Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-4385TODD M. MILLER, Plaintiff ERIC DAVID NORDSTROM and KIMBERLY MARIE MILLER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03- /-] S ~--~'/' CIVILACTION- LAW IN CUSTODY PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT TO CONFIRM CUSTODY Defendant, Eric David Nordstrom, is an adult individual currently residing at 1647 Hall Street, Shoreview, MN 44126, and is the natural father of the child named below. 2. Defendant, Kimberly Marie Miller, is an adult individual residing at 62 West Ridge Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and is the natural mother of the child named below. 3. Defendant Kimberly Marie Miller resides with her husband, Jeremy Eugene Miller, at the above address. 4. Plaintiff, Todd M. Miller, is an adult individual currently residing at 236 South West Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and is the brother of Jeremy Eugene Miller. 5. Plaintiff, Todd M. Miller, resides with his mother and father, Jonathan F. and Emily M. Miller at the above address, and with Marnie Elaine Lindfors Nordstrom, the child who is the subject of this action. Mamie resides with Plaintiff, Todd M. Miller, pursuant to a private custody arrangement with mother, Kimberly Marie Miller. 6. The subject of this action is Mamie Elaine Lindfors Nordstrom, bom April 30, 1994, in Minneapolis, MN, and who is currently residing with Plaintiff and his parents at 236 South West Street, Carlisle, PA 17013. 7. Mamie has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Reactive Attachment Disorder for which she takes Adderall and Celexa. 8. The above described illnesses primarily result from abuse suffered at the hands of her natural father, Eric David Nordstrom, and also diagnosed mental illness of the natural mother, Kimberly Marie Miller, which prevents her from consistently meeting the needs of Mamie. 9. Since the June of 2002, Plaintiff, Todd M. Miller, has regularly acted in locoparentis for Marnie, providing nurturing and care. 10. Plaintiff, Todd M. Miller, desires full legal and physical custody of Mamie with the 12. 13. 14. Mamie. 15. intention of eventually adopting her. 11. Plaintiff, Todd M. Miller, has been advised that: a. On May 15, 2002, full legal and physical custody of Marnie and her brother was awarded to the natural mother, Kimberly Marie Miller, by the Ramsey County (Minnesota) District Court. A copy of said decision is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A." b. Concurrently with the hearing that resulted in the above Order, the parties agreed that the natural mother, Kimberly Marie Miller, would relocate with the children to Pennsylvania. A copy of this agreement is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B." c. On June 17, 2003, following a visit byMarnie with her paternal grandparents in Minnesota, and after they refused to return Marnie to Pennsylvania, the Lake County (Minnesota) District Court placed Mamie with the natural mother, Kimberly Marie Miller, with legal custody in the Lake County Human Services Department. A copy of this Order is attached as Exhibit d. Supervision of Mamie was transferred from Minnesota to Pennsylvania when Mamie returned to Pennsylvania with her mother. e. An Emergency Dependency Petition filed by Cumberland County Children and Youth Services was dismissed by Cumberland Connty Court at a hearing on September 4, 2003 on the basis that custody of Maxnie had been privately placed with Plaintiff, Todd M. Miller. Mamie has been a resident of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania since June of 2002. Neither of the natural parents are fit parents. Plaintiff, Todd M. Miller, is ready, willing and able to continue in locoparentis of Mother, Kimberly Marie Miller, concurs in the request of Plaintiff, Todd M. Miller, that he have sole legal and physical custody of Mamie. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Todd M. Miller, prays Your Honorable Court to grant him sole legal and physical custody of Mamie Elaine Lindfors Nordstrom, bom April 30, 1994. Date: September 4, 2003 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO Thomas J. Willia~, Esquire Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY In Re the Welfare of: Mamie Elaine Nordstrom Alexander Steven Nordstrom RCCHSD 5th F]oor 160 East Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, ~ 55101 and Kimberly Miller 12901 Upton Ave. So, #121 Bumsville, MN 55337 Eric Nordstrom 1647 Hall Street Shoreview, MN 55126 FILED Minor Children Petitioner Co-Petitioner Respondent DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT DIVISION Court File No. J1-01-551726 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FOR CUSTODY The above-entitled matter came on before the Honorable Teresa R. Warner, Judge of Ramscy County District Court, Juvenile Court Division, pursumat to a petition of Ramsey County Community lluman Services Department (hereinafter "RCCHSD") and iGmberly Miller seeking permanent legal and physical custody of the minor children, Mamie and Alexander Nordstrom. Based upon thc Stipulation entered into between the parties herein, which is made a part hereof, and upon all of the fi les, records and proceedings herein, the Court makes the following: EXHIBIT "A" NordStrom. FINDINGS OF FACT Proper service according to the law has been made upon the falher, Eric The tree aud correct names and addresses of the Petitioner and Respondent are as stated in the caption above. 3, Respondent, Eric Nordstrom, is the father mother of the minor children and is 28 years old, having been born on March 13, 1974. 4. The Co-Petitioner is the mother of the minor children and is a suitable legal aud physical custodian. 5. The transfer of custody is in the best interests of the children because it preserves the bond between the children and their family unit. Kimberly Miller is Mamie and Alexander's mother and she has the capacity to give the children love, affection and guidance. Alexander has been residing with Ms. Miller for approximately six months and Mamie has been residing with them for approximately two mouths. Ms. Miller has provided Alexander and Mamie with a safe and stable living environment and she has the ability and desire to continue providing them with a safe and stable living environment. Since Alexander and Mamie have been living with Ms. Miller, they have adjusted well to their home and school environment. 6. Respondent has been involved with Child Protection Services since March 20(}1. The children were adjudicated Children in Need of Protection and Services (hereinafter "CttlPS") on August 6, 2001 and the Juvenile Court has retained temporary legal custody of the children since that time. The father has been unable to regain custody of the children. 7. It is in the best interests of the children that the Co-Petitioner be awarded legal and physical custody. 8. It is in the best interests ol'the child, Marnie Nordstrom, that Respondent have visitation with child every other weekend from after school on Friday until Sunday at 7:00 p~m., at the discretion of both parcnts. 10. 11. reference. It is in the best ioterests of the child, Alexander Nordstrom, that Respondent have no visitation with the child until the child is emotionally stabilized. The child's emotional stabilily will be determined by RCCHSD in consultation with the therapist. When it is detemfined that the child is ready tbr visitation and the no contact has been lifted, visitation will occur slowly in one to two hour increments. The visits may be increased over time and should eventually coincide with Mamie's visitation. All visitation is at the discretion of both parents. 9. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to MINN. STAT. §260C.201, subd. 11 (d)(I) and §257.025 (or MrNN. STAT §518.17) and has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to MINN. STAT. §51 SA.01 et. seq. An earlier Order for Custody has been entered in Ramsey County. The parties herein have entered into a Stipulation which is incorporated herein by CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER I. Legal and Physical Custody of the Minor Children. The Co-Petitioner, Kimberly Miller, is awarded legal and physical custody of the children, namely: Mamie Nordstrom, bom Aphl 3, 1994 and Alexander Nordstrom, bom March 13~ 1995. 2. Visitation. Respondent shall have visitation with cbitd, Mamie Nordstrom, every other weekend from after school on Friday until Sunday at 7:00 p.m., at the discretion of both parents. Respondent shall have no visitation with thc child, Alexander Nordstrom, until thc child is emotionally stabilized. The child's emotional stability will be determined by RCCHSD in consultation with the therapist. When it is determined that the child is ready tbr visitation and thc no contact has been lifted, visitation will occur slowly in one to two hour increments. The visits may be increased over time and should eventually coincide with Mamie's visitation. All visitation is at the discretion of both parents. 3. Child Support. The case shall be transferred to Family Court for a determination of Respondent's obligation to pay child support. Respondent shall cooperate in providing financial information for the purpose o£establishing the appropriate level of child support. 4. Ramsev County Juvenile Court CHIPS Action. The children are discharged from the status of Children In Need of Protection and Services and of legal custody with RCCHSD. Jutisdiction of thc Juvenile Court is terminated. 5. There shall be nv ft~rther Juvenile Court appearances in this matter, The review heating scheduled for August 6. 2002 is canceled. 6. The guardian ad litem is discharged. 7. Service by Mail. A copy of this Order shall be served upon all parties by service upon their respective counsel by U.S. Mail. Where a party is unrepresented, service shall be made upon the party by U.S. Mail at their last known address. 