The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-2335Pamela L. Purdy, Esquire Attorney ID No. 85783 308 N. Second Street, Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 221-8303 tel (717) 221-8403 fax plpurdy@verizon.net Attorney for Plaintiff SALVATORE ONEGLIA Plaintiff V. ROBERTA ONEGLIA Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. (?; 0 ? LC-? $,,-I CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY AND NOW, Plaintiff, by and through his attorney, Pamela L. Purdy, Esquire, files a Complaint for Custody against Defendant, and in support thereof, avers the following: 1. Plaintiff Salvatore Oneglia ("Father') is an adult individual who currently resides at 5202 Deerfield Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Roberta Oneglia ("Mother") is an adult individual who currently resides at 1600 Letchworth Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff seeks primary custody of the following child: Name Present Address Birthdate Andrew Oneglia 5202 Deerfield Ave. 4/19/97 Mechanicsburg, PA and 1600 Letchworth Road Camp Hill, PA 4. The child was born in wedlock. 5. The child presently is in the custody of Father, who currently resides at 5202 Deerfield Ave., Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, PA, and Mother, who currently resides at 1600 Letchworth Road, Camp Hill, PA. 6. The child has resided with the following person(s) and at the following address(es) for the last five years: Person(s) Address(es) Date(s) Father 5202 Deerfield Ave. until 1120107 Mother Mechanicsburg, PA Rebekeh Oneglia Father 5202 Deerfield Ave. 1120107 to Mechanicsburg, PA present and Mother 1600 Letchworth Road Rebekeh Oneglia Camp Hill, PA Patrick Oneglia 7. The mother of the child is Roberta Oneglia, who currently resides at 1600 Letchworth Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. She is 2 married. 8. The father of the child is Salvatore Oneglia, who currently resides at 5202 Deerfield Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland, Pennsylvania. He is married. 9. The relationship of Plaintiff to the child is that of Father. Plaintiff currently resides with the following persons: Name Relationship Andrew Oneglia son 10. The relationship of Defendant to the child is that of Mother. Defendant currently resides with the following persons: Name Relationship Patrick Oneglia son Rebekeh Oneglia daughter Andrew Oneglia son 1 1. Father has not participated as a party or witness, or in another capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody of the child in this or another court. 12. Father has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the child pending in a court of this Commonwealth. 13. Father does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child. 14. The best interests and permanent welfare of the child will be served 3 by granting Father shared legal and primary physical custody of the child because Father was the primary caregiver for the child when the parties were together and is able to provide a stable environment for the child. Father's job is such that he can set his own hours and be available to be with the child when the child is not in school. Mother works long hours and requires the use of third party caregivers for the child when he is not in school. 15. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been terminated and the person(s) who have physical custody of the child have been named as parties to this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Salvatore Oneglia respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order granting him shared legal and primary physical custody of the child. Respectfully submitted, Pamela L. Purdy Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: Of,?I I t i 4 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint for Custody are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Sa vatore Oneglia I-Z o ? C U11) ?tj n C ry w C) -n r9l? i 2- m OZ SALVATORE ONEGLIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 07-2335 CIVIL ACTION LAW ROBERTA ONEGLIA IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Thursday, May 10, 2007 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before John J. Mangan, Jr., Esq. , the conciliator, at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Monday, June 04, 2007 at 1:00 PM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT. By: /s/ ohm . Mangan, r. Es q. 61-1 Custody Conciliator 41' 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 ?r/ * of V I'tll?C7F,1°t-i 1 1 Wd 01 AM LUZ AUG 10 =7 SALVATORE ONEGLIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : No. 07-2335 Civil Term ROBERTA ONEGLIA Defendant : ACTION IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this l y, day of August, 2007, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that: 1. This Order is entered pursuant to a Custody Conciliation Conference. A Custody Conciliation status conference is hereby scheduled with the assigned conciliator on the 11"' day of September, 2007 at 10:00 am on the Fourth Floor in the Cumberland County. Court of Common Pleas, Carlisle, PA 17013. 2. The Father, Salvatore Oneglia and the Mother, Roberta. Oneglia, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Andrew Oneglia, born April 19, 1997. The parties shall have an equal right to make all major non-emergency decisions affecting the Andrew's general well-being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding his health, education and religion. 3. The Father and the Mother shall share physical custody of Andrew Oneglia on a 2/2/3 schedule for the summer 2007. Starting June 11, 2007, Father shall have custody of the Children Monday and Tuesday, Mother shall have custody Wednesday and Thursday and Father has custody Friday through Sunday. The parties shall reverse this custody arrangement the following week; i.e Mother has custody Monday and Tuesday, Father has Wednesday and Thursday and Mother has Friday through Sunday. 4. Vacation plans shall be mutually agreed to by the Parties. 5. In the event that the custodial party is in need of a babysitter for more than four hours (except when Andrew is in summer camp), the custodial parent shall contact the non-custodial parent and offer said babysitting opportunity to the non- custodial parent. 6. Should either Mother or Father desire to take the Child out of state for a day trip or take them on an over-night trip, one week's prior notice shall be given to the other party. -0, y {ti { 1, SN"NZ;d 7, Y'll '0 1 :8 HV S I snq LOU A l 4 _ "!d a?Il d() 7. Telephone contact between the Child and the non-custodial parent shall be liberal as agreed upon between the parties. 8. Communication between the Mother and Father shall be conducted via e-mail or as mutually agreed to. 9. Holidays: Holidays shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties. 10. The parties shall mutually agree to the provision of transportation and pick- up/drop-off locations and times. 11. In the event of a medical emergency, the custodial party shall notify the other parties as soon as practicable after the emergency is handled. 12. Neither party may say or do anything nor permit a third party to do or say anything that may estrange the Child from the other party, or injure the opinion of the Child as to the other party, or may hamper the free and natural development of the Child's love or affection for the other party. 13. The Mother shall initiate a full custody evaluation by a professional as mutually agree to and engage in therapeutic family counseling as agreed upon. The cost of this counseling, after, any appropriate payment through insurance for the parties, shall be split equally between the parties. The cost of the custody evaluation shall be divided as mutually agreed to. 14. This Order is entered pursuant to a Custody Conciliation Conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. BY T?ffi COURT/ J. Cc: Pamela Purdy, Esquire Andrea Duffy, Esquire John J. Mangan, Esquire SALVATORE ONEGLIA Plaintiff V. ROBERTA ONEGLIA Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 07-2335 Civil Term : ACTION IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(B), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the children who are the subject of this litigation are as follows: Andrew Oneglia, born April 19, 1997, currently in the shared physical custody of the Mother an Father. