HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-06007
0
?
?I
J p
??i't cy rjQ V w `a '" a Q
. .. ?./
E
r.
...i
.:J ..rJ
?' ,?.
C
/
?
o
U)
w
K
°
E
N
a
° n
i n
i J Q T n
? I
LAW Uf I lI E OF
THOMAS D. GOULD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11Jo - %1? I
C I..AST f4A111 ']TRFF1 • 5MIRENIANSTOWN. PA 17011
/]1 1.11"
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI,
Plaintiff
V.
TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI, J
and
JENNIFER J. DEAN,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COMM, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99 - 6007 CIVIL TERM
r., .
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY ACTION
AND NOW THIS A/ t? day of June, 2001, upon request of
Plaintiff, this matter is set for hearing on her Petition to Modify
lnolvdAy _ ?,?/?
Custody on the 3U"'day of Ca// 2001 in courtroom 5,
Cumberland County Courthouse, High and Hanover Streets, Carlisle,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
BY THE ,
Edward E. Guido, J.
Thomas D. Gould, Esquire /
For the Plaintiff (/.... ail
Stanley J.A. Laskowski, Esquire RX3
Fir the Defendant ).A 7&&/
• ,?iY
-: 111 .L
i id ; )Y114'. „'?
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI,
Plaintiff
V.
TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI, J
and
JENNIFER J. DEAN,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99 - 6007 CIVIL TERM
r.,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY ACTION
REQUEST FOR HEARING
ON
PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER
1. The Plaintiff /Petitioner is Karen Marie Rutkowski
residing at 3 Spruce Circle, Shiremanstown, Cumberland County, PA
17011.
2. The Defendant is Timothy David Rutkowski, Jr. who resides
at 7 Spruce Circle, Shiremanstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
17011.
3. The Defendant Jennifer J. Dean resides at 8829-B Barkwood
Drive, Surfside Beach, SC 29575.
9. Plaintiff and Defendant Timothy Rutkowski are the
biological parents of one child, Jonathan C. Rutkowski, born
06/29/98, who is not the subject of this modification petition.
5. Plaintiff is the stepmother and Timothy Rutkowski is the
biological father of Charlotte E. Rutkowski, born 01/15/95, who is
the subject of this modification petition.
6. Plaintiff seeks to Modify the Order dated November 19,
1999 as amended by Orders dated April 17, 2000 and April 29, 2000,
by granting her shared physical custody of Charlotte consistent
with what she enjoys with Jonathan. Orders attached as exhibit A.
7. Pursuant to the April 17, 2000 order the parties have
participated in mediation in an attempt to resolve their
differences.
8. The parties have been unable to achieve a mutually
agreeable shared custody scheduled for Charlotte.
9. Pursuant to the April 17, 2000 order, the parties, with
Charlotte, have been participating in counseling and it is
Plaintiff's understanding that the counselor has recommended that
Charlotte's and Jonathan's time be consistent.
10. The April 17, 2000 order provides that the hearing was
continued and upon request of either party, it was to be relisted.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this matter be relisted for
a hearing on the appropriate custody schedule for Charlotte.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas D. Gould, Esquire
ID #36508
2 East Main Street
Shiremanstown, PA 17011
(717) 731-1961
VERIFICATION
I Karen M. Rutkowski, hereby certify that the foregoing
PETITION TO MDDIFY CUSTODY ORDER is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, information and belief. 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: 0(D - 0Li - aOO I
Karen M. Rutkowski
M
e
L'_? 5? Lc o0 '--..
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI,
Plaint if f
V.
TIMOTHY D. RUTKOWSKI, JR.:
and J NNIFER J. DEAN,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUM3ERLA`1D COUNTY, PENNSYLV?Ni-A
CIVIL ACTION - Lkel
N0. 99-6007 CIVIL TERM
AMENDED ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 24Ch day of April, 2000, t1:e
custody order of April 17, 2000, is amended to reflect :---
following change in the next to last paragraph:
Plaintiff shall have additional periods of
visitation with Charlotte during Week 1 from 5:00 p.m. t--
8:00 o.m. on Thursdays and during Week 2 from 5:00 p.m.
until 8:00 p.m. or. Tuesdays.
In all other respects, the order s all r=_mair -n
full force and effect.
By the Cour`
Edward E. Guido, J.
D. Gould, Esquire
Plaintiff
Scanlev J.A. Laskowski, Esquire
For the Defendant
:lfh
EXHIBIT A
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI,
Plaintiff
V.
TIMOTHY D. RUTKOWSKi, JR.:
and 7ENN- :2ER J. DEAN,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON FLEAS OF
CUMSERLMND COUNTY, 1?ENY1SYLVAVIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 99-6007 CIVIL TERM
IV RE: CUSTODY
ORDER. OF COURT
AND NO-W, this 17th day of April, 2000, t:^.'_s
hearing is continued to be relisted at the request of
e'_the= party. Both o=rties are ord=_red and direct=_d to
cooperate With Melinda -ash and her counseli_..^.g of
Charlotte. This expense to be borne by father except for
acoointccents made by ?laintlff.
Both oarti_s are directed to participate i.
S::*-r,S O-'i.?.=. Said meO.fat'0n
m_G_dt LC.^. Dr. Sc " :3
to beam tortC!Wi t_1. costs of said mc3idt:on to be
borne epually by the parties.
Pending ? w-nor h_e arin t in h_s matter, '^-'--•-- ..g .. our order
p_ t.._ to__ow:-...:
of February: 241, 2000, is amended to rovide ^
31 aintiff sa11 have additional periods of
visitation with Char'_otte d:;t-4-9 Week 1 :rom 5:00 p.m.
until 8:00 o,m. on uesdavs.
In all ot'ser respects, tae order she!', remain i..
fu11 orce had effect.
EXHIBIT A
\?oras
F? the
std :l C- v
•
0
By the C c,
Edward _. Guido, J.
D. Gould, _sc__re
a 44
P"
intli.
J.P.. Laskow-s ki, Esquire
Decendant
1 ?? n
1? .
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI, JR.
And JENNIFER J. DEAN,
Defendant 99-6007 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 1999, after hearing, the
Court finds that the Plaintiff was in the position of loco parentis
and is therefore entitled to entertain an action for partial
custody of the child Charlotte Rutkowski. This matter is referred
back to the Conciliator for further proceedings.
Pending further proceedings in this matter, we will enter the
following temporary partial custody order:
Plaintiff shall be entitled to partial custody of
Charlotte every other weekend from Friday at 5:00 p.m.
until Sunday at 5:00 p.m. These alternating weekends
shall correspond with the times Plaintiff has custody
of her son Jonathan.
The holiday and vacation schedule shall be as set forth
in our order of November 3rd, 1999, to correspond with the
holiday and vacation periods that Plaintiff has custody of
her son, Jonathan C. Rutkowski.
This order shall remain in full force and effect until
otherwise modified by this Court.
By the C rt,
Edward c'. Guido, J.
Thomas D. Gould, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Keirsten Davidson, Esquire
For the Defendant
It
EXHIBIT A
Jul 27 01 05:34p
Riegler • Shienvold
& Associates
July 26, 2001
Rieder, Shienwold 6 Asso 717-540-1416 p.2
Thomas Gould, Esquire
2 East Main Street
Shiremanstown, PA 17110
RE: Charlotte Rutkowski
Dear Mr. Gould:
l A}'?
EXHIBIT
D-j..ros 1 SQS
Elliot Ricglcr, Pn.D. (1948-1999)
Amald T. Shienvold, Ph.D.
Nfalinda Each, :v:S
lames Eash. LSW
Michael J. Askew. Ph.D.
Bonnie F1o«'ard. PhD.
Arty K. Keislirg. ACSW. LCSW. BCD
Tracy Richards, QCS W, LCS W
Don Lawrence. LS W
Dyanne Seymcre, QCSW. LSW
Jeffrey Pincus. Ph.D.
Ann Vc:3a:c3. ACSW. LSW. BCD
issa R.Papcneni, M4
I am writing to you at the request of the parents to provide a summary of Charlotte
Rutkowski's treatment and psychological status. Charlotte is a 6-year-old girl who attended
kindergarten at Shiremanstown elementary School this past school year. She will be entering the
first grade in the Fall. She also attends day-care several days per week.
Charlotte lives with her father (Tim) and her stepmother (Karen) who are currently
divorced. She goes between both houses on almost an equal basis. Karen lives with her parents
and Tim lives with his parents. Tim and Karen live across the street from each other. Charlotte has
a half bother John (age 3 ) who is the son of Karen and Tim Karen has primary physical custody
of John and Tim has primary physical and legal custody of Charlotte. Charlotte's biological
mother, Jennifer, lives in Virginia where she moved shortly after Charlotte was born Charlotte
receives cards and telephone calls from her mother periodically and saw her mother once this
summer. Charlotte had not seen her mother for some time and did not recognize her. Charlotte
may be more attached to Karen than her biological mother. Charlotte refers to Karen as her
mother and to Jennifer as Mosota Jen.
Thu and Karen were married for approximately 1.5 to two years. Tim reports that =
Karen's relationship with her parents had been very conflicted and she has no contact with them
when they were first married. Karen started to reestablish contact with her parents during the
marriage. Tim reports that he requesed that she not take the children to see her parents unless he
could be there. Karen supposedly did not follow this, took the children to see her parents and told
them not to tell Tim Recently, Charlotte told me she thought the divorce was her fault because
she told her Dad they went to Karen's parent's home to visit. Apparently this coincided with the
separation. Tim also believed that Karen was spanking the children.
Since I began working with Charlotte, she has been caught in the middle between Karen
and Tint. Both had been in mediation with Dr. Stanley Schneider to work through the custody
RE: Charlotte Rutkowski.