8. Ramsey County Community Human Services Department shall be served wilh any future motion to modify this Order, at the following address: Ramsey County Community Human Services Department Child Protection Unit Ramsey County Government Center East t60 E. Kellogg Blvd., Suite 6000 St. Paul, MN 55101 Attn: Child Protection Intake Supervisor BY THE COURT: Judge of Ramsey County Juvenile Court Ramsey County District Court Juvenile Courl Division Typed: BR; 5/9/02 Findings of Fact, Conclusions o£Law and Order for Custody The Oflic~ o~ Juvenile Goull, P. amoey co~fv th:'.t the ~1~ched ~gtrument is Out Of State Relocation Agreement Regarding Alexander Stephen Lindfors Nordstrom (DOB 13MAR1995) and Marnie Elaine Lindfors Nordstrom (DOB 31APR1994), hereafter, "The Children". PARTIES Kimberly M. Miller, biological mother to The Children, hereafter, "Mother"; Eric D. Nordstrom, biological father to The Children, hereafter "Father"; Jeremy E. Miller, step-father to The Children, hereafter "Step-Father". COVERAGE Whereas, the Mother has been granted full legal and physical custody from Ramsey County District Court, Second Judicial District, Juvenile Court Division, Court File No. J1-01-551726, dated 07MAY2002; Whereas, it is the desire of the Mother and Step-Father to relocate to a new residence outside of the state of Minnesota; Whereas, this relocation has been discussed between Mother and Father, and have decided in accordance with the recomn~endations of four mental health care providers involved with the case, that this relocation will be in the best interests of The Children; NOW, THEREFORE, it is stipulated and agreed by all parties for Mother and Step-Father to relocate with The Children to a location out of the state of Minnesota, as such permission is required by Minnesota state family law, along with the following provisions and stipulations, some in accordance with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction And Enforcement Act (1997): 1. Father agrees to allow the relocation(s) to happen; 2. Father agrees and accepts full financial culpability for any and all future visitations with The Children, after the relocation(s) take place; 3. Father agrees visitation with either child will occur only under the approval and supervision, if necessary, of The Children's Mental Health Care Professional team. This arrangement will remain in force until such time as all parties are satisfied that such approval and/or supervision is no longer necessary, for the safety and best interests of The Children, again with the approval of the aforementioned Mental Health Care Professionals; 4. Father agrees to accept full financial culpability for any and all future judicial motions and hearings brought to any court of law in regards to the Children, including travel expenses for the Mother and The Children, if either's presence at such motion or hearing would be of benefit to the Mother or The Children, or if either are summoned for such motion or hearing; 5. Father agrees that the No Contact Order (Ramsey County District Court, Second Judicial District, C.A. File No. 1407255, CN# 00031873) that is in EXHIBIT "B" effect between Father and Alexander in Minnesota will be likewise enforceable in the new state(s) of residence of Alexander; 6. Father and Mother agree that if after the relocation of Mother, Step-Father and The Children, the Father moves out of the state of Minnesota, the state of residence of the Mother and The Children will be considered the State of Home Residence and therefore jurisdiction for all future child custody proceedings, regardless of the amount of time of The Children's residence prior to filing of custody paperwork; 7. This agreement does not set forth, nor modify child support payment arrangements or enforcement; 8. A copy or facsimile will be as valid and enforceable as the original; 9. Full, Final, Entire Agreement. This agreement along with these stipulations and provisions constitutes the full, final and entire agreement by and between the parties hereto and is intended to cover any and all disputes related to the relocation of the Mother, Step-Father, and The Children. Kimberly M. Miller, Biological Mother to The Children Eric D. Nordstrom, Biological Father to The Children Jeremy E. Miller, Step-Father to The Children Allecia Ebert, Witness Jem~ifer Haflund, Witness STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF LAKE DISTRICT COURT SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1N THE MATTER OF THE CHILD OF: KIMBERLY MILLER, MOTHER and ERIC NORDSTROM, FATHER FILE J5-03-50007 ORDER The above entitled matter came before the Court on June 17, 2003, before the undersigned, a Judge of the District Court, and upon a petition by Barbara Mci(ay-Jones of the Lake County Social Service Department alleging the child to be in need of protection and the evidence of which is contained more fully in the files and records herein. At said proceedings, the child Mamie Elaine Nordstrom appeared through her guardian ad litem Eugene Goedel. R.H. Conrow, Lake County Attorney, appeared on behalf of Petitioner who also appeared in person. Also present were the child's paternal grandparents, Steve and Linda Duma, the child's mother Kimberly Miller with counsel Mitchel H. Costley, and Vickie Paulseth of Lake County Human Services. At said proceedings the advocate for the child and counsel for the parties presented to the Court arguments and recommendations concerning the child. The child's mother stipulated to those facts of the petition herein within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes 260C.007 Subd.6 (8). Based upon the arguments of the parties, the reports and testimony offered and received into evidence and further upon all the files and records herein, the Court makes the following Findings, Conclusions and Order. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. NOTICE: Notice was given to all persons as required by law, or alternatively any defects in notice were waived by the parties by their appearance before the Court. 2. RIGHT TO ADVOCACY: The child's right to advocacy was satisfied bythe appointment and actions of guardian ad litem Eugene Goedel, all of which appears more fully in the files and records herein. The parent's right to advocacy was satisfied by the appointment and actions of counsel Mitchel H. Costley. 3. CHILD IN NEED OF PROTECTION: Based upon the flies and records herein, Mamie Elaine Nordstrom is found to be in need of protection within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 260C.007, Subd. 6(8). 4. ALTERNATIVES: The following less restrictive alternatives were considered and EXHIBIT "C" rejected for the following reasons: a. Dismissal of the petition was rejected because of the finding that the child is in need of protection and that the matter should be continued. b. Placement of the child in the home of the child's mother is appropriate at this time. 5. DISPOSITION: The placement referred to in the Conclusions of Law set out below is found to be in the best interests of said child. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. That custody of said child shall remain in the Lake County Human Service Department for placement with her mother in her mother's home. 2. The mother of the child shall cooperate with the Lake County Human Services Department and shall cooperate with all efforts and requirements of the local Social Service Department in her home area. 3.A report shall be prepared and filed with the Court and counsel and ten days prior to the hearing set below. Such report shall be prepared by the Lake County Human Service Department and shall make a recommendation for the future disposition. 4. The matter shall come before the Court for a review disposifional hearing on December 8, 2003 at 1:30 P..M. in the Lake County Court House, Two Harbors, Minnesota, or at such earlier time as an interested party may request. 5. Copies of this Order should be directed by mail to counsel of record for the parties, the guardian ad litem, and to the Lake County Human Service Department, as such persons are more fully identified in the files and records herein. Dated: June 17, 2003 FILED JUN 1 7 2003 Judge of Di Lake County Court Administrator VERIFICATION The foregoing Complaint to Confirm Custody is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the document is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Complaint and to the extent that the document is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jody L. Boore, an authorized agent for Martson DeardorffWilliams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Custody Complaint was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Ms. Kimberly Made Miller 62 West Ridge Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Mr. Eric David Nordstrom 1647 Hall Street Shoreview, MN 44126 Ramsey County Community Human Services Department Child Protection Unit Ramsey County Government Center East 160 East Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 6000 St. Paul, MN 55101 Attention: Child Protection Intake Supervisor Lake County Human Services 616 Third Avenue Two Harbors, MN 55616-1560 Attention: Vickie Thompson, LSW MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO Jody L/Bo~9t~ 't Ten E s~igh Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: September 4, 2003 TODD M. MILLER PLAINTIFF V. ERIC DAVID NORDSTROM AND KIMBERLY MARIE MILLER DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : 03-4385 CIVIL ACTION LAW : : IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Thursday, September 11, 2003 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. , the conciliator, at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Thursday, October 02, 2003 at 10:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to defme and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age live or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grotmds for entry of a tempora~ 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 priior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: /s/ Hubert X. Gilro.y, Esq. Custody Conciliator ~ltte 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 tlhe 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 TODD M. MILLER, Plaintiff V ERIC DAVID NORDSTROM and KIMBERLY MARIE MILLER, Defendants 0CT '8 003 : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : NO. 2003 - 4385 CIVIL : : IN CUSTODY CO~TO~ER AND NOW, this (~ ~ day of October, 