hereto will pay in accordance with their income.
Each party mutually agrees for the benefit of their
minor children, that each shall name the parties' children as equal
beneficiaries of their respective life insurance policies until the
youngest child attains majority.
13. ALIMONY: Both parties acknowledge and agree that the
provisions of this Agreement providing for equitable distribution
of marital property are fair, adequate and satisfactory to them and
are accepted by them in lieu of and in full and final settlement
10
Ul
fCl 1 ? ? ? • O ?• P
1
L?. Cl)
O cn (J
Jennifer L. Lehman
Attorney at lAw
P.O. BOX 6130
27 South Arlene Street
Harrisburg, PA 17112-0130
717-671-1200
JEFFREY A. SHAUB, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. :NO. 99-4567 CIVIL TERM
LISA N. SCHMIDT, :CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant : IN CUSTODY
PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter the appearance of Jennifer L. Lehman, Esquire, on behalf of the Defendant,
LISA N. SCHMIDT, the above-captioned action.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
By litr .L.? Hcii.+.J
L. Lehman, Esquire
P.O. Box 6130
27 South Arlene Street
Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717) 671-1200
Date: August 6, 1999
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jennifer L. Lehman, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 6th day of August 1999, I
served a true and correct copy of the foregoing by depositing the same in the United States mail,
first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Michael J. Wilson, Esquire
816 Derby Avenue
Camp Hill, PA 17011
IRIkA 4" C7
Je ifer L. Lehman, Esquire
P.O. Box 6130
27 South Arlene Street
Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717) 671-1200
,.?
??: _
,:
? J
I_ :'1
:i? ? q
1
^-l
? L1
:1,
: .
(_%
??
-)
-' V
JEFFREY A. SHAUB, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
LISA NADINE SCHMIDT,
DEFENDANT 994567 CIVIL
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this an day of August, 1999, the motion of Jeffrey A.
Shaub for special relief, IS DENIED. The case should proceed to conciliation. In the
interim, Lisa Nadine Schmidt, with whom Bryan Shaub, born July 5, 1989 and Deanna
Shaub, born November 3, 1992, live, may determine their place of schooling.
By the Court,
Edgar B. Bayley,
Michael J. Wilson, Esquire
For Plaintiff
Yvonne Husic, Esquire
For Defendant
820/199.
C?7f^ov .d. -P
:sea
c n-r.:I? E
n,- ;Y
J'
99 mm 20 H" l: 28
CU "pENNSYL%fX ?;v?lY
JEFFREY A. SHAUB, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 99-4567
LISA N. SCHMIDT,
Defendant CIVIL ACTION
PRAECIPE TO ENTER/WITHDRAW APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly withdraw the appearance of Jennifer L. Lehman. Esquire, in the above-captioned
matters as counsel for the Defendant„ Lisa N. Schmidt.
Je ifer L. Lehman, Esquire
27 South Arlene Street
Harrisburg, PA 17112-0443
Dated: 9171W
Kindly enter the appearance of Yvonne M. Husic, Esquire, in the above-captioned matter, as
counsel for the Defendant, Lisa N. Schmidt.
Dated:
1M1? \ \c
By.
Yvonn L Husic, Esquire
Pa. Supreme Court ID 474444
4409North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 236-9391
- ??? ?
??
. ::
?
:
r?^
r
n
?,
_
?
JEFFREY A. SHAUB, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 99-4567
LISA N. SCHMIDT, CIVIL ACTION
Defendant
PRAECIPE TO ENTER/WITHDRAW APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly withdraw the appearance of Yvonne M. husic, Esquire, in the above-captioned
matter, as counsel for the Defendant, Lisa N. Schmidt.
r (IIVt/
onne M. Husic, Esquir6
preme Ct. ID No. 74444
409 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
717-236-9391
Dated: February 16, 2000
Kindly enter the appearance of Susan Kay Candiello, Esquire, in the above-captioned
matter, as counsel for the Defendant, Lisa N. Schmidt..
Susan Kay Kay Candielsquire
Gates & Associates
1013 Mumma Road -Suite 100
Lemoyne, PA 17043
717-731-9600
Dated: February 16, 2000
,,
,:
? r-
F
.
fa ?
.
t a ?l a-J
. i
.7
Li C 14
u_ rn
<^ =j
U
0
U
U
L
?Q
ro o
r LL
O
Z N
3q+? w?
¢i
0
a Z?
o°D
xvU)
U
Z
JEFFREY A. SHAUB,
Plaintiff/Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4567
V.
LISA NADEEN SCHMIDT,
Defendant/Petitioner
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM/CROSS PETITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY
AND NOW, comes LISA NADEEN SCHMIDT, Defendant, by and through her
attorney, YVONNE M. HUSIC, Esquire of NICHOLAS & FOREMAN, P.C. and
respectfully presents the following Answer and Counterclaim/Cross Petition for Custody.
Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted in part and denied in part. Deanna's date of birth is November
3, 1991, not 1992. She is presently 8 years of age.
4. Admitted in part; Denied in part. It is admitted that the parties were
married in October, 1985; it is denied that the parties were married in 1986.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted. It is admitted that the minor children reside with their mother
on a daily basis. The mother has primary physical custody. Until the filing of Plaintiff's
Complaint for Custody on July 28, 1999, Plaintiff failed to utilize the full extent of the
visitation schedule available to him per Property Settlement Agreement of April 4, 1995.
8. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendant has primary physical and legal
custody of her minor children and therefore makes decision affecting their lives. It is
denied that the mother has excluded the father from decision making. The children's
father chooses to assume a passive and limited role in his children's lives.
9. Requires no response.
10. Denied.
11. Denied. The children are enrolled in the Bible Baptist School.
12. Admitted. Defendant was informed and had knowledge in April 25, 1999,
of the possibility of enrollment of the children in Bible Baptist School.
13. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff knew of
the possibility of enrollment in the Bible Baptist School. It is denied that his objection to
the said enrollment was done absent Plaintiffs filing for Special Relief.
14. Denied. Pre-admission blood testing for tonsil and adenoid surgery (not
done) revealed some minor problems with blood clotting. This was revealed in 1997. No
further follow-up is necessary. (See Exhibit "A").
15. Denied.
16. Admitted. Plaintiff was informed of this procedure, but was more
concerned about flooding in his basement, which Plaintiff believes was caused by the
children stuffing objects in the toilet.
17. Admitted. The hairy nevus birthmark continues to grow and is prone to
cause cancer in adult. Removal was recommended by the family doctor. (See Exhibit
"B").
