Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-4432 Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233.3220 Counsel For Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WilLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS, and DANNY ROGERS Pia i ntiffs v, NO. 03, J.jLJd~ Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVil ACTION - CUSTODY COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY 1. The plaintiffs are William G. Rogers and his parents, Claudia and Danny Rogers, who currently reside at 1408 Henderson Ridge, Olive Hill, Kentucky 41164. 2. William G. Rogers ("Father") is a sergeant with the 101st Airborne Division, (Air Assault) currently stationed in Mosul, Iraq. 3. The defendant is Christina R. Rogers, residing at 929 Nixon Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 4. Plaintiffs seek custody ofthe following child: Name Present Residence Date of Birth William Henry Rogers 929 Nixon Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 04/12/01 The child was not born out of wedlock. The child presently is in the custody of defendant, who resides at 929 Nixon Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. During the past five (5) years, the child has resided with the following persons at the following addresses: Name Address Dates Christina Rogers Cordell Michael James & Brenda High 929 Nixon Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 02/29/03 to present William G. Rogers Christina Rogers Cordell Michael 2501 S. Virginia Street Hopkinsville, KY 06/02 to 02/29/03 William G. Rogers Christina Rogers Cordell Michael 715,5B Phalen Drive Copenhagen,NY Birth to 06/02 The mother of the child is Christina Rogers, currently residing at 929 Nixon Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA. She is married to William Rogers, the child's father. The father of the child is William G. Rogers, who is domiciled at 1408 Henderson Ridge, Olive Hill, Kentucky. He is married to defendant Rogers. 5. The relationship of plaintiff William G. Rogers to the child is that of father. The relationship of plaintiffs Claudia and Danny Rogers to the child is that of grandparents. Plaintiffs currently reside with the following persons: Name Relationship Katie Greear Eryca Bowman Trinity Rogers Sister/Daughter Niece/Granddaughter Niece/Granddaughter 2 6. The relationship of defendant to the children is that of mother. Defendant currently resides with the following persons: Name Relationship Cordell Michael James High Brenda High Son Uncle Aunt 7. Plaintiffs have not participated as parties or witnesses, or in another capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody ofthe child in this or in another court. Plaintiffs have no information of a custody proceeding concerning the child pending in a court ofthis Commonwealth. Plaintiffs do not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody ofthe child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child. 8. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting the relief requested because defendant has evidenced by her conduct that she is actively attempting to alienate the child from his father and grandparents. This includes but is not limited to: a. On the day after Father was deployed, and without Father's consent, Defendant relocated with the child to Cumberland County. b. Defendant has refused Father telephone contact with his son when Father was at a location in Mosul from which he could place the call. c. Despite Father's persistent e,mails for information regarding his son, Defendant has ignored these requests. d. Defendant has informed Father by e,mail that, if he refuses to consent to a divorce and to limited "visitation" with his child, she will not allow him access to the child upon his return from Iraq. 3 e. Defendant has informed Father that her interests will be served by preventing Father and his family from having contact with the child. 9. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been terminated and the person who has physical custody ofthe child have been named as parties to this action. Wherefore, plaintiffs request the court grant them custody of the child. L~/Ju-- Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233,3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: September 8, 2003 4 VERIFICATION We, Claudia and Danny Rogers, state upon personal knowledge or information and belief that the averments set forth in the foregoing document are true. We understand that false statements herein are made sUbject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.s. 94904, relating to unsworn faisification to authorities. /JPw.ut:./ ~~1~ ::2"rn U -E,""Y~ /..".-- Date: O1\~\O2':> VERIFICATION I, William G. Rogers, state upon personal knowledge or information and belief that the averments set forth in the foregoing document are true. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. S 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~fn<-~~~ Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Counsel for William G. Rogers Date: )Jr: ~ ,0V!3 Page 1 of 1 Theresa B. Male From: william.g.rogers@us.army.mil Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 10:58 AM To: Theresa B. Male Subject: Custody of William Theresa I, Sg!. William G. Rogers, state upon personal knowledge or information and belief that the averments in the Complaint for Custody are true. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.SA 9 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I give my attorney, Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire, the authority to sign a verification on my behalf if required by the Court SGT William G Rogers Rill nom (J ~ C) , , , , . i 'i - j) D 'c' 'I '..i ) "-l C9 \() .. - ~ ~ c -- ~ "-.J 0"- , r~- () . ,.~ ::-:> ',j - (r\ ,< -.....J J WILLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS AND DANNY ROGERS PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OlP COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. 03-4432 CIVIL ACTION LAW CHRISTINA R. ROGERS DEFENDANT IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Wednesday, September 17, 2003 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa P. Greevy, Esq. at 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043 on Tnesday, October 14, 2003 , the conciliator, at 12:30 PM for a Pre,Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existilllg Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the couciliator 48 hours pr'ior to scheduled hearinf,t. FOR THE COURT. By: Isl Melissa P. Greevy. Esq. Custody ConciIiator v 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 TIlE OFFICE SET FORTIl 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 fU'~ Of- p~7~1ew "3:l/'f<'CY 'SJ~W ~ or- )~7'~w Adlj' 'f'3U ~ t.Q/41/b ",''''./I:1l(,,\)\,,:1,\ 'oj ~ I ': \1 j \ " ,,~)' .' -)'".. .-,. ,~cc'I~8 , .,_,._,,-_,_ ",' .,_'...,"1)\.1\ ;,.~-,.\., . " . . .' _.; ", .....11 of;\ U',l ':JV .~. '" " \ ,-"'" t'f\ .. (ij.:) .:,...} '-' ~, l' '.-.J',!, I\C1,I, '- U :~O Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel For Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUN1Y, PENNSYLVANIA WilLIAM G, ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS, and DANNY ROGERS Pia i ntiffs v. NO. 03,4432 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVil ACTION - CUSTODY PROOF OF SERVICE Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1930.4 governing service of original process in domestic relations matters, I served Defendant in the above,referenced custody action as follows: Documents: Time,stamped copy of Complaint for Custody Date of Service: September 19, 2003 Place of Service: Christina R. Rogers 929 Nixon Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Manner of Service: Certified mail. See attached Exhibit 1. !lA-,~/~If4- Theresa Barrett Male. Esquir~ Dated: September 29, 2003 . A. Signature . Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 ~ Restricted Delivery is desired. . Print your o!!me and address on the reverse so that we can ret~rn the card to you. . Attach this card to. the back ofthe mail piece, or on the front if space permits. 1. MIele Addressed to: Christina R. Rogers 929 Nixon Drive Mechanicsburg. P A 17055 2. Artiel (Tran: PSForr x Agent o Add_ ~ Date of Deli~ 7- '1-? o. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No .a~ Received by ( Printed Name) 3. Service Type B Certified Mall 0 Express Mall o Registered 0 Return Receipt for MerchandtM o Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 02595.01.M.2509 Exhibit 1 . (") <:.~) ~ , .-,; ~,I') , ~m ,." fT1 -U TO: '-.. :I, 2:r;' C..) ", en.... (:J :? ~t r.~) ;t~ -.,- T, .-"', ~C ::" ",::.'('') g :I> 2 co .~-,~ I '1 ~ ;~ co :0 -< . OCT 2 0 2003 Pla~ntiffs I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-4432 CIVil TERM CIVil ACTION - lAW WilLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY mOGERS, v. i CHRISTINA R. ROGE~S, IN CUSTODY o endant AND NOW, thi Conciliation Summa follows: INTERIM ORDER OF COURT i ;}jrtlaay of October, 2003, upon consideration of the Custody Report and pending hearing, it is hereby ordered and directed a 1. le al C stod . William G. Rogers and Christina R. Rogers shall have share legal custody of the inor child, William Henry Rogers, born April 12, 2001. Each paren shall have an equal ight, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all majo non-emergency deci Ions affecting the child's general well,being including, but not limite to, all decisions rega ding his health, education and religion. Pursuant to the terms of P . C. S. 95309, each p rent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to th child including, but n t limited to, medical, dental, religious or school records, the residenc address of the child nd of the other parent. To the extent one parent has possession f any such records or nformation, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copie thereof, with the oth r parent within such reasonable time as to make the records an information of reason ble use to the other parent. 2. Ph sic I Custod. The Mother, Christina R. Rogers, shall have tempora primary physical cus ody of the minor child without prejudice to the Father's right to purs e primary physical cus ody upon his return to the United States. 3. Father shall have a period of partial custody for up to fifteen (15) days duri g his upcoming TDY/I ave, which may be exercised in Kentucky. Prior to Father's return 0 his duty station in I aq, he will return physical custody of the child to the Mother. It is acknowledged that ue to the Father's military obligation, it is likely that the parties ill receive twenty-four 24) to forty-eight (48) hours notice of Father's period of leave, which is contemplated to dc ur in and around the time of either Thanksgiving 2003 or Christm s 2003. 4. The P temal Grandparents, Claudia Rogers and Danny Rogers, may exerc' e periods of partial cu tody on the first weekend of each month from Friday at 5:00 p.m. u til Monday at 5:00 p. ., effective November 7,2003. Such periods of custody shall occu in Central Pennsylvan a. Prior to obtaining custody of the child, the Mother shall be provi ed NO. 03,4432 CIVIL TERM with the location wher~the Grandparents are staying and a cellular phone number where they can be reached. hese periods of custody are to occur during a period of time when Father is on military as ignment outside of the United States of America. 5. The Pate nal Grandparents may initiate a call to the child which may occur twice per week, on Mo day through Friday, between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. 6. A Hearin regarding the Grandparents' petition pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. ~5312 for reasonable periods of partial custody is scheduled in co~er ...L of the Cumberland County ourthouse, on the Jlf.l day of , 2004-, at 13u o'clock) .M., at which time testimony will be taken. For the purposes of the hearing, the Paternal rand parents shall be deemed to be the moving parties and shall proceed initially with t stimony. Counsel for the parties or the parties pro se shall file with the Court and opposin counsel/party a memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list of witne ses who are expected to testify at the hearing, and a summary of the anticipated testimony f each witness. These memoranda shall be filed at least ten days prior to the hearing dat . J. '- Ois!: Theresa Barrett Male Esquire, 513 N. 20' Street, Harrisburg, PA 1710'1 Andrew Spears, Esq ire, PO Box 5300, Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 '<rOd ~ /0. .2 1. 03 q.. . \!:l\jV/0)\S;<~\ljd ,\.U\lr:t.'- SI:q~~:J ~'GIJJr lL..' I\Ui....-,. ; OCT 2 0 2003 WilLIAM G. ROGERS, ~lAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY IROGERS, Pla~ntiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03,4432 CIVil TERM v. CIVil ACTION - lAW CHRISTINA R ROGE~S, IN CUSTODY De endant C STODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDAN E WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersig ed Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pert nent information concerning the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF William Henry Rog April 12, 2001 Mother 2. The parti s' first Custody Conciliation Conference was held on October 14, 2003 with the followin individuals in attendance: the Plaintiffs' counsel, Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire; the Mo her, Christina R Rogers, and her counsel, Andrew Spears, Esquire. The paternal grandpar nts participated by telephone due to their location in Kentucky. The Father did not particip te in the Conference because he is currently stationed in Iraq with the 10151 Airborne Divi ion. 3. The parti s reached only an interim agreement with regard to some tempora periods of custody fo the paternal grandparents to be exercised in Pennsylvania and temporary period of cu tody for Father during an anticipated fifteen day TOY/leave. 5. Father's osition as re resented b his counsel is as follows: Ms. Barre Male acknowledges t t Mother had de facto custody due to Father's deployment. She ha requested, and Moth r has agreed, to provide Father with temporary physical custod during the period of h s upcoming TOY for approximately fifteen days. She represents tha Father intends to exer ise his period of custody at his parents' home in Olive Hill, Kentucky Father desires to ha e the child have regular, extended contact with his parents, sister nieces and nephews. 4. The part es did not reach an agreement on the grandparents' request for one week period of cu tody to occur once a month in Kentucky. NO. 03,4432 GIVIL TERM 6. Paternal rand arents' osition is as follows: The paternal grandmother is disabled. The patern I grandfather is employed in the local school district. Paternal grandmother did most f the speaking for the couple. She indicated that in order to save on hotel and travel expe ses and to keep the paternal grandfather from taking unpaid time from work, they would refer to exercise periods of custody in Kentucky. She has offered to meet the mother half ay, thereby sharing transportation. To respond to Mother's concern about the separation the two children during the periods of custody, she also agreed to have Gordel come alo g with his younger brother. Grandmother indicated a desire to help the child remember hi Father, write letters to him and send him pictures and drawings. She also wants to assi t in the child's speaking with the Father over the telephone weekly. She alleges that sinc the parents' separation, the Mother has cut off contact with both herself and the Fathe in that she has refused to provide him any information about the child's progress. Pate al grandmother indicated that William was with her in Kentucky from April 26, 2003, throug June 7, 2003, and that they had a great time together. She states she misses the child a d feels cut off from him. 7. Mother's osition on custod is as follows: Mother seeks to confirm that she has primary custody of the minor child at this time and strenuously objects to the exercise of custody by the pater al grandparents outside of Pennsylvania. Mother presently has seasonal employment Sunday through Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. This is her second week of em pi yment. She presently has no car as she has returned both cars of the marriage to the p ternal grandparents due to her inability to make the car payments. Mother resides in Me anicsburg with her aunt and her uncle, the minor child and her 4Y:. year old child to anoth r relationship, GordeL In regard to Mother's concerns regarding the grandparents' request for periods of custody in Kentucky, Mother points out that the paternal grandparents are chain smokers and use extensive amounts of alcohol. She believes that these c nditions make it unsafe for the little boy to be in the paternal grandparents' custody. She also expresses concern about the impact on the child of having to be separated from his brother and herself for a week at a time as the grandparents propose. There is so e factual dispute with regard to the amount of personal contact that the paternal grand par nts had with the child. He is presently 2Y:. years old. It is not disputed that the only portion of this lifetime that the child lived in the same state as the paternal grandparents as a nine month period from June of 2002 until Father's deployment on February 28, 200. During that period of time Mother alleges that the paternal grandparents came to see them approximately three times and otherwise had contact with the child approximatel once per month when Father would take him for a visit to their home on the weekend. Mot er also acknowledges that the paternal grandparents had tempora physical custody of th child for the period from April 29, 2003 through May 29, 2003. Sh reports that they have ade no attempt to contact the child or call her since August of 2003. NO. 03,4432 CIVIL TEIRM , 8. The atta4hed interim Order reflects an agreement of the parties, hearing, where the Pat~rnal Grandparents will be the ~ parties. I " )j;}ft ~lv (J I /l Date Melissa peelt~VY, ~SqUire Custody Conciliator pending :219692 . Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WilLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS Plaintiffs v. NO. 03-4432 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVil ACTION - CUSTODY PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO TAKE TESTIMONY BY ELECTRONIC MEANS PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 19230.3 1. Plaintiff William G. Rogers ("Father") and Defendant Christina R. Rogers are the parents of William Rogers (dob: 04/12/01), who presently is in the custody of defendant. 2. Plaintiffs Claudia Rogers and Danny Rogers are the child's paternal grandparents ("Grandparents"). 