2003, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A hearing is scheduled in Courtroom ~o. ,~{ of the Cumberland County Courthouse on the ]0~ day of _( ') 0._~LO~ , 2003, at O~t')O ~.M. At this hearing, The Plaintiff, Todd M. Miller, shall proceed initially with testimony. Legal counsel for the parties or the parties themselves if they do not have an attorney, shall file with the court a memorandum setting forth the history of custody in this case, the issues currently before the court, a list of witnesses who will be called to testify and a smnmary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. This memorandum shall be filed at least five (5) days prior to the ~nentioned hearing date. Counsel for the Plaintiff shall ensure that a copy of this order and the attached report is served on the natural Father, Eric David Nordstrom. Additionally, a copy should be sent to Attorney Patrick Dinneen who represents the Paternal Grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Steven Dunn. m Should Mr. and Mrs. Steven Dunn desire to become parties to this case, legal counsel for the Dunns may contact the conciliator and the conciliator can conduct proceedings via a telephone conference and file any appropriate supplemental orders with this court. Additionally, in the event the Father Eric Nordstrom retains legal counsel and Mr. Nordstrom's attorney desires to initiate further proceedings before the conciliator, Mr. Nordstrom's attorney may contact the conciliator to have the conciliator conduct further proceedings in an effort to see if this case can be resolved short of a hearing. CC: ~homas J. Williams, Esquire Pending further order of this court, Todd M. Miller shall enjoy legal and physical custody of Marnie Elaine Lindfors Nordstrom, born April 30, 1994. BY ~l J' ~'atrick Dinneen, Esquire Johnson & Morris, LLP Wells Fargo Bank Building 36 Shopping Center, Suite 103 Silver Bay, Minnesota 55614 pE~ic D. Nordstrom 1647 Hall Street Shoreview, Minnesota 44126 l~nberly M. Miller 62 W. Ridge Street Carlisle, PA 17013 /o-09 TODD M. MILLER, Plaintiff V ERIC DAVID NORDSTROM and KIMBERLY MARIE MILLER, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : NO. 2003 - 4385 CIVIL : : IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: CONCII.IATION 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: The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Marnie Elaine Lindfors Nordstrom, born April 30, 1994. A Conciliation Conference was held on October 2, 2003, with the following individuals in attendance: The Plaintiff, Todd M. Miller, with his counsel, Thomas J. Williams, Esquire; and the Mother, Kimberly Marie Miller with her current husband Jeremy Miller. Additionally, present via telephone call was the Father, Eric David Nordstrom, who did not have an attorney at that point. The conciliator has also been contacted by Attorney Patrick Dinneen of Silver Bay, Minnesota who suggested he represented the Paternal Grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Steven Dunn. Unfortunately, because of a schedule issue at Attorney Dinneen's office, he was not able to participate in the custody conciliation conference. This case has a very convoluted history. The minor child is currently 9 years old. In the fall of 2001, Father had custody of the child but was incarcerated for various charges in Minnesota. At that time, it appears the child was subject to Children Services proceedings in Minnesota and it appears the child was in some type of foster care from approximately November 2001 until March 2002. In March of 2002, Children Services in Minnesota gave custody of the minor child to Mother. In June 2002, the Mother relocated to Pennsylvania and resided with the minor child from June of 2002 until February 2003. In February of 2003, Mother returned to Minnesota and delivered custody of the minor child to the Paternal Grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Steven Duun. The Dunns then contacted Children Services in Minnesota, and Children Services held a hearing in Minnesota taking jurisdiction over the child but, at the same time, they delivered the child to the custody of the Mother in June of 2003, still retaining jurisdiction over the child. Subsequently in July, Children Services in Minnesota issued an Order dismissing the juvenile proceedings which resulted in the Minnesota courts relinquishing jurisdiction over the minor child. Accordingly, there is no pending proceedings in Minnesota relating to the custody of the minor child. Since June of 2003, the minor child has resided in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff in this action is Todd M. Miller. Todd Miller is the brother of Jeremy Miller, who is the husband of the minor child's Mother. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is the step-uncle of the minor child. The Plaintiff resides with his parents and currently resides with the minor child, who has resided with the Plaintiff for approximately 7 weeks. There were Children Services proceedings pending in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania regarding the minor child, but those proceedings were dismissed in September 2003 when it was determined the minor child would reside with the Plaintiff, Todd M. Miller. The Plaintiff now seeks custody of the minor child. He asserts that he has standing pursuant to an in loco parentis situation. Mother suggests she wants the minor child to be in the custody of Mr. Miller at this time. Father indicates that he seeks primary custody of the minor child at this time. Father also suggests that his parents may be seeking primary custody of the minor child at this time. Based upon discussions with the Father, it appears Father has had very limited contact with the minor child over the past 16 months. Of the past 16 months, the child has resided in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania for at least 13 months with the Mother or with Plaintiff Todd M. Miller. The conciliator believes this case will require a heariug before the court because there is no agreement between the natural parents. However, on a temporary basis, the conciliator recommends that Mr. Miller retain physical custody of the child. It appears that Cumberland County Children & Youth Services performed an extensive interview and home evaluation of Mr. Miller before they withdrew the proceedings and allowed the minor child to stay with Mr. Miller. They did a criminal background check and other similar reviews prior to agreeing that Children & Youth Services involvement was no longer necessary. The status quo is such that the child is with Mr. Miller. The Mother supports that position, and it appears that the Father is not in a situation that he can assert that he has exercised a great deal of contact with the child over the past year or so. Father indicated over the telephone that he currently does not have a permanent address in Minnesota although he suggested he is getting his life back in order, especially after he has eliminated his involvement with his prior fianc6. The minor child has some emotional limitations which the Mother suggests were caused by prior abuse of the Father. The Mother also suggests that during the prior proceedings in Minnesota the courts restricted Father's contact with the minor child until Father completed certain anger management counseling and other requirements. Mother suggests Father has not completed these requirements, and Mother suggests Father is not fit to be with the minor child. Mother asserts the minor child's existing psychologists have consistently indicated that the child should not have any involvement with the natural Father. The conciliator recommends the entry of an order in the form as attached. Hubert X. G~.r.o.y, E~uire Custody Concd~a~ Todd M. Miller, Plaintiff DE 0/4 IN THE COURT OF COMMO/~ PLEAD CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V CIVIL ACTION - LAW Eric Nordstrom and Kimberly Marie Miller, Defendants No. 2003-4385 CIVIL IN CUSTODY AFFIDAVIT OF STEVEN AND LINDA DUNN STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF LAKE ) STEVEN AND LINDA DUNN, having been duly sworn, on oath depose and say: 1. That we are the paternal grandparents of Marnie Elaine Lindfors Nordstrom, hereinafter 'Mamie', the minor child affected by these proceedings. 2. That we make this affidavit in support of our objection against this Honorable Court awarding custody of Mamie to Todd M. Miller. For purposes of providing a basis for said objection, we offer the following background information. 3. That Marnie came to live with us most recently in February of this year. The reason for that transfer of care was that Kimberly Miller (Marnie's mother) advised us at that time that she was suffering from mental health issues and that she considered herself a threat to Marnie. We willingly and happily agreed to care for Marnie. At that time Kim Miller agreed to transfer custody of Marnie to us. Despite our efforts, Kim never followed through on that promise. Lake County Social Services became involved and a guardian ad litem was appointed by the Lake County, Minnesota court to make custody recommendations to the court. Although Lake County Social Services and the guardian ad litem were in favor of our being awarded custody, Kim Miller came forward and reclaimed her custodial rights before that process was complete. It is our understanding that Kim Miller was allowed to remove Mamie from Minnesota in June of this year solely because she is the mother of the child. By virtue of that fact, we were not allowed to present any evidence as to how the child's best interests would be better served in our care. At that hearing, Kim Miller did not make any indication to the Court or ourselves that she would be immediately transferring the care of Marnie to yet another third party, Todd Miller. It is our understanding that the Court allowed Klm Miller to reassert her rights to Marnie with the expectation that mother and child would remain reunited for the foreseeable future. 