18. Denied. Defendant was informed of the surgery and the reason therefor.
19. Denied. Defendant was informed of the surgery and the reason therefor.
20. Denied.
21. Denied.
COUNTERCLAIM/CROSS PETITION
22. Defendant Lisa Schmidt seeks to retain primary physical and legal custody
of her children:
Bryan Shaub - DOB: July 5, 1989
Deanna Shaub - DOB: November 3, 1991
23. Defendant believes and therefore avers that it is in the best interest of the
children to remain with their mother as the primary custodian, having full legal and
physical custody.
24. Defendant believes and therefore avers that Plaintiff father seeks to
interfere with the mother's religion and the religious upbringing of the children, and has
disparaged the mother's religious beliefs and affiliations. (See Exhibit "C").
25. Defendant believes that the Plaintiff father should go for psychological
counseling due to his anger and hostility toward Defendant upon enrolling the children in
Bible Baptist School.
26. Defendant Mother believes that Plaintiff uses alcohol excessively to the
point of intoxication in the presence of the children and should therefore be required to go
to counseling to address his alcohol problem.
27. Defendant Mother believes that the current visitation arrangement is
satisfactory and seeks to retain the status quo pursuant to the 1995 Property Settlement
Agreement, Paragraph 12.
28. Defendant Mother believes that Plaintiffs efforts to gain legal custody are
in retaliation due to enrolling the children in Bible Baptist School.
29. Defendant believes and avers that Paragraphs 14 - 21 of the Plaintiffs
Complaint are matters that occurred in 1997-1998, and of which Plaintiff father was fully
informed and aware.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests the Court to retain the status quo of the
Defendant Mother having primary legal and physical custody of the minor children, witf
visitation to the Plaintiff father on alternating weekends and holidays, as agreed upon by
the parties.
Respectfully submitted,
NICHOLAS & FOREMAN, P.C.
By lJ? L?
vonne M. Husic, Esquire
preme Ct. ID No. 74444
409 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorneys for Defendant, Lisa N. Schmidt
November 17, 1999
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in foregoing document are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge. I understand that false statements herein are made subject
to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
Dated: L? i =!H
l? USK, Es wre
JEFFREY A. SHAUB,
Plaintiff/Respondent
PENNSYLVANIA
V.
LISA NADEEN SCHMIDT,
Defendant/Petitioner
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
NO. 99-4567
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, YVONNE M. HUSIC, Esquire, hereby certify that on the 18 1h day of November,
1999,1 served the enclosed Answer and Counterclaim for Custody upon the following
persons by fax transmission, U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid:
Michael J. Wilson, Esquire Michael L. Bangs, Esquire
816 Derby Avenue Custody Conciliator
Camp Hill, PA 17011 302 S. 18" Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Respectfully submitted,
NICHOLAS & FOREMAN, P.C.
By:
i9nne M. Husic, Esquire
me Ct. ID No. 74444
North Front t Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
November 18, 1999 Attorneys for Defendant, Lisa N. Schmidt
HEMOPHILIA
CENTER of
Central
Pennsylvania
STAFF
M. Elam Eyster, M.D.
Asaaceb Dwv Mn
James 0. "Wig. M.D.
Hematebgy
H Allen Nandard. M.D.
Paydlalay
Ceordnabr
• q R. N*ag*y. R.N, MA
Pod %&=
David Ungar, M.D.
5adaySAnMer
L= MlrylseFGood. M.5.S.
Charles Gilbert. ACSW
ft/rlabgy
Swan D. Mayes, Ph D
EdwOOn bl)nal
GounwN p
Teresa M. SIRJM, B A.
Gerlebe Cwtsefarg
rlo0er L. Leads. M.D.
AFFILU1rEDUNR
SL Jos"he HOW131
larrx»c Pwa+rro.er
H. Pow GGmn. M.D.
August 20, 1999
To whom it may concern:
College al Med'one .
University Hospital: Children's HospiW
The Mixon S. Hershey Mediml Center
Penn State Umnersdy
P.O. Box UN, Hershey, PsnnryHanla 17033
(717) 531.7468
Nights or Weekends. (717) 531.6521
CareLins. 600.243-1455 Fee: (717) 531-5461
RE: Deanna Shaub
MSHMCN 790103
This letter is being written on behalf of Deanna Shaub, a 7 year old girl who was
evaluated for a bleeding disorder at Hershey Medical Center in 1997. Laboratory testing
showed she has a mild bleeding disorder of platelet function. Most children with platelet
function disorders have relatively few bleeding problems. When they do bleed, it tends to
be mucosal bleeding, such as nosebleeds. Treatment is given only for bleeding episodes
or prior to and after surgery. Daily preventive or maintenance therapy is not indicated for
this bleeding disorder.
We hope Ulis information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Sara A. Nwg1?RN, M/Y?
Nurse COordiantor
VT V-'?-D
David Ungar, MD
Pediatric Hematologist
I'uuL ? "&II
07/28/97- Kids both started with a severe case of poison that they got at their dad's.
07/30/97- 1 helped Bryan phone his Dad to tell him he had a lot of poison. There was no
answer, so he left a message on the machine.
07/31 /97 - Jeff left message on our machine for Bryan. This is the first time he has ever
called to speak to the children since he left the house in June of 1994! He said he
has poison too and told Bryan to tell me what to put on it.
07/31197- I phoned Jeff and left a message for him to call me.
08/05/97 -
fly returned my call from 5 days ago. I told him about Ivy Block and ho
it stops you from getting poison if you apply it beforehand. I also told him fi6out
what the plastic surgeon said regarding cancer and birthmarks and that I was going
to have Bryan's birthmark removed All he said to my conversation was OIC Not
thanks, when's Bryan's surgery, nothing! He told me that he'd be picking the ki
upon Saturday morning.
I?
Dear Born Again Liar (Lisa):
Here's an example of how crazy you are. You beaked out over one telephone message. Are you upset that I'm not
following your orders? Well get used to it. This all started with a missed phone message that you wanted to talk to
me about 2 or 3 times. To avoid this in the future, communicate by mail except for emergencies.
In order for you to stop twisting my words and lying about what I say, here is the written response to your message
on October 21:
Yes. I did say Ihal my wife would pick up the children on Friday. October 15 between 5 and 5;30 since I expected
to get in later that evening.
Yes. I picked up the children on Friday. October 15 between 5 and 5:30 since I got in earlier than expected
Your message same to indicate that because I picked them up I tried to trick you in some way. You're sick.
I called you on Friday evening, October 15 to remind you not to fad them Friday evenings since they would have
dieter at my house. I reminded you that was our arrangement. How convenient you forgot and fad them before
they came over. You ruined their dinner with me. Wasn't that your point?