3. Father, a sergeant with the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), is stationed in Mosul, Iraq. 4. This Honorable Court has set December 4, 2003 for a hearing on Grandparents' claim for partial custody oftheir grandchild. 5. Father has secured authorization from the military for access to a satellite telephone in order to testify by electronic means as permitted under Rule of Civil Procedure 1930.3. 6. Counsel for defendant now informs plaintiffs' counsel that defendant will not agree to Father's testimony by telephone at the December 4 hearing. 7. In light of Father's deployment to a war zone, Defendant's refusal to consent to Father's testimony by telephone is unconscionable. 8. Plaintiffs have incurred legal fees in the amount of $500.00 as a result of having to file this motion. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court enter an order allowing Father to testify by electronic means pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1930.3 at the December 4, 2003 custOdy hearing. Plaintiffs also request the court to award them counsel fees in the amount of $500.00, with a directive to defendant that she remit this payment to Plaintiffs' counsel by January 15, 2004. JLLidl~ Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233,3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: November 26, 2003 2 PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R.C.P. 440: Service by fax and first-class mail addressed as follows: Andrew C. Spears, Esquire Metzger Wickersham 311 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Attorneys for Defendant L~d~ Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: November 26, 2003 .. '$ I c ~. <.,) ;;e '~..j <::> '" 00:: ;<;fl?rJ N 'BZ 0' (; C') ..~. ~ (<;' ....., g~ Ie'; ::z: ~ ~ :...> ~ ~.::> -< Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUN1Y, PENNSYLVANIA WilLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS Plaintiffs v. NO. 03-4432 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVil ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, December "2v.A , 2003, upon request of Plaintiffs Claudia and Danny Rogers ("Grandparents"), and upon agreement of the parties, the Court reschedules the hearing on Grandparents' request for partial physical custody of their grandson from Thursday, December 4, 2003 to Monday, February 9, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. BY THE COURI~ . Edgar B. Bayley, J. Distribution: I . ~~ % J do -0 'CrC6 vTheresa Barrett Male, Esq., 513 N. Second St., Harrisburg, PA 17101 ? Jndrew C. Spears, Esq., P.O. Box 5300, Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 ~ 0 ~~ lI' l-- N C 84. :it: -c. U_.-,.' a.. 91 1.J....-',.- C)n @t5:. ."" '<5 I -, u ffi iI W roo.. 0 ~ u_ <'" 0 C) D~ 1 2003 Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUN1Y, PENNSYLVANIA WilLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS Plaintiffs v. NO. 03,4432 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVil ACTION - CUSTODY PLAINTIFFS' PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUMl A. Position on Custody: Plaintiff William G. Rogers ("Father") and Defendant Christina R. Rogers are the parents of William Rogers (dob: 04/12/01), who presently is in the custody of defendant. Plaintiffs Claudia Rogers and Danny Rogers are the child's paternal grandparents ("Grandparents"). Grandparents are seeking partial physical custody of their grandson while Father, a sergeant with the 101s! Airborne Division (Air Assault), is stationed in Mosul, Iraq.2 Specifically, Grandparents, who reside in Olive Hill, Kentucky, request one week each month until Father returns from his deployment. Father and Defendant separated shortly after Father was deployed in February 2003, at which time Defendant relocated from Kentucky to Cumberland County with William, and her older child from a prior relationship. Although Defendant left William in the care of I Defendant'S counsel granted Plaintffs an extension in which to file this memorandum. 2 Father also has a claim for primary custody of his son, which is deferred until he returns to the United States. Grandparents from April 26, 2003 until June 7, 2003, Defendant now claims that Grandparents cannot provide a safe environment for William. She therefore opposes any contact other than one weekend per month in Central Pennsylvania. B. Witnesses Expected to Testify 1. Plaintiffs Claudia Rogers and Danny Rogers 2. Plaintiff William G. Rogers, by telephone3 3. Katie Greear, paternal aunt Plaintiffs reserve the right to call rebuttal witnesses at the conclusion of Defendant's case. C. Summary of Anticipated Testimony Claudia and Danny Rogers will testify generally regarding: 1. Their contact with William before his parents separated. 2. Their love for William. 3. Their willingness to stand in their son's shoes while he is deployed. 4. Their desire that William know and have a relationship with his paternal relatives, particularly while his father is away. 5. Their observations of William's interaction with his father and their family during Father's recent two,week leave. 6. Their observations of William while they had custody of him from April 26 through June 7, 2003. 3 Because Defendant refused to consent to Father's testimony by telephone from Iraq, Plaintiffs just fiied a motion to take testimony by electronic means pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1930.3. 2 7. Defendant's severing of their contact with William after she picked him up from their home in June 2003. Father will testify regarding: 1. His observations of William. and their interactions, during Father's recent leave. 2. Father's and William's contacts with Father's parents and other family members prior to Father's deployment. 3. Mother's refusal to allow Father contact with his son after he arrived in Iraq. 4. Father's desire to have William spend one week each month in Kentucky with Father's parents and family pending Father's return to the U.S. Katie Greaar will testify regarding: 1. Her observations of William before and after Father's deployment. 2. Mother's allegations that the Rogers' home is unsafe. 3. William's relationships with his father and his father's family. D. Proposed Resolution Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to enter their proposed order, which is attached as Exhibit 1. L~;j~w2t~ Theresa Barrett Male. Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233,3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: November 26, 2003 3 Exhibit 1 Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsei for Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WilLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS Plaintiffs v. NO. 03-4432 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVil ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW. December , 2003, after hearing, the Court ORDERS and DECREES: 1. Plaintiffs Claudia and Danny Rogers are awarded partial physical custody of William Rogers as follows: a. One week each month, from Saturday at 12:00 p.m. [noon] to Sunday at 12:00 p.m. [noon]. The first week shall begin on January 10, 2004 and end on January 18, 2004. Plaintiffs and Defendant shall exchange custody of William at a restaurant, which the parties shall identify within seven (7) days, at the Cumberland, Maryland exit off 1-68. 2. Not later than December 31, 2003, Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs with the name, address and telephone number of William's pediatrician. 3. Plaintiffs and Defendant shall keep each other informed of their addresses and current telephone numbers. 4. Entry of this order is without prejudice to the claim for primary custody raised by Plaintiff William G. Rogers. BY THE COURT: Edgar B. Bayley, J. Distribution: Theresa Barrett Male, Esq., 513 N. Second St., Harrisburg, PA 17101 Andrew C. Spears, Esq., P.O. Box 5300, Harrisburg. PA 17110-0300 2 PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving 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 fax and first,class mail addressed as follows: Andrew C. Spears, Esquire Metzger Wickersham 311 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110,0300 Attorneys for Defendant /f~~)Jtdc Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: December 1, 2003 Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233.3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WilLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS Plaintiffs v. NO. 03,4432 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVil ACTION - CUSTODY PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING 1. This Honorable Court has set February 9, 2004 for hearing on the claim for custody filed by Plaintiffs Claudia Rogers and Danny Rogers ("Grandparents"). 2. Plaintiff William G. Rogers ("Father") is a sergeant with the 101S! Airborne Division (Air Assault). 3. Throughout the pendency of this custody action, Father has been stationed in Mosul, Iraq. 4. Father now is en route to the U.S., with an estimated time of arrival at the end of February 2004. 5. Father's safe return from the war will eliminate the need for a custody order in favor of Grandparents. 6. Counsel for Defendant, Andrew C. Spears, Esquire, concurs in this rnotion to continue the February 9,2004 hearing generally, pending Father's return. Wherefore, Plaintiffs request the Court enter an order continuing generally the February 9,2004 custody hearing. L DMdt~ Theresa Barrett Male. Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: January 27,2004 2 ^. PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving 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 fax and first,class mail addressed as follows: Andrew C. Spears, Esquire Metzger Wickersham 311 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110,0300 Attorneys for Defendant LtLe-ttIL Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233,3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: January 28.2004 di~ Ii : i~ Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS Plaintiffs v. NO. 03,4432 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defenda nt CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, i;;lnuelry r'""^'''7 ~. , 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Hearing, the Court GRANTS the motion. The February ~, 2004 hearing is continued generally, pending the return from Mosul, Iraq of Plaintiff William G. Rogers. BY THE COURT: fW ,/fd Distribution: ,/Theresa Barrett Male, Esq., 513 N. Second St., Harrisburg, PA 17101 ~ndrew C. Spears, Esq., P.O. Box 5300, Harrisburg, PA 17110,0300 ~~~ tJ..o1 '1-0 Orr V:NV/\l'\Si'~N3d "N!n'Y) ,'.,.".,1' I~G,^ln" IU I.....'" \,t-l~ ,_'".:1\,.lV't V 'lZ :~ Wd 1]- 833 ~OOZ J..b"v'lONOH10Cid 3Hl :10 38lJ:l0--0311:1 Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233.3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WilLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS Plaintiffs v. NO. 03,4432 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVil ACTION - CUSTODY PLAINTIFF WilLIAM G. ROGERS' APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1915.13 1. Plaintiff William G. Rogers is a sergeant with the 1015t Airborne Division (Air Assault). 2. Throughout the pendency of this custody action, Sgt. Rogers has been stationed in Mosul, Iraq. 3. Sgt. Rogers presently is enroute to the U.S., with an estimated time of arrival on or about February 18, 2004. 4. The parties are the parents of William Henry Rogers (dob: 04/12/01). 5. Sgt. Rogers is domiciled in Kentucky. 6. Defendant moved to Cumberland County on or about February 28, 2003, and currently resides in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 7. The last marital domicile was in Kentucky. 8. Sgt. Rogers and his parents instituted this action on September 9,2003. 9. On October 23, 2003, this Court entered an interim order for custody, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. 10. Pursuant to the interim order, Sgt. Rogers had custody of his son November 12 to,28, 2003, when he was on a two,week leave from active duty. 11. On February 4, 2004, the court granted the motion of the additional plaintiffs ("Grandparents") to continue a hearing on the grandparents' custody claim. A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit 2.1 12. On January 28, 2004, Sgt. Roger's counsel notified defendant's counsel that Sgt. Rogers wanted custody of his son for at least two months upon his return to the U.S. Counsel confirmed this by letter of the same date. 13. Defendant refuses to release the child to Sgt. Rogers. 14. Defendant has offered to "give" Sgt. Rogers "visitation or partial custody" for 30 days.2 15. Sgt. Rogers believes and therefore avers that Defendant's refusal to relinquish physical custody of William is motivated in part by a desire to alienate him from his son, as evidenced by the following: a. During his combat duty in Iraq, Sgt. Rogers regularly e,mailed his son letters a nd photos. b. Defendant admits that she has not read to, or shared with, William, any of his father's letters or photos. c. During his combat duty in Iraq, Sgt. Rogers did not receive any letters, cards, or pictures of William from Defendant. I Upon sgt Rogers' return to the U.s.. plaintiff.grandparents will withdraw their custody claim. 2 Sgt. Rogers has a claim for primary physical custody of his son. 2 d. In contrast, Defendant shares with her other child, Cordell Michael, letters and pictures from Cordell's father, who also is in the military. e. From April 26, 2003 until June 7, 2003, prior to the commencement of this action, Defendant left William in the custody of Grandparents, but she now asserts that Grandparents are not fit. f. Although the parties share legal custody, Defendant has not consulted with Sgt. Rogers on important matters regarding William, such as medical attention and child care arrangements. 16. Sgt. Rogers also believes and therefore avers that Defendant's refusal to relinquish physical custody of William is motivated by a desire to gain an advantage in this custody action. 17. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1915.13 provides in relevant part: At any time after the commencement of the action, the court may on application ... grant appropriate interim or special relief. The relief may include but is not limited to the award of temporary custody.... See also Explanatory Comment: "Rule 1915.13 contains a broad provision empowering the court to provide special relief where appropriate. ... The rule specifically provides that the power of the court to grant special relief shall not be limited to the types of relief catalogued." 18. The Court's award of temporary custody to Sgt. Rogers will afford father and son the opportunity to make up for lost time. 19. The Court's award of temporary custody to Sgt. Rogers will not compromise either party's position on the ultimate issue for trial. 20. Sgt. Rogers' family made the entire trip to pick up and return William in November 2003. 3 21. The approximate half,way point between the last marital domicile and Defendant's current address is Huntingdon, West Virginia, at the Welcome Center at Exit 8 off Route 64 [about 350 miles for Sgt. Rogers and about 327 miles for Defendant]. 22. Exchange of custody on Saturday, February 21, 2004 at 2:00 p.m. will allow both parties ample travel time on a weekend. Wherefore, Plaintiff William G. Rogers respectfully requests the Court enter an order granting him interim custody of William Henry Rogers, and directing Defendant to deliver the child to Plaintiff on Saturday, February 21, 2004 at 2:00 p.m. at the Huntingdon, West Virginia Welcome Center. L~-tt/lu- Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233,3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: February 11, 2004 4 Exhibit 1 OCT 2 0 2003 WILLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-4432 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, Defendant IN CUSTOD Ii) ~ @ ~ U \I) ~ W 1Jl) OCT 2 B 2003 ~I INTERIM ORDER OF COURT By AND NOW, this ~ 3AA--day of October, 2003, upon consideration of the Custody Conciliation Summary Report and pending hearing, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. Leaal Custody. William G. Rogers and Christina R. Rogers shall have shared legal custody of the minor child, William Henry Rogers, born April 12, 2001. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, 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 Pa. C. S. ~5309, each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the child including, 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. 2. Physical Custody. The Mother, Christina R. Rogers, shall have temporary primary physical custody of the minor child without prejudice to the Father's right to pursue primary physical custody upon his return to the United States. 3. Father shall have a period of partial custody for up to fifteen (15) days during his upcoming TOY/leave, which may be exercised in Kentucky. Prior to Father's return to his duty station in Iraq, he will return physical custody of the child to the Mother. It is acknowledged that due to the Father's military obligation, it is likely that the parties will receive twenty-four (24) to forty-eight (48) hours notice of Father's period of leave, which is contemplated to occur in and around the time of either Thanksgiving 2003 or Christmas 2003. 4. The Paternal Grandparents, Claudia Rogers and Danny Rogers, may exercise periods of partial custody on the first weekend of each month from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until Monday at 5:00 p.m., effective November 7, 2003. Such periods of custody shall occur in Central Pennsylvania. Prior to obtaining custody of the child, the Mother shall be provided . , NO. 03-4432 CIVIL TERM with the location where the Grandparents are staying and a cellular phone number where they can be reached. These periods of custody are to occur during a period of time when Father is on military assignment outside of the United States of America. 5. The Paternal Grandparents may initiate a call to the child which may occur twice per week, on Monday through Friday, between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. 6. A Hearing regarding the Grandparents' petition pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. 