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on June 4, 2007 with the following individuals in attendance: The Father, Salvatore Oneglia with his counsel, Pamela Purdy, Esquire The Mother, Roberta Oneglia, with her counsel, Andrea Duffy, Esquire 3. The parties agreed to the entry of an Order in the form as attached. Date: (? O John angan, Esquire Cus od Conciliator SIR N?? SALVATORE ONEGLIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ROBERTA ONEGLIA : No. 07-2335 Civil Term Defendant : ACTION IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: Kevin A. Hess, J. COURT ORDER AND NOW, this Y' day of April 2008, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that: 1. This Order is entered pursuant to a Custody Conciliation Conference. A Custody Hearing is hereby scheduled on the /-0 day of Q 2008 at q %30 am/pa?in Courtroom number in the C ber and County Court of Common Pleas, Carlisle, PA 17013 at which time testimony will be taken. For purposes of this hearing, the Father shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for each party shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a Memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list of witnesses who will be expected to testify at the hearing and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. These Memoranda shall be filed at least ten days prior to the hearing date. 2. The prior Order of Court dated August 14, 2007 shall remain in full force and effect absent mutual agreement or further Order of Court pending the custody trial. Cc: ? Pamela Purdy, Esquire, 308 N. 2°a Street, Ste 200, Harrisburg, PA 17101 Andrea Duffy, Esquire, 513 N. 2°d Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101 L/John J. Mangan, Esquire ??FS rn-1 L CEcl, VINVA-lSNN3d 9Z =fl? WV h- Hav OR 301140-VU SALVATORE ONEGLIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ROBERTA ONEGLIA : No. 07-2335 Civil Term Defendant : ACTION IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: Kevin A. Hess, J. CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(B), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Name Date of Birth Currently in the Custody of Andrew Oneglia April 19, 1997 shared by Mother and Father 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on June 4, 2007 with the following individuals in attendance: The Father, Salvatore Oneglia with his counsel, Pamela Purdy, Esquire The Mother, Roberta Oneglia, with her counsel, Andrea Duffy, Esquire 3. An Order was entered in this matter on August 14, 2007 by the Honorable Kevin A. Hess. 4. The parties to this action had agreed to undergo a custody evaluation by Debrah L. Salem, CACD, LPC with Interworks. A status conciliation conference was scheduled for September 2007 but was continued by counsel for the parties in order for Ms. Salem to complete her evaluation. On January 4, 2008, counsel indicated to the undersigned that Ms. Salem had completed her evaluation. On January 18, 2008 counsel for Father indicated that there had been a change in circumstances that needed to be addressed by Ms. Salem. On February 28, 2008, counsel for Mother indicated that the updated evaluation was completed by Ms. Salem and that counsel for Father represented that Father does not agree to Ms. Salem's recommendation regarding the physical custody issue of the subject Child. Counsel for both parties have indicated that a conciliation conference is not required and that a custody trial is necessary before this Honorable Court. 5. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached scheduling a Hearing with shared physical custody as outlined in the Order of Court dated August 14, 2007. It is the Conciliator's belief that this would be in the Child's best interest. It is expected that the Hearing will require one day. 6. The proposed recommended Order may contain a requirement that the parties file a pre-trial memorandum with the Judge to whom the matter has been assigned. /Z Date: Jo gan, Esquir C tody(Conciliator IN SALVATORE ONEGLIA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 07-2335 CIVIL ROBERTA ONEGLIA, Defendant IN CUSTODY MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BEFORE HESS, J. This case involves the custody of an eleven-year-old son of the parties, Andrew, born April 19, 1997. The physical custody of Andrew is currently shared. We will maintain the current order and, for today, explain our reasons in summary form. Witnesses on behalf of the mother included Andrew's siblings. They are estranged from their father and testified at length concerning his abusive personality. Mr. Oneglia's relationship with Andrew, however, appears to be entirely different. Mr. Oneglia has great affection for Andrew and vice versa. Andrew has told us that he likes the current arrangement, loves both of his parent, and would rather not spend more time with one or the other. He has adapted well despite the friction between his parents and, in fact, appears to be thriving. The custody evaluator in this case, Deborah Salem, has recommended that the mother have primary custody. We agree with her that there may storm clouds on the horizons in this case. That is because the parents appear to be on a collision course which has much of its origins in the father's religious practices. He is a Jehovah's Witness. According to the tenets of the religion, Andrew would be expected during his teens to make some election with regard to membership in the faith. In turn, another tenet provides that members should not associate freely N with nonbelievers. This could potentially impact Andrew's relationship with his mother. The fact remains that Andrew is involved at the Kingdom Hall. He has a core group of friends there. Even if we were to curtail the father's custody, we do not sense that Andrew's religious practices would change nor is that, in any event, a proper consideration in the entry of a custody order. Our concern is for the best interests of Andrew in the here and now. His situation is that he has two good parents and he wishes to spend equal time with them. He is doing well and any change in custody would do nothing but run the risk of "upsetting the apple cart." Concerning the future course of this case, Ms. Salem is "stymied." Nonetheless, she recommends a change in the current custody order in order to address the possibility of problems in the future. We do not share her view that a change in custody in this case will necessarily do more good than harm. ORDER AND NOW, this y' day of October, 2008, the court declines to modify the custody order currently in effect. Pamela Purdy, Esquire For the Plaintiff ? Andrea Duffy, Esquire For the Defendant :rim (?D I." S r 4al LCL BY THE COURT, .? r ?° = ?- <' "% v - „ ?, ..? t::" ".a: .?:: .?. t :?;.;' ?? L.L'y .""' . '.., l ?" 1.?. ?..' Law Office of Theresa Barrett Male Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire, ID # 46439 Andrea Hudak Duffy, Esquire, ID # 60910 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1058 (717) 233-3220 tbm .tbmesquire.com Attorneys for Defendant COURT OF COMMON OF PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SALVATORE ONEGLIA Plaintiff V. NO. 07-2335 Civil Term ROBERTA A. ONEGLIA Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1. On October 4, 2008, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order which states in relevant part: "AND NOW, this 4th day of October, 2008, the Court declines to modify the custody order currently in effect." 2. Defendant Roberta A. Oneglia ("Mother") urges the Court to reconsider this decision because: a. The custody order in effect when the Court issued its October 4, 2008 Order was merely an interim order entered by agreement of the parties pending a custody evaluation and evidentiary hearing. b. Neither party was proceeding on a modification petition. Rather, the case proceeded on complaint filed by Salvatore Oneglia ("Father") seeking primary physical custody of the parties' son, Andrew. c. The evidence of record does not support the Court's maintenance of shared legal custody, particularly with respect to Andrew's medical treatment.' d. The evidence of record does not support the Court's maintenance of shared physical custody.2 e. Ms. Salem did not testify that she was "stymied" about the future course of the case. Rather, she used this term to describe her prediction about the parties' ability to reconcile two disparate and inconsistent lifestyles and approaches to problem-solving.3 Ms. Salem was not at all uncertain about her conclusion that the only resolution which would serve Andrew's needs is for Mother to have primary physical custody. f. Ms. Salem did not recommend changing the interim shared custody arrangement "in order to address the possibility of problems in the future." Rather, she urged the Court to award Mother primary physical custody in order to rescue Andrew from the current emotional and psychological quagmire of the shared custody arrangement. ' After interviewing the child, the Court indicated to counsel that the Court was inclined to award Mother sole legal custody, particularly in light of the potential risk to Andrew based on Father's opposition to certain medical treatments, including blood transfusions. 2 The Court also expressed its concern about the effect which maintaining the shared custodial arrangement would have on Andrew. 3 This was, in part, why she recommended appointment of a parenting coordinator. Ms. Salem conceded, however, that even that approach was flawed in light of the irreconcilable differences between the parents' worlds. 