Don't call me to ask if they will have dieter here on Friday evenings If there is a change, I will let you know in
advance according to you rules and regulations.
Regarding the Wednesday night visits:
I want to we my children on Wednesday evenings. The reason?
Mondays and Tuesdays are almost always unpredictable due to trucking schedules. Since you want an absolute time
amd need to stick to a schedule, Wednesday is the best time to mere to your rule. It also allows me to inform my
employer of a regular schedule and allows my employer to work with me in scheduling jobs. Plus, Deanrm told me
more than once that she does NOT want to go to church on Wednesday evenings. Don't scold her for being honest
with me.
That leaves Thursday. Thursday evenings are too late in the week, especially on my weekends when I pick them up
on Friday evenings.
That terms Wednesday evenings. Since I am out of town one or two weeks per month. I will be unable to pick them
up on Wednesdays or any other weekday night
You go to church on Wednesday evenings They can attend church with you when I am out of town. It is more
important for the children to re•eaablish their relationship with me than to attend midweek church functions.
Anyway you always have a full schedule according to what Bryan says. If not church, you will come up with a
dMeren excuse for Monday. Tuesday. Wednesday and 7hmsday
The bottom line7 You do not want me to see my children in between my visitation weekends. That's what I
believe.
Bryan and Deama said they don't wan to came over on weekdays or Friday evenings bemuse you don't want them
to come over. They have told me this repeatedly over the years. Before, l didn't want to add to their stress over it
But now that they are older, I think they can handle it Deanna is willing to take a chance and visit me.
Unfomnately, Bryan does not wam to upset you by coming over to see me. Congratulations. Your plan to turn him
against me is working to come extent. I think deep down he still wants to show me he loves me. He's just afraid
that you'll get angry with him
Here's another thing that really bothers me. You do not permit them to tell me what they have done during the
week. Bryan refuses to talk about what he does at soccer, L-r school, at church, with friends. Whenever Deanna tries
to tell me about anything that she has done, Bryan tells her to be quiet, don't tell. You're messing these kids up and
I want you to stop.
Example: When you went to the hospital with Bryan's injury, you left several messages on my home phone. It was
obvious that Bryan was there with you and heard what you were saying. You said to please pick up the phone,
making Bryan believe that I was ignoring him, when any normal person would figure out that no one was home.
Don't you think that had an effect on him? You said you paged toe. Lying again. You didn't page me until the nett
day and I tenoned your call immediately. You made Bryan think I didn't care about him. What does born again
rrreanT Making too look bad In my kids eyes? Let's see: Your Dad left us, Your Dad doesn't care about us. (Yes. I
don't care abort you I do care about my kids.) Your Dad didn't pick up the phone, Your Dad doesn't want to talc
to you Do I have to go on?
There's mote than this. That is why we have to go to court That's the only way I can get you to stop all your
childish games that are hunting my children.
Please write back. It belps me keep all your stories straight.
Jeff
?+ TOTAL FRGE.03 +*
? o
? 3 n S
f
0
w
?" N J
°
w
a
NOV? $
,(l, S
JEFFREY A. SHAUB,
Plaintiff )
VS. )
LISA NADINE SCHMIDT, )
Defendant )
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4567 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of `?C41 Llm lAe2 1999, upon receipt of the
Conciliator's Report, it appearing that the parties have reached an agreement as to a physical
custodial schedule, but need a hearing as a relates to legal custody and concerns therein, it is
hereby ordered and directed as follows:
A hearing is scheduled for the 30(-' day of i7y lit t c/C
,,5'-6, at o'clock 4 .M., in Court Room Number o?) of the
Cumberland County Court House, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Both parties, through
counsel, will provide each other and the court with a list of witnesses ten (10)
days prior to the date of the hearing along with a statement as to their expected
testimony. Additionally, both parties will submit their proposal for a resolution of
the matter.
2. Pending said hearing, the parties shall share legal custody of their
minor children, Bryan Russell Shaub, d.o.b. July 5, 1989, and Deanna Elizabeth
Shaub, d.o.b. November 3, 1991.
3. Mother shall have primary physical custody of the minor children
subject to periods of partial custody and visitation with Father as follows:
A. On alternating weekends from Friday at 5:30 p.m. until
Sunday at 6:00 p.m. This alternating weekend schedule shall
commence on Friday, November 19, 1999.
B. Every Tuesday from 5:30 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. In the
event that rather can exercise an overnight period of time in
conjunction with his work schedule, he shall notify Mother of his
intention to exercise this period of time and Mother shall cooperate
in allowing him to exercise this overnight period of time. In the
event that Father has an overnight during this period oftime, he
shall deliver the children to school the following morning.
4. 1'he parties shall share the holidays as agreed upon.
5. Father shall be entitled to four (4) weeks of custody with the children
over the summer months. He may divide this time into no more than two
consecutive weeks at a time. Father shall notify Mother no later than May I" of
each year as to when he intends to exercise these periods oftclusive custody.
6. Such other times as the parties may
EDGAR B. BA`YLEY, J.
Michael J. Wilson, Esquire_
Yvonne Husic. Esquire (I
mlb
FILED-GFFICE
OF TF=F - nr ^;nI?TARY
99!101124 P'; 1:07
l'uUNTY
PENINSYC ANA
JEFFREY A. SHAUB,
Plaintiff
VS.
LISA NADINE SCHMIDT,
Defendant
JUDGE PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4567 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
1. The pertinent information concerning the child(ren) who is(are) the subject of this
litigation is as follows:
NAME BIRTHDATE CURRENTLY IN
CUSTODY OF
Bryan Russell Shaub July 5, 1989
Deanna Elizabeth Shaub November 3, 1991
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on November 18, 1999, and the following
individuals were present: the Plaintiff and his attorney, Michael J. Wilson, Esquire; the
Defendant and her attorney, Yvonne Husic, Esquire.
3. Items resolved by agreement: A physical custodial schedule.
4. Issues yet to be resolved: Legal custody.
5. The Plaintiff's position on custody is as follows: Father believes that the Mother has
not included him in any major decisions related to the children. He points to several examples.
The first example related to the children's enrollment in Bible Baptist School. Father indicated
that he essentially had no real input into that and that Mother made the decision by herself and
decided that the children should switch schools. From his perspective, the switching of the
schools was a significant issue in that it sent them to a religious institution that he did not
necessarily approve. Additionally, he points to a time when Mother had a medical procedure
done on one of the children. He again said that he was not informed of the medical procedure in
that he had no input into the decision making regarding the procedure. Father believes that
Mother is dogmatic in her approach as it relates to the children in that as far as major decisions
are concerned, she may inform him ofwhat is going to occur, but essentially she is telling him
what is going to happen with the children rather than seeking his input.