95312 for reasonable periods of partial custody is scheduled in Courtroom Number ~ of the Cumberland County Courthouse, on the 1/ 10. day of I. p~,,~ Ah . ,200~, at I: 3D o'clock -L.M., at which time testimony will be taken. For the purposes of the hearing, the Paternal Grandparents shall be deemed to be the moving parties and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties or the parties pro se shall file with the Court and opposing counsel/party a memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list of witnesses who are expected to testify at the hearing, and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. These memoranda shall be filed at least ten days prior to the hearing date.' . BY THE COURT: /1 ~ t3. tit1 J. Dis!: Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire, 513 N. 20d Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101 Andrew Spears, Esquire, PO Box 5300, Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 rRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof, I here unto SlIt my hand ~nd the 51,l,11 of S;l~~at Carlisie, Pa. fllis :l3~ ~y ~,iY0.3 . (" ~ / I Prot"onotary Exhibit 2 JAN 3 0 2004 ~ ~~IT6~D~~WI iW FEB 0 6 2004 ~J Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs By_ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WilLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS Plaintiffs v. NO. 03-4432 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVil ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT , 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Hearing, the Court GRA The February 9, 2004 hearing is continued generally, pending the return from Mosul, Iraq of Plaintiff William G. Rogers. BY THE COURT: Distribution: ~ Theresa Barrett Male, Esq., 513 N. Second St., Harrisburg, PA 17101 Andrew C. Spears, Esq., P.O. Box 5300, Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 -. PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving 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: Andrew C. Spears, Esquire Metzger Wickersham 311 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Attorneys for Defendant Theresa Barrett Male, Esqu re Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: February 12, 2004 ~ r---:> 0 0 = -n "'" ~ ~~ -""' .-j ~ ~ '<, -<1 3:-n g [11P ~. -r.,rrJ ~ .-"'; -tlc,.; , N ~;?l~~i U;: a -<" ~-l'l " r- -0 b'~ " t: ~ -::F. -...,' -~.. (1 .-::... :::~)n :/_, ':--..1 '-i ~ ).~ '(:='::. <.f? ~,.,.. 0:0 ~ ~ 2- =< ~. :.;! Ul WILLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-4432 CIVIL TERM Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, Defendant IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM G. ROGERS' APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. For further clarification, Plaintiff Sergeant William G. Rogers (hereinafter "Father") has been stationed in Iraq since February 2003. 3. Denied. Defendant Christina R. Rogers (hereinafter "Mother") is without the requisite knowledge to form an answer to the averments contained in Paragraph 3; therefore, they are specifically denied. 4. Admitted. 5. It is admitted that Father is currently stationed with the 101 st Airborne Division our of Kentucky. As to whether Father's domicile is Kentucky, Mother is without the requisite knowledge to form an answer to the averments contained in Paragraph 5; therefore, they are specifically denied. 6. Admitted. 7. It is admitted that the parties last resided together in Kentucky. It is denied that the last marital domicile was in Kentucky, as it was the agreement of the parties that Mother would be moving to the county of Pennsylvania where her family resides while Father was stationed in Iraq. 289888-1 8. Without admission, no response is required as the legal pleadings in this case speak for themselves. 9. Without admission, no response is required as the legal pleadings in this case speak for themselves. 10. Without admission, no response is required as the legal pleadings in this case speak for themselves. 11. Without admission, no response is required as the legal pleadings in this case speak for themselves. 12. Denied. On the contrary, Father's counsel notified Mother's counsel that Father would be returning around the end ofFebruarry and wanted custody of his son, William Henry Rogers, DOB: 4/12/01 (hereinafter "Minor Child") for a period of at least sixty (60) days upon his return to the United States. However, what Father failed to note in his Petition for Special Relief was that, not only did he want visitation with the Minor Child, he wanted a transfer of primary custody to him for that period of time. He further wanted Mother's rights changed from having primary custody to having temporary custody while the Minor Child was in Father's care. While Mother is not opposed to Father seeing the Minor Child, she does not think that it is in the Minor Child's best interest to be with Father for a period of more than thirty (30) days at a time; and she believes that Father's only interest in having this visitation and the transfer of custody would be to gain an advantage in the pending custody action. 13. Denied. On the contrary Mother has offered to allow the Minor Child to go to Father's house for a period of thirty (30) days or a month's time. Considering the amount oftime the Minor Child has spent with Father over the past year, this is certainly reasonable. Further, Mother and the Minor Child also reside with Mother's other child, Cordell Michael, with whom the 289888-1 Minor Child has a very close relationship. Mother believes that it would be detrimental to the Minor Child to be away from his brother for such a long period of time. 14. Admitted. 15. Denied. a. Denied. Father was stationed in Iraq for a period of over a year. Father did not start regularly emailing the Minor Child, conveniently, until the custody action was begun in September 2003. Since that time Father has emailed the Minor Child approximately eight times. b. Denied. Mother has repeatedly, through her counsel, told Father's counsel that she has read to the Minor Child all of his Father's letters and emails. c. It is admitted that Father did not receive any letters, cards or pictures of the Minor Child from Mother. However, Father never requested any letters, cards or pictures, and the Minor Child is surely too young to perform those duties on his own. d. It is admitted that Mother shares with her other child, Cordell Michael, pictures from his father with whom she maintains an extremely amicable relationship and who is also in the military. e. It is admitted that from approximately April 26, 2003 until June 7, 2003 Mother left the Minor Child in the custody of his paternal grandparents. It is further admitted that she now asserts that paternal grandparents are not fit. Paternal grandmother is disabled, and paternal grandfather has recently had health problems. Therefore, Mother fears that they are not capable of taking care of the Minor Child. In addition, Mother believes that the home environment in which the paternal grandparents live is not fit for the raising of the Minor Child, as there is excessive drinking and smoking in that environment. Further, when Father had temporary custody in November, the paternal grandparents and father refused to return any phone calls Mother made 289888-1 during that period of time; nor did they update her on the health and well-being of the Minor Child while in their care. In addition, Mother feels that the paternal grandparents' home is an unfit environment for the Minor Child as she believes there is drinking and smoking around the Minor Child and when he is returned to her care he is dirty and stinks from smoke. f. It is admitted that the parties share legal custody of the Minor Child. The rernaining averments of Paragraph 15.f. are denied. On the contrary, Mother has attempted to consult with Father on important matters; however, he has never shown an interest until September 2003 when this action was filed. Further, Father was stationed in Iraq and was not easily accessible to Mother. 16. Denied. On the contrary, Mother believes that Father's request to transfer primary physical custody to Father for a period of sixty (60) days is only motivated by a desire to gain an advantage in the pending custody action. Mother has been the primary caretaker of the Minor Child since birth, and the Minor Child has been with Mother for a period in excess of a year while Father has been stationed in Iraq. Mother believes that it would be extremely detrimental to the health and well-being of the Minor Child to allow him to go to the State of Kentucky for a period of time longer than thirty (30) days and to be separated from Mother and his brother for such a long period of time. Further, Mother believes that this matter can better be reconciled through a Custody Conciliation Conference where a set schedule of custody can be developed. 17. No response required, as Pa.R.C.P. 1915.13 speaks for itself. 18. Conclusion of law. No response required. If a response is required, Mother believes that allowing the Minor Child to be in Father's care for a period longer than thirty (30) days with no contact with Mother and Mother's other child, would not be in the best interest of the health and well-being of the Minor Child. 289888-1 19. Conclusion oflaw. No response required. Ifa response is required, the averments of Paragraph 19 are denied. On the contrary, Father is not requesting award oftemporary custody; Father is requesting that the Court transfer primary custody to him. 20. Admitted. 21. Mother is without the requisite knowledge to form an answer to the averments contained in Paragraph 21; therefore, they are specifically denied. However, if Father is alluding that Mother drive 327 miles to meet his family to drop off the Minor Child, Mother is unable to do this. Father has taken both vehicles from the marriage and Mother currently has no source of transportation. 22. No response required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Christina R. Rogers respectfully requests this Court to deny Plaintiff William G. Rogers' Application for Special Relief, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1915.13 and direct Plaintiff to proceed to a custody conciliation conference to work out a visitation schedule. Respectfully submitted, METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. By \0 - Andrew C. Spears, Esquire Attorney J.D. No. 87737 P.O. Box 5300 3211 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Defendant Dated: r:J. - \ " - \) '1- 289888-1 VERIFICATION I, Andrew C. Spears, Esquire, attorney for Defendant, hereby certify that the facts set forth in the within Answer to Plaintiff William G. Rogers' Application for Special Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. g4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Andre~speaI' Date: ')-\\\-01 289888-1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this~, day of February, 2004, I, Andrew C. Spears, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., attorneys for Defendant, hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff William G. Rogers' Application for Special Relief this \\I\tay by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 17101 Attorney for the Plaintiffi's, William G. Rogers, Claudia Rogers and Danny Rogers METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. C- Andrew C. Spears, Esquire Attorney Id. No. 87737 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, P A 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Defendant Christina R. Rogers Date: February ~ 2004 289888-1 0 "'-> 0 c::-:> s;~ TI -" :;:J m m " C0 F -pfn f'.) :t5y 0 0- --1C) .....-Tr -n Sf :!J _,'4 C) :.:- . c-:': ,-'n '. r:y -' ~"l .c:- ~:g -< -.J -. WILLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS, PLAINTIFFS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT : 03-4432 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this jcj& day of February, 2004, a hearing on the petition of William G. Rogers for special relief shall be conducted at 11 :30 a.m., Wednesday, February 25, 2004, in Courtroom Number 2, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY~7J~~ Edgar B. Bayley, J. Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire For William G. Rogers Andrew C. Spears, Esquire For Christina R. Rogers :sal (!~11~ ~/)~'f ~ -,- c:; i::!:: C uJ ~'.,~ ( )"'O-c-- ::l=-C) tt:?-: C?5 C1'~: i:l.1u- ~u.J ""'-- ~ lJ... o co If'> ;;-, .....,:"'" 0- Cl N oc:> L,,) U- c~ R. ,.,", ~~ .~.:; () Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS Plaintiffs v. NO. 03-44:32 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY PLAINTIFF WilLIAM G. ROGERS' APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1915.13 1. Plaintiff William G. Rogers is a sergeant with the 101S! Airborne Division (Air Assault). 2. Throughout the pendency of this custody action, Sgt. Rogers has been stationed in Mosul, Iraq. 3. Sgt. Rogers presently is enroute to the U.S., with an estimated time of arrival on or about February 18, 2004. 4. The parties are the parents of William Henry Rogers (dob: 04/12/01). 5. Sgt. Rogers is domiciled in Kentucky. 6. Defendant moved to Cumberland County on or about February 28, 2003, and currently resides in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 7. The last marital domicile was in Kentucky. 8. Sgt. Rogers and his parents instituted this action on September 9, 2003. 9. On October 23, 2003, this Court entered an interim order for custody, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. 10. Pursuant to the interim order, Sgt. Rogers had custody of his son November 12 to-28, 2003, when he was on a two-week leave from active duty. 11. On February 4, 2004, the court granted the motion of the additional plaintiffs ("Grandparents") to continue a hearing on the grandparents' custody claim. A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit 2.1 12. On January 28, 2004, Sgt. Roger's counsel notified defendant's counsel that Sgt. Rogers wanted custody of his son for at least two months upon his return to the U.S. Counsel confirmed this by letter of the same date. 13. Defendant refuses to release the child to Sgt. Rogers. 14. Defendant has offered to "give" Sgt. Rogers "visitation or partial custody" for 30 days.2 15. Sgt. Rogers believes and therefore avers that Defendant's refusal to relinquish physical custody of William is motivated in part by a desire to alienate him from his son, as evidenced by the following: a. During his combat duty in Iraq, Sgt. Rogers regularly e-mailed his son letters a nd photos. b. Defendant admits that she has not read to, or shared with, William, any of his father's letters or photos. c. During his combat duty in Iraq, Sgt. Rogers did not receive any letters, cards, or pictures of William from Defendant. I Upon sgt. Rogers' return to the U.S., plaintiff-grandparents will withdraw their custody claim. 2 Sgt. Rogers has a claim for primary physical custody of his son. 2 d. In contrast, Defendant shares with Iler other child, Cordell Michael, letters and pictures from Cordell's father, who also is in the military. e. From April 26, 2003 until June 7, 2003, prior to the commencement of this action, Defendant left William in the custody of Grandparents, but she now asserts that Grandparents are not fit. f. Although the parties share legal custody, Defendant has not consulted with Sgt. Rogers on important matters regarding William, such as medical attention and child care arrangements. 16. Sgt. Rogers also believes and therefore avers that Defendant's refusal to relinquish physical custody of William is motivated by a desire to gain an advantage in this custody action. 17. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1915.13 provides in relevant part: At any time after the commencement of the action, the court may on application ... grant appropriate interim or special relief. The relief may include but is not limited to the award of temporary custody.... See also Explanatory Comment: "Rule 1915.13 contains a broad provision empowering the court to provide special relief where appropriate. ... The rule specifically provides that the power of the court to grant speCial relief shall not be limited to the types of relief catalogued." 18. The Court's award of temporary custody to Sgt. Rogers will afford father and son the opportunity to make up for lost time. 19. The Court's award of temporary custody to Sgt. Rogers will not compromise either party's position on the ultimate issue for trial. 20. Sgt. Rogers' family made the entire trip to piCk up and return William in November 2003. 3 21. The approximate half-way point between the last marital domicile and Defendant's current address is Huntingdon, West Virginia, at the Welcome Center at Exit 8 off Route 64 [about 350 miles for Sgt. Rogers and about 327 miles for Defendant]. 22. Exchange of custody on Saturday, February 21, 2004 at 2:00 p.m. will allow both parties ample travel time on a weekend. Wherefore, Plaintiff William G. Rogers respectfully requests the Court enter an order granting him interim custody of William Henry Rogers, and directing Defendant to deliver the child to Plaintiff on Saturday, February 21, 2004 at 2:00 p.m. at the Huntingdon, West Virginia Welcome Center. L flw-tt/~ Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: February 11, 2004 4 Exhibit 1 OCT 2 0 2003 WILLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-4432 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, Defendant IN CUSTOD /iJ [E @ [E U [i] ~ Ii1 U1l OCT 2 B 2003 @I INTERIM ORDER OF COURT By AND NOW, this .) 3.NL-day of October, 2003, upon consideration of the Custody Conciliation Summary Report and pending hearing, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. Leaal Custody. William G. Rogers and Christina R. Rogers shall have shared legal custody of the minor child, William Henry Rogers, born April 12, 2001. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, 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 Pa. C. S. 95309, each parent shall be entitled to all records and infonnation pertaining to the child including, 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. 2. Physical Custodv. The Mother, Christina R. Rogers, shall have temporary primary physical custody of the minor child without prejudice to the Father's right to pursue primary physical custody upon his return to the United States. 3. Father shall have a period of partial custody for up to fifteen (15) days during his upcoming TOY/leave, which may be exercised in Kentucky. Prior to Father's return to his duty station in Iraq, he will return physical custody of the child to the Mother. It is acknowledged that due to the Father's military obligation, it is likely that the parties will receive twenty-four (24) to forty-eight (48) hours notice of Father's period of leave, which is contemplated to occur in and around the time of either Thanksgiving 2003 or Christmas 2003. 4. The Paternal Grandparents, Claudia Rogers and Danny Rogers, may exercise periods of partial custody on the first weekend of each month from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until Monday at 5:00 p.m., effective November 7, 2003. Such periods of custody shall occur in Central Pennsylvania. Prior to obtaining custody of the child, the Mother shall be provided '- NO. 03-4432 CIVIL TERM with the location where the Grandparents are staying and a cellular phone number where they can be reached. These periods of custody are to occur during a period of time when Father is on military assignment outside of the United States of America. 