2151 Linglestown Road, Suite 200 • llarrisbunt. Penasyl.ama :7110 • (717) 540-13 i3 - Fix: (717) 440-1416
Jul 27 01 05335p Riegler, Shienvold 6 Rsso 717-540-1416 p.3
July 26, 2001
Page 2
issues. In mediation they worked it out that Karen would get additional evicting t: nc v ith
Charlotte overnight. Unforttnlately, they dropped out of mediation before they resolved all their
isms and learned to communicate with each other without putting the children in the ruiddle. On
May 2, 20011 met with both Tim and Karen to express my serious concerns about the effect their
poor co.^lmunieation and disagreements were having on Charlotte. For instance Tim was upset
that Karen put a note in Charlotte's lunch on a napkin and signed it "Momma." He interpreted this
as corSusing to Charlotte, as this is the name she uses for her momma Jen Charlotte did not see
this as a problem until it was framed that way for her. The disagreements can be over things this
inconsequential to being tenable to work out minor schedule changes and holiday time. (Both
agreed to go back to mediation. However, they did not followed through, and then Karen
petitioned to have Charlotte and John on the same schedule.
Since the separation, Charlotte has felt caught in the middle in many ways. Adults on both sides
have said things to her that are inappropriate. This has included asking questions about the other
household, saying negative things about the other parent, framing situations that have occurred at
the other household in a negative light, and telling her what to say when she comes to see me.
Charlotte has made it clear to me that she does not want to be in. my office if both parents are
there because she's afraid they will argue. At my last session on July 24, 2001 she spontaneously
informed me that she wanted more time with her Dad so she could see her grandparents more.
When I asked her about this, she informed me her grandmother told her to tell me this.
Charlotte exhibits numerous problem behaviors that include not listening, lying to get out of
trouble, trying to sneak things to school she is not supposed to have, disorganization, a short
attention span, being easily disrracted, frequent mishaps(i.e., spilling things) and tantrums;.
Although. the tantrums have improved. The school and day care have also expressed concerns
about Charlotte's inability to, listen, follow directions, and stay on 'ask. It is my opinion that she
suff= from an Attention Delia Disorder. However, some of her behaviors also may be the result
of the stress and anxicty related to being caught in the middle of a custody situation. I also feel
that sometimes the adults in her life are so rocused on custody related issues that they fail to h ear
her normal childhood concerns.
This is an extremely complicated situation with many issues that are interacting together. The
following are the issues that I, as Charlotte's therapist have been able to identifn
-Karen wants to be on an even level with Tim with respect to parenting Charlotte.
-Tim sees himself as having prime responsibility for Charlotte over everyone else.
-Both feel the other does not take enough responsibility with respect to different issues
related to Charlotte.
-Both accuse the ron custodial parent of withholding information from them about the
other child (ie. school snd daycare activities etc.).
tit is unclear what all the grandparents' roles are or should be and, how much they have
Charlotte Rutkowski
Jul 27 01 05:35p
July 26, 2001
page 3
Rieder, Shienvold 6 Rssc 717-E40-1416 p.4
contributed to charlotte being in the "middle." But it is clear they have contributed to the
poor dynamics in this situation.
-Karen is chid that if Tim remarries she will lose access to Charlotte.
-Tim is afraid that if Charlotte is on the same schedule as John that will give Karen
primary custody of both children and he will be excluded from involvement %vhh the
school
-Tim is also concerned that if something happens to him the children will go to Karen and
his parents and Charlotte's natural mother will not see Charlotte.
- Tim has also suggested that Charlotte is more bonded to his mother than Karen and that
they need to be given tinte in the access schedule.
I feel that I am not in a position as Charlotte's therapists to be able to address these issues and be
able to maintain a trusting and effective clinical situation for Charlotte. Given the complexity of
the issues and the fact that mediation has produced limited results I am recommending that an
independent custody evaluation be conducted to help sort through the myriad of issues and make
reconmtendations regarding access, that are in Charlotte's best interests. It may also be helpfill for
Karen, Tim and their respective parents to attend a seminar for divorcing parents to educate them,
and ftuther reinforce the ways to keep their children out of the "middle."
I will be attempting to help Charlotte to cope with the divorce and the ADIID. i will be following
up with the school in the fall and attempting to help the parents to provide the right structure for
her to be successful
I hope this information meets your needs. Please contact me if I can provide any clarification.
Sincerely,
,lvfe)ihdaEach M.S.
Licensed Psychologist
#PS-008018-L
cc: Stanley Laskowski. Esquire
FEB 2 2 2000 ;
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI,
Plaintiff
VS.
TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI, JR
and JENNIFER J. DEAN,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-6007 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY/VISITATION
ORDER
AND NOW, this ay? day of r , 2000,
upon review of the Conciliator's Report, it appearing that the
parties have reached an agreement on most issues related to the
children, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows:
1. The parties shill share legal custody of their minor
child, John C. Rutkowski, d.o.b. June 29, 1998.
2. Mother shall have partial legal custody of Charlotte
Rutkowski, d.o.b. January 15, 1995. Said partial legal custody
shall coincide with the periods of time in which she has partial
physical custody and visitation.
3. Physical custody of both minor children shall be in
accordance with the following two (2) week alternating schedule:
A. Week 1
Monday Jonathan with Mother
Tuesday Jonathan with Mother until 5:00 p.m.,
then with Father
Wednesday Jonathan with Father
Thursday Jonathan with Father until 5:00 p.m.,
then with Mother
Friday Jonathan with Mother
Saturday Jonathan with Mother until 5:00 p.m.,
then with Father
Sunday Jonathan with Father
B. Week 2
Monday Jonathan with Father
Tuesday Jonathan with Father until 5:00 p.m.,
then with Mother
Wednesday Jonathan with Mother
Thursday Jonathan with Mother until 5:00 p.m.,
then with Father
Friday Jonathan with Father until 5:00 p.m.,
then with Mother
Charlotte with Father until 5:00 p.m.,
then with Mother
Saturday Jonathan with Mother
Charlotte with Mother
Sunday Jonathan with Mother
Charlotte with Mother until 5:00 p.m.,
then with Father
4. The parties shall alternate the major holidays, those
holidays being defined as New Year's Day, Easter, Memorial Day,
Fourth of July, and Labor Day. This alternating schedule shall
commence with Father having New Year's Day in 2000. The parties
shall enjoy these periods of partial physical custody with both
children.
5. The parties shall evenly share Thanksgiving Day, with
Thanksgiving Day broken into two (2) segments. Segment A shall be
from 8:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. Segment B shall be from 2:00 p.m.
until bedtime. The parties shall agree upon which Segment they
each shall have in each respective year after reviewing Father's
work schedule. The parties shall enjoy these periods of partial
physical custody with both children.
6. The Christmas holiday shall be broken into two (2)
Segments. Segment A shall be from December 29`h at 12:00 noon until
Christmas Day at 2:00 p.m. Segment B shall be from Christmas Day
at 2:00 p.m. until December 26111 at 5:00 p.m. Mother shall have
Segment A in 1999 and all odd years thereafter and Segment B in
2000 and all even years thereafter. Father shall have Segment A in
2000 and all even years thereafter and Segment B in 1999 and all
odd years thereafter. The parties shall enjoy these periods of `
partial physical custody with both children.
7. Each party shall be entitled to two (2) uninterrupted
weeks of vacation with the children. The parties shall provide
each other with thirty (30) days advance notice as to when they k
intend to exercise these periods of exclusive custody. The parties
E
shall enjoy these periods of partial physical custody with both
I
children.
8. The parties agree that they shall evenly divide the
children's birthdays. The birthdays shall be broken into two (2)
Segments. Segment A shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and
Segment B shall be from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Father shall have
both children for Segment A in 2000 and all even years thereafter
and Segment B in 1999 and all odd years thereafter. Mother shall
have both children for Segment A in 1999 and all odd years
thereafter and Segment B in 2000 and all even years thereafter.
9. If the children are at daycare and Mother is otherwise at
work, Father can have access with the children at daycare provided
he gives Mother some notice that he intends to exercise some
periods of visitation with the children at daycare. Additionally,
Father may pick the children up and take the children away from
daycare provided that he has the children back to daycare before
Mother is scheduled to pick the children up and that he provides
Mother with advance notice.
10. The parties are in need of a hearing on the sole issue as
to whether or not Mother shall be entitled to additional periods of
visitation with Charlotte Rutkowski. The parties shall appear for
a hearing on the day of AR&j',L , 2000, at % 34
o'clock A.M., in Court Room Number 5? of the Cumberland
County Court House, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Thomas D. Gould, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Keirsten W. Davidson, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
mlb
10 CIL-
Claw-'s
BY THE COURT
EDWARD E. GUIDO, J.
2-2.x-00
RKg
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI,
Plaintiff
VS.
TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI, JR
and JENNIFER J. DEAN,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-6007 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY/VISITATION
JUDGE PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED: The Honorable Edward E. Guido
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 children who are
the subject of this litigation is as follows:
NAME BIRTHDATE CURRENTLY IN
C t TODY 0
John C. Rutkowski June 29, 1998
Charlotte Rutkowski January 15, 1995
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on January 27, 2000,
and the following individuals were present: the Plaintiff and her
attorney, Thomas D. Gould, Esquire; the Defendant appeared with his
attorney, Keirsten W. Davidson, Esquire.
3. Items resolved by agreement: See attached Order.
4. Issues yet to be resolved: See attached Order.
5. The Plaintiff's position on custody is as follows: The
stepmother requested that she be given additional periods of
visitation with the child. She originally requested that the child
be with her in the same amount of time as Jonathan. However, with
a compromise, she was willing to agree that she be given an
additional period of time with Charlotte to coincide with the
Father's work schedule such that she would have the child,
Charlotte, with her on Thursday of Week 1 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00
p.m. and in Week 2 on Tuesday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
6. The Defendant's position on custody is as follows: Father
absolutely refused to agree to any additional time and would not
entertain any proposal that would address additional time unless
the Court ordered that additional time.