6. The Defendant's position on custody is as litllows: Mother steadfastly denies that she
hasn't included Father in major decisions as it relates to the children. She says that she always
informs him of what is occurring with the children. She believes that she is always acting in the
children's best interests and that her role is to simply inform the Father and make him aware of
what is occurring.
7. Need for separate counsel to represent child(ren): Neither party requested.
8. Need for independent psychological evaluation or counseling: None requested and the
Conciliator does not believe any is necessary.
9. A hearing in this matter will take two hours.
10. Other matters or comments: This case involves a dispute solely on legal custody.
This Court has already been involved on one aspect of legal custody and that was related to
Father's filing of a Motion for Special Relief that was denied by this Court on August 20, 1999.
Mother had decided to switch the children to Bible Baptist and the Father was trying to prevent
that because he did not have any input.
Father's complaint is that Mother gives him no input on major decision making with the
children. He cited the Bible Baptist issue as one in particular and the other was an issue related
to a medical procedure wherein one of the children had a removal of a birthmark. He asserts that
these are examples of an on-going pattern whereby Mother does not involve him in major
decisions of the chi:d,en, rather she dictates what changes should occur and she follows through
without his input.
From the Conciliator's perspective, this is more of a situation about the parties' inability
to communicate. Mother asserts that she provides Father with information and Father does not
deny getting the information. The problem arises in that Father believes he has no decision
making in the process and it is clear to the Conciliator that this relates to the parties' problematic
communication. The Conciliator strongly suggested that the parties engage a mediator or a
trained psychologist to help them deal with the communication issues so they can start working
together on legal custody issues. The parties, however, at the time of the conciliation could not
agree to postpone a hearing on the legal custody issues, but it is hopeful that a hearing will not be
necessary.
If a hearing is necessary, it should not take very long. Again, the Court has already dealt
with one of the significant issues and the Court will simply have to make it clear to the parties its
view on these legal custody issues.
Date: November 22, 1999
Michael L. Bangs
Custody Conciliator
JEFFREY A. SHAUB IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs. 99-4567 CIVIL ACTION LAW
LISA NADEEN SCHMIDT
Defendant IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of At*4t , 2009, upon
consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows:
1. The prior Order of this Court dated November 24, 1999 shall continue in effect.
2. The Mother, Lisa N. Schmidt, and the Father, Jeffrey A. Shaub, shall have shared legal
custody of Deanna E. Shaub, born November 3, 1991. Major decisions concerning the Child
including, but not necessarily limited to, her health, welfare, education, religious training and
upbringing shall be made jointly by the parties after discussion and consultation with a view toward
obtaining and following a harmonious policy in the Child's best interest. Neither party shall impair the
other party's rights to shared legal custody of the Child. Neither party shall attempt to alienate the
affections of the Child from the other party. Each party shall notify the other of any activity or
circumstance concerning the Child that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to the other.
Day to day decisions shall be the responsibility of the parent then having physical custody. With
regard to any emergency decisions which must be made, the parent having physical custody of the
Child at the time of the emergency shall be permitted to make any immediate decisions necessitated
thereby. However, that parent shall inform the other of the emergency and consult with him or her as
soon as possible. In accordance with 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5309, each party shall be entitled to complete and
full information from any doctor, dentist, teacher, professional or authority and to have copies of any
reports or information given to either party as a parent as authorized by statute.
3. In order to establish regular communication between the parties concerning significant
developments related to the Child, the Father shall contact the Mother on the last day of each month by
telephone so that the parties can share any information concerning the Child's medical, dental or other
appointments, major activities, travel plans and any other similar type developments which could
reasonably be expected to be of interest to the other parent.
4. The allegations stated in the Father's Complaint for Custody initially filed under Docket No.
2009-239, which depict the Mother's conduct as uncooperative or inappropriate are withdrawn.
...
5. The Custody Complaint filed by the Father under Docket No. 2009-239 is hereby
consolidated under this previously filed custody action.
cc: ? ichael J. Wilson, Esquire - Counsel for Father
,/"Lisa N. Schmidt - Mother
-a t'-C-3 m.aLUcb
i
31L ?Oq
JEFFREY A. SHAUB
Plaintiff
VS.
LISA NADEEN SCHMIDT
Defendant
Prior Judge: Edgar B. Bayley
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-4567 CIVIL ACTION LAW
IN CUSTODY
CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as
follows:
NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF
Deanna E. Shaub November 3, 1991 Mother
2. A custody conciliation conference was held on February 24, 2009, with the following
individuals in attendance: the Father, Jeffrey A. Shaub, with his counsel, Michael J. Wilson, Esquire,
and the Mother, Lisa N. Schmidt, who is not represented by counsel in this matter.
3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached.
/-p?yaw?y aY aoo?
Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire
Custody Conciliator
Filed by:
Attorney Michael J. Wilson PA Atty ID No.: 52680
Attorney for Plaintiff (717) 774-7018
816 Derby Avenue
Camp Hill PA 17011-8367 attorneymichaeljwilson@michaeljwilsonlaw.com
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY A. SHAUB
938 Pinetree Way
Lancaster PA 17601
Plaintiff
V.
LISA NADEEN SCHMIDT
719 Elkwood Drive
New Cumberland PA 17070
Defendant
No. 99-4567
CUSTODY
PETIION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF
AND ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS FOR CUSTODY
AND NOW comes, Plaintiff Father, Jeffrey A. Shaub, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1915.13 and
Local R.C.P. 1915-1, et.seq. to seek an Order of Court grating special relief and enforcement of
existing Orders of Court in this matter pertaining to custody in this action, and in support thereof
states that:
BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiff Father is an adult individual who resides at the above-captioned address
in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant Mother is an adult individual who resides at the above-captioned
address in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
1
3. Plaintiff Father and Defendant Mother are the natural parents of Bryan Russell
Shaub, born July 5, 1989 and currently 20 years of age and emancipated, and Deanna Elizabeth
Shaub, born November 3, 1991, is 17 years of age and is currently enrolled in the West Shore
School District and attends Cedar Cliff High School.
4. Plaintiff Father and Defendant Mother were husband and wife from October 1985
to April 1995 at which time they were granted a decree in divorce from the Court of Common
Pleas of York County.