5. The Paternal Grandparents may initiate a call to the child which may occur twice per week, on Monday through Friday, between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. 6. A Hearing regarding the Grandparents' petition pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. 95312 for reasonable periods of partial custody is scheduled in Courtroom Number ...&... of the Cumberland County Courthouse, on the .y ~ day of /, Ph'~ J1h , , 200,.L., at /: 30 o'clock .,L.M., at which time testimony will be taken. For the purposes of the hearing, the Paternal Grandparents shall be deemed to be the moving parties and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties or the parties pro se shall file with the Court and opposing counsel/party a memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list of witnesses who are expected to testify at the hearing, and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. These memoranda shall be filed at least ten days prior to the hearing date.' . BY THE COURT: II ['.dt' 13.~. 7 J. Dis\: Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire. 513 N. 2" Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101 Andrew Spears, Esquire, PO Box 5300, Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 rRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof. I here UIl/O SIlt my hano md UII seal of said' at CarUsle, Pl. Thi a 'I ~ .. Prothonotary Exhibit 2 JAN 3 0 2004 ~ Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs ~~IT6~D-~~~ 100 FEB 0 6 2004 ~J By COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS Plaintiffs v. NO. 03-4432 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT , 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Hearing, the Court GRA The February 9, 2004 hearing is continued generally, pending the return from Mosul, Iraq of Plaintiff William G. Rogers. BY THE COURT: Distribution: ~ Theresa Barrett Male, Esq., 513 N. Second St., Harrisburg, PA 17101 Andrew C. Spears, Esq., P.O. Box 5300, Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving 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: Andrew C. Spears, Esquire Metzger Wickersham 311 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Attorneys for Defendant L~0~~ Theresa Barrett Male, Esqu re Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: February 12, 2004 .' ~ r---:> 0 (') = -n = ~ ~--;; J'- _-I t ~ "S-' -<1 T-n ('<1 fl1f=- ~, c:> _q,:-l --JO " N :;,~) -s ~> :"-;:-l~, '{ -~-'l "- ~~, -0 t~1;;,"4 " t: -',' ~ / '--, '-i :.,.-,t__, W '\ ).~' c: .,.,.. ~ .' ""0 ~ ~ -/ ~ =< \', Ul "" Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS Plaintiffs v. NO. 03-4432 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw the custody claim of Plaintiffs Claudia Rogers and Danny Rogers. i~/IU- Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: February 24, 2004 '-'-, ',;;, .:;,-:~ I ~) ....'"'. ::: ).;:. o c ?.:: '<) C ;::::~ =2 r-.., = C.O> "'- 'T1 !T1 CO N 0' o -1'1 .--< :r:-n rTlr--;o -nm :'-lY (~)(!..) ~7i S1r-il 5:') -< 2:~ a -.I WilLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS, PLAINTIFFS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT 03-4432 CIVil TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this J5tJ- day of February, 2004, following a hearing, pending a further order of court, IT IS ORDERED: (1) Christina R. Rogens shall have primary physical custody of William Henry Rogers, born April 12, 2001. (2) William G. Rogers shall have temporary physical custody of William as follows: (a) From February 25, 2004, until May 1, 2004, when he shall return William to the mother. (b) He shall pick up the child from the mother on March 20, 2004, and return him to her on March 27, 2004. (3) This order is entered without prejudice to either party's claims on the merits of this custody action. ~7J'1~ Edgar B. Bayley, J. -- v;rv~/rl/:?!"!,\i:?d A.INnr),') 80 :211Jd S2 OJ.:! ~aal /)j'V.i.Ct-JOHIOb;cJ 3Hl ::10 :.1Ji.:J:lO-G:n!j Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire - {~f}<-tk.... J/;:,s-/a'/ For William G. Rogers Andrew C. Spears, Esquire 'C~ ~ A 9- -tkA For Christina R. Rogers . -d Cf(J :sal Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM G. ROGERS Pia i ntiff v. NO. 03-4432 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY PLAINTIFFS' SECOND APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF SEEKING AN INTERIM EX PARTE ORDEFt FOR CUSTODY 1. This Honorable Court previously granted a special relief application filed by Plaintiff William G. Rogers for custody of the parties' son, William Henry Rogers (dob: 04/12/01), upon Sgt. Rogers' return to the Unites States from his deployment in Iraq. A copy of the order granting the relief is attached as Exhibit 1. 2. Sgt. Rogers returned the child to Defendant on May 1, 2004. 3. Since then, Sgt. Rogers has requested, both privately and through counsel, that he have custody of William for the month of June he is on leave from active duty. 4. Defendant refuses to relinquish custody for the month of June. 5. Defendant offered to "allow" Sgt. Rogers two weeks of time in June. 6. This offer was confirmed by Defendant's counsel. 7. On May 27, 2004, counsel attempted to confirm that Sgt. Rogers would secure custody on June 2, 2004, but missed each other's telephone calls. 8. On May 28, 2004, after learning that defendant's counsel is away until June 1, counsel for Sgt. Rogers directed him to contact Defendant directly to make the arrangements. 9. As of Friday, May 28, 2004 at 10:30 a.m., Defendant has not confirmed that she will relinquish custody on June 2. 10. In reliance on Defendant's offer to "give" him two weeks of time with William, Sgt. Rogers rented a cabin in Gatlinsburg for the period June 5 through June 8, but needs to secure custody of William not later than early morning on June 3. 11. The parties previously resided, and were domiciled, in Kentucky, where Sgt. Rogers currently is stationed. The child is in Carlisle only because Defendant came here to stay with family during her husband's deployment. While Sgt. Rogers was in Iraq, however, Defendant told him she was not returning home and was retaining custody of William. 12. The parties recently submitted to a custody evaluation with Deborah L. Salem, Clinical Director of Interworks. 13. Ms. Salem's report, released to counsel on May 25, 2004, recommends that the parties share physical custody of William on a nine-week schedule, with both parents providing transportation to a mid-way location for exchangesJ 14. Ms. Salem further recommends that Sgt. Hogers have physical custody of William from June 2, 2004 to August 6, 2004, the first segment of the shared custody schedule. 15. Assuming, arguendo, that Defendant rejects the evaluator's recommendation for shared custody, thus requiring a hearing, there is no basis for denying Sgt. Rogers custody of William beginning June 2, 2004. 1 Sgt. Rogers provided all of the transportation for the parties' custody periods under the May 1, 2004 Order. 2 16. The Court has the authority pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1915.13 to grant interim or special relief. 17. This Court already has had the opportunity to observe the parties during the first special relief hearing on February 25, 2004. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests the Court to enter an order granting him custody of William Henry Rogers beginning June 2, 2004 and ending August 6, 2004. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests that he have custody of his son for the month of June 2004. Plaintiff also requests that the Court direct the parties to exchange custody at a half-way point to be determined by their counsel, and to set a hearing on the merits for August 7 or 8,2004. IL-~ iki/(d- Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: May 28, 2004 3 Exhibit 1 ~".- WilLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS, PLAINTIFFS IN THE COUIRT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT : 03-4432 CIVil TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~5 (;J- day of February, 2004, following a hearing, pending a further order of court, IT IS ORDERED: (1) Christina R. Rogers shall have primary physical custody of William Henry Rogers, born April 12, 2001. (2) William G. Rogers shall have temporary physical custody of William as follows: (a) From February 25, 2004, until May 1, :m04, when he shall return ' William to the mother. (b) He shall pick up the child from the mother on March 20, 2004, and' return him to her on March 27, 2004. (3) This order is entered without prejudice to either party's claims on the merits of this custody action. ~r;;n ~~v V\(&'1~ Edgar B. Bayley, J. " 1 1:-' ~". , ~ :";," ,'" if)-1 -:;:;:-; :::~}: lkt~ tD '~H-~j H~i:"dt1t ~J1 nlls_..3~~J1iW __~Rtr~An (';<, ,/~ ,~~ C?.r~hl,~. fl. ""~'" ., , ~ ..".,~ ---- -~_. 1::: ~/.,.,~Qu'-- ~cft'l ,~r'~l~--:;r' PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requilrements of Pa. R.C.P. 440: Service by fax and first-class mail addressed as follows: Andrew C. Spears, Esquire Metzger Wickersham 311 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Attorneys for Defendant L,~~ Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: May 28, 2004 ~ 0 .--., !fl = f:= = ..c- --I (") "'-7/-. ::>~ T-n ft ~ 1 n-, :r.:"" nlj= ~ --< -r;m ~~, "-, "-'y L;. C) - G' 0::. < ----"l(J "- ,..:~- T::r~ -0 ~'~~~ 0--, .. ~.."" -- :L: ~->!,,: -.. lr; ~t,./ "- C .- ~; ';,,:' ~ ~ (.1'1 ~Ij "" 2 <Jl ;< o MAY 28 2004 ty Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Piaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM G. ROGERS Plaintiffs NO. 03-4432 Civil Term v. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY INTERIM ORDER OF COUHT AND NOW, June Io!+- ,2004, upon consideration o~ Plaintiffl Second ..l- \ -;:t::'~ 0 oQ....vJ G~ t? ~ Application for Special Relief, tile Cel:lff CRAt HO tl ,e 1l~~lie8tie/;l. (Iaintiff shall secure custody 0<~Q( CO ~ W'\ A-r" - () of William Henry Rogers (dob: 04/12/01) on June3 2004 at Defendant's e\J'" _0-.... ~ lW O\~T~~~~ >.~ ' . ~ . ~\ u't..\/~rMLe~''i'i'''~IIi~-J~''PP~ ~~n:- chell,b",,, \;u"fc,,,,"..,, .,;U, {,ou"",e1 u" Jl:lAO . ')()()Ll ",t .m~- 0{/\ C;~, ~\)~ --2{) I wO'\. BY THE COURT:" Distribution: I .~ ~ t,j,,,/O'f 9-- Theresa Barrett Male, Esq., 513 N. Second St., Harrisburg, PA 17101 Andrew C. Spears, Esq., P.O. Box 5300, Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 FiLED-OfHCE OF THE PROTHONmrHY 200~ JU~l -I All 9: 46 CUI'P.'" t ';""U,\"[Y ~ ..,_< ~,., 1:._, " "-,...... I~ PEN;\:SYLW!\i:A WilLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS, PLAINTIFFS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT : 03-4432 CIVil TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this Uo day of June, :2004, a hearing on the above- captioned custody case is scheduled for Thursday, July 29, 2004, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom Number 2, Cumberland County CourthouSE~flen / ~ Co,", \ Edgar . Bayley, J. Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire For William G. Rogers Andrew C. Spears, Esquire For Christina R. Rogers ^r ~ (,_//,.011 Sf-.. :sal 0 '" r; =, ~ = ~nt~::: ..,.. <- ~ ~~F ' = -' ;;.{; m"'" '.f' r -om r':.: en S6 :::: ~f~ ~.~ ~ ::r:~n ':.}o ,:::- (...) Om ...4 :.,"'1 --< N _.':.'>> :J.J ('.)1 ~< WILLIAM G. ROGERS, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 03-4432 CIVIL- LAW TERM v. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, Defendant : IN CUSTODY PRAECIPE TOENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf ofthe Defendant im the above captioned custody action. - Date: ) v 1(.. l... f l. d~'1 / Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER, BAYLEY & WHARE ,2 ~ Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Defendant PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw my appearance on behalf of the Defendant in the above captioned custody action. ~,J ,f . l? - Andrew C. Spears, Esquire o c .-..> = C;:) "'- ,- c--~ r' o -n X-on rilr=::c -orn =..1-,0 ~)!~> ','-'.;;::!' ':,"~ r '\ .<,''''{j ~)' N -:':'l N -" WilLIAM G. ROGERS PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT 03-4432 CIVil TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this l~ day of July, 2004, a Rule is entered against defendant to show cause why her counsel is not disqualified because of a conflict of interest with the trial judge.1 The Rule is returnable three (3) days after service. By thl:;...court, (; '. Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire For William G. Rogers Karl E. Rominger, Esquire For Christina R. Rogers ~ ~ 1- /1'0'( ~ :sal I This judge has had sufficient prior involvement with this case so as not being willing to recuse. FILED-OfFICE OF THE POOT' 'C"I~T'D\I '1 In'i,'....)I,'..I,i,1 200~ JUL /9 PH 2: 12 CLJ~,jH:.,i.../;:._ ',.' i \""Ui\ny PL:I\)F'Js\i\IJ\T'~i\ Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 tbm@tbmesquire.com Counsel for Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM G. ROGERS Plaintiff v. NO. 03-4432 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY PLAINTIFF'S THIRD APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF SEEKING CUSTODY AWARD AND DISQUALIFICATION OF DEFENDANT'S NEW COUNSEL 1. By order dated June 16, 2004, this Honorable Court scheduled a hearing on the merits of this custody action, which involves the parties' son William Henry Rogers (dob: 04/12/01), for Thursday, July 29, 2004, commencing at 10:00 a.m. A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit 1. 2. Before the hearing date was set, counsel for both parties approved the date. 3. On July 16, 2004, Plaintiff William G. Rogers ("Father") filed his pre-trial memorandum as required by local rule, and served it on Attorney Andrew C. Spears, Defendant's counsel. 4. Also on July 16, 2004, Father's counsel contacted Attorney Spears regarding Father's concern for his son's safety and welfare after failing to reach Defendant for the past several weeks. 5. During that contact, Attorney Spears informed counsel that he no longer represents Defendant and that Attorney Karl E. Rominger was going to represent Defendant. 6. Father's counsel then contacted Attorney Rominger's office and was advised by Mr. Rominger's secretary, Linda, that: a. Mr. Rominger had entered his appearance two weeks earlier. b. Mr. Rominger will be on vacation on July 29, 2004, the date of the hearing. c. Mr. Rominger cannot appear before Judge Bayley and therefore will be requesting re-assignment of this case to a new judge. 7. Judge Bayley was assigned to this case in 2003. 8. Judge Bayley already has had the opportunity to observe the parties during the February 25, 2004 hearing on Father's special relief application, which resulted in all order granting Father physical custody of William for a sixty-day period. A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit 2. 9. Judge Bayley disposed of Father's second special relief application, awarding Father custody of William for two weeks in June 2004. A copy of the June 1, 2004 order is attached as Exhibit 3. 10. If Mr. Rominger and his firm are conflicted out of appearing before Judge Bayley, Mr. Rominger should have declined representation of Defendant in this case.1 1 See, e.g., Comment to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16: "A lawyer Sllould not accept representation in a matter unless it can be performed completely, promptly, without improper conflict of interest and to completion." 2 11. The remedy for Mr. Rominger's conflict is to refer Defendant to other counsel. 12. The July 29, 2004 hearing cannot proceed because, even if Mother secures replacement counsel promptly, counsel could not be prepared in time. 13. As set forth in Father's second application for special relief, the parties and William were evaluated by Deborah L. Salem, MHS, CAC. 14. Ms. Salem's report dated May 26, 2004 recommended that the parties share physical custody of William on a nine-week schedule" with both parents providing transportation to a mid-way location for exchanges. 15. Ms. Salem was to appear and testify on Father's behalf at the July 29, 2004 hearing. 16. In preparation for the July 29, 2004 hearing, Father, a sergeant with the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) stationed in Kentucky, had to get leave from his superiors to appear in court on that date.2 17. Father has not seen William since May 1, 2004, when he returned him to Defendant. 18. Defendant has had sole physical custody of William since May 1, 2004, a period in excess of 11 weeks. 19. Father has provided all of the transportation for his custody periods of William since 2003 when he instituted this action. 20. The Court has the authority pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1915.13 to grant interim or special relief. 2 Kentucky is the state in which the parties last resided before Father's cleployment to Iraq in February 2003. 3 Wherefore, Plaintiff requests the Court to enter an order disqualifying Karl E. Rominger, Esquire from representing Defendant and directing Defendant to secure substitute counsel not later than thirty (30) days from entry of the order. Plaintiff Ellso requests that the Court grant him custody of William, beginning Thursday, July 29, 2004 and continuing until Saturday, September 25, 2004. Plaintiff also requests the Court to direct that the parties share transportation, with Plaintiff securing custody on July 29, 2004 at mother's residence in Carlisle, Pennsylvania and Defendant securing custody from Father's residence on September 25, 2004. L- Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: July 18, 2004 4 Exhibit 1 WilLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS, PLAINTIFFS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT : 03-4432 CIVil TERM I~ ~ @ ~ 0 ill ~ ~ UU JUN 1 8 2004 ~I V. ORDER OF COUR1: By AND NOW, this I/o day of June, 2004, a hearing on the above- captioned custody case is scheduled for Thursday, Jully 29,2004, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom Number 2, Cumberland County Courthousl~Pen ~ CO"". , \ , Edgar . Bayley, J. Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire For William G. Rogers Andrew C. Spears, Esquire For Christina R. Rogers :sal TRUE C'OPV' rriOM n"''''''',p,,,> In TlIfIlimtii'i' " " " , ,!:',vv'.u " I)' ~lmJf. , 1111, 1lli1IW set mv h;md and llIi seal at said~ at ~IL,I" r... r(j~ 1(,8 ~'1 u~ . 9; ~ 1f;~~ - ,:1;; ~ Protl'tOl1Ol!I)I Exhibit 2 WILLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS, PLAINTIFFS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT : 03-4432 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT: J5tJ.- day of February, 2004, following a hearing, pending a further order of court, IT IS ORDERED: (1) Christina R. Rogers shall have primary physical custody of William Henry Rogers, born April 12, 2001. (2) William G. Rogers shall have temporary physical custody of William as follows: (a) From February 25, 2004, until May 1" 2004, when he shall return William to the mother. (b) He shall pick up the child from the mother on March 20, 2004, and' return him to her on March 27, 2004. (3) This order is entered without prejudice to either party's claims on the merits of this custody action. ~'lJ'1~ Edgar B. Bayley, J. .' .'