4. We have very little information available to us relating to Todd Miller. We are aware that he is a single man that resides with his parents. We are also aware that he is the brother of Kim Miller's present husband, a marriage of relatively short duration. We fear that awarding custody of Mamie to Todd Miller will present a further opportunity for instability and inconsistency in Mamie's life. We fear that this will be yet another temporary 'stopping-off' point for Marnie until Kim Miller is ready to once again attempt to exercise her role as a mother. Marnie has a documented history of suspected sexual abuse. We are especially concerned of Mamie's past sexual abuse becoming complicated by her being raised by a single man. While we have no information relating to Todd Miller being a threat to Marnie, we do not understand Mr. Miller's interest in custody. Additionally, we do not know whether Mr. Miller will make any efforts to reunify Marnie with her younger brother. We do not feel confident that Todd Miller's relationship with the child and child's family is so well established as to provide a reasonable expectation of a permanent placement. This may be yet another temporary placement for Marnie that has further adverse effects upon her. We view ourselves as the only persons that have had a consistent and positive role in Marnie's life. We further view our relationship as the paternal grandparents to give us priority over Todd Miler as prospective custodians of Marnie. 5. We are 43 years of age (Steven Dunn) and 48 years of age (Linda Dunn). Although we are Marnie's grandparent's, we are not so old as to be prevented from properly raising Mamie due to our age. Our marriage is of seventeen (17) years duration. We love Marnie and do want what is best for her. We would like Marnie and Alexander to be reunified into a single family unit. If, after a full investigation into all of the issues relating to Todd Miller's plea for custody, this Honorable Court determines that it is in Marnie's best interests to reside with Todd Miller, we will respect the Court's opinion. However, based on the circumstances that we are aware of, we strongly believe that Mamie's best interests will be better served and more likely realized in our care than with anyone else. Both parents have demonstrated that they are not presently fit to be custodians. Because we are the next immediate family members seeking custody, and because we do provide a traditional family unit for Marnie, we request that we be given priority over Todd Miller as Marnie's custodians. 6. In further support of our objection and plea for custody, we attach the following documents to provide further background and insight into the recent history that Marnie has been subjected to: A) Notice of Hearing with attached letter (the letter explains why the Lake County, Minnesota proceeding was dismissed); B) a May 13, 2003 letter from Mary J. Carpenter, child psychologist; C) letters of March 10, 2003 and May 14, 2003 from Lake County Social Worker Vickie Thompson with attached letter from one of Marie's teachers evaluating her progress at our local school; D) an affidavit by us dated June 17, 2003; E) severa .3~amily photos of Mamie with us, both as a baby and most recently last summer; F) transcri~ke County, Minnesota proceedings. .~/ /2x,x Linctfi Dunn Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 24th day of November, 2003. Notary Public NOTARY PUBLIC MINNESOTA State of Minnesota County LAKE In Re the Welfare of'. Name: MARNIE ELAINE NORDSTROM District Court Judicial District: Sixth Court File Number: J5-03-50007 Case Type: CHP Notice of Hearing To: Russ Conrow, Lake County Attorney, Lake County Courthouse, Two Harbors, MN 55616 Eugene Goedel, 131 - 4th Avenue, Two Harbors, MN 55616 Mitchel Costley, Attorney at Law, 309 - 1st Ave., P. O. Box 340, Two Harbors, MN 55616 Eric D. Nordstrom, 1647 Hall Street, Shoreview, MN 55126 Steve and Linda Dunn, 53 Garden Drive, Silver Bay, MN 55614 Please take notice that a petition was filed on February 10, 2003, alleging that the child is in need of protection or services. You have been served with this Notice because, pursuant to statute or court role, you are: · a participant to this proceeding or an attorney for a participant, and · you are a person whose presence the court believes is important to a determination concerning the best interests of the child who is the subject of the petition. The court has set the date, time, and place where a hearing regarding the petition and the best interests of the child will be held as follows: Judge or Court: Honorable Kenneth A. Sandvik Date: July 7, 2003 at 11:45 a.m. Location: Lake County Courthouse 601 - 3ra Avenue Two Harbors, MN 55616 You are hereby notified that you may appear at the heating on the date and time indicated above. If you fail to appear at the heating: · The hearing may take place in your absence; The court may find that the statutory grounds set forth in the petition have been proved; · The court may enter an order granting the relief requested in the petition, which may include removing the child from the home of the parent or legal custodian and placing the child in foster care, other proceedings for out-of-home placement of the child, or terminating the parental tights to the child who is the subject of the petition. A statement of your rights and responsibilities as a participant is attached. Dated: June 24, 2003 Diane Herrick-Schmidt, Chief Deputy Court Administrator Page 1 of 2 Approved by Conference of Chief Judges: Draft Last Revised: ~/2000 Notice of Hearing June 17, 2003 O e of Lake County Attorfi y County Courthouse 601 Third Avenue Two Harbors, Minnesota 55618 Phone (218) 834-8375 Fax (218) 834-8397 RUSS CONROW County Attorney Honorable Kenneth A. Sandvik Judge of District Court Lake County Courthouse 601 2-2~ird Avenue Two Harbors, MN 55616 Re: In re the Welfare of Marnie Elaine Nordstrom Court File No. J5-03-5007 Dear Judge Sandvik: We received a copy of the Order you issued today in the above-entitled case. We respectfully request the Court reconsider this Order. Mi~m. Stat. § 260.51 is entitled the Interstate Compact on Juveniles. This Compact permits states to "provide for the welfare and protection of juveniles...and additional measures for the protection of juveniles and of the public." Id. Lake County cannot be in compliance with the Order issued today and Minnesota statute. Permitting the child to return to Mother's home and be taken across state lines would be a violation of the Interstate Compact on Juveniles. Lake Cg~ty cannot retain custody and also require Mother to comply with its requests. Further, Lake Cotfn~y cannot request the local Social Service Department in Mother's county in Pennsylvania to become involved without the Interstate Compact being in place. Therefore, Lake County respectfully requests that the Court allow physical custody of the child to remain in Minnesota, or, in the alternative, dismiss the case. Lake County cannot have protective custody of the child when she is not even in the jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Sincerely, Russ Conrow cc Mitchel Costley Vickie Thompson Eugene Goedel An equal opportunity employer. LAKE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT HUMAN SERVICE CENTER 616 Third Avenue TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA 55616 Honorable Kenneth Sandvik Lake County Courthouse Two Harbors, MN. 55616 March 10, 2003 RE: Marnie Nordstrom File#: J5-03-50007 Dear Judge Sandvik, I am writing to provide recommendations for today's hearing on Mamie Nordstrom, minor child of Kimberly Miller and Eric Nordstrom. Marnie remains in placement with her paternal grandparents, Steve and Linda Dunn, of Silver Bay. Late last week I spoke with Marnie's custodial parent, Kimberly Miller to discuss the plan for Mamie. Klm stated it is her desire to transfer custody of Marnie to Steve and Linda Dunn. I also spoke with Mamie's previous psychologist, Robert Stein and current psychologist, Mary Carpenter. I have enclosed correspondence from both for all parties to review. On March 6th Mary Carpenter and Robert Stein conferred by phone and I spoke with both of them as well. They stated they favor transfer of custody to Dunn's and feel Durm's will voluntarily continue to access mental health services for Mamie making further court involvement uimecessary. With respect to visitation of Marnie by her parents, Robert Stein stated he does not support Eric Nordstrom having any contact with Mamie until he completes therapy, parenting and anger management classes. Regarding visitation by Kimberly Miller, Mr. Stein felt all contact should be supervised. Mr. Stein stated the need for supervision of Kimberly's contact is a safety issue related to Kim's feelings of wanting to harm Mamie. Apparently, Kimberly admitted to Durms and Robert Stein her desire to poison Mamie and this led to her decision to place Mamie with Dunns while seeking more extensive mental health services for herself. Regarding Mamie's younger brother, Alex Nordstrom, Robert Stein stated Kimberly is exploring relatives in the Twin Cities as placement options for Alex once he is released from residential treatment. I have discussed this with Steve and Linda Durra and while they feel they cannot meet both children's special needs, they are committed to providing a home for Marnie and working to facilitate contact between the children should Alex be placed in Minnesota. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ~_~ I .__0f? Therefore, we recommend that Marnie be placed in the custody of Steve and Linda Dunn so that she can have the permancy she requires after a history of multiple placements. It should be noted that when Mary Carpenter asked Marnie what is the one thing she wishes for, she said to be able to stay in one place and have a home. It is recommended that Eric Nordstrom follow previous orders (from other Minnesota counties) and complete all services prior to resuming supervised visits with Marnie. With regard to Kimberly Miller, it is our opinion she should have supervised contacts until such time as her treating professional provides written recommendations to the contrary. Sincerely, Vickie L. Thompson, LSW cc: Eugene Goedel stUSS Collrow eve & Linda Dunn Kimberly Miller Eric Nordstrom EXHIBIT, ~ Page ~ of'7 HDC HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER February 28, 2003 GLENNM ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PETERS MILLER, MD RC P.