5. On or about January 31, 1995, Plaintiff Father and Defendant Mother had entered
into a Separation and Property Settlement Agreement ("Agreement') which, among other things,
contained provisions for custody and support of their then minor children. (An excerpted copy of
the relevant provisions of said Agreement, pp. 8-10, paragraph 12, have been attached to
previous petitions in this matter and are of record in this docket.)
6. The Agreement was incorporated into the decree of divorce for purposes of
enforcement on or about April 4, 1995 by the Court of Common Pleas for York County.
7. Since the signing of said Agreement the children, while they have been minors,
have resided with Defendant on a daily basis with the children visiting with Plaintiff at his past
and present homes.
Plaintiff Father and Defendant Mother have previously litigated two custody
matters in The Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County at the above-captioned docket
number, 99-4567 Civil Term, the first of which was filed by Plaintiff Father on or about July 28,
1999 and the second of which was filed on or about January 16, 2009, initially docketed at 2009-
239 and subsequently consolidated within this docketed action by Order of Court dated March 5,
2
2009. Plaintiff is not aware of any other pending litigation effecting custody of their children.
9. Plaintiff Father had filed the latter Complaint in January 2009 following a period
of time beginning approximately September 2007 and through the filing date in which he alleged
that Defendant Mother has failed to consistently maintain contact with and inform him
concerning certain major events or decisions involving the general welfare, education, and
medical care of their Minor Child, Deanna or to provide access to religious, education, and
medical records of Minor Child Deanna.
10. During said period of time, the Minor Child had ceased communicating with
Plaintiff Father and refused to answer his telephone calls or return phone messages left by him on
voice mail or with Defendant Mother.
11. During said period of time Defendant Mother has refused to cooperate with
Plaintiff Father in facilitating or assisting his attempts to reestablish communication with the
Minor Child or refused to counsel or advise the Minor Child to communicate with Plaintiff
Father and, instead, accused Plaintiff Father of harassment of her when Plaintiff Father sought
her assistance to open communication with the Minor Child.
12. Following the filing of the January 2009 Complaint, a Custody Conciliation was
conducted on February 24, 2009 (sic) in the offices of Attorney Dawn Sunday, which resulted in
the parties reaching what Plaintiff Father believed was a compromise on the matters set forth
above.
13. Plaintiff Father followed the agreement reached between the parties at the
Custody Conciliation and began on the last day of February 2009 to telephonically contact
Defendant Mother to inquire as to the matters set forth in said Order pertaining to the Minor
3
Child.
14. On March 5, 2009, an Order of Court was formally issued and entered concerning
the parties' compromise attained at the Custody Conciliation, part of which Order established
monthly telephone communication between the parties in which matters concerning the Minor
Child were to be disclosed and discussed.
15. Upon the second phone call on March 31, 2009, Defendant Mother informed
Plaintiff Father that she was initiating a recording of their phone calls and would be recording
each phone call thereafter, since she was advised by her attorney to record the calls and that the
recording could be used in any court proceeding as a record of what was said in each call.
16. Plaintiff Father informed Defendant Mother that he did not consent to be recorded
at which time he was informed that if he did not consent he could end the call.
17. In each subsequent monthly phone call, Defendant Mother repeatedly informed
Plaintiff Father that she was initiating a recording of their call and when challenged by Plaintiff
Father with the appropriateness of such interaction between them pertaining to the custody of the
Minor Child, Defendant Mother essentially stated that in her view Plaintiff Father was harassing
her when any controversial issue concerning the Minor Child was raised or discussed by Plaintiff
Father, or when he attempted to discuss such an issue, and that a recording was therefore
necessary to reflect what was said during each call.
18. Defendant Mother also indicated to Plaintiff Father that she interprets the March
5, 2009 Order of Court to limit contact by the Father with her or through her to attempt to talk
with the Minor Child to no more than one call a month on the last date of that month versus a
flexible contact arrangement for any issue that might be of concern between the parents or
4
between Father and Minor Child is reason to contact the other parent and not wait until the end of
the month. Further, if Plaintiff Father cannot or does not call her the last day of the month,
Defendant Mother interprets the Order of Court as indicating he has forfeited his right to call and
that neither Defendant Mother or Minor Child is required to contact Plaintiff Father or return any
phone message left by him to either of them.
19. Defendant Mother will not respond to requests made by Plaintiff Father, other
than those made on the monthly call required and considers any call but the monthly call
harassment of her by Plaintiff Father.
20. Defendant Mother refuses to voluntarily communicate or provide to Plaintiff
Father, during any call or by any other means, any ordinary information pertaining to Minor
Child's development and growth as a teenager and high school student, such as,
a. conversations Defendant Mother has with Minor Child about Defendant
Father's relationship with Minor Child;
b. conversations Defendant Mother and/or Minor Child has/have with the
youth pastors and their church about Defendant Father's relationship with Minor Child;
C. information about Minor Child's social life (e.g. - girl friends, boyfriend
dating, social activities);
d. information copies of homework (e.g. - practice college resume), a copy of
PSAT/SAT testing results from a October 2008 test Minor Child and would not even confirm
that Deanna took the SAT/PSAT in October 2008;
e. Minor Child's email address in order that Father may communicate with
her concerning, among other matters, college scholarship information.
5
f. information concerning the history and current status of any Tuition
Assistance Program (TAP) account, or similar account, which had established by both parents
and into which monies were placed in said account in or about 1994 by both parents prior to
divorcing for the purpose of a college savings account for the then-Minor Children.
21. Defendant Mother accuses Plaintiff Father of not contacting Minor Child on her
birthdays and holidays despite his sending numerous cards by mail, delivery of which to the
Minor Child has never been confirmed by the Mother or Child, and his leaving numerous
telephone calls to the Minor Child which are never returned.
22. Defendant Mother has informed Plaintiff Father that she will not force or
otherwise instruct the Minor Child to communicate with Plaintiff Father and has therefore failed
to encourage, facilitate, foster, or assist Plaintiff Father in rebuilding and strengthening the
father-daughter relationship between Plaintiff Father and Minor Child, which relationship has
admittedly deteriorated during the past 18-24 months, and she furthers fosters an atmosphere at
the custodial home within and around Minor Child to ignore telephone calls and other attempts
by Plaintiff Father to promote, rebuild, repair, and strengthen his relationship with the Minor
Child and even toward their now-adult son, Bryan.