\0>., k~:HJ m '\ '.~';.:'~:-,d: .' ,','. ..- .J.,' '';~ f't .:i,ii'!lil ,twe:;;dE; \;1 .;,.:,-'3 4.., . ;"j;5.~..zE_d<!r 'JL~iJ ~1/.. '. <R~";~fl .t:'~;'rl'l. ~,~ ...- Exhibit 3 06/01/2004 10: 10 7172406c~'1, _JROTHONOT AI~Y ('" '';lNG PAGE 01/01 ..--' [~~ IT6 ~ 0 \TI ~~ UU JUN 0 1 2004 W Wit 2 8 2004 1V By esa Baffett Mele Ther .. 46439 Supreme Court." 513 North Second Street Harrisburg. PA 17101 (717) 23~220 IA counsel for Plaintiff NO COiJNTY. PENNSYLVAN MON PLEAS OF CUMBERIJr\ COURT OF COM WILLIAM G. ROGERS Plaintiffs NO. 03-4432 Civil Term v. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVIL AcnON - CUSTODY INTERIM ORDER OF COllJRT AND NOW, June lot-1- .2004. upon consideration O!. Plaillll'ff'i5ecood .J.-\ ":;I::"~ OiJ4&~ ,;-r! ~ Application for Special Relief, tAe ~eurt ~RN J'f5 tl.c I.ljllllil1EltieA. {laintiff' shall secure custody , 4:>.-::: DO ~ ofWi~enry=~ 04-Lt~~:,n?~~,at Defendant's e~~ IJ)tllJ. ~T~1!~''- -_-~":' r". - CI"""~,,,w,,r,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..illl~,,,~ _." :_ _ ~ ~ ,,~~~ ~ <;~, BYTHE~-' .JuI-Q ~ I 'Utr\ ~ Distribution: Theresa Barrett Male E 5 Andrew C. Spears, ~., ~o. i; ~3~~O~d ~ Harrlsbur&.f~J?101 , arTisllutg. PA 17111>>300 PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving 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 fax and first-class mail addressed as follows: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger and Bayley 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 !f;;-"~~:::lidc- Supreme Court # 46439 513 Nortl1 Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 23:3-3220 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: July 19, 2004 1 ~ C) "., C C;'~ 0 ,:=-~ 'T! 0 r.: , ..., ;;~ -r . in1J ........ () -nijl ""I \D ;~~~ ;~~ 0 ".- W ::!.:'!OO ,----,.., r ---..~ . ~-' ,.., () C) r,l .() ",7 =<! C"J ~ C-j i: -J:- WILLIAM G. ROGERS, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 03-4432 CIVIL- LAW TERM v. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, Defendant : IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND DISQUALIFICATION OF DEFENDANT'S NEW COUNSEL AND NOW, comes Christina R. Rogers and answers Plaintiffs' Application for Special Relief and Disqualification of Defendant's New Counsel as foUows: I. Admitted. 2. Counsel is without sufficient information to admit or deny. 3. Counsel is without sufficient information to admit or deny. 4. Admitted. By way of further answer, Attorney Spear's office faxed a copy ofa letter from Attorney Theresa Barrett Male to Defendant's new counsel on July 16,2004, at 4:30 p.m. 5. Admitted. By way of further answer, Attorney The:resa Male contacted Defendant's new counsel on July 16,2004 via telephone. 6. Admitted in part. Denied in part. (a) It is admitted that Linda, Attorney Rominger's secretary did indicate to Attorney Male that a Prae(~ipe to Enter Appearance had been prepared and filed. It is denied that she indicated exactly when this was filed, which was July 12,2004. (b) admitted. (c) admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. By way of further answer, Defendant has the right to choose representation by any attorney or law firm she desires. By way of further answer, there is no improper conflict of interest as this matter can be re..assigned to another Judge in the Cumberland County Court system and there is no reason Defendant's new counsel cannot perform completely and complete this matter to a resolution. 11. Denied. By way of further answer, even if Defendant was referred to another attorney who can practice in front of Judge Bayley, the time frame for the custody trial would not permit another attorney to serve Defendant, promptly and completely. 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. 15. Counsel is without sufficient information to admit or deny. 16. Counsel is without sufficient information to admit of deny. 17. Counsel is without sufficient information to admit or deny. 18. Denied. By way of further answer, an Order of Court was signed by Judge Bayley giving Plaintiff custody ofthe child from June 3, 2004, to June 20, 2004. 19. Counsel is without sufficient information to admit or deny. 20. Admitted. NEW MATTER 21. Previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 22. Defendant recently retained Attorney Karl E. Rominger, Esquire to represent her in her custody matters. 23. Defendant has a right to counsel of her own choosing. 24. Attorney Karl E. Rominger entered his appearanc(: on July 12,2004. Attached as Exhibit "A". 25. The Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3C says in it's commentary that the fact that the lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a lawyer - relative of the Judge is affiliated does not of itself disqualify the Judge. 26. The commentary to Canon 3C still requires analysis under 3C (I) and 3C (I ) (d). 27. Thus, if the Trial Judge feels that 3C (I) is a basis to disqualify the lawyer, it is also a basis to disqualify the Judge. 28. There has been no custody trial on the full merits ofthe case, but instead only a hearing for special relief. 29. Further, there is presumption in the law that the judicial We is a unified entity, and each individual Trial Judge is as capable as the nt:,xt of making fair and correct decisions. 30. There would be little burden on any alternate Judge of Cumberland County to review the record ofthe Petition for Special Relid, and the Judge who presided thereover could even file an Opinion to explain the Order entered at the end of that hearing, if necessary. 31. It is admitted that the individuals right to choose an attorney, has to be balanced against the needs ofthe Court and justice as a whole. 32. However, given that there has never been a full tJ1al on the merits, the balance clearly tips towards recusal ofthe Trial Judge and transference of the case to another capable Judge of the Cumberland County ofComrnon Pleas. 33. Further, in the interim, while a Judge is being assigned, Mother is agreeable to an entry of an Order setting custody be exchanged as suggested in the proposed stipulation which is attached, or equally on a three week on three week off basis, pending a full custody trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant by and through counsel respectfully requests that this Honorable Court not disqualify Karl E. Rominger, Esquire as her attorney and that the case be transferred to a new Judge. Date: July 21, 2004 Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER, BAYLEY & WHARE -----::::> .~ Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Defendant WILLIAM G. ROGERS, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 03-4432 CIVIL- LAW TERM v. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, Defendant : IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, attorney for Defendant do hereby certify that I this day served a copy of the Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Application For Special Relief and Disqualification of Defendant's New Counsel upon the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows and via facsimile: Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Via Fax: (771) 233-6862 Dated: July 21, 2004 Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER, BAYLEY & WHARE cc. Andrew Spears, Esquire ~? ~ Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Defendant DRAFT WILLIAM G. ROGERS, CLAUDIA ROGERS and DANNY ROGERS, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 03-4432 CIVIL- LAW TERM v. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, Defendant : IN CUSTODY STIPULA nON REGARDING CUSTODY NISIT A nON Christina R. Rogers, Defendant, hereinafter referenced as "Mother," and Plaintiff, William G. Rogers, hereinafter referenced as "Father," hereby agree to the following terms in an Order defining custody and partial custody rights and responsibilities in relation to William H. Rogers, born April 12, 2001, hereinafter referenced as "Child:" I. Mother and Father will share legal custody of the child as defined in 23 Pa. C.S.A. 95302. All decisions affecting the child's growth and including but not limited to medical treatment, education, and religious training, are major decision which Mother and Father shall make jointly after discussion and consultation with each other. 2. As provided in 23 Pa. C.S.A. 95309(a), each parent shall have full and complete access to the child's mental, dental, religious and school records. This includes the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all medical and other providers. 3. Mother shall have primary physical custody of child subject to periods of visitation with the Father. 4. Father shall have visitation with the child, every oth~r month for a two week period beginning on August 4, 2004. 5. Mother and Father shall mutually agree upon the hoIidays. The parties shall have reasonable telephone contact with the child while the child is in the other's custody. 6. Neither party shall make any disparaging remarks regarding the other party in the presence of the child. Additionally, neither party shall permit third persons to make disparaging remarks concerning the other party in the presence of the child. 7. Any modification or waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement of the parties shall be effective only if made in writing and only if executed with the same formality of the Agreement of the parties. 8. The parties hereto acknowledge that they have had the opportunity to consult an attorney prior to executing this Agreement. Mother's attorney is Karl E. Rominger, Esquire. Father's attorney is Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire. 9. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall be recorded and incorporated into an Order enforceable by the Court. Consented to: Date Christina Rogers Date Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Date William Rogers Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Date WILLIAM G. ROGERS, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 03-4432 CIVIL- LAW TERM v. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, Dcfendant : IN CUSTODY PRAECIPE TOENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant in the above captioned custody action. - Date: ) v 1 L !.. f 'L .1"1 / Respectfi~lly submitted, ROMINGER, BAYLEY & WHARE ?~ Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Defendant , PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW API'EARANCE ...., =' C) ~ -1'j <-, C:",: r' .. N TO THE PROTHONOTARY: ~~~; .-. < Please withdraw my appearance on behalf of the Deft:ndant in the above 6'a@onea? custody action. =2 .,- -' ~...JI. / f r? Andrew C. Spears, Esquire ~ ~ t' o ",., c:,:;) l.:-5 J:' c._ C.- f--- 1'.) 'c~' <;-;"l C,:"l U) " ....j -n ~~ rn;;-;-,; i--n ';J C) WILLIAM G. ROGERS PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT 03-4432 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2-~ day of July, 2004, the motion of plaintiff to disqualify defendant's counsel, IS GRANTED.1 By the Court, / vTheresa Barrett Male, Esquire For William G. Rogers Aarl E. Rominger, Esquire For Christina R. Rogers ) ~~ ~~ 07-:JL -oy :sal I We note that counsel could have reasonably concluded that this judge would have assigned the case to another trial judge. It is only because of this judge's significant prior involvement with this case that we ariB unwilling to do so. \:I},. Al,(,,}r(;'- , ""'''\'' ~! - .n: iJ OS :8 1,ld f:Z lnr ~DOZ I,U'v1Ci\'CHLOHd 3Hl jO :DI_~:ic)--():nl;:i WILLIAM G. ROGERS, PLAINTIFF : IN THE Couln OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT : 03-4432 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ?-'1 day of July, 2004, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The merits hearing scheduled for this date is continued until Monday, November 8, 2004, at 10:30 a.m. (2) In the interim the father shall have William Henry Rogers, born April 12, 2001, from today until Saturday, September 11, 2004, at which time he shall return the child to the State police Barracks at 8:00 p.m. to be picked up by the mother. By the (c '- (3) The mother shall have the child until the hearing on Novemb :sal .)) >~ 07~2.q-01 / 0heresa Barrett Male, Esquire For William G. Rogers ;/6irk Berry, Esquire For Christina R. Rogers Vil\'VJ'\1)"'SNN_0d II "n~~. ," -~, '-~-"i~"" I\JJ\', ill,) ~.:'<i- ;f"~).iVj Iv LZ:/ Wd 6, 1nnOOZ NhlONO,r-IJ.Oi:id 3HL ::10 :JO/:I.:!O--Q311:1 WILLIAM G. ROGERS, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT 03-4432 CIVIL TERM AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT ~ day of November, 2004, following a hearing on " the merits, IT IS ORDERED: (1) All prior custody orders are vacated and repllaced with this order. (2) William G. Rogers and Christina R. Rogers shall have shared legal custody of William Henry Rogers, born April 12, 200'1. (3) The parents shall have shared physical custody of William on the following schedule until William starts kindergarten: a. The father shall have William from November 9,2004 until Sunday, December 26,2004. b. The mother shall have William until Sunday, February 20,2005. c. The father shall have William until Sunday, April 17, 2005. d. The mother shall have William until Sunday, June 12, 2005. e. The father shall have William until Sunday, August 7, 2005 f. The mother shall have William until Sunday, October 2,2005. g. The father shall have William until Sunday November 13, 2005. h. The mother shall have William until Monday, December 26,2005. I. The father shall have William until Sunday, February 19,2006. j. The mother shall have William until Sunday, April 16, 2006. k. The father shall have William until Sunday, June 11, 2006. I. The mother shall have William until Sunday, August 6, 2006. (4) Unless the mother and father agree to amend this order so that William can attend kindergarten from one of their homes, a petition seeking a further hearing shall be filed by either parent not later than June 12, 2006. A hearing will then be scheduled, without referring the case back to conciliation, to establish a custodial arrangement consistence with William attending kindergarten. (5) All transfers shall take place at 3:00 p.m., in Huntington, West Virginia. The parents shall talk by telephone on the day prior to all transfers in order to confirm arrangements. The parents shall carry cell phones on the day of the transfers so that they may be in contact in case of unforeseen circumstances. (6) If the father is deployed militarily, the mother shall have temporary physical custody of William during such deployment. (7) During the periods in which William is with one parent that parent shall make arrangements for William to talk by telephonE~ with the other parent twice per week. ------ By tl}e"Court, / // Aheresa Barrett Male, Esquire For William G. Rogers vOirk Berry, Esquire For Christina R. Rogers ( :sal ) f ~!....... -,.r, \.iJ\,i 1'-... t " o 1J :f I H\1 6- Am'! ~OOZ J\tl\J1C!~,;~j;'~lOGd 3~1 ~o :;r;l...l.f"I"'{J"~~-; I j' -tlJ...I_ V ._ "r . . , . Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 tbm@tbmesquire.com Counsel for Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM G. ROGERS Plaintiff v. ~43" NO. 03 65192 Civil CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF A CUSTODY ORDER 1. The petition of Plaintiff William G. Rogers ("Father") represents that, on November 9, 2004, following a hearing, an Order of Court was entered for custody. A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit 1. 2. The Order should be modified because Father is being re-deployed to Iraql, and William's best interests will be served by remaining in Father's custody prior to Father's deployment, and by maintaining the current custody schedule thereafter, as more particularly set forth in the following paragraphs. 1 As of the date of filing, Father has not received his orders, but his commanding officer confirms that Father's unit will be shipping out between August and October 2005. 3. William is extremely close to and bonded with his father. 4. William will suffer emotionally and psychologically as a result of his father's absence. 5. Placing William primarily in Father's custody pending Father's deployment will maximize their time together before Father leaves for a year. 6. Maintaining the shared custody schedule while Father is deployed will mitigate the emotional and psychological trauma William will experience as a result of Father's absence because: a. It will allow William to remain in the home he identifies with his father, and b. It will reinforce William's close relationships with his step-mother, Maggie Rogers, his paternal grandparents, Claudia and Danny Rogers, and his extended family in Kentucky, all of whom provide care and nurturing for William. 7. Maintaining the shared custody schedule while Father is deployed will assist Father in carrying out his duties to the best of his potential because: a. Father's wife and his parents will ensure that Father has frequent contact with and access to William, which Defendant failed to do during Father's first tour of duty, even though the family was still intact. b. Father's lack of contact with William during his first deployment was a constant source of stress and anxiety. c. Defendant has not complied with the contact prOVisions of the November 9, 2004 order, and Father doubts that she will do so when he is in Iraq. 2 8. Deborah L. Salem, Clinical Evaluator, recommended that Father have primary custody of William because William thrives better with his father than with his mother. See the Brief Co-Parenting Assessment and the Addendum dated 11/05/04, copies of which are attached as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively. 9. Ms. Salem found that: a. On July 28, 2004, after 60 days in Defendant's custody, William "was significantly quiet, detached, and almost non-communicative with his father and Maggie." Addendum at 3. b. On September 9, 2004, after being with his father, William "was so profoundly different in his demeanor that [Ms. Salem] was struck with the playfulness, laughing, and warmth emanating from the waiting area before the family was brought to [her] office." Addendum at 3. c. On November 11, 2004, after 60 days in Defendant's custody, William "was quiet, low keyed in his actions and non-spontaneous." Addendum at 4. d. The difference in William is due to the high attention he receives from his father and the low attention from his mother. Addendum at 5. 10. These differences will be much more pronounced if William remains with his mother throughout Father's deployment, as provided in the current order. 11. Once William loses the developmental gains he has made in his father's home, he may be unable to compensate for the deficits. 