(C~ MED[CALDIRECTOR Vickie Thompson Lake County Human Services Lake County Service Center 99 Edison Boulevard Silver Bay, MN 55614 RE: Marny Nordstrom I am writing to request your assistance in getting past placement and clinical records on Marny Nordstrom. I inet with her today and am very concerned about multiple issues. My initial assessment indicates probable past physical and sexual abuse. Marny told me she had been in therapy in Pem~sylvania. Obtaining these records would expedite a treatment plan and not re- traumatize this eight-year-old by telling her history. She has als0 been in multiple foster homes -- she remembered ten placements. Placement history, as well as any documentation of what precipitated the placement and change in placement, would be very beneficial. Her grandparents informed me the County has custody and they have a sketchy review of her history. Your help is greatly appreciated as well as making this a priority. Mamy has the potential of suffering from severe emotional disturbance and treatment will need to be clearly planned and based on as accurate a history as possible. Currently, I have no records. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary J. Carpenter, M.S. Ed. Licensed Psychologist 5 EXHIBIT. Page ,3 of. 1401 EAST FIRST STREET 1402 EAST SECOND STREET 1730 EAST SUPERIOR STREET 1406 EAST SECOND STREET, SUITE C 40 ELEVENTH STREET 629 FIRST AVENUE LAKE COUNTY SERVICE CENTER PO BOX 847 NORSHORBLDG DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55805 DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55805 DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55812 DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55805 CLOQUET, MINNESOTA 55720 TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA 55616 SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA 55614 GRAND MARAIS, MINNESOTA 55604 (218) 728-4491 (218) 728-5101 (218) 728-5192 (218) 728~3931 (218) 879-4559 (218) 834-5520 (218) 226-3190 (218) 38%9444 Agency Man O~ 03 08: 43a p-~ Center for Neurobehavioral Health, Ltd. -- <' - Clinical Neuropsychologigts Licensed Psychologists .¥et~rorehabilitatiatt Specialists Pediatric, Adult, and Geriatric Services Regency Executive Offices 2173 Embassy Drive Suite 366 Ixtncaster, Pennsylvania 17603 (717) 392-6061 Cynthia Socha-Gelgot. Ph.D. Robert M. Stein, Ph.D. Michelle 3/1. Manasseri, Lee Ann Grisolano, Ph.D. February 24, 2003 Re: Marnie Nordstrom To Whom It May Concern: I am a neuropsychologist who has been working with Mamie Nordstrom. The purpose of my therapy with Marnie has been to address behavioral difficulties in home, school, and community, and make recommendations to mother, Kimberly Miller, for management of behavioral difficulties. My observations am based on rev/ew of social services records, and interviews with Marnie and mother. I have not met with the children's biological father, who lives in Minnesota. Marnie moved to Minnesota at the beginning of February to live with her grandparents, where she could live in a safe and stable environment. At this point, Kim's concern is with Marnie's safety. Mamie suffered physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her biological father, and witnessed abuse against her brother Alex. My therapy with Marnie has focused on behavioral stability without dimcfly addressing the abuse she has witnessed or has experienced. She has had moments of severn aggression and regressive behavior at home. At the time she left for Minnesota, she was doing better. Kim reports to me that therapy for her biological father was court-ordared, in addition to parenting and anger management classes. It is my understanding that supervised visits with her biological father would resume once such therapy was completed. Until such therapy is completed, it is recommended that them be no contact between Marnie and her biological father. Sincerely, Robert M. Stein, Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Licensed Psychologist $ Page, of '7 Lancagter FAX (717) 431-2014 -<' Camp Hill, Pettnsylvania (717) 737-9.~56 -'- Camp Hill FAX (717) 737-9880 LAKE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT HUMAN SERVICE CENTER 616 Third Avenue TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA 55616 Russ Corlrow Lake County Attorney Courthouse Two Harbors, MN. 55616 May 14, 2003 RE: Mamie Nordstrom Dear Russ, Enclosed please find reports and correspondence regarding the above named child. As you can see Dr. Robert M. Stein feels that K.imberly Miller will be ready to have Mamie returned to her home in Pennsylvania in a few weeks. While it appears that Kimberly has made good progress with her treatment plan, I continue to have concerns about Mamie's need for stability and permanence. I asked Mary Carpenter, Mamie's psychologist to send me a report of Mamie's progress and I have enclosed it for your review. Mary has the same concern regarding stability and also sees no need at this time for Mamie to be enrolled in a day treatment program such as Kim has in place in Pennsylvania. I have left a message for Dr. Stein so that I can give him an update on the progress that Marnie has shown since her move to Minnesota. Holy Spirit Hospital Child Psychiatrist, Barbara Sumbatian completed an evaluation of Mamie last summer while she was residing with her mother in Pennsylvania. As you can see Marnie was reported to be displaying serious behavior problems, which in not surprising given the instability she experienced for several years, especially frequent moves with a variety of care providers as well as abuse and neglect. I have read the extensive records forwarded to us from Ramsey County on Mamie and her brother, Alex. Kimberly Miller and Eric Nordstrom have also provided me with extensive records on themselves and the children. It took a full day to read all of these records and would take as long to outline/summarize them. It is clear however, that both of these children have been negatively impacted by their chaotic lives. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER EXHIBIT ~ Paae... {5 of. -7 Mamie's teacher, Mrs. Johnson has noticed steady progress and she provided me with a written report today which is also enclosed. It seems to me that Mamie has made an amazing adjustment and excellent progress with school performance and behaviors the past 3 ~/2 months. It is our agencies recommendation that Mamie not be returned to her mother's care without an assurance of predicted long term stability by treating professionals in Pennsylvania who have first reviewed her extensive back- ground. I have not forwarded this report to any of the other parties as I am aware the hearing next week is a C.H.I.P.S. trial, however sometimes disposition is discussed and wanted you to have this information to disseminate as you see fit. Sincerely, Vickie L. Thompson, LSW EXHIBIT Page, HDC HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER GLENN M ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PETER S MILLER, MD, FR C.P.(C), MEDICAL DIRECTOR Ma), 13, 2003 Vickie Thompson Lake County Social Services Lake County Service Center 99 Edison Boulevard Silver Bay, MN 55614 RE: Marnie Nordstrom Dear Vickie: I continue to see Marnie Nordstrom in individual therapy. She has expressed her desire to visit with and phone her father. I would not be opposed to this and would recommend supervised contact between Marnie and her father. Her grandparents have provided a supportive living environment for Marnie. She has been happy and has expressed a desire to stay there. In reviewing her past records, I note that her current behavior is more stable and functional than previously documented. I believe that this is due to her grandparents' efforts to provide a safe, structured, predictable living environment. I am hopeful that she can remain in this placement as stability is extremely important to continue to advance in therapy. It is my understanding that Marnie has moved Dr been in alternative placement eight plus times in her life. In July of 2002 she was evaluated by psychiatrist Barbara Sumbatic, M.D., as received the diagnosis of ADHD and OppositionaI Defiant Disorder. She is currently on medication for ADHD. i question if ~hese diagnoses are a reaction to a chaotic environment and frequent moves versus mental health. Because Marnie's behavior has stabilized I would recommend that she remain in a stable environment for at least a year to fully determine if in fact she needs medication once her living situation remains stable. Marnie's wish is to stay in one school and one home. Neither parent has initiated contact regarding the clinical needs of their daughter; yet mom is planning for her 1401 EAST FIRST STREET 1402 EAST SECOND STREET 1730 EAST SUPERIOR STREET 1406 EAST SECOND STREET, SUITE C 215 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE 40 ELEVENTH STREET 629 FIRST AVENUE LAKE COUNTY SERVICE CENTER PO BOX 847, NORSHOR BLDG. DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55805 DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55805 DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55812 DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55805 DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55807 CLOQUET, MINNESOTA 55720 TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA 55616 SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA 55614 GRAND MARAIS, MINNESOTA 55604 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION / EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER www hdchrc corn (218) 728-4491 (218) 728-5101 (818) 728-5192 (218) 728-3931 (218) 624-5683 (218) 879-4559 (218) 834-5520 return. Her grandparents have frequently requested updates on Marnie's progress and have been very involved in treatment planning. I am also aware that should Marnie be returned to Pennsylvania, mom intends to send her to a day program during the summer. I do not feel that Marnie is in need of an intensive intervention, but rather a consistent, nurturing living enviromnent. I am concerned that another move would adversely affect Marnie's health. She needs to be interacting with the mainstream of her peer