23. Plaintiff Father believes, and therefore avers, that the acts and failures to act by
Defendant Mother, as described above, are designed and intended by Defendant Mother:
a. to defeat the intent and purpose of the laws and judicial decisions of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to custody;
b. to make a mockery of the spirit and intent of the March 5, 2009 Order of Court;
and,
6
C. as part of an overall scheme or plan by Defendant Mother to permanently frustrate
and undermine:
1. the desire of Plaintiff Father to promote, rebuild, repair, and strengthen the
father-daughter relationship between Plaintiff Father and Minor Child, and also with his adult
son;
2. the ability of Plaintiff Father to otherwise obtain and exchange the court-
ordered information concerning Minor Child; and,
to permanently alienate him from the Minor Child.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff requests a hearing on any disputed facts or issues which may be
raised herein and, at the conclusion of said hearing, prays for an order:
A. Enjoining Defendant Mother from recording or assisting in recording any
telephone call from Plaintiff Father to her pursuant to the Order of Court dated
March 5, 2009;
B. Enjoining Defendant Mother from recording or assisting in recording any
telephone call from Plaintiff Father to Minor Child Deanna;
C. Compel Defendant Mother and Minor Child Deanna to attend mandatory
counseling sessions, to be paid for by Defendant Mother's health insurance policy as
an employee of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with Plaintiff Father in an effort
to obtaining and following a harmonious policy in the Minor Child's best interests, to
include reestablishing regular and frequent telephone communications and physical
visitations between the Minor Child and Plaintiff Father.
D. Compel Defendant Mother to provide the information and communications
7
described and set forth above as they pertain to the Minor Child and her general
welfare and emotional and physical well-being and health.
E. Compel Defendant Mother to instruct and counsel Minor Child to communicate
regularly with Plaintiff Father, including returning telephone calls and other attempts
by Plaintiff Father to communicate with Minor Child.
F. Compel Defendant Mother to otherwise work with and assist Plaintiff Father to
promote, rebuild, repair, and strengthen the father-daughter relationship between
Plaintiff Father and Minor Child and toward their now-adult son, Bryan, as the latter
relationship impacts the relationship with the Minor Child, which shall include the
resumption of regular physical visitation between the Minor Child and Plaintiff
Father.
Respectfully submitted,
114A, ?_
Michael J. Wilson
Attorney for Plaintiff
8
VERIFICATION
FL-,MC-,J
Plaintiff, Jeffrey A. Shaub, verifies that the statements made in this for
Custody are true and correct upon his personal knowledge or information and belief
Plaintiff understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa. CS A 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
Jeffre . Shaub
rL
r
tt, 7
?'Y
2 J.!L 3 I F? 2: ; ',4
e 70 06 jPx
c%???a9
JEFFREY A. SHAUB IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
LISA NADEEN SCHMIDT
DEFENDANT
19994567 CIVIL ACTION LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, Tuesday, August 11, 2009 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint,
it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Dawn S. Sunday, Esq. , the conciliator,
at 39 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 on Thursday, September 03, 2009 at 9:00 AM
for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or
if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary
order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order.
The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders,
Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing.
FOR THE COURT.
By: /s/ Dawn S. Sunda Es q. 110
Custody Conciliator
The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans
with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations
available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements
must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled
conference or hearing.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET
FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone (717) 249-3166
u
2009 AUG
i-
loop
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JEFFREY A. SHAUB
PLAINTIFF ;
NO: 99-4567
V.
LISA NADEEN SCHMIDT CUSTODY
DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa N. Schmidt, hereby certify that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the
Answer to Petition for Special Relief and Enforcement of Custody Answers and New Matter in the
above-captioned matter upon the attorney for Defendant listed below, by placing same in U.S. First
Class Mail to the location stated below and on the date set forth below:
Michael J. Wilson
Attorney At Law
816 Derby Avenue
Camp Hill, PA 17011-8367
I hereby state that the above is a true and correct statement.
Respectfully submitted,
(?? * ' A&Vt'(Lbc-
Lisa N. Schmidt, Pro Se
719 Elkwood Drive
New Cumberland, PA 17070
717-774-6749
Date: August 25, 2009
F E U- `11P1oTAR
2009 A } 25 Pi's 3, 37
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JEFFREY A. SHAUB
PLAINTIFF
NO: 99-4567
V.
LISA NADEEN SCHMIDT CUSTODY
DEFENDANT
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND ENFORCEMENT OF CUSTODY
ORDERS AND NEW MATTER
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted in part. Plaintiff and Defendant were divorced pursuant to a final Decree in
Divorce (final Divorce Decree) granted in York, County, Pennsylvania, No. 1994 SU 4820
02D under an Order signed April 4, 1995, along with a Separation and Property Settlement
Agreement (PSA) dated January 31, 1995, as well as Supplemental A to said Agreement
dated February 17, 1995.
5. Admitted in part. Plaintiff and Defendant voluntarily signed PSA dated January 31, 1995,
and Supplemental A to PSA dated February 17, 1995. Both parties were represented by
counsel.
6. Admitted.
1
7. Admitted in part. Both children, including Minor Child Deanna, ceased visitation with
Plaintiff Father at his present home in Spring of 2007 of their own choosing.
8. Admitted in part. Litigation in this matter began in York County in 1995 with the filing of
a Divorce and Property Settlement Agreement. The Property Settlement Agreement, which
addresses issues of college tuition obligations, was made an Order of the Court. Father
was found in contempt of that York County Order in 2009 (see Exhibit A attached and
incorporated herein) when he refused to contribute any funds to son Bryan's college tuition
in violation of the Agreement and Order. Cumberland County first handled this case in
1997 after Mother and children moved to Cumberland County and Father refused to pay
child support per Property Settlement Agreement. In 1999 Father brought an action for
injunctive relief in Cumberland County attempting to block the children from attending
Bible Baptist School. Father's injunction was denied. Father again brought a custody
complaint against Mother in January 2009 alleging interference with Father's ability to
obtain full and complete access to daughter's scholastic and medical information. Said
allegations were mutually withdrawn per Order entered by Cumberland County on March
5, 2009. The 2009 York County Order noted above addresses matters related to college
tuition and funding and, therefore, Mother objects to those matters being raised and
addressed by Cumberland County.
9. Agreed in part. Plaintiff Father's allegations which depict Mother's conduct as
uncooperative or inappropriate were withdrawn per Order of Court dated March 5, 2009.
10. Admitted in part. Denied in part. Defendant is unclear what time period he is referencing.
The last time Minor Child Deanna saw Defendant Father was in April 2008, and she had
telephone contact with Father one time since then, and that was of her own choosing. She
has had no communication with Father any other time.
11. Denied. It is denied that Mother has refused to cooperate with Father. Mother has not
interfered in any way with the minor child's decision to cease communication with Plaintiff
2
Father. By way of further answer, Father has sabotaged his own relationship with his two
children in spite of Mother's attempts over the years to facilitate that relationship.