2 I 3. Even if the Court rejects Mother's request that the Court reconsider its decision and award her sole legal custody and primary physical custody of Andrew, Mother urges the Court to reconsider its decision not to modify the interim order because: a. Mother should be able to make all of the decisions regarding Andrew's medical treatment. b. Both parties testified that the order "currently in effect" is insufficient in that it does not address holidays and vacation periods. c. Both parties testified that Mother should have custody of Andrew on all of the religious and secular holidays because Father, a Jehovah's Witness, does not celebrate holidays. Wherefore, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion for reconsideration. Alternatively, Defendant requests that the Court enter an order allowing Defendant to make all decisions regarding Andrew's medical treatment, awarding Defendant the Christian and the secular holidays, and awarding each party two consecutive (2) weeks of vacation during the summer break from school. Father does not concur. Law Office of Theresa Barrett Male F, Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire, ID #:46439 Andrea Hudak Duffy, Esquire, ID # 60910 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1058 (717) 233-3220 Dated: December 2, 2008 Attorneys for Defendant 3 PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R.C.P. 440: Service by first-class mail addressed as follows: Pamela L. Purdy, Esquire 308 North Second St., Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Plaintiff Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire, ID # 46439 v Andrea Hudak Duffy, Esquire, ID # 60910 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Attorneys for Defendant Date: December 3, 2008 Law Office of Theresa Barrett Male Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire, ID # 46439 Andrea Hudak Duffy, Esquire, ID # 60910 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1058 (717) 233-3220 tbmC-tbmesguire.com Attorneys for Defendant COURT OF COMMON OF PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SALVATORE ONEGLIA Plaintiff V. NO. 07-2335 Civil Term ROBERTA A. ONEGLIA Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that Roberta A. Oneglia, Defendant, appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the order entered in this matter on the 4t" day of November, 2008. This order has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached copy of the docket entry. Law Office of Theresa Barrett Male Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire, ID # 6439 Andrea Hudak Duffy, Esquire, ID # 60910 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1058 (717) 233-3220 Attorneys for Defendant Date: December 3, 2008 2 PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 1 Civil Case Print 2007-02335 ONEGLIA SALVATORE (vs) ONEGLIA ROBERTA Reference No... Filed......... 4/23/2007 Case Ty e.....: COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time.........: 3:50 Judgment..... 00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: HESS KEVIN A Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: ******************************************************************************** General Index Attorney Info ONEGLIA SALVATORE PLAINTIFF PURDY PAMELA L 5202 DEERFIELD AVENUE MECHANICSBURG PA ONEGLIA ROBERTA DEFENDANT 1600 LETCHWORTH ROAD CAMP HILL PA ******************************************************************************** * Date Entries ******************************************************************************** - - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4/23/2007 COMPLAINT - CUSTODY FILED BY PAMELA L PURDY ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5/10/2007 ORDER OF COURT - 05-10-07 - IN RE: PRE-HEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE 06-04-07 AT 1 PM ON 4TH FLR CUMB CO COURTHOUSE - FOR THE COURT BY JOHN J MANGAN JR ESQ CUSTODY CONCILIATOR - COPIES MAILED 05-10-07 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/15/2007 COURT ORDER - DATED 08-14-07 - IN RE: CUSTODY CONCILIATION REPORT - STATUS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 09-11-07 AT 10:00 AM ON THE 4TH FLOOR OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CARLISLE PA 17013 - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 08-15-07 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/04/2008 COURT ORDER - 4/4/08 IN RE: CUSTODY CONCILIATION REPORT - HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 7/11/08 AT 9:30 AM IN CR4 CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE - THE PRIOR ORDER OF COURT DATED 8/14/07 SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT ABSENT MUTUAL AGREEMENT OR FURTHER ORDER OF COURT PENDING THE CUSTODY TRIAL - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 4/4/08 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/25/2008 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - BY KEVIN A HESS J ------------------------------------------------------------------- 10/13/2008 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - BY KEVIN A HESS J ------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/04/2008 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - 11/4/08 - THE COURT DECLINES TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ORDER CURRENTLY IN EFFECT - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 11/4/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ******************************************************************************** * Escrow Information * Fees & Debits Be*Bal*** mts/Add End Bal ******************************** ****P ****** ******************************* CUSTODY AGMT 135.00 135.00 .00 TAX ON AGMT .50 .50 .00 SETTLEMENT 8.00 8.00 .00 AUTOMATION FEE 5.00 5.00 .00 JCP FEE 10.00 10.00 .00 CUSTODY FEE 5.20 5.20 .00 CUSTODY FEE-CO 1.30 1.30 .00 SUBPOENA 3.00 3.00 .00 168.00 168.00 .00 ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Information res if y iGlfl tlf, I f (rift 0 itry ha grid ilk s of S it J L*, P E IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA SALVATORE ONEGLIA Appellee V. : NO. MDA 2008 ROBERTA A. ONEGLIA Appellee PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the notice of appeal upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R.A.P. 121: Service by hand-delivery addressed as follows: Honorable Kevin A. Hess (717-240-6296) Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, PA 17013 Taryn M. Dixon, Court Administrator (717-240-9190) Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, PA 17013 Service by first-class mail addressed as follows: Pamela L. Purdy, Esquire (717-221-8303) 308 N. Second Street, Suite 200, Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Appellee Dated: December 3, 2008 4 Cr Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 Andrea Hudak Duffy, Esquire Supreme Court # 60910 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717-233-3220) Attorneys for Appellant NZO 4 Lh r i SALVATORE ONEGLIA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 07-2335 CIVIL ROBERTA ONEGLIA, Defendant IN CUSTODY IN RE: APPEAL OF DEFENDANT ORDER AND NOW, December 4, 2008, in accordance with Rule 1925 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Defendant having filed a notice of appeal, the appellant is directed to file of record, within twenty-one (21) days hereof, and serve upon the undersigned a concise statement of the matters complained of on the appeal. BY THE COURT, Pamela L. Purdy, Esquire For the Plaintiff ? Andrea Hudak Duffy, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm 'IT I'vS rnatLL X144165 A t 1 i•s .?E ? yr s CJD COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq. Prothonotary James D. McCullough, Esq. Deputy Prothonotary Mr. Curtis R. Long X335 ?w Superior Court of Pennsylvania Middle District December 8, 2008 100 Pine Street. Suite 400 Harrisburg. PA 17101 717-772-1294 www. superior. court. state.pa. us Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: 2110 MDA 2008 Salvatrore Oneglia V. Roberta A. Oneglia, Appellant Dear Mr. Long: Enclosed please find a copy of the docket for the above appeal that was recently filed in the Superior Court. Kindly review the information on this docket and notify this office in writing if you believe any corrections are required. Appellant's counsel is also being sent a Docketing Statement, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 3517, for completion and filing. Please note that Superior Court Dockets are available on the Internet at the Web site address printed at the top of this page. Thank you. Very truly yours, TP Enclosure Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq. Prothonotary 10:53 A.M. Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 2110 MDA 2008 Superior Court of Pennsylvania Pagel of 3 December 8, 2008 Salvatrore Oneglia V. Roberta A. Oneglia, Appellant Initiating Document: Notice of Appeal Case Status: Active Case Processing Status: December 5, 2008 Journal Number: Case Category: Domestic Relations Awaiting Original Record CaseType: CustodyNisitation Consolidated Docket Nos.: Related Docket Nos.: SCHEDULED EVENT Next Event Type: Receive Docketing Statement Next Event Due Date: December 22, 2008 Next Event Type: Original Record Received Next Event Due Date: February 2, 2009 12!8!2008 3023 10:53 A.M. Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: Pape 2 of 3 December 8, 2008 2110 MDA 2008 Zak COUNSEL INFORMATION Appellant Oneglia, Roberta A. Pro Se: Appoint Counsel Status: IFP Status: No Appellant Attorney Information: Attorney: Male, Theresa Barrett Bar No.: 46439 Law Firm: Address: 513 N Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1058 Phone No.: (717)233-3220 Fax No.: (717)233-6862 Receive Mail: No E-Mail Address: tbm@tbmesquire.com Receive E-Mail: Yes Attorney: Duffy, Andrea Hudak Bar No.: 60910 Law Firm: Address: 513 N Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Phone No.: (717)932-2281 Fax No.: Receive Mail: Yes E-Mail Address: hudakduff@aol.com Receive E-Mail: No Appellee Oneglia, Salvatrore Pro Se: Appoint Counsel Status: IFP Status: Appellee Attorney Information: Attorney: Purdy, Pamela Louise Bar No.: 85783 Law Firm: Address: 308 N Second St Ste 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Phone No.: (717)221-8303 Fax No.: (717)221-8403 Receive Mail: Yes E-Mail Address: plpurdy@purdylawoffice.com Receive E-Mail: Yes FEE INFORMATION Paid Fee Date Fee Name Fee Amt Amount Receipt Number 12!3!08 Notice of Appeal 60.00 60.00 2008SPRMD001056 TRIAL COURT/AGENCY INFORMATION -ourt Below: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas :ounty: Cumberland Division: Civil )ate of Order Appealed From: November 4, 2008 Judicial District: 9 Superior Court of Pennsylvania 12/8/2008 3023 10:53 AA Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 2110 MDA 2008 Superior Court of Pennsylvania Paqe 3 of 3 December 8, 2008 XMIRK& Date Documents Received: December 5, 2008 Date Notice of Appeal Filed: December 3, 2008 Order Type: Order Entered Judge: Hess, Kevin A. Judge OTN: Lower Court Docket No.: 07-2335 ORIGINAL RECORD CONTENTS Original Record Item Filed Date Content/Description Date of Remand of Record: BRIEFS DOCKET ENTRIES Filed Date Docket Entry/Document Name Party Type Filed By December 5, 2008 Notice of Appeal Filed Appellant Oneglia, Roberta A. December 8, 2008 Docketing Statement Exited (Domestic Relations) Middle District Filing Office 121812008 3023 ? '? exs 7 P w? cz:p SALVATORE ONEGLIA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 07-2335 CIVIL ROBERTA ONEGLIA, Defendant IN CUSTODY IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ORDER AND NOW, December 9, 2008, following consideration of the within motion, although the court is willing to entertain reconsideration and, particularly, the entry of proposed order of court #2, we note that this matter is on appeal and we lack jurisdiction to modify our order of October 4, 2008. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED without prejudice. Pamela L. Purdy, Esquire For the Plaintiff ?Andrea Hudak Duffy, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm cc r I iEZ' rn.i t L C BY THE COURT, C`_ 4L t R Law Office of Theresa Barrett Male Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire, ID # 46439 Andrea Hudak Duffy, Esquire, ID # 60910 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1058 (717) 233-3220 tb m Cast b m esq u i re. co m Attorneys for Defendant COURT OF COMMON OF PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SALVATORE ONEGLIA Plaintiff V. NO. 07-2335 Civil Term ROBERTA A. ONEGLIA Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT OF ERRORS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by maintaining the shared legal and physical custody interim agreement, when the evidence adduced at trial confirmed that the child's best interests and permanent welfare would be served by awarding Defendant- Mother primary physical custody and sole legal custody? Law Office of Theresa Barrett Male /2'v? Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire, ID # 46439 Andrea Hudak Duffy, Esquire, ID # 60910 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1058 (717) 233-3220 Attorneys for Defendant Date: December 23, 2008 2 PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R.C.P. 440: Service by first-class mail addressed as follows: Honorable Kevin A. Hess Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Pamela L. Purdy, Esquire 308 North Second St., Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Plaintiff Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire, ID # 46439 Andrea Hudak Duffy, Esquire, ID # 60910 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Attorneys for Defendant Date: December 23, 2008 ri.,, <. ?.j '? '} :? ? ! ? ?. '?`? ,} d SALVATORE ONEGLIA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 07-2335 CIVIL ROBERTA ONEGLIA, Defendant IN CUSTODY IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925 BEFORE HESS, J. On November 4, 2008, we entered an order in this case wherein we denied a request for a change in custody respective to the eleven-year-old son of the parties, Andrew, born April 19, 1997. An appeal has been filed by the defendant, Andrew's mother. In her statement of matters complained of on appeal, filed December 23, 2008, the defendant states a single issue: 1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by maintaining the shared legal and physical custody interim agreement, when the evidence adduced at trial confirmed that the child's best interests and permanent welfare would be served by awarding Defendant-Mother primary physical custody and sole legal custody? We filed a brief memorandum opinion in support of our order of November 4, 2008. We now expand upon our memorandum in this opinion filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). The parties in this case were married on June 8, 1980, and separated in August of 2006. They are the parents of four children: Gabriella, age twenty-seven; Patrick, age twenty-six; Rebecca, age twenty-four; and, Andrew, age eleven. The father resides in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, in a four-bedroom house which is the former marital residence. The mother resides in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,; at a home owned by her fiance, who also resides there. Shortly after the mother left the marital residence, the parties began sharing physical custody of F LED-OfFICL OF THE RROTHONCOTARY 2009 JAN 13 PM 12: 5 0 NO. 07-2335 CIVIL Andrew. Custody became an issue, however, when the father filed a complaint seeking primary physical custody of Andrew. In June of 2007 the parties agreed to maintain a shared custody schedule and to submit the matter of a custody evaluation to Debra L. Salem, CAC,LPD. The father, who was born in Sicily, Italy, is self-employed as a painting contractor. The mother is the executive director of NCAS, a wholly owned subsidiary of Capital Blue Cross. Both parties have flexible work schedules. During the marriage, the father was abusive towards the mother and his three older children. Patrick and Rebecca no longer have a relationship with their father. Gabriella, on the other hand, is estranged from her mother. There is no evidence of any abuse in the father's relationship with Andrew. The mother was raised as an Episcopalian but converted to Roman Catholicism when she married father. Shortly after the parties' marriage, both joined the Jehovah's Witnesses. In 2001, following an altercation with Patrick, the father was counseled by elders in the Jehovah's Witnesses Church or Kingdom Hall. From 2001 until 2006, the father did not attend Jehovah's Witnesses services. Ultimately, the father returned to the practice of this faith. In the meantime, however, the mother disassociated herself entirely from the Jehovah's Witnesses. Because of his faith, the father does not celebrate holidays. He has no objection, however, if Andrew celebrates holidays with his mother. The difference in the religion of the parties raises a concern with respect to Andrew's health care inasmuch as Jehovah's Witnesses are opposed to the transfusion of blood products. The father, however, is knowledgeable concerning alternative methods of medical care and notes that there are doctors in the area who understand how to treat patients without blood products. 