group. She has had a successful semester in school without behavior issues and has made several friends. This is not typical of a child with the multiple diagnoses Marnie has had throughout her years. I believe that this is significant evidence that environmental stressors have escalated behaviors, resulting in multiple diagnoses. I would caution you not to move quickly as I see significant progress and the potential of Marnie's behaviors mirroring her environment -- instead of these past behaviors being issues of If I can be of further assistance, please contact me. Sincerely, Mary J. Carpenter, M.S.Ed., L.P. EIO*IIBII F~ PalJe ~- .of ~-- STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF LAKE Steve and Linda Dunn, Petitioners, VS. Kimberly Miller, Respondent. DISTRICT COURT SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Family Court Division AFFIDAVIT OF STEVEN & LINDA DUNN Court File No. Marnie Elaine Nordstrom was born on April 30, 1994. Since she was approximately one year old, Marnie has lived in several different places and homes. From June 1, 1996, until November 30, 1996, Mamie lived in our home. Sometime during the last week of January 2003, Kimberly Miller, Marnie's Mother, contacted us. Kimberly Miller told us she was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder and she "couldn't take the kids anymore." Kimberly Miller further stated she had contemplated suicide and she thought about killing Mamie by crushing sleeping pills and placing them in Marnie's food. Kimberly Miller drove Mamie from Pennsylvania to the Twin Cities where she dropped Mamie off with another relative. We requested Kimberly Miller transfer custody of Marnie to us so that we would be able to enroll Marnie in school and provide her with proper medical care. EXHIBI'[ D Page } of 1 3 10. 11. 13. 14. 15. 16. Kimbefly Miller assured us she was willing to do whatever it took to transfer custody of Marnie to us. When Kimberly Miller brought Mamie to Minnesota, she dropped Marnie offat our daughter's home in the Twin Cities. Our daughter, then, drove Marnie to our home in Silver Bay. Kimberly Miller told our daughter she packed the necessary paperwork regarding custody in Marnie's suitcase. When Marnie arrived, we discovered Kimberly Miller only provided us with copies of Marnie's birth certificate, social security card and paperwork to transfer Marnie to school in Silver Bay. We spoke with Kimberly Miller about this, and she stated she was not going to incriminate herself and we would not get any more paperwork from her. Upon Marnie's arrival in Silver Bay, we enrolled her in the Mary MacDonald Elementary School in Silver Bay. Marnie did well in school in Silver Bay, and has made friends with a couple of her classmates. Mamie receives an allowance, which she is saving and planning to use to buy a guitar. She also wants to start taking guitar lessons. 2 EXHIBIT. [:) Paoe. Z .of. 17. explore her interests and talents. St~ve Dunn~ We are doing our best to provide Marnie with a stable home so she can continue to Subscribed and sworn to before me this ./~~'~,day of June, 2003. Notary Pu~C,-Sta~e of IV~esota 3 Em~rr, D ~'a~a 2, o~ 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUlqTY OF LAKE DISTRICT COURT SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN THE MATTER OF THE WELFARE OF: M.E.L, A MINOR CHILD, TRANSCRIPT FILE 38-J5-03-50007 The above entitled matter came before the Honorable Kenneth A. Sandvik, Judge of the District Court, in the Lake County Court House, Two Harbors, Minnesota, on June 17, 2003 for the purposes of a child protection hearing. For Lake County: Russell H. Conrow P.O. Box 202 Two Harbors, Mn. 55616 APPEARANCES For Child: Eugene Goedel Fourth Ave Two Harbors, Mn. 55616 For the Mother: Mitchel H. Costley Attorney at Law 609 1s~ Avenue Two Harbors, Mn. 55616 Also Present: Paternal Reporter: Roberta C. Brandt Lake County Court House Two Harbors, Mn. 55616 Grandparents, Vickie Thompson 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 2 3 4 2 THE COURT: We have on our calendar at this time a child protection matter, the matter of the minor child of Kimberly Miller and Eric Nordstrom. The minor child is identified as Marnie Elaine Nordstrom. The file number is J5- 03-50007. The parties are present who were present yesterday when the Court took up these proceedings. And the Court I guess tentatively announced where the Court was going with this matter and basically gave the parties some time to consider what, if anything, they additionally wanted to offer either by way of argument or evidence or otherwise. So with that - and the record should show that Mr. Costley on behalf of mother, Mr. Conrow on behalf of the County did visit with the Court off the record. I would start by indicating that you certainly should feel free to put on the record anything that we talked about off the record. I certainly don't mean to limit that. But then anything else that you want to add for the record at this point and then we'll go around the room as well. Mr. Conrow, anything that you want to indicate at this point? MR. CONROW: Yes, Sir. My understanding is that procedurally we're at the pretrial stage in this case and that it's the Court's intention to enter a finding that the child is in need of protection and services based upon the 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 petition. intention is on placement 3 Further, it's my understanding that the Court's - we would ask then for a dispositional hearing for the child. My understanding is that the Court intends to release the child to the custody - to placement with mother, custody remaining in Lake County. We would object to that and make an offer of proof that, that at the current time mother is not the proper placement for the child. There's continuing issues regarding her mental health. She has been recently hospitalized for three days. She is not self-administering her medications. Her plan for supervision of the child includes that she will not be alone with the child at any time. That her husband has modified his work schedule to be with Marnie and the mother Kimberty and that she has no backup plan in place and has refused working with Social Services to develop that planning process to insure safety for Marnie should she have any relapse in her condition. THE COURT: Alright. Mr. Costley, anything else you want to indicate? MR. COSTLEY: Yes, Judge, there is. Number one, if we start and look at the initial CHIPS petition there are three grounds in which they are asking the Court to find that Marnie is in need of p~otection and services. Number 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 4 one is that she was abandoned without parent, guardian or custodian. That obviously has never been proven. It's not part of any evidence before the Court. Secondly, she was without food, clothing, shelter which is subparagraph three of 260.C 007 (6). I don't think there is any evidence before the Court that those conditions exist. I have - there is no question that there is a basis under subparagraph 8, because my client did have and has been diagnosed and admits and is dealing with the bi- polar disorder that she had. That she did create this plan on her own to leave the child with the grandparents so therefore the child was not abandoned in Minnesota. The child was not left without food, clothing, shelter, and this was part of mother's plan and she needed to deal with the psychological issues that were diagnosed for her last fall. Now, taking that as phase one of this, my client would not object to the Court entering a CHIPS Order finding that she does have a psychological issue that is the bi-polar disorder that she has and that that was a basis upon which the child was left with the grandparents here but it was done on a temporary basis. It was never done with the intention to leave the child in Minnesota forever. Now, my understanding of the law with resp. ect to the CHIPS petition 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 '17i :1_8 2O 2]. 22 23 is that we do work towards reunification. evidence before the Court that indicates 5 There is no that there has ever been an attempt to reunify mother with child. There hasn't been any information done, anything done by the Social Service Department to prove that mother is not a fit parent after she has received the necessary medical assistance. Dr. Stein testified yesterday that she had received the necessary medical assistance. He also testified, which is not necessarily a standard in this Court, but in this opinion it was in the best interest to reunify mother and child. And that of course is what the CHIPS petition - that's the driving factors of the law in this area, is that you make efforts to reunify parents and kids. And that has not occurred here in any manner, shape or form. So I'm asking the Court, now that my client has completed or has been diagnosed and is working with a licensed Pennsylvania psychologist to deal with these issues that she have her child returned to her. If there County wishes with respect to disposition, that and I would oppose it on this basis, is further evidence that the I would oppose Judge. Yesterday Dr. Stein said that in his opinion Marnie could return to mother. Kimberly was a fit parent to have Marnie with her and that the doctor felt that all of the necessary safeguards 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 were in place so that mother could have Marnie returned to her. And as the Court's well aware, under these inter-state compacts, the State of Pennsylvania's social service department and the county that my client lives in would be a supervising type agency if Lake County chooses to have somebody continue to monitor my client's progress. The information the County Attorney has provided to the Court which says that my client was in the hospital and apparently there's something wrong with that, I can for the record indicate that sometime in - and my client self-disclosed this to the Social Service Department. She's not hiding this information. And what the information is is that as Dr. Stein testified to yesterday, she is - it is difficult to get the medicines to make the bi-polarism go away, if I