7. Need for separate counsel to represent children: 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
10. Other matters or comments: The sole and only issue to be
resolved by the Court is to provide the stepmother, Plaintiff
herein, additional time with the stepdaughter, Charlotte. The
Court had a hearing on the standing issue related to Charlotte, and
by Order of November 19, 1999 ordered and directed that the Mother,
Plaintiff, was in a position of loco parentis with the minor child,
Charlotte, and ordered a partial custody order of every other
a;
weekend from Friday to Sunday to coincide with the times that
Mother had custody of her son, Jonathan (who is the natural child
between the parties). Additionally, the Court ordered that Mother
be afforded periods of partial custody with the stepchild in
accordance with the previous holiday and vacation schedule.
The matter was then sent back to the conciliator to
resolve any outstanding issues related to the schedule.
Plaintiff /Mother requested three additional hours per week to spend
with Charlotte so that there wouldn't be such a large gap between
the times she would have Charlotte. The Plaintiff /Mother wanted
more time, but was willing to agree to this minimal period of time
in order to get an agreement in place and to have some continuity
contact with Charlotte.
Defendant/Father absolutely refused to even consider a
modification of this Court's Order of November 19, 1999. In fact,
the Father tried to argue about the holiday and vacation schedule
that has already been ordered by this Court. Father refuses to
accept that the Plaintiff /Mother is in loco parentis with Charlotte
and refuses to accept the Court's previous Order. From the
conciliator's perspective, Plaintiff/Mother's request for
additional time is extremely reasonable and should be ordered.
Since Father refused to agree to an expansion of the
time, the conciliator sent this up for a hearing. However, the
Court should decide whether a hearing is really necessary. The
attached Order would only have to be modified such that Mother
would be given additional time of partial custody and visitation
with Charlotte during the Week 1 schedule on Thursday from 5:00
p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and on the Week 2 schedule on Tuesdays from 5:00
p.m. to 8:00 P.M. The Court, may, on its own, enter that Order if
it decides not to have a hearing.
If the Court decides to have a hearing, it will a half
hour (1/2) at most. Father would have to show some basis for
refusing this extremely reasonable request by the Plaintiff in this
case.
One final note; the natural mother did not appear at the
custody conciliation and did not participate in the proceedings.
Date: February /j, 2000 M4, Z /
Mic ael L. Bangs
Custody Concilia r
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI, JR.
And JENNIFER J. DEAN,
Defendant 99-6007 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 1999, after hearing, the
Court finds that the Plaintiff was in the position of loco parentis
and is therefore entitled to entertain an action for partial
custody of the child Charlotte Rutkowski. This matter is referred
back to the Conciliator for further proceedings.
Pending further proceedings in this matter, we will enter the
following temporary partial custody order:
Plaintiff shall be entitled to partial custody of
Charlotte every other weekend from Friday at 5:00 p.m.
until Sunday at 5:00 p.m. These alternating weekends
shall correspond with the times Plaintiff has custody
of her son Jonathan.
The holiday and vacation schedule shall be as set forth
in our order of November 3rd, 1999, to correspond with the
holiday and vacation periods that Plaintiff has custody of
her son, Jonathan C. Rutkowski.
This order shall remain in full force and effect until
otherwise modified by this Court.
By the rt,
Edward E. Guido, J.
Thomas D. Gould, Esquire topawj For the Plaintiff
9
Keirsten Davidson, Esquire 11-129- 9
For the Defendant '0 L14
1 t
PENNS'i
LAW OYFCF OF
THOMAS D. GOULD
..I T"Wif • , 1.1 1 A."
t 4 it IonIN -- T$RLL? • 'NW6fl.1.I A?1Sl O?'1N. LA 1;011
1i 7 l 1401
?aV 191999
S
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI, Jr., ;
and
JENNIFER J. DEAN,
Defendants
NO. 99-6007 and 5906 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY ACTION
RT.nTI3T2FF' S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HER DgeTIn"
jam
TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DETERM H TION O THE CUSTODTnr
Al.'??j°?*? ZH= THAT IS IN THE BES'T' INT R LASTS
OF HER STEPDAU GRTR!R
BACKGROUND.
This is a custody action initiated by Karen Marie Rutkowski,
hereinafter referred to as Ms. Rutkowski. Ms. Rutkowski is the
biological mother of Jonathan C. Rutkowski, born June 29, 1998, and
the stepmother of Charlotte E. Rutkowski, born January 15, 1995,
hereinafter referred to as Charlotte. Charlotte's biological
mother, Jennifer J. Dean, hereinafter referred to as Ms. Dean, is
a party to this action, but she has not appeared. Timothy D.
Rutkowski is the biological father of both children, hereinafter
referred to as Mr. Rutkowski.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY.
On September 27, 1999, Mr. Rutkowski filed a complaint for
custody seeking primary custody of Jonathan. His complaint did not
address the custody of Charlotte. He served his complaint on Ms.
Rutkowski on or about October 5, 1999. Prior to any knowledge of
Mr. Rutkowski's filing, on October 1, 1999, Ms. Rutkowski filed a
complaint for divorce and a complaint for custody of Jonathan and
Charlotte. Ms. Rutkowski's complaints were served on October 2,
1999. Mr. Rutkowski has not filed a reply pleading in either
action. A prehearing custody conference was held on October 21,
1999 before Michael Bangs. At the conference the parties agreed to
a custody schedule for Jonathan but Mr. Rutkowski stated that he
would not allow Ms. Rutkowski to have any contact with Charlotte.
Mr. Bangs indicated that he would refer the matter to this
honorable court.
PACTS.
Mr. and Ms. Rutkowski were married on November 4, 1997. They
lived together for approximately three months prior to their
marriage. Mr. Rutkowski moved out of the marital home on September
19, 1999. Ms. Rutkowski has been an integral part of Charlotte's
life since the summer of 1997. She agreed to marry Mr. Rutkowski
as a package deal, including Charlotte. Charlotte's biological
mother, Ms. Dean, has had very limited contact with Charlotte since
2
her move to Virginia and then to South Carolina. For more than one
year Ms. Dean has not seen Charlotte.
Ms. Rutkowski has been Charlotte's "MaMa" for the last two
years. She has been Charlotte's primary female role model. Ms.
Rutkowski has bathed her, dressed her, feed her, comforted her,
disciplined her and loved her as her own since the summer of 1997.
She has willingly and enthusiastically become Charlotte's mother.
Mr. Rutkowski has trusted and encouraged Ms. Rutkowski in the
development of a positive mother-child relationship with Charlotte.
Ms. Rutkowski coordinated daycare and medical appointments for
Charlotte. Throughout the marriage she was the female parent of
Charlotte. Mr. Rutkowski, Ms. Rutkowski, Charlotte and Jonathan
have created and lived in a traditional family unit.
ARGUMENT.
Ms. Rutkowski has standing to request and participate in the
determination of the proper custodial arrangement for Charlotte.
Since Ms. Rutkowski is not Charlotte's biological mother, and she
has not adopted her', she is classified as a "third party" in this
custody dispute. In custody disputes between parties other than
parent verses parent, absent a prima facie right to custody, a
third party lacks standing to seek custody as against a natural
'Mr. and Ms. Rutkowski had an attorney prepared adoption
papers for Ms. Dean's signature in August 1996, however the
process was never completed.
3
parent. Rosado v. Diaz, 425 Pa. Super. 155, 624 A. 2d 193 (1993).
However, there is one exception to this principle, if the third
party stands in "loco parentis" to the child. Spells v. SpellA,
250 Pa.Super. 168, 378 A.2d 879 (1977), Cmwlth ex r el Pa > >a F
v. Ma b , 278 Pa. Super. 343, 420 A. 2d 572 (1980), Rosado, Id.,
Earner v. McMahon, 433 Pa.Super. 290, 640 A.2d 926 (1994),
Cardamone v. F.1 hoff, 442 Pa.Super. 263, 659 A.2d 575 (1995),
Tracey L. v. Matfye F., 446 Pa.Super. 281, 666 A.2d 734 (1995),
Hollander v. Chiodo, 450 Pa.Super. 247, 675 A.2d 753 (1996), J.A.L.
y. E.P.H. 453 Pa. Super. 78, 682 A.2d 1314 (1996), Bupp v. Bupp,
718 A.2d 1278 (Pa.Super. 1998). The phrase "in loco parentis"
refers to a person who puts himself/herself in the situation of
assuming the obligations incident to the parenting relationship
without going through the formality of a legal adoption. Id. The
status embodies two ideas. The first is the assumption of parental
status. The second is the discharge of the parental duties. Id.
Ms. Rutkowski, as Charlotte's stepmother, assumed the status
of a parent. Throughout the marriage Ms. Rutkowski discharged her
parental duties on behalf of Charlotte. The courts have
consistently held that stepparents have standing to pursue custody
of their stepchildren. Spells, Patricia, Karner and B , Id. In
Bupp the court noted that an important factor in determining
whether a third party has standing is whether the third party lived
with the child and natural parent in a family setting and developed
4
a relationship with the child as a result of the participation and
acquiescence of the natural parent. Citing J.A.L. v. F,a,u_, 682
A.2d at 1321. In this case Mr. Rutkowski encouraged Charlotte's
relationship with Ms. Rutkowski much to the concern of Ms. Dean.
In fact, Ms. Dean let her relationship with Charlotte fade in
deference to Ms. Rutkowski's assumption of the maternal duties and
responsibilities.
Mr. and Ms. Rutkowski have separated. Mr. Rutkowski has taken
the position that Ms. Rutkowski can no longer be a part of
Charlotte's life. As the Bi= court commented, if a parent chooses
to cultivate and encourage a third party to assume parental
obligations and discharge parental duties, simply because the
parent and the third party have differences that result in
separation, the parent cannot eradicate the relationship which had
developed between the third party and the child.
CONCLUSMON.
Ms_ Rutkowski is Charlotte's stepmother. She has been
Charlotte's primary female caretaker for the past two years. She
was encouraged to assume the parental role and responsibility by
Mr. Rutkowski. Through her relationship with Charlotte she
obtained the status of "loco parentis". Therefore, she has
standing to participate in the custody decisions regarding
Charlotte.