12. Admitted in part. During said Custody Conciliation Conference, parties agreed that
allegations stated in Plaintiff Father's Compliant for Custody initially filed under Docket
No. 2009-239, which depict the Mother's conduct as uncooperative or inappropriate, were
withdrawn. Said agreement is incorporated in Docket Number 99-4567, Civil Term, Order
of Court dated March 5, 2009.
13. Denied. Plaintiff Father failed to follow the agreement reached between the parties at the
Custody Conciliation, which became Order on March 5, 2009.
14. Admitted.
15. Admitted in part. Defendant Mother advised Plaintiff Father during the monthly phone call
of March 31, 2009, she was recording the phone call because the recordings will help both
Plaintiff Father and Defendant Mother in case it there are additional court proceedings due
to the history of neither parties agreeing on the recollection of facts. Plaintiff Father agreed
to have the call continue.
16. Admitted in part. Plaintiff Father agreed to recording of March 31, 2009. Beginning with
monthly phone call of April 30, 2009, Plaintiff Father said he did not give his permission to
have calls recorded. Defendant Mother informed Plaintiff Father of her right to record the
calls. Plaintiff was not precluded from continuing with the conversation.
17. Admitted in part. By way of further answer, Plaintiff has a history of harassment and
misrepresenting conversations between the parties. Mother believes it is in the best
interests of both parties to have a clear record of what is said. She openly and
appropriately advised Plaintiff that the conversations would be recorded.
3
18. Denied. During February 24, 2009, Custody Conciliation Conference, Plaintiff's Attorney
Michael Wilson was the party who told Plaintiff Father that if he failed to telephone
Defendant Mother on the last day of the month, that he forfeited his right to that month's
phone call and would have to wait until the following month to call. When there has been
compelling reason to communicate more often, it has occurred.
During said Custody Conciliation Conference, Defendant Mother explained that one of the
reasons she would agree to a more clearly-written joint legal custody agreement was
because Plaintiff Father specifically stated, when asked at said Conference, that his seeking
the new agreement was not about visitation or contact with Minor Child Deanna, but that it
was solely because Plaintiff Father said he could not obtain legal information about Minor
Child Deanna by using the previously written Joint Legal Custody Order because it was too
vague. By this document, Plaintiff Father is attempting to intertwine the Joint Legal
Custody Order with physical custody matters.
19. Denied. See response to Paragraph 18 above.
20. Denied. Father's allegations in this paragraph are a clear outline of Father's pattern of
psychological abuse and harassment of Mother that has required the very limited
communication between the parties specified in the last Order. Legal custody does not
require Mother to divulge private conversations with anyone about any subject as
suggested in subparagraphs a. and b. Neither does legal custody require Mother to discuss
with Father issues of their 17 year old daughter's social activities and friends. Legal
custody provides parents with the right to be involved in decisions regarding health,
education and welfare. For the better part of these children's lives, Father had no interest in
their school, medical issues or social life. In March of 2009, Defendant Father was granted
a more clearly defined shared legal custody for the express purpose of allowing him to
obtain medical, dental, educational and religious information without involving Plaintiff
Mother. Father is certainly capable of contacting the minor child's school, doctors and
church to get information. He chooses to continue to insist that Mother provide this
4
information in order to exert control over her and harass her. Since leaving the marital
home in 1994, Father has never utilized the full extent of available physical custody, nor
sought to be active in any of their children's routine and ordinary developments. His
interest now in dental records and homework assignments is purely for harassment
purposes. Deanna is old enough to speak to Father directly about these issues. She
chooses not to because of Father's past and present behaviors. Of further note, the recent
litigation in York County at Docket No. 2007-FC-2086-Y15, which resulted in an Order
entered January 25, 2008, conclusively revealed that there was no college educational
account that had been established by both parents. Likewise, as a result of Father's appeal
of York County 2008 Order, 537 MDA 2008 Superior Court Opinion 537 MDA 2008 was
filed April 20, 2009, and upheld the lower court's decision. Any TAP account for these
children was established and funded by Mother only. Father's allegations to the contrary
are an attempt to relitigate the issues addressed in the York County case.
21. Denied.
22. Denied in part. Mother has attempted on numerous occasions to facilitate a relationship
between Plaintiff and his children. Father has failed to work on his relationship with his
children.
23. Denied.
NEW MATTER
24. Defendant Mother believes, and therefore avers, that Plaintiff Father has a pattern of
agreement at conciliation conferences, which matters are entered as Orders of the Court,
and then failing to follow the Orders. Defendant Mother believes that the recording of
telephone calls is necessary to dispute allegations that may be presented to the Court.
25. Defendant Mother believes that Plaintiff Father's filing of the Petition to Obtain Special
Relief and Enforcement of Custody Orders is in retaliation to litigation of York County,
Pennsylvania, Order of January 25, 2008, Docket No. 2007-FC-2086-Y15, wherein Court
found Plaintiff Father to have breached the parties Property and Settlement Agreement of
January 31, 1995, and Superior Court Opinion filed April 22, 2009, which upheld the Trial
Court's decision.
26. Defendant Mother believes that allegations contained in Plaintiff Father's Complaint for
Custody filed January 16, 2009, originally under Docket No. 2009-239 and incorporated in
Docket Number 99-4567, are of the same nature as the allegations that were litigated in
1999 and became matter of record in the Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County,
Docket No. 99-4567, Civil Term, and during litigation from 2007 through 2009 of York
County Order noted in paragraph 25 above.
27. Defendant Mother believes that Plaintiff Father continues to use the court system to
frustrate and harass Defendant Mother.
28. Defendant Mother believes, and therefore avers, that Plaintiff Father has the ability to
communicate directly with both of their children without her involvement.
29. Defendant Mother believes, and therefore avers, that Plaintiff Father has independently
created an atmosphere which does not promote, rebuild, repair, or strengthen his
relationship with both Minor Child Deanna and Adult Son Bryan.
30. Defendant Mother believes that the current arrangement wherein Minor Child Deanna, who
turns 18 years of age on November 3, 2009, is permitted to contact Plaintiff Father at will
is satisfactory and in the best interest and welfare of the Child.
31. Defendant Mother believes, and therefore avers, that Defendant Father has the ability and
resources to arrange and pay for counseling without involvement of Mother. Mother,
6
however, believes that the decision to participate should be left to daughter, who is two
months away from turning 18.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner hereby respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order
against Plaintiff Father to pay Defendant Mother's attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of
this frivolous motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa N. Schmidt, Pro Se
7
VERIFICATION
I, Lisa N. Schmidt, verify that the statements made in this Answer to Petition for Special
Relief and Enforcement of Custody Answers and New Matter are true and correct upon my
personal knowledge or information and belief.