3 Wherefore. Plaintiff requests that the court modify the order because it will be in the best interest of the child. ~~__LJvv#fJ~ Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court #46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel of Plaintiff Date: March 7, 2005 4 Exhibit 1 ,j' il \, WilLIAM G. ROGERS, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. w~@~O\j]~m IW NOV 1 oZ004 ~ CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT 03-4432 CIVil TERM ORDER OF COURT By_ AND NOW, this %_ day of November, 2004, following a hearing on , the merits, IT 15 ORDERED: (1) All prior custody orders are vacated and replaced with this order. (2) William G. Rogers and Christina R. Rogers shall have shared legal custody of William Henry Rogers, born April 12, 2001. (3) The parents shall h.ave shared physical custody of William on the following schedule until William starts kindergarten: a. The father shall have William from November 9, 2004 until Sunday, December 26, 2004. b. The mother shall have William until Sunday, February 20, 2005. c. The father shall have William until Sunday, April 17, 2005. d. The mother shall have William until Sunday, June 12; 2005. e. The father shall have William until Sunday, August 7,2005 f. The mother shall have William until Sunday, October 2, 2005. g. The father shall have William until Sunday November 13, 2005. h_ The mother shall have William until Monday, December 26,2005. i. The father shalf have William until Sunday, February 19, 2006. j. The mother shall have William until Sunday, April 16, 2006. k. The father shall have William until Sunday, June 11,2006. " I. The mother shall have William until Sunday, August 6,2006. (4) Unless the mothe-r and father agree to amend this order so that William can attend kindergarten from one of their homes, a petition seeking a further hearing shall be filed by either parent not later than June 12, 2006. A hearing will then be scheduled, without referring the case back to conciliation, to establish a custodial arrangement consistence with William attending kindergarten_ (5) All transfers shall take place at 3:00 p.m., in Huntington, West Virginia. The parents shall talk by telephone on the day prior to all transfers in order to confirm arrangements. The parents shall carry cell phones on the day of the transfers so that they may be in contact in case of unforeseen circumstances. (6) If the father is deployed militarily, the mother shall have temporary physical custody of William during such deployment. (7) During the periods in which William is with one parent that parent shall make arrangements for William to talk by telephone with the other parent twice per week. ~ By the"Court, /// / Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire For William G. Rogers Dirk Berry, Esquire For Christina R. Rogers ( :sal TRU~ C">Y FROM RECORD ~;:o;~ "t!!l;~:: (:"~"~,Y han,d :t ;;1-;~~{1~~ 3;I~ ~'J Exhibit 2 IN 'roE -- ~ . -rr .. . -- " "fr .... ~ ~ . 1\ .... lit = fl. .... 7fI: ->> ttf. -'- I ~ .it ~ .. VH - ,..., INT~ Clinical Director Deborah L. Salem, CAe, L PC Associates Anthea L. Stebbins, L SW Rebecca A. Green, L SW Thomas Toone, MS ~~ 4335 North Front St Harrisburg PA 17110 Tel 717-236-6630 Fax 717-236-6677 BRIEF CO-PARENTING ASSESSME ~@~om~R MAY 2 72004 ! III t'J I Plaintiff: William G. Rogen........................ Theresa Barrett-Male, E ~y Defendant: Christina Rogen...........................Andrew Spean, Esq. Minor Child: William H. Rogers........................D.O.B. 04/12/01 Docket No. Unknown, Cumberland County IDENTIFYING INFORMA nON & PROCEDURE This assessment was completed upon the decision of both parents. The father requested and paid the full fee for the assessment. He is wishing to have a definitive decision for a long term custody plan for young William. Prior to the assessment, access for father was determined one request at a time through the court. Both parents are seeking some advice as to whether William can developmentally handle extended access with father. Father additionally is requesting primary physical custody while mother is trying to preserve her primary custody. With regard to procedure, each of the parents was interviewed one time. They also completed several questionnaires regarding their psycho-social history, their mental status, their history of chemical use/abuse, their perceptions of the custody strain, and their attempts to remedy the situation prior to this assessment, In addition, both parents were observed interacting with William for one hour. Due to William's age and language skills, he was not interviewed separately. In the observation of William with his mother, his five year old ha1fbrother, Cordell, was present. In the one hour observation with father, father's fiance was present for part of the time. FINDINGS 1. PARENTAL CONFLICT AND PREFERENCES With regard to the history of their marriage, the parties gave a fairly consistent history of how their relationship began, how it proceeded to marriage, and that it ended while father was deployed in Iraq. However their perceptions of the reason for the end of the marriage are different. According to mother, father never really ended his relationship with his high school sweetheart as evidenced by her finding letters and emails that he continued to send to her throughout the marriage. Father admitted that he did send an "apologetic" email to his ex- Page I of 7 It girlfriend which included that "he would always love her" but denied that he lacked love for Christina. On the contrary, he reported that from the first day of their marriage, mother withheld sexual affection from him. He added that she regularly spent excessive amounts of money on herself and did not pay their family bills. She spent so excessively after he was deployed to Iraq that, according to father, they risked losing both cars and he was left with excessive credit card debt. Mother did admit to the evaluator that she did spend excessively which she regrets. She reported not trusting that father loved her as the reason that she did not feel safe to have physical affection with him. When asked about their custodial preferences for young William, mother reported that "she has been with William and Cordell since "day one." She reported that she has been the consistent care giver since both William's and Cordell's father were both in the service and both were deployed in the recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, She reported her two son's having always been together as another reason for her to maintain primary physical custody and for the boys to have similar custody schedules with each of their father's. She stated that she thought that William could spend the summer with his father and other extended holidays, However, she also admitted that Cordell's father was less inclined to ask for extended time with Cordell and that she felt that Cordell suffered when William was away. She cited examples of not knowing what to say to Cordell when he asked for his brother. Most significantly, mother worries that William will begin to imagine that she abandoned him ifhe spends too much time away from her. She added that she is a "stay at home mother" who had a better ability to directly care for William. She stated that father should have access to William during his leave times and during the summer months. Interestingly she stated that William seemed to do better when he was with his father for an extended period oftime. She said when he returned after sixty days, "he was fine" but when she saw him briefly in the middle of his extended stay with father, William didn't transition well. According to father, until he was deployed to Iraq in February, 2003, he often worked full time and still gave primary care to the boys in the morning. He reported that, at times, he would leave work after putting in hours early in the moming and come home to feed the boys while mother often slept until after 10 a.m. He described himself as a very involved father who never wanted the end of his relationship nor did he want to be separated from his son. He reported a distressing level of frustration while deployed because he had a hard time getting mother to give him information about how William was doing. He reported that he believed and believes that mother's feelings about him are being confused with William's well being. He stated that mother began to withhold information about William after he challenged her from Iraq about the money he was earning being spent excessively and frivolously, He further reported his despair when he received a "dear John" letter and found that mother would be moving back to Pennsylvania where her family lived. He feared that what is currently happening with custody of William would occur---by his perception, he is only awarded the time he requests with William if he fights through court. He further reported confusion with mother's concerns about William being away from her for extended periods of time since when he was in Iraq, mother brought William to his parents for almost six weeks and rarely called to check on him. He stated that mother reported she was going to "the beach" with Cordell. He also reported that it is unfair for him to be denied access to William because he believes he is the better care giver. He cited examples of William being il1 all three times he has gotten access with him. He expressed serious concern that William was virtually not communicating in words, not toilet trained, not trained to brush his teeth, and not Page 2 of 7 very interactive for his developmental age, His alleged developmental lags were observed both in November and during the initial phases of his recent 60-day access with father. By the end of that visit, William was toilet trained, wearing training pants, doing his abc's, counting, engaging verbally, brushing his teeth, and showing spontaneous warmth and affection, 2. mSTORY OF CUSTODY CONFLICT With regard to a history of their custody conflict, father used the court on two occasions to get access to William after his return from Iraq. He is currently making a request to have William for thirty days for the month of June since he is going to be on leave. Mother has stated that she only wants William to be with his father for two weeks from the 15th of June to the 30th because Cordell will be away for the same time. She reported that father told her he would petition the court for the full month. The parties are also unable to agree on a long term custody schedule for William. Father wants primary physical custody of William as does mother. They are not yet communicating wel1 and their relationship ended under extreme circumstances occurring while they were physically separated by the war in Iraq. This assessment is the result of both parties agreeing that a review of their differences and William's functioning would be helpful 3. CHILD OBSERVATIONS As stated, due to William's age and language skills, he was observed for one hour with each of his parents. He was not interviewed or observed individually. Both parents were asked to complete extensive information regarding William's developmental history, It is notable that father expressed concern that there are significant developmental delays in William and that William appeared regressed from the time father left for Iraq until the time he returned. The observation of William with his father occurred at the end of his recent 60 day access period. In the observation with father and father's fiance, it was obvious that there was warmth, attachment, a broad range of expression and a familiarity among them. There was further evidence that father is good at structuring William and requiring obedience without being confining. William was engaging and playful with both father and his fiance, He showed a clear bond with his father that was verbal and physical. His language skills were mildly delayed for his developmental age. His pronunciation was not always clear to the evaluator but father and fiance were both able to decipher all of his comments. William was obviously bright and able to recite his abc's with his father, count, and play games that related to shapes, colors, and spacial relations. In summary father and William displayed a strong connection, a playful, spontaneous, and affectionate bond, and a well structured parent/child dynamic, Father was able to process a broad range of expression in William who had, at one point, an age-appropriate aggressive streak which father was able to manage without squelching William or allowing him to be too aggressive in the observation environment. There were no areas of weakness observed. The observation of William with his mother and half brother occurred three weeks after his return to mother's to give William time to acclimate to his mother's home. In the observation of William with his mother and half brother, Cordell, there was a significant difference in Page 3 of 7 , . William's affect. He was emotionally subdued and did not display any range of emotion, He was much more quiet, less cooperative and much less engaged with his mother or brother, He was predominately quiet, disengaged, non-verbal and not easily cajoled into interaction by mother. He was not inclined to play with his brother nor was his brother often engaged with William. Interestingly, the two times William was more cooperative with mother's requests were those times when Cordell, age 5, urged him to listen to their mother. Mother has a style of requesting William and Cordell's cooperation and both children often tell her "no." At those times, she rarely follows up on their resistance, Conversely, when she did set limits, she did a very good job of standing her ground despite William's initial resistance. In general, William was quiet, selffocused, mostly non-verbal, and disengaged for most of the observation while with mother. It should be noted that after the observation mother did state that she uses a strategy of taking a back seat with the two boys hoping that they willleam to work out their differences on their own. This was despite the fact that there was very little interaction between the two boys. Rather they played independently throughout most of the observation. When reviewed in total William's responses show a 3 year old who is developmentally on target in most areas except language skills and toilet training where he is only mildly behind schedule. His pronunciation skills are less than they should be for his stated age but his desire to speak and his understanding oflanguage and instructions is very good. He is capable of choosing or not choosing to be cooperative and understands the difference between his will and his care giver's. This predicts that he is emotionally on target for his developmental age if not advanced. Significantly, he was able to manage a period of 60 days with minimal contact with his mother without trauma and was equally able to transition back to mother who described him as "fine" upon return albeit asking about his father at times. Of most significance was the difference between his affect when with father and with mother. There were significant differences in his engagement style and his use oflanguage and level of cooperation. Finally, in their written reports of William's developmental functioning, according to father, William is less trained in brushing his teeth and other hygiene areas than mother reports. According to mother, William is better with toilet training when he is with her than what father is reporting. EVALUATOR'S SUMMARY AND IMPRESSIONS There were no findings in this brief assessment that caused any concern that might lead to the elimination of either parent in William's life. There was, however a significant difference in Williams behaviors, affect, engagement style, and skill level with daily living activities when with his father over his mother. Father was concerned that this was related to William's developmental functioning, however, it appears, instead, to be related to the level of attention he is receiving with each parent and the parenting style used by each parent. In essence, the response style of a pre-school child is the result of the bi-directional influence of communication and cues between parents, care givers, other children and the pre-school child, William's affect with each of his parents displays the result of high attention given by father and low attention given by mother. This was shown to be true in the observation setting. It was also obvious in the fact that in a three week period, Williams affect, responsiveness, and range of affective expression changed so significantly, It is predictive that the low level of attention that occurred with mother and William in the observation is close to what is happening at home. Page 4 of 7 . . Differences in parental style do not have to be judged in polarizing ways, Mother may provide less attention because William is not her only child and she is a single parent. Father may be better equipped to provide attention because William is an only child with him, father has missed William and his level of attention given to William will even out over time. However, there is enough evidence that William thrives while in his father's care and does not appear to feel a significant distress in separation from each, The issue of distress for William's half sibling Cordell when William is away must also be addressed. Although there is reason to believe that Cordell may have questions as to why his father is not spending time with him, this unfortunately cannot be the reason that William and his father's access should be controlled. It is a reason for mother to seek some guidance as to how to handle Cordell's questions and how to normalize a situation that is difficult for her but one for which she is ultimately responsible. Mother did indicate that she would ask Cordell's father, with whom she has a good relationship to take Cordell more often if William spends more time with his father. She stated that otherwise "she doesn't ever get a break" The fact that the parents have not healed from their divorce is evident. Father is now moving on but felt significantly harmed by the marital separation, and his son being moved out of state while he was in Iraq and unable to stop the process. He also feels frustrated and hurt by the amount of resistance mother is displaying about his right to have a relationship with William. Mother felt betrayed by father during the relationship and appears to lack any empathy for father's desire to have a relationship with William. She appears to have an "old fashioned" notion that if she is available, father should be satisfied with some summer access and seeing William when he is on leave, She does not see a need for father to share William's time especially if father will be at work and she is a stay at home mother. Finally, the issue of geography becomes the ultimate condition that establishes the custody schedule in this family's case. Developmental literature does not support long term arrangements for pre-schoolers except when separated parents live more than 200 miles away. When possible the best solution is two parents who live in the same area having weekly consistent access with the child. In the same area, for example, mother's issue about father not using day care if she is available applies. However, in long distance circumstances the arrangement is established to give the child consistency, parental access, and uses the need for the child to have a relationship that thrives with both parents as the overriding factor in deciding the custody schedule. Attention should be paid to the child's ability to manage the transition and to have access to contact from each parent. As reported by both parents, William has shown a good ability to be away from each parent for significant periods oftime, Prior to the first custody access for father mother willingly left William with his paternal grandparents for six weeks to travel with her other ,son. The recent 60 day access for William with his father was successful. There is good reason to believe that William has the resources to spend extended periods of time with his father and his mother, RECOMMENDATIONS In light of the above impressions, the following recommendations are made: 1. The parents shall share the legal custody of William; Page 5 of 7 2. With regard to the physical custody, the parents wiD share the physical custody of William. A calendar is enclosed. The blue area dictates father's a access time and the pink area dictates mother's access time with William. The circled days are the traveling days for exchange of William. Transition days always occur on Saturdays unless otherwise rearranged 15 days in advance by either parent. Each access period is approximately nine weeks long. Father's next access will begin on June 2, 2004 and end on August 6, 2004. 