5
Mr. Rutkowski's challenge to Ms. Rutkowski's standing is
unsupported by the facts or the law. His contest is frivolous. He
failed to file the required preliminary objection to Ms.
Rutkowski's complaint. Kellogg v. Kellogg, 435 Pa.Super. 581, 646
A.2d 1246 (1994) and BUDD, Id. Ms. Rutkowski requests that
attorney fees and costs associated with the defense of her legal
position be assessed against Mr. Rutkowski.
Respectfully submitted,
?ia•rwo ?. .L
Thomas D. Gould, Esquire
ID #36508
2 E. Main Street
Shiremanstown, PA 17011
(717) 731-1461
6
,Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner
By: Keirsten W. Davidson, Esq.
I.D. No. 78243
301 Market Street
P. O. Box 109
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109
(717) 761-4540
KAREN M. RUTKOWSKI
Plaintiff
V.
TIMOTHY D. RUTKOWSKI, JR,
and
JENNIFER J. DEAN
Defendants
NOV 19 1999
Attorneys for Defendant, Timothy D. Rutkowski
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-6007
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FATHER'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO TANDING
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Charlotte Elizabeth Rutkowski, age 4, whose date of birth is January 15, 1995, is the subject of this
dispute. Defendants Timothy D. Rutkowski, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as "FATHER") and Jennifer J. Dean
(hereinafter referred to as "MOTHER") are Charlotte's natural parents. FATHER and MOTHER were
married on February 28, 1992 and separated in May of 1996 when Charlotte was approximately sixteen (16)
months old. FATHER and Charlotte moved out of the marital home and in with FATHER'S parents
(hereinafter referred to as "GRANDPARENTS") where they remained for over a year's time. For
approximately four (4) months after the parties separated, FATHER and MOTHER shared custody of
Charlotte on a 50-50 basis. In September of 1996, MOTHER advised FATHER that she was moving to
Virginia. The parties agreed that FATHER would retain primary custody of Charlotte and MOTHER would
visit approximately every other weekend. FATHER facilitated the majority of those visits by driving Charlotte
to Virginia to visit MOTHER, and on occasion MOTHER traveled to Pennsylvania on her own accord.
In March of 1997 FATHER met Karen M. Cannon, now Karen M. Rutkowski (hereinafter referred to
as "STEPMOTHER"). In July of 1997 FATHER and Charlotte moved out of GRANDPARENT'S home and
into a new home with STEPMOTHER, although Charlotte maintained an extremely close relationship with
GRANDPARENTS and had daily contact with them in the summertime. FATHER and STEPMOTHER were
subsequently married on November 14, 1997.
In September of 1997 MOTHER moved from Virginia to South Carolina, and has not spent any
considerable amount of time with Charlotte since then. MOTHER has however, maintained telephone
contact with Charlotte and Charlotte maintains a relationship with her maternal grandmother.
Throughout the course of their marriage, FATHER and STEPMOTHER had a tumultuous
relationship and had numerous arguments regarding Charlotte's care and discipline. On more than one
occasion, STEPMOTHER requested that FATHER send Charlotte back to her mother in South Carolina.
STEPMOTHER refused to take any kind of authoritative role with Charlotte, refused to discipline her and
refused to make any major parenting decisions on her behalf, leaving all of the above to FATHER.
In June of 1998, seven (7) months after they were married, FATHER and STEPMOTHER had a son,
Jonathan Colum Rutkowski. They currently share custody of him on a 50-50 basis pursuant to a court order
dated November 3, 1999. Once Jonathan was born, the vast majority of STEPMOTHER'S attention was
concentrated on him.
In August of 1998, just after Jonathan's birth, MOTHER contacted FATHER via a letter, the only
copy of which is in STEPMOTHER'S possession, and suggested that it might be appropriate for her to
relinquish her parental rights to STEPMOTHER and have STEPMOTHER adopt Charlotte. FATHER and
STEPMOTHER consulted an attorney one time to discuss MOTHER'S letter, however decided not to pursue
the matter as STEPMOTHER was consumed with parental responsibilities of Jonathan and FATHER was
iot convinced that course of action would be in Charlotte's best interest given the rocky marital relationship.
Shortly thereafter, MOTHER withdrew the offer when she learned that her mother's ties to Charlotte may be
hreatened in the event that she consented to Charlotte's adoption by STEPMOTHER. The matter was not
-2-
revisited again until August of 1999 when MOTHER again contacted FATHER and suggested that an
adoption proceeding may be appropriate. FATHER was unwilling to entertain that idea given the impending
separation from STEPMOTHER. FATHER and STEPMOTHER separated in September of 1999, with each
party moving back in with their respective parents who live in the same cuidesac. Throughout the entirety
of the parties marriage, STEPMOTHER'S parents never acknowledged Charlotte's existence. In fact,
Charlotte had never spent any time whatsoever with STEPMOTHER'S parents until just before the parties
separated. Charlotte remained with FATHER after the parties separated and has had no substantial contact
with STEPMOTHER since that time.
B. PRO D A BACKGROUND
On September 27, 1999, FATHER filed a Complaint for Custody seeking primary physical custody of
the parties natural child Jonathan. On or about September 28, 1999, STEPMOTHER riled a Complaint for
Custody seeking primary physical custody of both Jonathan and Charlotte. FATHER and STEPMOTHER
attended a conciliation before Michael L. Bangs, Esquire on October 21, 1999, and were able to agree upon
a shared custodial schedule for their son Jonathan. They were not however, able to agree with respect to
Charlotte. FATHER believes that STEPMOTHER lacks standing to seek primary or partial physical custody
of Charlotte. This brief is submitted in support of FATHER'S position.
C. LAW AND ARGUMENT
It is well established that persons other than natural parents are third parties for
purposes of custody controversies. Courts have highly scrutinized principles of standing to
protect the interest of the court system in assuring that actions are litigated by proper
parties and to prevent intrusion and interference into the family domain by those who are
strangers, however well-meaning. Thus, third parties will only be found to have standing by
our Court when the third party has shown a prima facie right to custody. A prima facie right
to custody may be established by a third party's conduct, i.e., when the third party has stood
in loco parentis to the child for whom the third party is seeking custody.
Bupp V. Bun O, 718 A.2d 1278 (1998).
-3-
A person stands in loco parentis when he "puts himself in the situation of a lawful parent by
assuming the obligations incident to the parental relationship without going through the formality of a legal
adoption. The status of in loco parentis embodies two ideas; first, the assumption of a parental status, and
second, the discharge of parental duties." U at 1281.
Step-parents, who by living in a family setting with the child of a spouse, and who have developed a
parent-like relationship with the child, have often been assumed without discussion to have standing to seek
a continued relationship with the child upon the termination of the relationship between the step-parents.
J.A.L. v. E P H , 682 A.2d 1314 (1996), however whether a particular step-parent stood in /oco parentis to a
child is a decision for the Court based upon the facts of each individual case. aft Spells Y. Spells, 378
A.2d 879 (1977).
The above admittedly represents the "general rule" with respect to step-parents. The facts of this
case however, do not bring it within the general rule. In the case at hand, STEPMOTHER may have
performed parental-type duties for Charlotte during the course of the parties marriage as any adult
caretaker would, however she never assumed an in loco parentis status with Charlotte. That job was left
for FATHER.
FATHER submits that this case is analogous to Argenio v Fenton, 703 A.2d 1042 (1997). In
Argenio, a maternal grandmother sought partial custody and/or visitation rights to her granddaughter
following the death of her daughter. That grandmother "recited a lengthy and exhaustive history of her
daughter and grandchild living in her household for the first year of the minor child's life." fL at 1043. She
argued that she cared for the child on a daily basis both in and out of the presence of her daughter. The
Court concluded that she acted as no more than a care-taker, albeit a frequent caretaker, which status is
not enough to confer standing. The Court went on to note that "the evidence in this case can in no way be
stretched so far as to reach the conclusion that grandmother acted as one who had informally adopted the
child or that she intended io be bound to the legal duties and obligations of a parent." U at 1044.
-4-
Likewise, in the present case STEPMOTHER and Charlotte resided together for a two (2) year
period, and STEPMOTHER did indeed take care of Charlotte for periods of time, both in and out of
FATHER'S presence. However, as the above case illustrates, that alone is not enough to confer standing.
FATHER also directs the Court's attention to Cradw II v tra r, 610 A.2d 999 (1992) where a
paternal grandfather attempted to assert custodial rights via his in loco parentis relationship with his
grandchild. The court found that despite the fact that grandfather had resided with the child and her parents
for nearly two (2) years, and then with the child alone for three (3) months; despite grandfather's "very
warm and caring relationship" with his granddaughter; and despite the child's stated desire to live with her
grandfather, the above is "insufficient to support a finding that grandfather stood in loco parentis and has
overcome the parents right to custody." Id, at 1003. The court went on with a statutory analysis of
grandparent rights which is inapplicable to the matter at hand.
Assuming the legal duties and obligations of a parent goes beyond residing in the same home and
providing care. FATHER made all the "tough parenting decisions" for this child. For example, FATHER
made the vast majority of all medical decisions and the vast majority of all doctor visits. FATHER made the
educational decisions such as what daycare Charlotte would attend. He worked with Charlotte routinely on
her ABC's, on learning to count, and spent quality time with her teaching other educational type lessons.
FATHER watched educational television programs with Charlotte. FATHER was also the disciplinarian,
setting appropriate limits for his daughter and then taking the time to explain the purpose of such limits.
Assuming the status of in loco parentis requires assuming the above obligations. STEPMOTHER refused
to engage in any significant way, in the above behaviors with Charlotte. Therefore, STEPMOTHER could
not have attained in loco parentis status.
Moreover, STEPMOTHER'S family (with whom she currently resides) refused to acknowledge
Charlotte's existence until just prior to the parties separation. Furthermore, other members of
STEPMOTHER'S family routinely sent gifts to the parties natural child Jonathan for birthdays, Christmas,
and other holidays, while sending nothing to Charlotte. Perhaps most importantly, STEPMOTHER did
-5-
nothing to encourage her family's recognition of Charlotte. Such behavior In not indicative of one who has
put him or herself in the position of a parent so as to stand in loco parentis tc a child.