2 NO. 07-2335 CIVIL Although Andrew is obviously distressed by the separation of his parents, he has adjusted to the shared custody arrangement and appears content. He is in the sixth grade at Good Hope Middle School which is in a building located behind the father's house. Andrew wishes to continue attending school at Good Hope. The mother does not live in the Cumberland Valley School District but has evidenced a willingness to provide transportation to school. Ms. Salem, the evaluator in this case, has recommended that primary custody of Andrew be awarded to his mother. The mother has adopted the position that she should be awarded primary physical custody. While no longer pursuing his claim for primary physical custody, the father would prefer to at least maintain the status quo. Following our recent hearings in this matter, we ruled in favor of the father. As noted above, Andrew appears content with the current arrangement. We did not keep it in place, however, merely because it is Andrew's preference. His parents, like other divorced people, have some scars from their years of living together. Andrew has managed to emerge relatively unscarred. The fact that he has chosen not to take sides and is, in fact, comfortable spending equal amounts of time with both parents is also very telling as it relates to the question of what is in his best interest. While in shared custody, he has, in fact, thrived. His grades are excellent. He is seated as first chair saxophone player in the school band. He has bonded with both parents and both help him with his homework and attend school functions and take him to doctor's appointments. Andrew goes to both parents for advice and it is clear that his physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual needs are being met in the current custody arrangement. It is true that he receives his religious training primarily from his father. It is his father who takes him to meetings at Kingdom Hall. In our memorandum opinion in November of 3 NO. 07-2335 CIVIL 2008, we expressed concerns about "storm clouds" on the horizon in this case because one tenet of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith is that its members should not associate freely with nonbelievers. While Ms. Salem attempts to disassociate her recommendations from the question of religion, it is clear that one of her main concerns is the potential collision course which would come about in the event that Andrew ever had to make a decision between his father's religion and his mother. We have no crystal ball and will not allow guesswork about the future course of this case to dictate the present custody order. We note, also, the legal arguments of the plaintiff advanced in favor of shared custody. In a seminal case of In Wesley J. K, 445 A.2d 1243 (Pa. Super. 1982), the Superior Court expressed concern in severing meaningful contact with a non-custodial parent: Generally, children develop an attachment to both parents, even though one parent may play an inactive role in the child's development. These attachments are different from others because children depend on them for their security or well- being. If either of these attachments is severed, children suffer greatly. Not only do they hurt from the present loss, their future relationships may be jeopardized. For example, once these attachments are broken, children may become reluctant to place their trust in someone else as completely. They will form new attachments, but in all probability, these ties will not be as strong as they would have been if the early attachment bond had not been severed. ... The children often feel abandoned and rejected. It shakes their basic sense of security to see someone they have loved and trusted gone from their lives. When placed in sole custody, children often see the absence of "visiting" parent as a second-class 4 NO. 07-2335 CIVIL person; if the children have identified with this parent, they may feel inferior also. In re Wesley J.K, 445 A. 2d 1243, 1246-47 (Pa.Super 1982) (citing Bratt, Joint Custody, Ky.L.J. 271, 296-297 (1978-79)). The court in In re Wesley J. K. then went on to suggest what was, at the time, a novel approach to custody cases in Pennsylvania: An alternative to the traditional sole custody arrangement is "shared" or "joint" custody wherein legal custody is shared while physical custody is alternated by the agreement of the parties. The philosophic premise of shared custody is the awarding to both parents of responsibility for decisions and care of the child. In the past non- custodial, conscientious parents have been frustrated by the second class status to which the law has assigned them. It was difficult to develop healthy relationships to a child where their role may have been limited to a weekend parent whose counsel was not sought in decisions affecting the child. Shared custody allows both parents' input into major decisions in the child's life. Id. at 1247. The court went on to observe that shared custody arrangements have been found to foster more natural relations within the divorced family as it more closely models the intact nuclear family. Id. at 1247. In addition, the court observed that the child is much less likely to be used as a weapon by the custodial parent against the non-custodial parent. Id. In order for shared custody to be practicable, of course, the parents must enjoy at least a minimal degree of cooperation. One sign of their ability to cooperate is their prior stipulation to, and ability to abide by, a shared custody arrangement. See Smith v. Smith, 453 A.2d 1002 (Pa.Super. 1982). As the plaintiff observes: NO. 07-2335 CIVIL [T]he parties agreed to both a joint legal and physical custody arrangement shortly after separation, when tensions between them were at their highest. It is clear that both parents are willing to provide love and care for Andrew. The evidence of record supports a finding that both parents have played an active role in Andrew's life since separation and intend on continuing to do so. Testimony from all witnesses, including the custody evaluator and Andrew himself, establishes that Andrew has a loving relationship with both parents and, evidence of record, including email communications between the parties, shows that, despite their dislike for each other at this time, they are able to have the required minimal communication about Andrew and can make joint decisions about his care. Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law, pp. 7-8. We acknowledge that the custody evaluation conducted by Ms. Salem resulted in a recommendation of primary custody in the mother. Ms. Salem filed a report which is most thorough. Her analysis of the situation is, in fact, exhaustive. Her recommendation for a change in custody, however, does not center around a concern for the present but, rather, has more to do with her predictions about the future. She notes, for example, that: The differences in the parents' styles and the ongoing conflict that existed in their marital relationship do not predict a positive, collaborative or open co-parenting relationship in the future. The differences also do not support a successful shared custody schedule. There is no evidence in the parents' past relationship or in their current negotiation that gives the Evaluator any comfort that once "the dust settles" with regard to their separation, they will be able to resolve their differences and collaborate for Andrew's best interest .... Both parents will need interventions to help them change an ingrained perception of the 6 NO. 07-2335 CIVIL other and, more importantly, to change the style they bring to the process that is problematic. Ms. Salem describes Mr. Oneglia as the more rigid and legalistic of the two parents. He is, however, able to work with the mother on issues related to Andrew. It is unclear from her report how or why an award of primary legal and physical custody to the mother will necessarily avoid future problems. Nor is it clear why primary custody in the father would not be equally acceptable. We simply do not understand the connection between Ms. Salem's observations and her recommendation. That having been said, we find many of her conclusions to be insightful. On page 26 of her report, she concludes: In summary, when attempting to find a solution for Andrew that addresses all of the different, complicated factors that create his torn loyalties, the Evaluator experiences the realization that it is nearly impossible to do so .... One gets the sense that it is impossible to establish recommendations that will relieve the anxiety and conflict that Andrew feels while, at the same time, provide him with the family relationships that are so important to him. Giving Andrew what he needs from both of his parents can only occur if the parents take on the requirements to either make major changes in their levels of acceptance of each other or to make changes for Andrew so that he is the first of their four children to be freed of their differences.... From a purely psychological point of view, the painful observation of the profound relationship divisions in this family leads to a concern, on an emotional and psychological level, about the impact on Andrew of an even-more severe form of torn loyalty that most divorced children with an even more profound need to live distinctly different lifestyles in different homes. It is true that Andrew's loyalties are torn. He, however, comprehends his own position in all of this and has been able to adapt. His adaptation has allowed him to maintain a relationship 7 NO. 07-2335 CIVIL with both of his parents. We fail to understand how marginalizing his contact with either parent will improve upon his situation. In short, we are not satisfied that an award of primary custody to one parent or the other is in Andrew's best interest. January/3, 2009 Z Pamela L. Purdy, Esquire For the Plaintiff TT TI eresa Barrett Male, Esquire /Andrea H. Duffy, Esquire For the Defendant Am cof t E.S , n!R t LicL !