3. During any access period the other parent can have one access per month from Friday at 9 a.m. to Monday at 9 a.m. in the area where William is staying. That weekend access can be scheduled between the parents no less than 15 days in advance. 4. The parents will select a location mid-way between their homes for the exchange of William with both parents providing half of the transportation for all access periods. 5. For both 2004 and 2005, father will have Thanksgiving and mother will have Christmas. All other holidays will be celebrated by the parent who has access during the of the holiday. 6. Any vacations will occur during each parents access time. 7. It is imperative that mother and father improve their communication with regard to William's best interest. Both parents are directed to require regular contact between each other and to foster the kind of contact that William can handle. This can include drawing pictures, brief phone contact, and especially fostering a lot of conversation about the other parent using pictures and other resources familiar to William. In this day of digital cam eras and the internet, it is Quite possible to keep William aware of both parents. 8. It is imperative that mother address the issues that may be related to the level of attention she is providing for William. She should pay specific attention to his language skills, his emotional engagement, and his willingness to cooperate with her. The book The Nurtured Heart by Richard Glasser is a good guideline for parents who are managing a difficult parenting situation like being the single parent of two young and spirited children. 9. This schedule can only work until such time as both parents live in the same area or William is ready to enter school. Prior to that time, a reassessment of the parents level of cooperation and William's preferences can be made as he will be older and better able to be interviewed on his own behalf. Most importantly, there will be a clearer path of data about William's capacity to thrive in the care of each of his parents. 10. After two full cycles of access (January,2005) the parents may choose to have William reassessed for his adjustment to the schedule. This evaluator will be available for such a reassessment. 11. This skeleton set of recommendations can be adjusted and altered as necessary by the parties, their respective counsel, and with the aid of this evaluator if specifically Page 6 of 7 requested. It is important to uote that additional assistance by the evaluator may result in additional costs. It is further noted that the evaluator would be available to respond to questions and concerns about the way to carry out these recommendations for a period of time up to six months from the date of this report without a ueed for additional interviews with family members. However, after a period of six montbs it is possible that the evaluator will need, at tbe family's expense, to reassess and update information with regard to the family's issues. Deborah L. Salem, LPC Clinical Evaluator Date: 05-25-04 (fax) Final Submission: 05-26-04 (mailed with calendar of access) Page 7 of 7 "' (/) ~ 10 "' 0 ~ ... ~ ... s 0 .8 N 1;; .... >- '" >- N ~ I 1$ "- <( $ $ ~ >- >- l- as " " " :i I 'lilt 0 0 "' N "' CD 8 ... ~ C N ! >- ..,l- "' l- ::s , E 2 ~ l 5! .., $ z l- A8 " " ;. 1Il1 L 'L "' "' 8 ~ ... 8 "- N ~J-- N ,.,>- " . c " .. $ $ ~ >- l- " " "' E ., S' 8 ... 8 .,j~r:: N N i . >- ~ - !; l~ ~ ;$: ,10 :;; 3' 8 '" 0 "- s '" 0 ! 0. "'l- N ,. E ~ ~ .. C :;; "Ii ~ ~ .Jj ., I- :;; ~! '" .... '" .. ;: '" '" m '" N; ,J ~ CD '" '" (f) ., 0 (f) ~ '" U) '" m ..-: ~ '" N 0 8 u. '" ~ U. N ." 8 u. .... ;! ~ '" N '" 0 0. ! '" 1;; I- .. l- I- '" ., 0 .... N ~ Ii " ~ '" N '" "- ~ ~ <( <( ~ '" :s: ~ U) S! ~ 11l ~ l- I- t- .. :: ~ '" '" (U :;; :;; :;; '" ;! t: .. :E .... . It) ", , 0 0 U) <n l;i '" U) ~ ~ '" N 0. (f) 0. ~ (f) .. :: ~ 1:: (I) 8 u. ~ ~. III 8 u. <n ~ .... ~ c;; ~ c: 0. ! 0. ,. I- ~ .c t- o. ." ~ ltl lil :J " ~ e ., ~ :s: 0 .. $ :;; ~ ~ '" ~ N re ..., '" ("\I .... l- N" tll t- .... .. N lil N ~ :;; =; liiI :;; '" ~ 0 .... N N N ~ "' c;: '-' "' ~<:rF ~ 8 ~-.J0 u. N \_ -r '-_ .. I I- e~& c ~ ., -4-[- :s: I- 0 :;; Exhibit 3 i.'j , . NOV-06-2004 08: 21 IIN-l ~V\VKJ<.:) P.03 ,vv ,~ ..;....... ..~: ~' 'j'tt" ,~ , , - I ~4 iQ- "~ ',~, i 'it br: i,.. ", ; ~~. '" ,'~ ~.~ '1. ' :e :~ '-1- ~ ., ,~ . 'A "., ','. . '~"'11 ;~ :. . ;' i~ '; , !.... j,tH. . ~ ,(..... .j, X....'. .>f ....nlll...a.1 ...,-II'C,,"\U' Deborah L. Salem, CAe, L pC . Associates Anthea L Stebbins, L SW Rebecca A. Green, L SW j , Thomas Toone, MS j 4;:135 North Front St Harrisburg PA 17110 , ! Tel 717-236-6630 Fax 717-236-6677 ,,{@~ ~.~. ' :; . ~ : i, 1; . , , , , ,j . ", , BRIEFt C~PAR~T1NG ASSESSMENT '\ADDENl>J.)M 11.05-04 't. ':,' ' ( PlaiDtiff'~ , . . ' . William G. ~~,........)...~....... Theresa BalTett-Male, Esq. "\ . ;. j:. " Defendant: ChristiD~ Rin............+...........Andrew Spears., Esq. '" . Minor Child: William a. Rege\1l...........~...........D.O.B. 04/12/01 . ' ! Docket No. Unkriow~; C~berland qounty , : . . ~ ~ mENT[F~G INFoltwA nON ~ :eROCEDURE '::' [" 1 This atldendnm to the ~ripf.iIIllSSesslli~tof 05-25-04 was competed as a result of the wntiQation of thecu~~eiuing on, "~28-04. The hearing waf W/ltiOlled bmlUse mother had recentlY siitc~ ~ttol'lleyslll.lld she also wanted to have an independent evaluation completed. ~W~ "other wbseeking ll.lI independent opinion. it was also decided that thig emoritol'1oould see .... when in the tare of hill father both Wnte ; ''', I ' and after an e.xten~ed .lay With father. IIOoother was agreeabk William would also be . I j' '. " observed with her aftei'an aw.tended stlt~ with her. Until a letter was r<<eived on 10--01. 04 from mother's att~,tt was pmulned that sbe would uot submit to this evaluator for any fnrther asse.,.!Ijf)f.: i ' ' . .,: ProeecJurally, the add":'J~u.,i.,eorpon~three additional observations ofWUliam. TWo of,the observatio~ ~"'. were ~his father and step mother, and one was with Iris mother. The -i0l$ wm.fathu t+.piaee on 07-28-04, and 09-11-04. The session With mother was o~ l~.;G4.Off,( a sessioDj seheduled as of 10.22..04.) Before the sel*ioo with WDliam and ~is f!liher\on 07-~; WDliam had been with his mother for two months. He had tJeen ~h~. father t~ a little Ims than 7 weeks at tbe session 00 09- 11'-04. and with his motber'!... a little.re tban 7 weelcs at the session on t 1..04-04. The sessions were oomp~:~ 45 mha.pareot-ehild observations, a brief' period of time with William alone. a..d a brief i"mew of the parents alone to gather information about .ni .cl~oiud p~ c:on\:el'U$ since the original evaluatinn.. ; :- ' i ' ~ ;' " ,dNDINGS 1. CURRENT PARENrAL ~PERIr.kCES AND CONCERNS ,j" '!:' .1 , . ; ! Bilge 1 of 7 }'- , ' J ~ , , ", '~ ~ , ',\ ~ : '. ; ,! "I( ~ NDV-06-2004 08:21 P.04 . When lISked about their.cu..l-ent c~-:.::tPreferences for William, mother reported, now lbat she's sttO!th~ ~~ of W, . ,having extended contact wilb both his mother llIId father, she believellhe .~,ght to spe~d '11 weeks with her then S-6 weeks with his tilth?,- a continu~n~'re~ti.ld patter;JllntD. William begins school. She th~ beli~es WiDiam should be In h~ p~ carei!tr:~e IIChool year and have utended time with his father during the SlJmmCl~ .onth.. $be is especially preteetive ofWiUiams relatioJUhip with her older sJio; CordeQ.,i age 6. Sbe does not want them taken from eaeb ether. She furthft 'femls that William wU/ "forget" his positive family life here in PA if he spends too,mllCIJ t,~e in Kenti$k,y. Mother also expressed concern tllat on a couple of oteasionsshei ~ heard Ia~er on the phone with William stating that "it would be betterfodVil~ to five wltli him because mom is 'mean' _" Upon further q..estioDiog, she altered :herire,ort to .,te that father asked WWiam ''who's boy are you?" to which Wili" restWnded "dacldy's." Aeoording to mother, if William answered father btsaYiag ~iW:lmmy's"ls~ overheard father sayWg "no yop're daddy and Maggie's boy." M~e~ dlen aDeeeji that when she oonfronted father about this he tokl ber to stop Ii$tening to"is pbOne +- A<<ording to mother slit is always positive with William about hili fa~ even if it is difneult for her. She added that when William is with his falber, ll~ seen dbtitnt with her on the pbone. In light of what she overlleard on the ph~ s~ stated tbatl"it JIliIkes her wonder what is going On when he's in Kentucky. ..' , , i ~ , . ( Aeeording tofafuel', a*tr _tiple periodS of shared aecess with William. be is dearly . .. ..:.. 4 seeking primary p~ clljltody ofW' ,iam with motber having liberal a<<ess to WiUiam as loug as it does nOt ~terfere . itb his education. He began the process IookiRI forsUred ti~IID"iWilllam' "school but bas chuged bis preference due of time with mother. ~ ~ sup , hb preference beca_ of the lack of co- parenting good wiD aneJ:sofUnon seekin expressed by motber. Father alleges that, wilen WiDiam returns ~ h~ Inother, f: , er has to fight even to speak to William on the phone on a consistent basis.( On more t~aD oueocc:asion he has had a ditTiCnlt time getting WDJiam to talk ~ be is p~npied and mother orren little pldanCt to William to focus on th, phone call. On ~ther occ:aslons, father aUega that CordeD was in tile bac:kgI'ound saying "UU your DaI1 a 'mnker'." Father Is less conumed about the dliIdisb play than he isibat this eit*ej- reflects a poor attitude being fostered Ip mother's home toward him ~rmother ~',:again. not monitoring CordeD and helping ." , keep WWiam focused "!JUe 'ather Is tr)1DJ to make contaa with him. Father also aDegtd tIult mother ellE otr'~r un phoJ!.ein July and did not inform him of an altemate . 'I, , number for three weeks. He added tbathe often calls and can not reach her. Fatber reported that this is in; IIdd4ron tobavi.. to use the courts for any a<<ess he bas had with WDliam sinCthis\i'tturin from de"yment in Iraq. . .!. j . , !: . ~ 2. C'RILD OBSltRV AiTIOliiS . .. " ~ . DlD'ing the initial ass~eqt (IRImlDlllifed in the 05-25-04 report), due to William's age aud laagpage skillS he~ll$ ~DIy observcfl for one hour with his parents, not interviewed alODe. Pecause, durin3.tbe~~nd rouqd,ofobservatious, William had establisbed some , !" i .i!age 2 of 7 " ~ o i\' " 'i " " ; :;" rapport with the interviewer, he wUfeea alone Ifr l~is ininutes during each oltbe three sessions completed. During., 0'*"..... ~ lather, William's step motfaer ' Maggie Rogers wu also present. ~g the ob~~~n with motber on 11-(14-04, ~Iy Wiliam wliS present. This WIIJ difT,erfat tban ~:J'ri""':auessme~t .WIlm: mother broupt William's older brotber, Co,..en. fo~thl obl'"~tion. 1b~ mtel'YieWer, ,; offered motileI' her choice as to wbil~er to bnilg ~onlell to tile sesSion lllld she optea not to. A. 07-28-04 i In the flnt observation with WilliaJn ~n 07-2ll-O~with;biSrather aud step mother, Wiliam had been with his BlOther to~ two m~t" a~just reunited a lew hours~re ~e .essiou. Re was ~iguifi?utly qiai~ deta~bed~and, !lImost no,:eouunu~ive ~h bls father and Maggie. This was d~ite !beD' il~pts to establisb rapport with hlDl. Father was very good at remaining; pjlteDt 'and 'D~.tive regardless ofWiUiam's,laek of responsiveness and wbat appeared! to be op~ii ~o complyiog with father's , requests. After one-half bour, WiU~ tinalIy eo..~with father's request for aliug. He smiJed and slowly walked lWer to jUs father.. silt 0.. [bislap and warmly hogged him. From that time on, there was an o~ but onlf mil~increase in WiUiani.'s responsiveness. Interestingly, altlulu" hewllS clIMe' aiKI distant, witlwflt llllY prompts other than "Do you remember whl!i ,e did w~ yo.. "ere with DaddJ llllel , Maggie? "William remembered aetiw~tits tbatf~.er~ ,~te~mother aDel lie attended ~o months ago when they were together! This reiid'.FceiI!that he had not forgotten his father and Maggie in the time they"'e ~ ',WMU seen alone, William Wll$ asked what he does at Mommy's? ',Hf respo~ithat~e "'I~p$ and pla:ys." He was lISked to dHeribe wbat be plays lUId te stated ~~nd." Be WII otherwise not spontaneous in his dialogue> aDd wan'ed to play ~th.jects io the off"lU. , ! " " "~ ,! B. 09-11-84 I"~ , In the second observatioo with wm., fatbel' ~~ st<p lI!other DB 09-11-04, William wu so profoundly different in bis el~or t111itrthe'~teFvl.ewer was struck with the playfulness, laughing, aud warmth ttiat was eDlIi.u.ting frOm the waiting area betOft the family WlIS brougbt to my oft'iee. W~ p~ en~ the iDtenriewen offiee ~ said "Ri, see my new boots." Be wa~ smling aD~~dispp.aying a pair of cowboy boots: he kad obtltined in Kentucky. He appe4red happy; iipoiltaaCous, verbal, secure and safe while with his father and Maggie.B, WllS, hum~ton4 respollJive 8IIel pIayfnl for the tuB 45 millUtea.. Additionally, WDliamwjq co~JIy ODblDlllniamv.,. and alftdioaate (both physical and verbal), witb his tjath~ all~ ~~. This WllB siguiiiClUltly DtJpelIite, from bow be> behaved when he w..~ expoSl!d to falJlerafter a two BlORth perlOd,:with mothe.... ;,", · I" " " l ,":1: ' Father- reported.. that.he.bllB been~ P, . .. Wi,',ili~, ~r his .return to mother,' " 's fi,or t~, e past week. DRnng blS time alooe ' tbe,lDterVaewer. William WlIS aiked!if.be w&UId ~:r~:r':ti: =y~:=::.:\: de:;:clit~::~w::.:;o: O:1:o~ not spontaneotnly give any other ~~'t informatiOn.; , · " . , ' i Page30fr ":;>7.0l?l +.t::'Il?I7_Qt::'I_^n"l "~: "'t (~~~ "~' ""J )':~;~' i" "i " ):; 01 "I i I . !" ,\', , , .I.' .. io"" i \, "("1" "'," 0;" i.. :i ,', :.1 , 1 , " i", i' -,. NDV-06- 2004 08: 23 P.06 In addition to William~s moi-e spontane+us expression, it was reported that, at the end of his my with father,;W. was excIiIJively using the potty, except at nigbt and only had a few accidents. ~ddi~~,he wPsobserved saying his ABC's very weU. Most impressively,he w. aII~ to!VbuaUy idejltifY and name tbe letters in bis namt. He was further .ble to wrift tJie; Ie_ "w". < " .'(' I C. 11-04-04 ", j , ' , ' , , In his third observatio" ~lilim was ~~rompaaied by bis mother. When William and mother were approae!Uld in ~~ waiting~ they 'were both on the floor playing witb his train set. They ~~u#l this pJayduriDg the observation In the evaluator's office. SigDific:anOy, William ~ ~iet, low ~ed n bis actions and non-spontaneous. He appeared calm and;safe,; but! Clearly not ~oinmunieative in an enited way. He was Ies. expressive bowever; ~m~diUion skilJi were improved when he spoke especially when eompared to tbe obse..vatiOJ?in the initill1iessions prior to May. The observation progressed with both Willi. and ~rem.iniDg low keyed and under-upreuive in actions: yet they were p,iartic",ative with 1eaCh other related to the train set. It was not nntil30 minutes into t'e seillioll that William even made eye CODtact witb his mother andsmiled. As stated,ihis ~DS were ~ndentated and bis sense of connection to his mother was very coveJt,. Ahlilough he scjeuled safe and comfortable with ber, he was not inclined to be inclusive, Jlor :was she. Bi 40 mioutes into the session, William was more animated especially wll~ mt was buo.. the sounds for the can witb wbieb he Will playing. At different times, ~otber gavt William good prompts and suggestions for his play. He, however, did nottpproaeh h. Gtr suggestions. \ '1; '; , Dariag bis alone time ~ d.:ttiJitetvi~er Willianl fU'St spontaneously stated that "" monster throws fm oni my !lcid' aad my ...801 dido't get ldIJed by mooter." Attempts to foDow up with the storf :werle to no, avail 'William was asked to say his "ABC's" as an att'nlpt to lee If h~c.