Finally, and of paramount importance in this case is the fact that when the opportunity for
STEPMOTHER to adopt Charlotte arose, neither FATHER nor STEPMOTHER desired to pursue it. The
marriage had been tumultuous from the start, and despite efforts to make it work, FATHER had serious
questions regarding its longevity and serious concerns over STEPMOTHER'S relationship with Charlotte.
Neither party elected to pursue the adoption, clearly evidencing their views with respect to
STEPMOTHER'S relationship with Charlotte.
D. CONCLUSION
There can be no doubt that STEPMOTHER provided care for Charlotte during the parties marriage,
however she did not act in a way that evidenced her intent to be bound to the legal duties and obligations of
a parent. STEPMOTHER did not stand in loco parentis to this child, and therefore should be denied
standing to assert any visitation or custodial rights.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
ey: o Q -
Keirsten W. Davidson
:128800
-6-
MICHAEL L. BANGS
ATTORNEYATIAW
302 SOUTH 18TH STREET • CAMP HILL, PA 17011
PHONE 717-730.7310
FAX 717.730-7374
E-mail: bmgslaw@mindspring.com
October 22, 1999
Richard J. Pierce, Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Rutkowski v. Rutkowski and Dean
No. 99-6007
Dear Rick:
This is a very unusual case involving a stepchild. The Court needs to have a quick,
expedited hearing based upon the standing of the stepmother to make a custodial claim. The
parties did have a natural child together.
I suggest that you send this to Judge Bayley and perhaps Judge Bayley could have an
early morning "quick hearing" for the parties. I am uncertain as to whether or not the judge will
really need to have much testimony in that I think it is more of a legal argument. Perhaps
Judge Bayley could schedule a quick hearing at 8:45 a.m., and let counsel provide him with legal
briefs and make their oral arguments and determine whether or not he really needs any
testimony.
Very truly yours,
Lic, L. angs
wsc
Enclosure
OC 12 5 14gg?
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI, ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff ) OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
vs. )
TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI, JR. NO. 99-6007 CIVIL TERM
and JENNIFER J. DEAN, ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendants ) CUSTODY ACTION
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of
1999, upon receipt of the
Conciliator's Report, it appearing that the parties have reached an agreement as to an interim
Order which was dictated in their presence, except that the Defendant Jennifer J. Dean was
served but was not present, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows:
1. The natural parents of Jonathan C. Rutkowski, d.o.b. June 29, 1998,
Karen Marie Rutkowski and Timothy David Rutkowski, Jr., shall share legal
custody of that minor child.
2. Physical custody of the minor child shall be in accordance with the
following two week alternating schedule:
A. Week One:
Sunday - Mother until 5:00 p.m., then with Father
Monday - Father
Tuesday - Father until 5:00 p.m., then with Mother
Wednesday - Mother
Thursday - Mother until 5:00 p.m., then with Father
Friday - Father
Saturday - Father until 5:00 p.m., then with Mother
B. Week Two:
Sunday - Mother
Monday - Mother
Tuesday - Mother until 5:00 p.m., then with Father
Wednesday - Father
Thursday - Father until 5:00 p.m., then with Mother
Friday - Mother
Saturday - Mother
3. The parties shall alternate the major holidays, those holidays being
defined as New Year's Day, Easter, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and Labor
Day. This alternating schedule will commence with Father having New Year's
Day in 2000.
4. The parties shall evenly share Thanksgiving Day, with Thanksgiving
Day broken into two segments. Segment A shall be from 8:00 a.m. until 2:00
p.m.; Segment B shall be from 2:00 p.m. until bedtime. The parties shall agree
upon which Segment they each shall have in each respective year after reviewing
Father's work schedule.
5. The Christmas holiday shall be broken into two segments. Segment A
shall be from December 240i at 12:00 noon until Christmas Day at 2:00 p.m.;
Segment B shall be from Christmas Day at 2:00 p.m. until December 260, at 5:00
p.m. Mother shall have Segment A in 1999 and all odd years thereafter and
Segment B in 2000 and all even years thereafter. Father shall have Segment A in
2000 and all even years thereafter and Segment B in 1999 and all odd years
thereafter.
6. Each party shall be entitled to two uninterrupted weeks of vacation
with the child. The parties shall provide each other with thirty (30) days advance
notice as to when they intend to exercise these periods of exclusive custody.
7. If the child is at daycare and Mother is otherwise at work, Father can
have access with the child at daycare provided he gives Mother some notice that
he intends to exercise some periods of visitation with the child at daycare.
8. In relation to the minor child, Charlotte E. Rutkowski, who is the
natural child of Defendants Timothy David Rutkowski, Jr., and Jennifer J. Dean,
and is the step-child of Plaintiff Karen Marie Rutkowski, the parties shall appear
for a hearing on the L?-M- day of /?/QVtrr?Jf/ _, [ in Courtroom
No. on the sole issue of whether or not the Karen Marie Rutkowski has
Lip/: 41,5 /.
standing to pursue periods o partial custody and visitation with that child.
Counsel are to provide the Court with a legal brief in support of their respective
positions on standing.
BYTHECOURT,
/r
J.
Keirsten W. Davidson, Esquire
Thomas D. Gould, Esquire -
mlb
.Q, ?hccu.?'icC ll?F/94
F'LFD-O?FIC=
?- . , ;n?P9Y
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI, )
Plaintiff )
VS. )
TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI, JR. )
and JENNIFER L. DEAN, )
Defendants )
JUDGE PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED: None
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
Jonathan C. Rutkowski June 29, 1998 Plaintiff and Defendant
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on October 21, 1999, and the following
individuals were present: the Plaintiff and her attorney, Keirsten W. Davidson, Esquire; the
Defendant Timothy David Rutkowski, Jr., appeared with his counsel, Thomas D. Gould, Esquire.
The Defendant Jennifer J. Dean did not appear at the conference although she was served with
the Petition.
3. Items resolved by agreement: See attached Order.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-6007 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY ACTION
4, Issues yet to be resolved: See attached Order.
5. The Plaintiffs position on custody is as follows: Mother's position as it relates to
standing alone, since the parties agreed to a custodial arrangement with their natural child, is that
she has been in loco parentis with her step-daughter for the last two and one-half years. She
believes that she has standing to assert a custodial right because she has been acting as the
child's mother. The natural mother has had no physical contact with the child for that period of
time and apparently only contacts the child sporadically via letters or telephone.
6. The Defendant's position on custody is as follows: Father's position on standing is
that he does not believe that Mother does have any standing for any custodial rights related to the
child. He acknowledges that the Mother was the only female figure in the child's life for the last
two and one-half years, but steadfastly refuses to allow Mother to have contact with that child.
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 one hour.
10. Other matters or comments: The parties in this case have one natural child who is
the subject of the attached custody Order. The natural mother of the step-child did not appear at
the conciliation although she was served with the Petition.
The sole issue that the Court has to make a resolution on is whether or not the step-
mother, Plaintiff, has standing to make a claim for partial custody/visitation rights with this
child. The Father, although acknowledging that Mother has played an important role in the
child's life and been the female figure in her life for the past two and one-half years, refuses to
allow the step-mother to have any contact. Mother believes that she has appropriate standing and
as such, it is in the best interest of the child to continue to see the Mother on a regular and
consistent basis.
There are some underlying issues that Father has raised regarding Mother's current living
situation in that apparently Mother lives with her parents and the parents had not really
acknowledged this child until recently. However, the Conciliator believes that those are
secondary issues that can be addressed through the conciliation process once the Court makes a
decision on standing. If the Court determines that the step-mother does have standing, then the
Mother should be afforded an appropriate custodial arrangement and the Court should send this
back to the Conciliator for a conciliation conference solely on the issue of effectuating a proper
schedule. If the Court determines that the step-mother does not have standing, then the Court or
the Conciliator do not have to be further involved in the matter as it relates to the step-daughter.
Date: October 22, 1999 mj)j
Michael L. Bangs
Custody Conciliator
CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH RUTKOWSKI
SS# 164-76-5963
HEALTH HISTORY
1995
JANUARY 15, 1995 Bom Sunday @ 8:41 pm; 6#3 oz & 10 inches. Delivered by
Diane DuPont in Polyclinic Hospital HBG, PA
JANUARY 16, 1995 1 st Hepatitis B shot of series; dropped to almost 5#
APRIL 4, 1995 2-month check-up by JDC. 1st DPT. Ist Oral polio vaccine.
1st Haemo-B. 2nd Hep B.
MAY 31, 1995 4-month check-up by JDC. 2nd DPT shot, 2nd oral polio
vaccine. 2nd Haemo-B.
AUGUST 24, 1995 6-month check-up by JDC. 3rd DPT shot, 3rd Haemo-B
1996
APRIL 23, 1996 15-month check-up by JDC. 4th DPT shot. 3rd Oral polio
vaccine. 4th Haemo-B. MMR shot. 3rd Hepatitis B shot.
AUGUST 27, 1996 18-month check-up by JDC. 5th Haemo-B shot.