/? 3/0?( ,::?n CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: Superior Court of PA The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: Salvatore Oneglia VS. Roberta Oneglia 07-2335 Civil Term 2110 MDA 2008 The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.1 to 416, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 01/08'/2009 . C is R. Luffg', Proth notary Regina Lebo An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy, thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. Date Signature & Title Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland ss: In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I.have hereunto this 28th I, Curtis R. Long , Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in and for said County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the whole record of the case therein stated, wherein $ejl-%Z3tnra Oneal i a Plaintiff, and Roberta Onealia Defendant , as the same remains of record before the said Court at No. 07-2335 of Civil Term, A. D. 19 . set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court day of,.V JanuaryA. D., W2M Prothonotary 1, agar B. Bayley President Judge of the Ni nth Judicial District, composed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that 0irtin, R_ Tnnq , by whom the annexed record, certificate and attestation were made and given, and who, in his own proper handwriting, thereunto subscribed his name and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said County, was, at the time of so doing, and now is Prothonotary in and for said County of Cumberland in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, duly commissioned and d to all of whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of ' re a els e nd that the said record, certificate and attestation are in due form of law and a by the ropt ficer t Pres en? Judge Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland ss: 1, Curtis R. Long Prothonotary bf the Court of Common Pleas in and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley by whom the foregoing attestation was made, and who has thereunto subscribed his name, was, at the time of making thereof, and still is President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Orphan' Court and Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for said County, duly Commissioned and qualified; to all whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given, as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this 9 day of JADILUY A. D. 18x211() Prothonotary Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the county of Cumberland in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2110 MDA 2008 to No. 07-2335 Civil Term, 19 is contained the following: COPY OF Appearance DOCKET ENTRY Salvatore Oneglia VS. Roberta Oneglia **SEE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCKET ENTRIES** O O 4 4'+ ? o 0 y t1 N W o a ? It fo CO b o d h 0 c yyvJy? Civil ase Print 2007-02335 ONEGLIA SALVATORE (vs) ONEGLIA ROBERTA Reference No..: Filed........: 4/23/2007 Case Type.....: COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time.........: D i 3:50 0/00/0000 Judgment......: 00 on ate Execut Judge Assigned: HESS KEVIN.A Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 1 i . 0/00/0000 211OMDA2008 ------------ Case Comments - ------------ .: H gher Crt Higher Crt 2.: ***************************** *************************************************** General Index Attorney Info ONEGLIA SALVATORE PLAINTIFF PURDY PAMELA L 5202 DEERFIELD AVENUE MECHANICSBURG PA ONEGLIA ROBERTA DEFENDANT 1600 LETCHWORTH ROAD CAMP HILL PA ******************************************************************************** * Date Entries ******************************************************************************** - - - - - - - - . - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C,7-,V 4/23/2007 COMPLAINT - CUSTODY FILED BY.PAMELA L PURDY ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5/10/2007 ORDER OF COURT - 05-10-07 - IN RE: PRE-HEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE 06-04-07 AT 1 PM ON 4TH FLR CUMB CO COURTHOUSE - FOR THE COURT BY JOHN J MANGAN JR ESQ CUSTODY CONCILIATOR - COPIES MAILED 05-10-07 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/15/2007 COURT ORDER - DATED 08-14-07 - IN RE: CUSTODY CONCILIATION REPORT - STATUS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 09-11-07 AT 10:00 AM ON THE 4TH FLOOR OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CARLISLE PA 17013 - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 08-15-07 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/04/2008 COURT ORDER - 4/4/08 IN RE: CUSTODY CONCILIATION REPORT - HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 7111[08 AT 9:30 AM IN CR4 CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE - THE PRIOR ORDER OF COURT DATED 8 14/07 SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT ABSENT MUTUAL AGREEM NT OR FURTHER ORDER OF COURT PENDING THE CUSTODY TRIAL - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 4/4/08 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/25/2008 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - BY KEVIN A HESS J ------------------------------------------------------------------- ,21?-3-Wv 10/13/2008 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - BY KEVIN A HESS J ------------------------------------------------------------------- 39/-3fi'„?11/04/2008 MODIFY THE CUSTODY ORDER RC //URRENTLY4IN8EF- THE FECT - BYTKEVIN IAEHESS J - COPIES MAILED 11/4/08 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3y''12/03/2008 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - BY ANDREA HUDAK DUFFY ATTY FOR DEFT ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5? ?9? 12/03/2008 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT - BY ANDREA HUDAK DUFFY ATTY FOR DEFT ------------------------------------------------------------------- ER - 12/04/2008 MAILED 124%088 IN RE: APPEAL OF DEFT - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES ------------------------------------------------------------------- yp/_yDy12/09/2008 SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO #2110 MDA 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------- 35} 12/09/2008 ORDER - 12/9/08 IN RE: DEFTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - THE DEFTS MOTION IS DE IED WITHOUT PREJUDICE - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 12/9/08 ------------------------------------------------------------------- qUS 4/0712/23/2008 DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTHERESAT ERRORS COOTPMALEED OF ON ADEFTL PURSUANT ATTY FOR TO PA RAP 1925 - BY ------------/-------------------------------------------------------9 IN RE: ga_y1S-1/13/2009 ORDERJ -1COPIES MAILED D/13%09 PURSUANT TO RULE 1925 - BY KEVIN A HESS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/28/2009 NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRIES MAILED TO PAMELA PURDY ESQ AND ANDREA DUFFY ESQ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 41& f?'(t'rn 0 ?"? i nG?uin S ZZr A,'L YS rs,]?yy l-UILUJC1y0.11V. ?,.VUlll.y r1V1.11V 11V 1.0.1Y .? V?lll..c rClyc G Civil Case Print 2007-02335 ONEGLIA SALVATORE (vs) ONEGLIA ROBERTA Reference No..: Filed........: 4/23/2007 Case Type.....: COMPLAINT - 00 d CUSTODY Time.........: Execution Date 3:50 0/00/0000 gment......: Ju Judge Assigned: HESS KEVIN A Jury Trial... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 1 0/00/0000 2110MDA2008 ------------ Case Comments - ----------- - .: Higher Crt Higher Crt 2.: ***************************** *********** ************ **************************** * Escrow Information * Fees & Debits Beg Bal ymts/Ad?j P End Bal * CUSTODY AGMT 135.00 135.00 .00 TAX ON AGMT .50 .50 .00 SETTLEMENT 8.00 8.00 .00 AUTOMATION FEE 5.00 5.00 .00 JCP FEE 10.00 10.00 .00 CUSTODY FEE 5.20 5.20 .00 CUSTODY FEE-CO 1.30 1.30 .00 SUBPOENA 3.00 3.00 .00 APPEAL HIGH CT 48.00 - 48.00 --------- -- .00 ---------- ---- ---------- 216.00 216.00 .00 ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Information ******************************************************************************** TRUE C-7" )RD In Testimony v h had and the seal of sa?.J ?