I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 PS Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
W
Lis N. Schmidt, Pro Se
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY A. SHAUB
vs.
I LISA N, SCHMIDT
APPEARANCES:
No. 2007-FC-002086-Y 15
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant
Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Susan K. Piekford, Esquire
For the Defendant
37
ORDER REGARDING PETITION FOR CONTEAIPT AND
ENFORCEMENT OF PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2008, after a hearing on the matter
I conducted on December 18, 2007, and continued on January2, 2008, (at the request of Plaint''
in the above-captioned matter, this Court determines that Plaintiff has willfully violated the t
I of the Property Settlement Agreement executed by the parties on January 31, 1995, speciii
Paragraph 12 thereof relating to college education expenses of the children.
Paragraph 12 recites in part:
...If any children of the parties attend college, the parties
hereto will pay in accordance with their income.
XN l?tT
Prior to the commencement of these proceedings, Plaintiff failed to contribute to any co, 1,
expenses for the child, Brian Shaub. At a Domestic Relations support conference held in
of 2007, the percentage of total monthly net income attributed to each party was 56% to Pl: c 1,
and 44% to Defendant. The college educational expenses for Brian Shaub for the 2007- _>
year at York College are as follows:
Fall semester deposit $ 100.00
Fall tuition, room & board
(after grants and loans) $ 6,458.00
Books for Fall semester $ 476.00
Spring semester deposit $ 100.00
Spring semester tuition $4,266.00
Total $11,400.00
Plaintiffs share of the college expenses to date is `6,384.00. Counsel ;
signed a stipulation indicating that Plaintiff made a payment to York College on Decemb.;
2007, in the amount of $3000.00. Plaintiff shall reimburse Defendant the balance of $3,3 K I
within sixty days.
Additionally, as a result of Plaintiffs breach of the Property Settlc i
Agreement, Defendant is entitled to recoup her reasonable legal expenses for the enforcer
of the Agreement. Plaintiff shall pay to Defendant within sixty days the amount of $2,3 I
for legal expenses incurred. Further, this Court finds Plaintiff in willful contempt of the
entered April 4,1995, which Order incorporated the terns of the Property Settlement Agrc,.,
into the Divorce Decree. Should Plaintiff fail to make payment as stated herein in a i i
fashion, Plaintiff shall be fined an additional $500.00 payable to the Prothonotary of' '
County.
2,
The Prothonotary shall provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record.
BY THE COURT,
Maria Musti Cook, Judge
FILLEIL
OF ?E-: , ARY
2939 1. 2 D- Pi I 'a': 3 -17
cl :; !Ty
JEFFREY A. SHAUB
Plaintiff
vs.
LISA NADEEN SCHMIDT
Defendant
SEP 2120096i
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
1999-4567 CIVIL ACTION LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 22- day of Q&?-= , 2009, upon consideration
of the Custody Conciliation Report dated September 8, 2009, it is ordered and directed as follows:
The Father's Petition for Special Relief is dismissed.
BY THE
Edgar B. Bay
cc: !>chael J. Wilson, Esquire - Counsel for Father
Susan A. Pickford, Esquire - Counsel for Mother
eoP L 'E-S m? I LL
J.
2099 Sc.'P e'2 ? `i i I
1 -
JEFFREY A. SHAUB
Plaintiff
VS.
LISA NADEEN SCHMIDT
Defendant
Prior Judge: Edgar B. Bayley
SEP 1 12009e
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
1999-4567 CIVIL. ACTION LAW
IN CUSTODY
CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as
follows:
NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF
Deanna Elizabeth Shaub November 3, 1991 Mother
2. A custody conciliation conference was held on September 3, 2009, with the following
individuals in attendance: the Father, Jeffrey A. Shaub, with his counsel, Michael J. Wilson, Esquire,
and the Mother. Lisa N. Schmidt, with her counsel, Susan A. Pickford. Esquire.
3. The Father filed this Petition for Special Relief alleging that the Mother failed to facilitate
contact or the reestablishment of communication between the Father and the Child. The Father
requested that the Court prohibit the Mother from recording telephone calls between the parties,
compel the Mother and Child to attend counseling with the Father and require the Mother to generally
cooperate with the Father in repairing and reestablishing the Father-Daughter relationship.
4. The Father's counsel contacted the conciliator prior to the conference to request that the
Child (who will be 18 years old on November 3. 2009) be present so that she could directly express her
intentions as to further contact with the Father. The Father's counsel requested that the matter be
rescheduled so that the Child would not miss school in order to be present at the conference.
Ultimately, it was agreed between the parties, that the Child could submit a written statement
expressing her intentions with regard to contact with the Father instead of attending the conference. In
light of the Child's age. the Father, through counsel. indicated that after receiving the Child's
. .,
statement, either in writing or in person, the Father would evaluate whether to proceed with the
Petition.
5. The Mother provided a notarized statement signed by the Child expressly stating that the
Child did not want any contact or communication with or from her Father including telephone and
email unless the communication was initiated by the Child. The Mother also brought the Child to the
conference but she remained in the car. The conciliator declined requests to speak with the Child.
6. It was agreed between counsel at the conference that the conciliator would determine from
the Court whether a hearing would be scheduled on the Father's Petition, if he decided to proceed, in
light of the fact that the Child would reach the age of 18 prior to the time the hearing would be held.
7. Pursuant to the guidance obtained from the Court, and based upon the statement provided by
the Child, the Father indicated that he did not intend to proceed with the Petition for Special Relief. At
the Father's request, the Child's statement is attached to the conciliator's report. As this matter is
concluded, no further Order is necessary at this time.
- ? -- doo9
Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire
Custody Conciliator
cc: ? X chael J. Wilson, Esquire - Counsel for Father
- Susan A. Pickford, Esquire - Counsel for Mother
0 -0 t F- S r-)-? [ LCL
0F THE c:ic"i . yr-r Y
2009 SLR' 22 "IN i 1 ' 3
?ly
t f:
I, Deanna E. Shaub, do not want any contact or communication with or from
my father, Jeffrey A. Shaub, including by telephone or email, unless it is initiated
by me.
1D / 9
Q?,wz a ' cl??
Deanna E. Shaub Date
WitRess Date
C--LA eJIA K
Sworn to and subscribed by me this
day of 2009.
C1??
Notary Public
COMMONWj6
Q OF PENNSYLVANIA
NOTARIAL SEAL
TINA M. BURLY, Notary Public
New Cumberland Boro, Cumberland Co.
My Commission Expires April 15, 2013