can use that term. And over the Mother's Day weekend they had to make another minor adjustment with respect to her medicine. And Dr. Stein has never said that that is not something that they're going to have to do over a period of time and my guess is, I don't know this for a fact but my assumption is, that everybody who has bi-polarism, because it's a chemical imbalance, goes through having to do minor adjustments. And as long as Dr. Stein remains in the picture, and that can be assured by the County continuing to have some form of 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 jurisdiction or even custody of Marnie, returning Marnie to mother and then an order saying that if the Social Service wants to monitor it in Pennsylvania they can do it. I mean that puts in place all the safety nets. Dr. Stein testified yesterday that he felt that there were the safety nets in place to allow Marnie to come home with mother. So, there is nothing here, there is nothing that's been disclosed. And again I go back to six weeks ago Dr. Stein was of the opinion that mother could have the child back and nothing has occurred to change that. There's no other evidence. There's no other information. So I'm asking the Court today to return Marnie to her mother and mother will take Marnie back to Pennsylvania forthwith. And the Court can make a CHIPS finding under the bi-polarism issue and certainly is able to make sure that the State of Pennsylvania continues to monitor my client as necessary. And I think that that's all the evidence the State has provided in this case. want to say? THE COURT: MR. GOEDEL: Alright. Mr. Goedel, anything you I would just like to say from my point of view and the best interest of the child is that I would object to her going back to Pennsylvania at this time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ~o! 12 13 3_7 :1.8 20 2:[ 22 23 8 THE COURT: Alright. Anything else, Mr. Conrow? MR. CONROW: The issue of whether hospitalization was self-disclosed. It was not. or not the It was disclosed by third parties and she was questioned about it and then she revealed that she had been hospitalized. Dr. Stein did not mention the hospitalization either. The fact that there's no evidence, Mr. Costley doesn't believe that there's sufficient evidence to support what we're requesting. There is no evidence in this case. We're not at that stage yet. We're still at the pretrial stage. So the evidence is not there. And what he's done is essentially said whatever the doctor decides, that's what we will do. And we don't believe that's the purpose of this hearing. THE COURT: Atright. The hospitalization in the month of May, how did it come to the county's knowledge? MR. CONROW: A third party told them. THE COURT: Who told the county? MR. CONROW: Kimberty Miller's mother. THE COURT: that The mother. The mother's mother. Okay. And when did the county get information? MS THOMPSON: No. I'd heard she was 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ hospitalized a couple weeks ago and I began calling Dr. Stein. He,said he did not believe she'd been hospitalized at all. I asked him to check his records, he did so. I talked with him last week and he said she had in fact not been hospitalized. THE COURT: Alright. Okay. And nobody has any hospital records? MR. CONROW: No. THE COURT: The other thing is you indicated, at least from my perspective, that mother has refused to work with Social Services with respect to back-up plans. What did that start? How often or how long have they been after her to do something and she's refused? MS. THOMPSON: Yesterday when we did the out of home placement plan review that was scheduled and it became clear that the Court had the intention of letting the child go to Pennsylvania, I asked the mom to consider a back- up plan for the child's safety should her mental health deteriorate or she had homicidal or suicidal feelings. And I asked her about three different times. Mr. Goedel was also present. THE COURT: This was yesterday? MS. THOMPSON: Yes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 THE COURT: advance or in anticipation get the child back. MS. THOMPSON: back in pretrial, no. No, THE COURT: yesterday. There was no attempt to do this that at some point mother would I didn't think she'd get her I didn't. So it was never done until 10 in MS. THOMPSON: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. What did you do with respect to working with mother to get the child back before yesterday? MS. THOMPSON: We did an out of home placement plan and I called her by phone and talked with her and her psychologist as well to assess - THE COURT: What did you tell her she had to do before yesterday that she refused to do? I guess that's what I'm curious about. MS. THOMPSON: Is the out of home placement plan filed with the Court? THE COURT: I don't know if it's filed. What did you tell her that she had to do that she didn't do? Before yesterday. MS. THOMPSON: Well, it's contained in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 11 plan. I would have to look at the plan. THE COURT: You don't remember what you told her she had to do that she failed to do? MS. THOMPSON: I don't remember the entire plan. It's not committed to my memory, no. THE COURT: But you don't remember what you told her she had to do and she refused to do. MR. CONROW: How many visits have you had? MS. THOMPSON: With the mother? She's come to Minnesota twice and we have talked on the phone. I have called her maybe two or three times. And the mother did not refuse to do anything except an emergency safety plan. THE COURT: And that was yesterday? MS. THOMPSON: And that was yesterday during the review, yes. THE COURT: Alright. Is there more that you want the record to contain? MR. CONROW: No. THE COURT: Anything else anybody else wants to say? MR. COSTLEY: The only thing that I wanted to add is that yesterday when we concluded this hearing my client had indicated to me that she had in place - she had 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 12 decided herself that when Marnie comes home that she wanted to make sure that there was a back-up plan with respect to her taking her medications. There was a back-up plan or a safety net with respect to her spending time with her daughter and that there was also a back-up plan - I think there's a daycare thing that's set up for Marnie when my client is going to go to work. And she told me that her plan was that - she's going to take her medication. She can take her medication on her own. There's - nobody has told her, no doctor has said you need to do this. She did this on her own. And she said what my husband and I have agreed to do is that he is going to monitor my medication and we're doing that so I don't get myself back into a spot that I go out of control. He's going to make sure I'm going to take my medicine but he's going to make sure that I do that for awhile because that way we're both covering each other. Aiqd the same thing, she said, I am going to have my schedule at work so that for the first month or whatever, some period of time, when we pick up Marnie from daycare we will do this together and we wilt spend time with Marnie together. And I want to see - this is for my safety and Marnie's safety, that I want to put these in place. No doctor has requested that I do this. It's just that she wants to be very conservative in how she 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 13 manages her bi-polarism because this is a new experience for her also. So that's the back-up plan. That's what's going on here. That's what I know. THE COURT: Anything else anybody wants to say? Grandfather? Why don't we get you closer to the microphone. MR. DUNN: My concern about this back-up plan thing. Can anybody guarantee that somebody is going to take their medication? I mean I don't think there's anybody in this room or anybody that can say that she will continue to take that medication. Because one day she may not feel that she needs it and don't take it and that makes it easier for the next day and the next day. So, what are we arguing about this back-up plan thing to guarantee she's going to take medication? I think there ought to be more to this to make sure that she follows through with what she's got to do to do this. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I don't know what they've told you but the Court will retain legal custody in the County and the County will work with the authorities, with the social workers and the social service department in mother's home community, under the inter-state, and they will do these kinds of things if Lake County is able to convince 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 ~2 3.3 14 17 3_8 20 23_ 22 23 14 the authorities there that they're appropriate and necessary things to do. And that's - if the question is can anybody guarantee anything the short answer is no. This Court can't, nor any mental health professional or any social service provider, can guarantee you or anybody else anything when it comes to human behavior and human conduct. What the Court can do is follow the law in the State of Minnesota which the Court understands to require that the County - that the nature of these proceedings is that the child goes to mother at this point in the proceedings. That the County is entitled to protection in the form of supervision and that when the child is not in their county, that they work with the agency out there. Minnesota does it all the time, they do it state to state all the time. Lake County works with other counties, Lake County works with other states and provides to them the same thing that they're going to ask for from the Pennsylvania authorities in this case. That's as good or as bad as it's going to be. But if you're looking for a guarantee, I don't mean to sound hard hearted but there are no guarantees. No guarantees in life anyhow. I don't know that it's productive to get down that road. But to the extent that that's what the issue is, no, nobody will guarantee anybody anything. 