_:nrt at Carl sly, Pa. This .... ..... day of . VIL........ , ...............`.. ...... Prothonotary Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq. bupertor Court of Venn5ptbanta Pennsylvania Judicial Center Prothonotary Middle District P.O. Box 62435 Milan K. Mrkobrad, Esq. 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 1600 Deputy Prothonotary Harrisburg, PA 17106-2435 (717) 772-1294 www. superior.courtstate. pa. us CERTIFICATE OF REMITTAUREMAND OF RECORD TO: Mr. Long Prothonotary RE: Oneglia, S. v. Oneglia, R. 2110 M DA 2008 Trial Court: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas Trial Court Docket No: 07-2335 Annexed hereto pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 2571 and 2572 is the entire record for the above matter. Original Record contents: Item Filed Date Description Part January 29, 2009 1 Transcripts January 29, 2009 2 Envelope January 29, 2009 1 Remand/Remittal Date: 12/03/2009 ORIGINAL RECIPIENT ONLY - Please acknowledge receipt by signing, dating, and returning the enclosed copy of this certificate to our office. Copy recipients (noted below) need not acknowledge receipt. Res ectfully, an K. Mrko rad, Esq. Deputy Prothonotary /aas Enclosure cc: Andrea Hudak Duffy, Esq. The Honorable Kevin A. Hess, Judge Pamela Louise Purdy, Esq. FULL) E .?? "TAY 2009 UEC -4 Fi 1 1 J. A22017/09 0 -2 , a 335- 6I NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 SALVATORE ONEGLIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF Appellee PENNSYLVANIA V. ROBERTA A. ONEGLIA, Appellant NO. 2110 MDA 2008 Appeal from the Order entered November 4, 2008, In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Civil at No. 07-2335 BEFORE: GANTMAN, FREEDBERG, JJ., and McEWEN, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM: FILED: October 22, 2009 Appellant, Roberta A. Oneglia (mother), brings this appeal from the shared custody order providing her and appellee, Salvatore Oneglia (father), with shared legal and physical custody of the parties' son, Andrew, born April 19, 1997.1 We affirm. 1 See: Order of November 4, 2008, "declin[ing] to modify the custody order currently in effect." The ""order currently in effect" refers to the interim custody order that provided that the parties have shared legal custody, and shared physical custody as follows: Father shall have custody of the children [sic] Monday and Tuesday, Mother shall have custody Wednesday and Thursday, Father shall have custody Friday through Sunday. The parties shall reverse the custody arrangement the following week, i.e. Mother has custody Monday and Tuesday, Father has Wednesday and Thursday, and mother has Friday through Sunday. Order, dated August 14, 2007, ¶ 3 (filed August 15, 2007). See also: Order, April 4, 2008 (directing order of August 14, 2007 remain in full force and effect absent mutual agreement or further order of court pending the custody trial). a 1. A22017/09 The trial court has aptly summarized the factual and procedural background relevant to our review: The parties in this case were married on June 8, 1980 and separated in August of 2006. They are the parents of four children: Gabriella, age twenty-seven; Patrick, age, twenty-six; Rebecca, age twenty-four; and Andrew, age eleven. The father resides in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, in a four-bedroom house which is the former marital residence. The mother resides in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, at a home owned by her fiance, who also resides there. Shortly after the mother left the marital residence, the parties began sharing physical custody of Andrew. Custody became an issue, however, when father filed a complaint seeking primary physical custody of Andrew. In June of 2007 the parties agreed to maintain a shared custody schedule and to submit the matter of a custody evaluation to Debra L. Salem, CAC, LPD. The father, who was born in Sicily, Italy, is self-employed as a painting contractor. The mother is the executive director of NCAS, a wholly owned subsidiary of Capital Blue Cross. Both parties have flexible work schedules. During the marriage, the father was abusive towards the mother and his three older children. Patrick and Rebecca no longer have a relationship with their father. Gabriella, on the other hand, is estranged from mother. There is no evidence of any abuse in the father's relationship with Andrew. The mother was raised as an Episcopalian but converted to Roman Catholicism when she married father. Shortly after the parties' marriage, both joined Jehovah's Witnesses. In 2001, following an altercation with Patrick, the father was counseled by elders in the Jehovah's Witnesses Church or Kingdom Hall. From 2001 to 2006, the father did not attend Jehovah's Witnesses services. Ultimately, the father returned to the practice of the faith. In the meantime, however, mother disassociated herself entirely from the Jehovah's Witnesses. -2- J. A22017/09 Because of his faith, the father does not celebrate holidays. He has no objection, however, if Andrew celebrates holidays with his mother. The difference in the religion of the parties raises a concern with respect to Andrew's health care inasmuch as Jehovah's Witnesses are opposed to transfusion of blood products. The father, however, is knowledgeable concerning alternative methods of medical care and notes that there are doctors in the area who understand how to treat patients without blood products. Although Andrew is obviously distressed by the separation of his parents, he has adjusted to the shared custody arrangement and appears content. He is in the sixth grade at Good Hope Middle School which is in a building located behind father's house. Andrew wishes to continue attending school at Good Hope. The mother does not live in the Cumberland Valley School District but has evidenced a willingness to provide transportation to school. Ms. Salem, the evaluator in this case, has recommended that primary custody of Andrew be awarded to his mother. The mother has adopted the position that she should be awarded primary physical custody. While no longer pursuing his claim for primary physical custody, the father would prefer to at least maintain the status quo. Trial Court Opinion, January 13, 2009, pp. 1-3. Following hearings-held on July 11, 2008, and September 18, 2008-the trial court "decline[d] to modify the custody order currently in effect," thus determining that shared legal and shared physical custody of Andrew by the parties was in Andrew's best interests. Order, November 4, 2008. This appeal by mother followed. Mother contends that the trial court abused its discretion in not awarding her primary physical custody and sole legal custody. After a - 3 - a 3. A22017/09 thorough review of the briefs of the parties, the record, and relevant law, we disagree on the basis of the cogent opinions of the distinguished Judge Kevin A. Hess, filed January 13, 2009, and November 4, 2008. The trial court recognized that the custody evaluator had recommended that primary custody of Andrew be awarded to mother. The trial court also recognized concerns that Andrew's religious training with father as a Jehovah's Witness could potentially impact Andrew's relationship with his mother. Nevertheless, the trial court explained that it determined that a shared custody arrangement should be kept in place, not just because it was Andrew's preference, but because the evidence showed that he had thrived in shared custody under the interim order. The trial court declined to change the shared custody schedule, in which Andrew was obviously content, based upon the evaluator's recommendation that ""does not center around a concern for the present, but rather has more to do with her predictions about the future." Trial Court Opinion, January 13, 2009, p. 6. The trial court concluded that the shared custody arrangement was in the best interests of Andrew. Based on our review of this record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the decision of the trial court to enter a shared custody order. Thus, we adopt the rationale expressed by the trial court in its separate opinions as dispositive of this appeal.2 2 See: Trial Court Opinions, January 13, 2009, and November 4, 2008. -4- J. A22017/09 Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Deputy Prothonotary October 22, 2009 Date: -5- ?_?-i ?? 4? ?. f -" , "?. L ... .. • CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSI'LVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: Superior Court of PA The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: Salvatore Oneglia vs. Roberta Oneglia 07-2335 Civil Term 2110 MDA 2008 The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.l to 416, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is O1/~t~/2009 . Ct is R. Lo othon ary Regina Lebo An additional copy of this certificate is encloserd,,.