1997
MARCH 31, 1997 Ear specialist, Dr. Macaluso put tubes in both ears to
prevent future ear infections
1998
FEBRUARY 23,1998 Chickenpox started. Returned to daycare March 2,1998
MARCH 11,1998 JDC diagnosed strabismus (deviation of the eyes)
MARCH 12,1998 JDC check-up; 29 pounds (65%),35.5 inches (12%). BP
68/44 ; Strabismus - left esotrupio
MARCH 26, 1998 Dr. Carl Frankel to check eyes - strabismus. Needs glasses
to correct vision problems, prevent "crossing". May need surgery if glasses don't help
strengthen eye muscles
MARCH 27, 1998 Glasses from Pearle vision in mall
MARCH 30,1998 JDC diagnosed with seasonal allergies; Claritin 1/2 tsp each
morning
APRIL 24,1998 JDC for GI virus
MAY 20,1998 1 st appt w/therapist, Carol Cohen, (set up by Tim)
regarding how to "handle" Charlotte (issues since biological mother being gone; temper
tantrums)
MAY 26,1998 2 month check-up w/Dr. Frankel for eyes. Glasses helping,
no need to change prescription at this time
JULY 29,1998 Appt w/therapist, Carol Cohen
AUGUST 17, 1998 Appt w/Dr. Frankel to check Charlotte's vision
progress with her glasses. Vision okay looking up & straight ahead, some difficulty with
looking "downward" - Strabismus, unspecified
PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT
11,19??? LKT
SEPTEMBER 9, 1998 Dr. Macaluso visit for ears. Tube out of left ear in canal
mixed w/wax, may come out soon. Right ear tube still in ear drum
SEPTEMBER 28, 1998 JDC for upper respiratory infection. Negative strep test.
OCTOBER 28, 1998 JDC visit for GI virus - was advised the virus could last 7
days
NOVEMBER 9, 1998 First check-up with dentist, Dr. Mark Raver. Teeth good,
20 total. Cautioned: start of cavities on 2 of bottom teeth, dark spots, still hard.
1999 (My insurance... Tim did not have insruance as of 12/31/98)
MARCH 12, 1999 Or Macaluso - routine ear check-up; took tube out of left
ear along w/fair amount of wax; tube still functional in right ear
MARCH 17, 1999 JDC routine health check-up; No shots; Hematocrit 34%;
33# (50%), 38 in (15%), BP 88/38; Claritin 1/2.1 tsp for seasonal allergies; failed
hearing test (right ear)-retest scheduled for April 4, 1999
MARCH 18, 1999 Dr. Frankel routine eye-exam; no need for surgery since
glasses are helping; changed prescription
APRIL 1, 1999 JDC for re-test hearing, right ear - passed
MAY 17, 1999 Frankel for eyes. Glasses good. Vision changed from 2040
to 20-301 Used letters & numbers for testing, not pictures (Frankel happy since letters are
-tt smaller than numbers) - I took her..Tim failed to get up for appt & I had to call work & let
them know I would be late d/t the apps
JUNE 1,1999 Dr Raver for teeth. Exam, cleaning, & 1st fluoride
49 treatment... Still cautions about start of cavities, dark spots now on molars - I took her
SEPT 10, 1999 Dr. Macaluso check-up; tube out of left ear since ?
March 12, 1999; right tube was removed today since it was in canal; no more visits to
office unless probl ms
SEPT 14, 1999 JDC - dry cough, sore throat, runny nose over 3 days -
Sangillo adv its a viral infection, let it run its course; pedicare to relieve symptoms ...I took
her
?OCTOBER 11, 1999 Frankel for eyes - Tim cancelled in order to prevent me
from seeing her; I think the appt was rescheduled for 10-13-99
DECEMBER 16, 1999 Dr Raver for teeth.
2000
u?
LO QTI
C) J
[t. h J
L' Q. U
m
00
Qr-
J
7
? 3 t o
o U' S ? a ?
W Q N . P
U Z Z
? ? ? N 2 n
J Q Q W w n
Gc N ?
0 =
L= N
r
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI, IN THE COURT OF CCMHON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COMM, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 99 CIVIL TERN
TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI, Jr., : I
and
JENNIFER J. DEAN, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendants CUSTODY ACTION
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, upon consideration of the attached complaint, it is hereby
directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before _
di60AeA 1?,raS Esquire, the Conciliator, at " S_ IRia.. -? .
-aynn t-70 I I on the 9151 day of
1999, at a:oo F 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. Either party
may bring the children who are the subject of this custody action to the
conference, but the children's attendance is not mandatory. Failure to
appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or
permanent order.
For the Court,
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, PA 17013
(717) 240-3166
f:f (.
??
?: r,. r??
c?
?.:
?o / •9r?' ?a-Zrc? a
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI, IN THE COURT OF COMM PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 99 - CIVIL TERM
TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI, Jr., :
and
JENNIFER J. DEAN, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendants CUSTODY ACTION
CUSTODY COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
1. The Plaintiff is Karen Marie Rutkowski residing at 140 S.
Locust Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011.
2. The Defendant is Timothy David Rutkowski, Jr. who resides
at 7 Spruce Circle, Shiremanstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
17011.
3. The Defendant Jennifer J. Dean resides at 8829-B Barkwood
Drive, Surfside Beach, SC 29575.
4. Plaintiff seeks joint legal custody and primary physical
custody of the following children:
HBO PRESENT RESIDENCE DQB
Jonathan Colum Rutkowski 140 S. Locust Street 06/29/98
Charlotte Elizabeth Rutkowski 7 Spruce Circle 01/15/95
All of the children were born in wedlock.
Jonathan is presently in the physical custody of Karen
Rutkowski who resides at 140 S. Locust Street, Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania.
Charlotte is presently in the physical custody of Timothy
Rutkowski who resides at 7 Spruce Circle, Shiremanstown,
Pennsylvania.
During the past five years, the children have resided with the
following persons and at the following addresses:
Persona Addresses Dates
Karen & 140 S. Locust Street 07/97 - 09/19/99
Timothy Camp Hill, PA
The mother of Jonathan and stepmother of Charlotte is Karen
Rutkowski who resides at 140 S. Locust Street, Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania 17011.
She is married to the father of the children.
The mother of Charlotte is Jennifer J. Dean who resides at
8829-B Barkwood Drive, Surfside Beach, SC 29575.
She is married to Michael Dean.
The father of the children is Timothy Rutkowski who resides at
7 Spruce Circle, Shiremanstown, Pennsylvania 17011.
He is married to Karen Rutkowski.
5. The relationship of Plaintiff to the children is that of
mother and stepmother. The Plaintiff currently resides with the
following persons:
2
Jonathan Rutkowski Son
6. The relationship of Defendant. Timothy Rutkowski to the
children is that of father. The Defendant currently resides with
the following persons:
Charlotte Rutkowski Daughter
Timothy Rutkowski, Sr. Father
Gertrude Rutkowski Mother
The relationship of defendant Jennifer J. Dean is that of
mother of Charlotte. She has no relationship with Jonathan. She
resides with her husband, Michael Dean and her son Christian James
Dean.
7. Timothy Rutkowski, Jr. and Jennifer J. Dean entered into
a Custody Agreement, dated September 9, 1996, establishing that
Father had sole legal custody and majority physical custody of
Charlotte. No other parties have participated as a party or
witness, or in another capacity, in other litigation concerning the
custody of the children in this or another court.
Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the
proceedings who has physical custody of the children or claims to
have custody or visitation rights with respect to the children.
8. The best interest and permanent welfare of the children
will be served by granting the relief requested because:
3
A. Plaintiff can provide a structured home environment
for the children.
B. Plaintiff can properly care for the children.
C. Plaintiff can provide a loving home.
D. Plaintiff will place the children's interest before
her own.
E. Plaintiff has been the primary maternal figure in
Charlotte's life since July 1997.
9. Each parent whose parental rights to the children have
not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the
children have been named as parties to this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to grant
her joint legal custody and primary physical custody of the
children, subject to each defendant's right to liberal periods of
partial custody.
Respectfully submitted,
gym. Z). N
Thomas D. Gould, Esquire
ID #36508
2 E. Main Street
Shiremanstown, PA 17011
(717) 731-1461
4
VERIFICATION
I, Karen Marie Rutkowski, hereby certify that the foregoing
CUSTODY COMPLAINT is true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief. 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:
or) Ia?-,I Iggq
Karen Marie Rutkowski
Plaintiff
5
PLAINTIFF'S
? nIi,?19G
e? der b.? C1.3; i
?-to C?c?.\? • mac,- n? \??eti2 het
z _Pzpz.
CAf
?v mach . ?
dies
v\e. ,?
?QQ Gx-frz*t de l
s???d e < T eA I leash
ZRE_. MG(?ng So -??.tS..CZ? no ?cn9e/Z
Rea\\?t ec ecZ \o ??,s
si a on "LQz V?A . Z Ord ??
veRy d???iw??- -4o spez? ct?o ?
1 -,'C cn , !c?cz?se c,?- the ,
_ _ ?.LIcsJ , ?dC1?`? • .?Zy?C2 yo?• ?2 Ch??ec?i• _
_..._UdJ 6eSe
o ca",?eaA_.. T?\\ CezSZ
,????
-tom ?
' 0.4 tau, ,ry,na? ?t?u ?c c3u2 d.lar?
LjaLc - J-CJ3ttn
+,?:. ;: tea LKY t rvwt am p ?CiA?an? a? y?mu,
;' po o.a
' t_A? 1.4
u??tVl ?Qw ' Lp , I crn d l cl Q-Aj¢st'
°`? coo ??? .
rn.o ?
?' (rytAt? ( att2rk?l f >o
cL,d. Ui..¢.I rrn,6yYVrntiJ ? .
with ry" 4?i
?g n 't ?-QJ.. Lgtm to tjjU l de w t, PL,e w MLLLQ-kl I
And uX).tc" O-LRA r^j- w 'l. %U"- f
L p1R,t G ROW (1?:U2a yu (,Yt 9A l ?cnn
?DLe? ?rd?t ut b 0-t Q o? t .
W itl? S i ntl lA-kA
a rtd its WCJu.Uvr\d ^ Ui A-t n dim 1
Ac?eAd ?.ri L&tvl Tzrn s
maw ? n oSo W? Ga ts..u) , U-'-P-o P`L `L a.
c .a?Ad. a ?.w g Lrnam . ,
-t,t m%aYL- W I aft-ntme n
? 0.u?? ab to LA_tCL.
Uf,w v i a OL-.
urn via n t v v, C-p ?-?Q 4t3 se .
a^`d`d ??`std
I,ve' 0.c? tVNa-t c?cw
,gyp LVNXn.6 w?tN C R Spnz l .t
n -ft
't,_ot u?a.K.,t ?