5 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ought to say. MR. DUNN: THE COURT: 15 Can I say something else? You can say whatever you think you MR. DUN-N: Don't you think it reasonable that there would be a period of time, a long period of time, we're talking months of monitoring to make sure that the medication has been taken, monitoring her behavior, her personality problems with this whole deal, and make sure that this is happening before we even decide that the child would go back to her? THE COURT: I guess the short answer is no. I think mother has demonstrated, through the testimony of her doctor, that she's at a point where she's entitled to have the child returned to her, to have Marnie go with her, and the protection that the public authority is seeking would be through supervision by the authorities in mother's home county, or whatever the unit is, out there in Pennsylvania. That's where the protection comes. The same thing would be if she lived in Finland and you lived in Silver Bay, the Court would do the same thing and provide that the supervision would be through the Social Services Department. The only thing here is the geography makes it longer and that that supervision would be done not by the local people but again 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 16 they do that all the time in the State of Minnesota and between the various states. And I sense - I know that's not a very satisfactory answer and it's not the answer that you're looking for. But that's the answer that the Court has as I understand both the evidence before me and the law as it applies to that evidence. I didn't mean to say by way of limitation - I didn't mean to say that you were limited. Is there anything else you would want take these things lightly. That's said and should be said regularly. to say, Sir? No? I don't something that should be The Court views its role in cases that decide where children should live and children should grow up as its most important responsibility, much more important than which insurance company writes the last check or which individual goes to jail and which individual retains their freedom and goes on probation. Where kids grow up is i think the most important category so I take it very seriously. For whatever that's worth. And I'm satisfied that you don't agree with where the Court is coming out here and you don't think I'm doing the right thing and you think whatever I'm doing I'm doing for the wrong reasons or inappropriate reasons. I don't certainly make light of that but the Court does what the Court believes the law and the evidence mandate the Court to do. Alright. Anything else from 17 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 Z2 12, ~7 20 21 22 23 anybody? MR. CONROW: Yes, Sir. The issue of the protection is dependent upon the inter-state compact process. My understanding of the process is that once we get the order, then we apply for the protection. And until Pennsylvania actually accepts the case through the inter- state compact, that protection is not in place. THE COURT: Okay. MR. CONROW: So we're asking that placement of Marnie in the mother's home be delayed until the order has been processed with the proper inter-state compact procedures. THE COURT: Do you agree with that deferral, Mr. Costley? MR. COSTLEY: No, Judge. I think it's gone on way too long already. I think Dr. Stein's in place to monitor this and obviously as soon as the inter-state compact is in place we'd more than likely have the matter concluded. But no, I don't want mother to not have the child. It's been way too long. There's no reason not to send her back. THE COURT: Do you have any idea how long that process will take? MR. CONROW: There is an expedited process and 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 in the past it's taken up to - MS. THOMPSON: I 18 can't speak to.that. THE COURT: I know six months to a year the inter-state compact sometimes takes and I'm always skeptical or suspicious of why they take so long sometimes and why others within 30 days there will be a response back. I don't know that that's something - I don't know that that ought to be determinative. Sometimes it takes months and months for cases to move between counties within the State of Minnesota, to get a response from other jurisdictions. The court has seen that. But I don't understand that to be an impediment. You've got the legal custody, you've got the ability to monitor. I sense the same people who are reporting misdeeds by mother will report further misdeeds. Mother is required as a part of this to cooperate, to sign releases, until you get the response back from Pennsylvania. None of those strike the Court as the kind of reasons to delay the return of the child, again given the uncontradicted testimony of the mental health professional. And that is that mother is today mentally appropriate to be the custodian of this child. Minnesota law, mother knows, that's the as everybody other than the grandparents and everybody in this room knows, mandates that first place that the public authority, the County 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Attorney and the Court children ought to be is with the custodial parent parent from whose custody the child was removed. 19 have got to look when deciding where the And when there is appropriate evidence supporting that occurring, notwithstanding whether there's a belief that there are concerns or whether there's a belief that there may be a better placement or whether there's a belief that there may be problems, none of that precludes the Court from going forward and - and that's not to say that the concerns are not serious concerns or genuine concerns. I don't mean to say by anything or suggest by anything that they're not. That will be the order of the Court. The child is adjudicated a child in need of protection or services. Physical placement is to be restored to mother, legal custody will remain in the County. Mother, you are directed to cooperate with the County, to sign such documents as they wish so they can monitor you. You are directed to cooperate, when the State of Pennsylvania picks up the case, with the authorities in the State of Pennsylvania, to work with them. If the County at some time within - or at any time - the Court will set a six month review date and if at anytime during that six months the County is of a mind that they believe to take further evidence or offer further evidence to the Court as to the 1 2 3 5 7 8 9~ 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2O appropriateness of what the Court has ordered, they can put it on at any time. But rather than set a return date at this point I'm going to leave that and we'll see how fast or how slow that goes. If it goes to slow, you don't get flushed out the hospitalization records that apparently have information as to their existence, we can come back at anytime. But that will be the order. It will be subject to whatever reasonable conditions may be imposed and again they include the releases and the cooperation and all of those circumstances. MR. COSTLEY: My question, Judge, is I'm assuming she can have her daughter back today. THE COURT: There's no reason to delay it at this point. MR. COSTLEY: Alright. THE COURT: It's not going to get any easier. Set up a time with Social Services and Grandpa and Grandma to pick up the child. MR. COSTLEY: We should have all those releases available for her to sign at the time she picks up the child. THE COURT: They can either mail them or they can present them to her and she'll sign them here before she leaves. Alright. Any other questions? MR. COSTLEY: I have nothing, Judge. Thank you. 1 2 THE COURT: Alright. We'll stand down then. 21 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) COUNTY OF LAKE ) CERTIFICATE I, Roberta C. Brandt, do hereby certify that I am a Certified Electronic Court Reporter and that I did electronically record the proceedings of the above entitled action; that I did thereafter transcribe into typewriting the foregoing transcript from the recording to the best of my ability; that the foregoing transcript, consisting of Twenty-one (21) pages, constitutes a full, true and correct transcript of all the proceedings at the time and place aforesaid. Dated: November 25, 2003 Roberta Brandt Court Reporter Sixth Judicial District 01:'t3 1,5 ?003 TODD M. MILLER, Plaintiff V ER/C DAVID NORDSTROM and KIMBERLY MARIE MILLER, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : NO. 2003 - 4385 CIVIL : : IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER_ AND NOW, this lq day of December, 2003, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that the hearing scheduled in this case on December 10, 2003 is cancelled and the following custody order is entered: The Plaintiff, Todd M. Miller, shall enjoy legal and physical custody of Marnie Elaine Lindfors Nordstrom, born April 30, 1994. The Father, Eric David Nordstrom, and the Mother, Kimberly Marie Miller, shall enjoy periods of temporary physical custody of the minor child at such times and under such circumstances as agreed upon by the parties. In the event any of the parties desire to modify this order, that party may p t non me court to have the case again scheduled before the conciliator for a custody conciliation conference. CC: ~rhomas J. William, Esquire ~Eric D. Nordstrom 1647 Hall Street Shoreview, MI 44126 ,/Kimberly M. Miller 62 West Ridge Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Edgar l~nT~yley,WJr.~ / Ik-lq- TODD M. MILLER, Plaintiff V ERIC DAVID NORDSTROM and KIMBERLY MARIE MILLER, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : NO. 2003 - 4385 CIVIL : : IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: Edgar B. Bayley, Jr. 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: Subsequent to the conference held in the above case on October 2, 2003, the conciliator conducted a telephone conference call with the Plaintiff and his counsel and the Defendant Eric David Nordstrom. At that time, Mr. Nordstrom indicated an agreement upon an Order giving custody of the minor child to the Plaintiff. The Mother, Kimberly Marie Miller, had previously indicated an agreement to that effect. Based upon that telephone conference call, the conciliator recommends the entry of an order in the form as attached. DATE Hubert X. G~...oy, Esquire Custody~ciliator