~a~d~e s~-~~~ate copy, thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. JAN ~~ ~ c~~~ Date Signature &~}~ Pamela L. Purdy PA ID No. 85783 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 171 '10 (717) 221-8303 tel (717) 221-8403 fax plpu rdy@,verizon. net SALVATORE ONEGLIA Plaintiff IN THE COURT C-F COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 07-2335 ROBERTA RITTER, f/k/a ROBERTA ONEGLIA CIVIL ACTION - L,AW Defendant IN CUSTODY MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE AND NOW, this ~l ~ l o~ ~ _ day of October, 2012, Pamela L. Purdy, counsel of record for Plaintiff, hereby files this Motion to Make Rule Absolute, and in support thereof avers the following: 1. On September 28, 2012, Pamela L. Purdy, Counsel for Defendant, filed a Petition to Withdraw as Counsel. 2. This Court entered a Rule to Show Cause on October 3, 2012, requiring both parties to show cause why the Petition to Withdraw as Counsel should not be granted within 20 days of the date of service. 3. Neither party filed an answer to the Petition to Withdraw as Counsel. 4. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. §206.7, if an answer is not filed, "all averments of fact in the petition may be deemed admitted... and the court shall enter an appropriate order." 5. The Honorable Kevin A. Hess has previously ruled in this matter. VIIHEREFORE, Plaintiff's Counsel, Pamela L.. Purdy, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order granting her Petition to Withdraw as Counsel. Respectfully submitted, >`~~ ~'~ 7 .s Jul -\ ~~'~ n.:... - ~~\ / / arnela L. Purdy i Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: '; , ~~G~..e,Fl. ~ c~ .G~~ Z/ ;` 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on the ~ ~~ .day of October, 2012, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by U.S. Mail on the following: Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Salvatore Oneglia 5202 Deerfield ,Ave. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 ~'~~ ~~~'_~.-~~ ~ j ~ ~ ~: ~~' Pamela L. Purdy i SALVAf['ORE ONEGLIA. 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA v No. 07-2335 Civil Term r^ ROBER"I~A ONEGLIA, N/K/A ~~ ~ ~ =r~~? ~ ROBERTA RITTER ~ 1- '-`' ~' -+c; r_.. _U ~-r; Defendant :ACTION IN CUSTODY ~ ~:,, ! ~~' -+ c Prior Jr.cdge: Kevin A. Hess, P.J.. ~~ L: ,._; C ~' ~ `~~'f' COURT ORDER ` ~ c.~ C~~ AND NOW, this 31 ~ day of October x!012, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that: Leal Custody: The Father, Salvatore Oneglia, and the Mother, Roberta Ritter, shall have shared legal custody of Andrew Oneglia, born 04/19/1997. The parties shall have an equal right to make all major non-emergency decisions affecting the Child's general well-being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding his health, education and religion. Pursuant to the terms of 23 Pa.C.S. §5309, each parent shall be entitled to all records a.nd information pertaining to the Child inchzding, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious or school records, the residence address of the Child and of the other parent. To the extent one parent has -possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time; as to make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent. ?. Pl~sical Custody: Mother shall have primary physical custody of the Child subject to Father's physical custody as follows: a. Father shall have partial physical custody of Andrew by agreement of the parties. Due consideration shall be given to Andrew's request for time with Father and the parties' and Andrew"s schedules. Each parent shall have two non-consecutive weeks of vacation with the Child per year. The requesting parent shall give the other parent 30 days advance notice of the requested time and this vacation week shall supersede the regular physical custody schedule. In the event the parties schedule conflicting vacations. the party first providing written notice shall have the choice of vacation. Prior to departure, the parties will provide each other with information regarding the intended vacation destination and a telephone number at which they can be reached during their vacation. The parties may expand this vacation tune (or have T~~~/o consecutive weeks) by mutual agreement. /S- ~R'~•i 4. l~n~ the event the custodial parent should take the Child out of state, the custodial parent shall notify the non-custodial parent within twenty-four hours of departure of the intended destination and a telephone number at which they can be reached. 5. The non-custodial parent shall have liberal telephone/email/text contact with the C~'hil~d on a reasonable basis. 6. l~lolidays: Holidays shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties. I'he parties shall mutually agree to the provision of transportation and pick- up/drop-off locations and times. in the event of a medical emergency, the custodial party shall notify the other party as soon as possible after the emergency is handled. 9. I`~either party may say or do anything nor permit a third party to do or say anything that may estrange the Child from the other party, or injure the opinion of the Child as to the other party, or may hamper the free and natural development of the Child's love or affection for the other party. To the extent possible. both parties shall not allow third parties to disparage the other parent in the presence of th e Child. 10. During any periods of custody or visitation, the parties shall not possess or use i}regal substances or consume/be under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication. The parties shall likewise assure, to the extent possible, that other household members and/or house guests comply with this provision,. 1 1, k~:elocation. The parties are advised that neither party shall hereafter relocate the child or children if such relocation will significantly impair the ability of a non- relocating party to exercise his or her custodial rights unless (a) every person who has custodial rights to the child/children consents to the proposed relocation or (b) the court approves the proposed relocation. The party seeking relocation must f~;~~llow the procedures required by 23 Pa.C.S. X5337. 12 This Order is entered pursuant to a Custody Conciliation Conference. The parties nay modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. BY T COURT; .~ j P.J. Cc: ~~~>•esa Barrett Male, Esq., 4431 North Front St., 3r~'Fl., Harrisburg, P ~ 17110-1778 ~1;~C%en Barcavage, Esquire ~~ohn J. Mangan, Esquire ~.e~ SALVATORE ONEGLIA Plaintiff ~. ROBERTA ONEGLIA, N/K/A ROBER~TA RITTER, Defendant Prior Judge: Kevin A. Hess, P.J. TN 'THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNS~'LVANIA No. 07-2335 Civil Term ACTION IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEL'~URE 1915.3-8(B), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. 7~he pertinent information pertaining to the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Name Date of Birth Currently in the Custody of Andrew t~neglia 04/19/199? Primary Mother 2. A conference was held June 04, 2007, an Order issued August 14, 2007. an Order issued April 04, 2008 and a conference was held October 16, 2012 with the fallowing individuals in attendance: The Mother, Roberta Ritter, with her counsel, Theresa Barrett Male, Esq. The Father, Salvatore Oneglia, with his counsel, Steven Barcavage, Esq. ~. T'he parties agreed to the entry of an Order in the form as attached. i ,„ c_.--c._ Date: ~~~~~.:~'/l ~1 ~-~---~ Joh J. gari, Esquire ,,..~~ C tod Conciliator ,~,/ \.:- J SALVATORE ONEGLIA Plaintiff v. ROBERTA RITTER, f/k/a ROBERTA ONEGLIA Defendant AND NOW, this S~ day of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N(O. 07-2335 CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER ti's ~r , 2012, upon review of the Motion to Make Rule Absolute, said Motion is hereby granted. Plaintiff's Counsel is hereby granted permission to withdraw as counsel. BY THE COURT: Distribution: ~ Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 / Salvatore Oneglia 5202 Deerfield Ave. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 / Pamela Purdy, Esquire Law Office of Pamela L. Purdy 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 j,~; ~s /tai."l ~d ~ l~.S f~a ~GL ~ /~/~ J. /, c ..~ ~ rv -! PTl ~ -r fT1 O ""-• fr2 .._..: .~ - ~~ ~ r--, r c cis -ta v ~~ ~ ~ ~, _- ` . ~: _i c~ c::~ . . - ~-_ ~~, ,~_. °~, ~' ? ~ : 1, ;~ ,;~ r1 ~ J ~~V~~ ti{ ~~ r r~ ~ q .r~ICi~. Pamela L. Purdy, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #85783 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 PH: (717) 221-8303 FX: (717) 221-8403 plpurdy@verizon.net SALVATORE ONEGLIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 07-2335 ROBERTA ONEGLIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant IN CUSTODY PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of Plaintiff, Salvatore Oneglia, in the above-captioned matter. P meta L. Purdy Dated: ~a,~~~~-lit-~ '7,d~ Z,,,_