As .
ter';??r?.i..x; :. ?i? .?•.
i• 9 ? _
. i,
` tO a ?ac1-? ohm
q;4.?.Qou e, R i,`zds to.LtA
Bu LULU AOwa'?S $ck Qt ;
` ?- GyE RYONE w p L AAA- .
i ,D1a.b- dn? tw
w? ?JZ C.o`/Ct v1u??t }o ?z P 4ul +I'l.? Q
is li??'?. N ?•I . IC.= .4?F `.__,??':^ ,•.
Law Offices
Samuel K. Ganes, Esq. of
Samuel A. Cates, Esq.
August 31,1993
Jennifer Dean
419 Evans Ridge Terrace
Apt. E
Leesburg, VA. 20176
Re: Adoption of Charlotte E. Rutkowski
Dear Ms. Dean;
Tim and his new wife, Karen have advised me you have expressed a willingness to have
Karen adopt Charlotte. Apart of the Adoption petition is a Consent by Parent of Adoptee which
I have enclosed. Please complete items 11 1 & 3. Please sign the consent before two adult
witnesses, who must also complete and sign the form. Upon completion, please return the form
to me in the self addressed stamped envelope. You will receive a copy of the adoption petition
when it is filed as well as a notice of the time, date and place of the adoption hearing. Thank you.
Best Regards;
scae-g- Sze.
Samuel A. Gates, Esquire
Enclosure
cc: Tim Rutkowski
250 York STIM: r, Hanover, PA. 11331 (Ii) 632.4971 fax (717) 632.2243
100-1 03
? ?R • . a ?S
gr
W5 vzcz4 ?\)
... . KY?2 • Co???e??en ? dz?2 > ?-?(`??- hezR?iv? ,
Ri `cr? •? n -Lh-? ??dd1e ? m? k??
=-
4o-pa o?Sve ?c? hz?? ?t1?:eveEZ .
Amy -?m;(? sh?ii ???? ???n?ble ??s,TZ-??????,???
(?2nc L. ?ck , ?e?sJ ('drrche? , Ta cJ voila( and
Salta c??Tn?s v?s??a?i?v? s`nall
???z(L(c?e,5 Uylc(eS 2?te? C?cJSi?S .
.?? ---L , ?et?t?,}e(?. 17e?? , u:;\\ ape a\?c?..?eC? •???,rr?.\
.._ Ne?-. ? -PXCeECI 1 Cz?\ ?. mCr?(1 '?'? F ? e a yySe R«
.CoMPIe-??? ?u
?.J? Sal . IN\R • ?c a•-tes .
P. C Qz' ?C,Rec? .has-?bee?
?e., ?ctd S. z?, ?nl
cp?Cihc la CN?R?c? eS' des 1 ',n?mRes?
S l `oe r?ov?r Vo
zcr? a "din J G`G 4?;5 \1c? T
9cc?'. i-oQ heR s?b?l,?y .
?-?Reea'ol? 'chen
?? ?I?cE , zncl
Ccr'C?1-'?•«J?S cl?O ??CT
rye rztn ?-hEn
cs??yccP\icrl
. _>_ ?a s ac `?;a1?? clJ ??'e s'RCCkecl
?CCe?v? I ("1I J pebeR . &
?..s?ulcl.v? ?ncwr? h•?c? c?.s4-:J t`?-? J
.coe CAI; .
-_ ?RoCesS , Rem\?z?- -'?t??? the -; zRcc, S
f??y ?o t- ??_. L f? A-Ive CAE .
_ _ . V ??nceRe
1
?.S. M?. 0\A ? , s am
Uo?1 ci?c1 ?r
,
II(;
Law Offices
Samuel K. Gates, Esq. of Samuel A. Gates, Esq.
September 15, 1998
Mrs. Jennifer Dean
419 Evans Ridge Terrace, Apt. E
Leesburg, VA 20176
Re: Adoption of Charlotte Rutkowski
Dear Mrs. Dean:
I acknowledge receipt of your September 3, 1998 letter. The last page was confusing to
me. As you correctly guessed, there is no such thing as a conditional adoption. The Court either
grants an unconditional adoption or it doesn't grant the adoption. Whatever the parties work out
between themselves, after the adoption, is between the parties and without Court involvement to
either enforce or modify.
Your letter states "I realize that the terms may not fit under the adoption code. If such is
the case, if Timothy agrees, you may draw up whatever filing necessary to fit the terms". What
does that mean? If the Court will only accept the form I sent you, does that mean you will sign it
or you won't? In case it means you will, I enclose a new form.
Best Regards,
Sa& e Sates
Samuel A. Gates, Esquire
SAG/cros
Enclosure /
cc: Timothy Rutkowski w/enc.
? 250 York Street, Hanover, PA. 17331 ? (717) 632-4971 • fax (717) 632.2243 •
Kac?nM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
:PENNSYLVANIA
V.
* hit (??ko?s?t I J f : CIVIL ACTION LAW
? tmo? I
Defendant : NO.(oM-l CIVIL 19 C19
CUSTODY VISITATION
ORDER OF COURT
And now, this AQLL:?31A, upon consideration of the attached complaint, it is herqby directed
that the above parties and their respective counsel appear before n!1 5 . J? ,
Esquire, the conciliator, at \,.5 • VAQ_xr-? MeC
Pennsylvania, on the day of , 2000, at A.M./ .,
for a Pre-hearing Custody Conference. At such confe ence, an effort will be made to resolve t e
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:
$y, y1?'01? ? I>rlt?fY9?llla ? '
Custody Conciliator (?1
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
f
/G eve.'
/ G• f?0
!N?
r
JERRY R. DUFFIE
RICHARD W. STEWART
C. ROY WEIDNER. JR.
EDMUND G. MYERS
DAVID W. DELUGE
RALPH H. WRIGHT, IR.
LAW OFFICES
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART &
A Professional Corporation
301 MARKET STREET
P. O. BOX 109
LEMOYNE, PENNSYLVANIA 17043
WEBSITE: www.idsw.com
DAVID I. LANZA
MARK C. DUFFIE
KEIRSTEN WALSH DAVIDSON
MICHAEL I. CASSIDY
December 15, 1999
Taryn Dixon
Court Administrator's Office
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Re: Karen M. Rutkowski v. Timothy D. Rutkowski, Jr.
No. 99-6007 Civil Tenn
DearTaryn:
WRITER'S EXT. NO. IR
F?MAIL kwdRjdsw.com
Would you please advise whether a custody conciliation has been scheduled with
respect to the above referenced matter. The parties appeared for a hearing before Judge Guido
on November 19, 1999, and pursuant to his Order of that same date, the matter was referred
back to the custody conciliator for further proceedings. We originally appeared before
Conciliator Michael Bangs. Would you please look into this at your earliest convenience and let
me know when we have a conciliation date.
Thank you for your attention to the above.
Very truly yours,
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
Keirsten W. Davidson
TELEPHONE 717.761.4540
FACSIMILE 717.761.3015
E-MAIL mulloldw.com
DEC 1 g
WEIDNER
HORACE A JOHNSON
OF COUNSEL
0109
KWD:kkm:129676
Enclosure
cc: Timothy D. Rutkowski, Jr.
-?a \o AM L'
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI, JR.
And JENNIFER J. DEAN,
Defendant 99-6007 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 1999, after hearing, the
Court finds that the Plaintiff was in the position of loco parentis
and is therefore entitled to entertain an action for partial
custody of the child Charlotte Rutkowski. This matter is referred
back to the Conciliator for further proceedings.
Pending further proceedings in this matter, we will enter the
following temporary partial custody order:
Plaintiff shall be entitled to partial custody of
Charlotte every other weekend from Friday at 5:00 p.m.
until Sunday at 5:00 p.m. These alternating weekends
shall correspond with the times Plaintiff has custody
of her son Jonathan.
The holiday and vacation schedule shall be as set forth
in our order of November 3rd, 1999, to correspond with the
holiday and vacation periods that Plaintiff has custody of
her son, Jonathan C. Rutkowski.
This order shall remain in full force and effect until
otherwise modified by this Court.
By the rt,
Edward E. Guido, J.
Thomas D. Gould, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Keirsten Davidson, Esquire
For the Defendant
It
TRUE COPY F;SOU RECORD
In Testimony vM res`:, I hero unto set myhano
T
? VA&!L
a ?I
l
C.
Sad`
C?
KAREN M. RUTKOWSKI,
Plaintiff
V.
TIMOTHY D. RUTKOWSKI, JR, and
JENNIFER J. DEAN,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-6007 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
Defendants
PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
AND NOW, this ? day of h%AA , 2000, withdraw the appearance of KEIRSTEN
W. DAVIDSON, ESQUIRE, as attorney for Defendant, Timothy D. Rutkowski, Jr., in the above-captioned
action.
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
By: WD1
Keirsten W. Davidson
Attorney I.D. No. 78243
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
(717) 761-4540
PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
AND NOW, this 2711- day of 2ajgA , 2000, enter the appearance of STANLEY J.A.
LASKOWSKI, ESQUIRE, as attorney for Defendant, Timothy D. Rutkowski, Jr., in the above-captioned
action.
CALDWEL & KEARNNS
By: _ ` C X
'
Stanl JA. Laskowski
Atto ey I.D. No. ?7f/zy
3631 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 232-7661
:132409
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
-fk
AND NOW, this 27 ? day of i ky",k 2000, I hereby certify that I have
served a copy of the within document ca the following by depositing a true and correct copy of
the same in the U.S. Mails at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed to:
Keirsten W. Davidson, Esquire
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
301 Market Street
P. 0. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Thomas D. Gould, Esquire
2 East Main Street
Shiremanstown, PA 17011
CALDWELL & KEARNS
By ??.
00-162/8625-1
r._
U1 i
.7
_
1? L..
- ?.
.Ul U
u
"- o =i
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI,
Plaintiff
V.
TIMOTHY D. RUTKOWSKI, JR.:
and JENNIFER J. DEAN,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 99-6007 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 17th day of April, 2000, this
hearing is continued to be relisted at the request of
either party. Both parties are ordered and directed to
cooperate with Melinda Eash and her counseling of
Charlotte. This expense to be borne by father except for
appointments made by Plaintiff.
Both parties are directed to participate in
mediation with Dr. Schneider's office. Said mediation is
to begin forthwith. The costs of said mediation to be
borne equally by the parties.
Pending further hearing in this matter, our order
of February 24, 2000, is amended to provide the following:
Plaintiff shall have additional periods of
visitation with Charlotte during Week 1 from 5:00 p.m.
until 8:00 p.m. on Tuesdays.
In all other respects, the order shall remain in
full force and effect.
By the C t,
Edward E. Guido, J.
Thomas D. Gould, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Stanley J.A. Laskowski, Esquire
For the Defendant
:lfh
. nO
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI,
Plaintiff
V.
TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI,
JR., and JENNIFER J. DEAN,:
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-6007 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY ACTION
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 2001, after
hearing, the petition for modification of our prior order is
denied.
All prior orders shall remain in full force and
effect except as modified by agreement of the parties with
regard to the additional overnight visitation. Both parties are
directed to continue mediation with Dr. Stanley Schneider until
he deems it appropriate to stop. Said mediation is to begin
forthwith, and the cost thereof to be borne equally by the
parties.
If the parties wish a re-evaluation of the
custody arrangement, they shall undergo a custody evaluation as
suggested by Ms. Eash, the cost of said evaluation to be borne
equally by each party.
Thomas D. Gould, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Stanley J.A. Laskowski, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
V
srs
By the Court,
I . • .JI_
uI Al!G - ! Z:2?
CUP.4"Ei,u ;u COUNTY
PENNSYLMA
THOMAS D. GOULD, ESQUIRE
2 EAST MAIN STREET
SHIREMANSTOWN, PA 17011
(717) 731-1461
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI,
Plaintiff
V.
TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI, Jr.,
and
JENNIFER J. DEAN,
Defendants .
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99 - 6007 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY ACTION
PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER
1. The Plaintiff/Petitioner is Karen M. Rybacki, formerly,
Rutkowski, hereinafter referred to as former Stepmother.
2. The Defendant/Respondent is Timothy David Rutkowski,
hereinafter referred to as Father.
3. Defendant Jennifer J. Dean is the child's biological
mother but have not been involved in the child's life and is not a
party to this modification.
3. The child at issue in this modification is Charlotte
Rutkowski, born 01/15/1995.
4. Father and Stepmother wish to amicably agree to modify
this Honorable Court's November 19, 1999 Order, as amended April
17, 2000, April 24, 200 and July 30, 2001. Copies of the Orders
are attached as Exhibits A-D.
5. By the previous Orders, Stepmother was determined to have
established loco parentis status and was granted partial custody of
Charlotte at specific times.
6. Father and Stepmother believe that it is in Charlotte's
best interest that Stepmother's court ordered periods of partial
custody be terminated and that Father be granted sole legal and
physical custody of Charlotte thereby extinguishing any rights
Stepmother may have obtained as a result of her former loco
parentis status and her former right to partial physical custody or
other legal obligations to Charlotte. A copy of the parties'
mutual letter is attached as Exhibit E.
7. Father concurs in Stepmother's petition.
WHEREFORE, Stepmother requests that this honorable court issue
an Order modifying its pervious Orders thereby granting Father sole
Legal and physical custody of his daughter and thereby
extinguishing Stepmother's rights and obligations related to her
former stepdaughter, Charlotte Rutkowski.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas D. Gould, Esquire
ID #36508
2 East Main Street
Shiremanstown, PA 17011
(717) 731-1461
VERIFICATION
I Karen M. Rybecki, hereby certify that the foregoing
PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, information and belief. 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: Co- 1 Zoo-I
KAX-a?-*-fx
Karen M. Rybacki
3
a
RU'?'IN 6%_ , 1N THE COURT 07 ' COMMON t0- 723 0-
D1a, n.? _L (UMSERJ COU?VT?1., PENNS:L V: NIA
v .
T 7 MO:Hv DAVID RUTKOWSK7
And j ENNI F :R j. DEAN,
Def-enda,n t 99-6007 C=VI.L TERN
ORDER OF COURT
AND N0,'i, th_s 191t 'n day O NOVembe-, 1999, after hear? C the
Court finds that the Plaintiff- was in the position of 10.0 are:-, -is
and 1s therefore entitled to entertain an action for cart=al
Cust odv of: the child Charlotte Rutkowski-. This matter 1s r=-erred
back to the COnCi1_at0_ for fur tire= DroCe°_dings.
Pending. further v=OCeeQ_ngs '_n his matter, we :ri=1 1 c^ =e_ t
i0'_' Owli:g teC!1DG.arv oa_t_d1 Custody 0-de_ .
C) 1ai _f Sha11 be eC:titled .0 7a_t? a1 C"-l 3 od`J 0.
Charlozte e-rerv cthe_ weekend --om cr_dav at 5.00 u.m.
un-i1 Sundav a- 5.00 0 . m. T- -se alter?zt? -4-g wee kands
shall COr-_Soond W_tCl the times pla_^thas c 1S,?0d'l
O- SOP. Oonaz:L-an.
an ^. ac-azLon SC'e ?uI e Shall be ,:s Se' _ror_n
in our o_-"-4e_- O? Nove:-per 3r .-I. ? 919, to COrrej00P,C W_...
7 7
O^iCaV and Vac t_C^ De_iodS -.-- has c 1iJ -,^ CV 07
her Son, JOna _ha.. C. RutkOS,;s_4
This O-Ce- sha ? Zo-Ce a^G u.n-
O_he-w? Se :mc dffled by this Cou-r-.-.
By the C
iu'.1a?G' L Cu! G, j .
Thomas D. Gould, ESuulre
=For the D1 ai nt? -`
..SCT1f==
Ke_rSten Davidson,
Fo_ the Defendant
1
EXHIBIT A
r
V CGU G = CC t'_C?? ? `_? G
V.
Def .LAC-. an 1, J
N :?E . Cf :CDv
ORDER oz-;, CCU?T-
??t? rt GZy- C_ LVC ! 1. ..
:0 he re'Listea, a7,
=Szs
J
L. -- ! 2 'nr C ! J ant, ... ?- .?
EXHIBIT B
3V the C
Edward E.
_. -.as D. Gould, Esq-,_re
`? J
i I-- (t = JZ ?' o j - --
D1ain7-
v•
X10 _ -'_' D. RU-" WJ :`_
and
Def._ e_
_?a COURT _ C. C 4 -fOV z c,
C v.y ACTION - _`i
-ME" DED C?D R OF CC-,T-,D
PN;D NOW, tl i s 2--.. day 2700, -t-:._
cusloGV order or "^r' l 17, 2000, a-.e-!cec ..o
.?, Ci a-.-?-Ce _.? L -:` r:ext. to Last p'..' r-m.J _ - .. .
C+..a , par' -ds of
J
a.co ^.n. c s-,:a s and c,_--- _ W 2 __??. ?.oc
9 :00 Gulidor
\
^Or r ?e Di
O. Dee- a
EXHIBIT C
1
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI,
Plaintiff
V.
TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI,
JR., and JENNIFER J. DEAN,:
Defendants
Lt ? t
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-6007 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY ACTION
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 2001,, after
hearing, the petition for modification of our prior order is
denied.
All prior orders shall remain in full force and
effect except as modified by agreement of the parties with
regard to the additional overnight visitation. Both parties are
directed to continue mediation with Dr. Stanley Schneider until
he deems it appropriate to stop. Said mediation is to begin
forthwith, and the cost thereof to be borne equally by the
parties.
If the parties wish a re-evaluation of the
custody arrangement, they shall undergo a custody evaluation as
suggested by Ms. Eash, the cost of said evaluation to be bone
equally by each party.
„ homas D. Gould, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Stanley J.A. Laskowski, Esouire
Attorney for Defendant
srs
EXHIBIT D
'J r COPY FROM $ EECORD
1n Tes!:7ncn, h?re f, ! hire unto sat my hand
and t' ;;ea" o sai court at -arlisie, Pa.
7ni .. day of._'_ LL
Pr?ota
By the Court,
June 1, 2007
Cumberland County
Court of Common Pleas
Attention: Judge Edward E. Guido
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
NO. 99-6007 Civil Term
Dear Judge Guido:
We, Timothy David Rutkowski, Jr. (SSN 230373423) and Karen Marie Rybacki
(SSN 207542762) would mutually like to petition a change in the above court order.
We request that the court order be modified to indicate that Timothy Rutkowski
be granted sole, physical custody of his biological daughter, Charlotte Elizabeth
Rutkowski (DOB 01/15/1995).
We appreciate your time in reviewing this matter. Please feel free to contact
either of us with any questions.
r ,
r ?C
Karen M. Rybacki
717-796-7512
ely,
EXHIBIT E
717-761-2757
-r7
-71
' - c
4
KAREN MARIE RUTKOWSKI,
Plaintiff
V. .
TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI, Jr.,
and
JENNIFER J. DEAN,
Defendants
JUN 18 2M7,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99 - 6007 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY ACTION
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW THIS ;?o day of June, 2007, upon review, the
Plaintiff's Petition to Modify Custody Order, with concurrence of
Defendant Timothy D. Rutkowski, is granted and it is hereby ordered
that the previous Order of Court dated November 19, 1999 as amended
on April 17, 2000, April 24, 2000 and July 30, 2001, is modified to
grant Timothy D. Rutkowski sole legal and physical custody of his
daughter Charlotte thereby extinguishing Plaintiff's former loco
parentis status and her previously granted right to partial custody
of her former stepdaughter.
omas D. Gould, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
mothy D. Rutkowski, Pro Se V
S'3
Edward E. Guido. J.
` INVA-MNN3d
A4Nn0':' 76,?-Y `83 It W
q i .Z wd 1 Z Nnr t00Z
A8VIG OHiOUd 3HI JO
93HKI"?i4