~ reta;. inform~n shared wbeo with father two, months prior. When uked, WIJliJlm', tespoDSe was . reall)' hard for me." I asked If be could try and he,did not. He wu thdaiked if h~ tliIklI to his father on the phone. He replied "yea." When asked if be talks to M~ oa the pbone, he replied "weJl, my mommy . l. . bates Maggie and Daddy." !When uke4~how do you know?" William replied, "M~m~ says you ~o~'t w~t ,to, talk ~ M. but I do waDt to." H~ then stated, witb an ~pllh loClk OD his faee fIlat"COrdelfltells me to Qillmy daddy. stinker." "I don't WlIIIt to eall my daddyasti~." Wbe~ Uked if mommy tries to stop CordeD, William said "IIG." ' " , I Significantly, in the lasitt'ive!D1inutes of !nteraqion with William while they were I ". . preparing to leave, WiJlaniFalDe dose ~ a fuB blown tantrum because he didn't want to leave.. Mother trled:;..Jllijldy to con~the tantrum and reaction, and after multiple attempts did get cOG~~rrom Willljlm wbo cried, kicked his feet, threw himself on tbe 8001', grabbed lit toys s~ was p~gaway, and oppOJed her wishes overtly and covertly. As in the preiliiousiol:iservatioriwitb her, It was notable: that mother gave mlIltiple ultimnwmi to W~ and n~rfollowed tbrough which gave WiIlianl control over Ilis reactioll!l. '. , ~..:" Pjlge 4 of 7 ~: ~;-": ' ~::(> '. ~ 11":1' I , ~ ""l ~,!:' .d ~ "1. .f. . , , ; f ,< i . , ' .' . EVALUATOR'S sriMMARy ~D~IONS .'i ~ . . Now that the evaluator hu seen wimtm on multiPle OCtasions after be has had signitwmt time with father and sia-iqe.nt time -w,itb mother, it continues to be cleat that tberlll is a difference in Williams *lIlba\iors; a~ :engagement style, and. skiD level with dally living activities when with ,!Us ratbei-'~er li~ mother. The evaluator . eontiuDes to believe tbat tbe ditTerellq,in William is doe to tbe level of attention he is receiving with each pareut and the ;p~tiBg s~~ u~ by each parent. As reported previonsly, the response style of a ~ool cb~is the ...u1t of the bi-directional . inDuence of eo_oolanon Imll ~ j)etween pa~n",: elll;e givers, other childreu lUid the pre--IChool cbild. WiUlam's affectlwith eaelt ~bis ,parents displays tbe result of bigh attention given by father and low attelotion gi~1i I"Y GlPther. The dilt"ere.nce in . attention patterns was coDsistentlyilllPwn to be .e iD; the observation settiJlgs. It was also obvious io tbe fact that wltb a sei'm weekpet10d for eacb parent, the obvious · difl'erences in William prevaiL That ~ in the BlO~ ~tobseJ"Vations of William with his fadllllr and William with his mod1~ wllere eHh had been with William for almcm " t II': . .. the eurt amollnt of time and Wil1i8....s oldel' brujlheJi Was not taking mother'. atteBtioD . as bad beeP the ClUe in tbe rlJ'St o~atioD will! /motllia-, the pattern of aignif"~."t . differen<<s in Williams responsiv~ was stDI apparePt.. ! ;, ";' ;:,' ~ .. .'\ :; . I ' . . . . . . , Mo~ significantly, ~he !lld tbat oBly' . igatio~;~" ~~ted, gains in father's"',,a, l.'l.'e5!I, t, WillimIls die bat mdlClltor of ~.' uti.,~. l:ach parent IialJffleir owni point of view about the au!ltS of ~. tension.' ~ reported tbat she ;recently , . f I- '. . r . , . ..i Page 5 of :7 +-.~ . O~ +-.~~':::"_Oi,lj_^n"l ~ '. r ; , , ,1 . '" i . . NDV-06-2004 08: 24 P.08 proposed a way to epd litiga1ion wbleb f!ither refused. Father does not believe tbat mother hIlS willingly aft8red~ny sipifi~t time to hiln untU he did litigate. It is BOtable. that with the)~~~n: of the p"tyear, and tbe resulting time William spent with his father, Mother"d '."mit that sf-ehas SeeD the benefit or William baving access to his father. ' 1 ; , Finally. in this ram~, y's\ cas, e.-, i the, re is Uf!ed,: for a s~bedQle that also addresses the geographic distance belweeJi"e paren~ and the fact that William may be starting pre- Kindergarten next year;' A$~ttd 9rev~l&ly, motber believes tbe scl1eduJe should give bel" primary access to Willi. ilDd f_ believes he should Ilave primary access. The racts lIIld tberapeutlc ilnp~iops mppo!rfprimllry access for fatber with liberal summer auess for mother. '~Iight ortl!iscondusion, the final recommendations reflect . " ( suell. .' , ; I ,RRCO~NDATlONS , t 1. The parents sball sJw'e .~ legal c~dy of William; ,', ~" . . ;. :1. t . 1. With regard to the ,h)'si#! custody, tather shall bave prilDary phy.ita! custody of WiiIiam to be gradllaUY :'~~=j; , lien now and the end of the summer, 2005 w"ea WWIam will beg~ p~de' ,'en. The endosed calendars display father's aceess represented wi" "X'.~ and mo . r's with "O's". Months wlllt one large "X" indicate that father baS tbe:~iire mOBtI. except tor access possible by item (3) below. The days eneased witb'. sqqUe are the traveling days for exchange of William. .. ; .... ;1,' i . . Trausition days atWa~ occ~ on SlIndaf5 unless otherwise rearranged 15 days In adVltDee by either pa" ~ the ealentiaryear for 2004-2005, motber's aeeess is based on WI1iam not ~i.g i~a f<#n~ ~~1~ ID the calendar y~ of'200S-2006. mothers accll5lIlDeGflIioratejl,WillWll ~dg III a fomul sehool setting. , . ; , . ~ 3. Every four weeks, the ~n-c:ustodialllJ1lrent can bave one access per month froDl Friday at 9 a.m. toMOild.,-iat:9 LJD. inlme area where William is staying. That weelwld aecess ean .,es!:b~u~ betw.the parents no less than 15 days in advllllte. , . . . . . " 4. The parents will se~t a ~oeatlon mid-wa)' between their homes for the exchange of WDIiaDl with both PareatsVnividing h~ of'the transportation {or all access periods except that mcntionec(in itijm (3). ! , ' .,' . 5. For 2004 , father wi1I h~e ~otb 'J'ha~l<sgiving lIIld Cbristmas. This is due to the timing of' the eourt,h~li~ the exe~e traD$portation eosts to have William not leave with his fath~ af the,..d.of the alun bearing. For 2005, mother will have Easter, and Christmas, alld fdJaer ~ have 'I'l$nksgiving. They will altetnate holidays from then on. However, m!Jtberiwill be a<<oM~ an of Williams free time surrounding tbe Easter lIIld Christmas !Itolidjlys after ra# has time on the aetual boliday. With regard to Mother's da)' and R~er.'s ,day, eadi parent will have aeem to William on their respective hooday. AD Othl'ir; holidays ,.W'be ee1ebrated by the parent who has aeeess on that day. ' ,i ' L i ; ,"F. , , , , , i ~age6of7 , , j "'J.. j. ' i.. \. NDV-06-2004 08:25 . . P.09 . . " , 6. FoUly vacations will &c:c.r during ~b pAl'tnts aeeess time. , "'<'" i' 7. It iilmperative thati~~r,and fat"t improve their communication with regard to W&m'slJest lnterest.!tIotl!! Parents arf/directed to receive whatever remedial help is nee<"'11U'J to impro~e tll,; gc#l Win betweeil them since they wiD have reg1dar ~ntact. It is i1nportlmt to f~r;the ~ of oonijci that Wmiam ean handle with both of his parents. This cap ind~e "r.wing p~, brief phone eontact, and especially fostering a lot of cODVl!liI!ldiop, aOOIlt the(o~r parent using pic:tu1'l!S and other resources familiar to William. In: this:jbay of digitljl cameras lI.Dd tbe internet, it Is quite possible to kftp William aware lIf both parents. i . !. . . " , 8. This skeleton set of i-eeo"inendatioD~ can be adj usted and altered as necessary by the parties. their rcspetm.e tounsel, and with the aid of this evaluator if speclfkally requeSted. It is importaatt t~ Dote that .+ditioDal uaistaDee by the evaluator may result in additional costs. It is fu~er noUd _tthe evaluator wowd be avalbhle to respond to questioll8 and conc:el;'lls d6ut tbe waf'to carry out these recommendations for a period of'time up to six 1lJo" from tll, date of tbls report without a need for additional interviews Wijb ~I!D!IY mem~n. However, after a period of six montlls it is possible that the evalu..or #ilheed, at lhe family's expense, to reas&eJS and update iufOJ'lDldiou with regaat to~e family's rues. Respectfully Submitted, , ' , ~. i , ! :,1 I. j" l l , '."1 , I , I , . J , i \, I 1 ", i ,.-1 ", I :' i '.,,-' I, ':. } ,,:.}", I , i " i ',' DebQr8h L. Salem, LPC CJIniCaI Evaluator Daiel Il-OS..Q4 (fax) , , F1i1alSubmissicn: hand ~ed 11-08-04 " , .. 'i. l- f, ! +: 1 :"/ . j , i ; '. I, .. ,', -~, ; ~age 7 of 7 I , , ',L. i' :',,_ i,- t.:t"'~ - \C) o ~ l- ! 9 CJ o \ -cf o ~ ..~~ .,~~ ~"" ~1t ~..-~ \:~' 11 "f<'JtX.'*', , . , , \ , 'I' ,;', . \' \ "'..G~~"" "" ,", '~ . . ~ " \ . Io!l. ....t;1,...*'~.. . 1.'6 \VI l!.; \.. .~'--""','IZ', ''':$(: l Gl ....\J.~-- '\',~ ;~-..,.,...\~..... " ~o~..-"'" '\ ,;;,~, '\ ,.~)( \:;O'~'"11i4. '. ,\, .\ ~ " " .. , .:,." r;:\ ~\"'~~.~' ; iii . $\ \ ..~ ' \,. ~~" " \ ..",.r:.Jtf:'J, : )<t;~,~' ,. ,~ \ " "", \ . \. '- u- '. ... ,~ \ ';l: \. "'" ,. . ~ '5 , \ ,. , l- eD "% G) ~ ~ ,. :i'~ -~,;,-: ~..,~...-:-'^~':, ~,' $,., ,." ' \ ..,,.('iff~: ....:~~ l~~~, "~" .~ ... ' , ;~\ w"~ ., ",-p...~ \u-"~ \...-<<~ l ~ ..-.pi$- ....~ ".-"'~ \ ~.' \ ",\ \ \ " ',. . i ~ l l . \ " " , , , ' , \ , ,1 .-', '. '\ i I ~. ,,\ \' i, , .'" I \ " i '.' \ . . \ \ \ ;>. \ ;, \ . \ \ ,\, ' \ \ \ ~~ ..~, \..~ :&...~ \;'~~"III.. ..~ " -,l.'";I{:!f:.:'.yt; \ ,.\ . \ . '\,'" \ ., J" \, - \ "''''~ "..?~ .U-~ ~:,"'~~," . ,.... 'f'" g. ~'~'~ ..~ :i +~ c-:? .Ol'il t?('i\(/I?,_aI7'-0(\\ . . , . n'd ltJ101 CD e o N .... CI) .Q S U o I It) o o ('\II ... CD .Q E ~ o z 1i oN QI ~'~ ~:. l'l ~ ~ ~ n; 1 i." II) ~ " ~ N m N N en V') N Cl) to _ _ N II) ... :t N'~ m 'II' ..... lD r,t'l _ _ N *...x.......' N - eo- I- N M ~ - ~ 1.1. ~ - 0;.0 ~ ~ ~ ... N J 8 .. N ~ .. " ~ ~ I- r-~;N:e I- :z '" ~ = ... N N fI) - ... ~ N ~ fI) ... .. ,I; "" N - N fI) ... :t - '" '" <l) ~ t:; N N " = "- ~ .. ... '" N l!l ~ .. .. I- ... (ll ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'If' ..... II) U') s: - - .. ?- m 5! ~ ~ 1'; I- .. "$1 '"' fil N' :z .. m ~ m ~ :z ~ ~'fl !:l' III .. t/J .,. ~ t: ~: ~ (<01 ~ ~ ~:~ ... U) ... .. 2 - ~ ~ ... :: ",: <0 ':~ . .. " '" .. :0 ",@ "'B~~~_ _ N '" '" '" t=@X "'~~ - :!l " '" .... N ... "'1]1]] .. .... ~';:l(~ N - '" '" Ii; re ., ... ~ ... <O~ 'E ... ~~' E - .. II ~ :,'it~~ .5 ~ ... .. - ... ;; -.... I- ... ::? ~@ .. :~~~ i :z .., ~ ~@ ,I :z )l(il-"'::~ " :& I , I ," !. '\) ':{ . ~'~; i i:.::i , i ,": ji " ). {'" . ,", , , ! .~ i , i i -,; " i I I "; t J '; ."' 'j" i l !' 1 , ; , f ! :i. 1 i I ~ - : , ' " i .11'. Ii, "'", .j' ,. .j" -'j'. "2 I i ,1, :.i i , j I ~, . ( " ). :1' , " I '" '" ~ '" ... "'~:, ...j .. .. :: !, oN' " -9 ?'i. f '" "' ~ ~ 2 fI)~RitX:,i "'-~ )(:ll , :) U} ;t ! '" "-~~~ "- 0\(:~ . '" ~ ~ .. .x N Ii l- ~ }1t) ~.. r@ ~' i E I " " (; ::Ii 3:)(#~@ '", ~):g; ..: '/ z ~ i I- - <0 "' !::J .. I- )tj.~:~@ l- t.. ~€J I - N i , ~;Ai(~ EX~i&'-' , :z ... ;! N '" ::!i ::!i ~ N fi) , .. -, ..... Cj7.:B0 1700C:-'30-()QN ;,' .. VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ~ 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 44/1 ? ~y William G. Rogers q ./i/J / /JOCI.~ Date: I'nO<rCof"l CY' ~ J ..' . .. PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving 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 fax and first-class mail addressed as follows: Dirk Berry, Esquire 44 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 /L/LH)~ Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: March !J I , 2005 c:o ~ ;::J \ li"") \t- V -- ~ \> c: t""' l~) P ()' :.# . l-~ lr( -J . ",^ W . !' -'~ - ~ r . , -" \..') ~ t-'- -+-- ..... - ( C ", ~ r J WILLIAM G. ROGERS PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL Y ANIA v. .03-4432 CIVIL ACTION LAW CHRISTINA R. ROGERS DFFFNDANT IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Friday, April .01, 2.0.05 , upon consideration of the alla hed Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa P. Greevy, E q. , the conciliator, at DJ Manlove's, 1901 State.~~.~all1l'.!lill, PA p.ol~ on Frida:v~l\Jay .06,2.0.05_._ "..'" at 9:00 __AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such confcrence, an effort will be made to resolve the 'ssues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished. to deflne and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to en er into a temporary order. All children age flve or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at t c 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 A Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hea ing. FOR THE COURT. By: /s/ Melissa P. Gree"b....E~~ Custody Coociliator 1J The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply ith the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For infon11ation about accessible facilities and reasonable accon modations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our omce. 11 arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must att nd the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YO DO NOT HA VE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OF ICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephonc (717) 249.3166 4;???'1?<' ~ 1! //ryW ~l frJ./J It ~ fpt <7~ ~0)U/",/1 ~ flY 1- ~~/ 4(7 f-1{7 J(JJi/r , t ",':.I , ,':,','--- ? \ ~(', \. . \~ \';1 Q';:f\7 T'_ C./'I' y..li'" I . - . \\. :.' ,', :~,.,:" ~: y . RECEIVED MAY 12 ZOO~} WILLIAM G. ROGERS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 03-4432 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, IN CUSTODY Defendant BAYLEY, J. --- ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this '2.- day of May, 2005, upon consideration of the Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. Counsel shall participate in a Pretrial Conference at 3:00 p.m. on May 26, 2005. The purpose of this Conference is to address the issues regarding the use of experts and the admissibility of expert testimony, in particular that of Deborah Salem. 2. A Hearing is scheduled in Courtroom Number 2 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, on the 22nd day of June, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., at which time testimony will be taken. For the purposes of the hearing, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be the moving parties and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties or the parties pro se shall file with the Court and opposing counsel/party a memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list of witnesses who are expected to testify at the hearing, and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. These memoranda shall be filed at least ten days prior to the hearing date. BY THE C<)t1RT: ( Dis!: Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire, 513 N. 200 Street. Harrisburg. PA 17101 > Dirk Berry. Esquire. 44 S. Hanover Street. Carlisle, PA 17013 ~ .~L . , .j_/3.0:' C)- u~ o O"l j=:J -:y N ~'-'- en c:c:-.;;> co (-.I o - :J' RECEIVED MAY 122005 Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-4432 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW WILLIAM G. ROGERS, v. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, IN CUSTODY Defendant CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF William Henry Rogers April 12, 2001 Mother and Father 2. Father filed a Petition for Modification of a Custody Order on March 29, 2005. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held on May 6, 2005. Present for the Conference were: the Father, William G. Rogers, and his counsel, Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire; the Mother, Christina R Rogers, and her counsel, Dirk Berry, Esquire. 3. Father's position on custody is as follows: Father continues to be in the military and has received some indication that he may be deployed in August or September 2005. The most recent Order in this matter was issued on November 9, 2004 following a hearing. Father seeks to modify Paragraph 6 of the Order which provides that if Father is deployed militarily, that Mother would have temporary physical custody of the child during the deployment. Instead, Father would like to continue to follow the schedule set forth in Paragraph 3 of the November 9, 2004 Order for the following reasons: (1) Father is concerned that the child may feel abandoned by him during his deployment and if during his deployment the child is not allowed to continue the present schedule, the child will also lose the stnucture and life experience that he has had during Father's custodial periods with his stepmother, paternal grandparents and extended family in that community. (2) Father is concerned that the child will lose the gains that he has made when in Father's custody and that he may not be able to recapture those developmental gains if he remains in Mother's primary custody throughout the period of his expected deployment, approximately one (1) year. NO. 03-4432 CIVIL TERM (3) Father is concerned that based on his past experiences with Mother in his previous deployment, she may not take the appropriate steps to ensure contact through mail, phone and e-mail would continue during his upcoming deployment. He is much more confident that his family and spouse would ensure that contact would continue during his deployment. Additionally, Father has requested a modification to the present Order which would extend his upcoming custodial period, currently set to begin June 12, 2005 and end August 7, 2005 such that he would have additional custodial time with the child between now and the time that he is actually deployed. He hopes this additional time will further cement his relationship with the child and make the separation period of deployment easier to bear in the present day. With regard to evidence to be presented at trial, Father indicated a preference to return to Deborah Salem for an updated assessment and to obtain an opinion regarding the child's schedule during deployment. Father's counsel is aware that Mother does not want to return to Ms. Salem. And while he is willing to cooperate with a second opinion evaluation, he is not willing to participate financially because he has borne all of the expense of Ms. Salem's seNices and to the transportation to Pennsylvania for these proceedings and the custodial exchanges. 4. Mother's position on custody is as follows: Through counsel, Mother relays the position that it seems as if the parties are re-litigating the issues at the November 4, 2004 hearing. Mother's counsel feels strongly that Ms. Salem's report is partisan and Mother feels so strongly regarding this issue that she prefers strongly not to return to Ms. Salem for an updated assessment to whether it would be best for the child to continue in the current schedule during Father's deployment. Mother would prefer to have a second opinion in this regard, however she reports that she cannot pay for it. Mother alleges that Father makes up things regarding developmental issues. Additionally, her counsel views Father's previous testimony regarding the likelihood of his redeployment and his intent to leave the military seNice as disingenuous. While Mother is willing to cooperate with some limited periods of custody with Father's extended family during his deployment, she strongly believes that the child should be in the primary custody of his Mother, when Father is not available, in preference to Father's extended family. 5. Because the parties do not have an agreement with regard to a schedule that permits the child to maintain and continue a relationship with Father's extended family during his deployment, the parties are in need of a hearing on that narrow issue. The parties recognize that Judge Bayley has deferred the question which must ultimately be reached in this matter once the child reaches compulsory school age: which of these parents shall be the primary custodial parent. Because the parties have dispute with NO. 03-4432 CIVIL TERM regard to additional and updated expert testimony which may be necessary at hearing, the Conciliator recommended a brief Pretrial Conference with the Judge to resolve this issue so that they could proceed with the use of evaluative services knowing whether or not they should return to Ms. Salem. The Conciliator has scheduled a Pretrial Conference for May 26, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. and a hearing for June 22, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. On the day of the CO",iI~6 ;;;:'" 00'"'" oo",oned Um':;;';Z G;::e" ooleod'ffi IDate Melissa Peel Greevy, E quire Custody Conciliator :250302 WILLIAM G. ROGERS, PLAINTIFF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT : 03-4432 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~day of May, 2005, IT IS ORDERED: (1 ) To the extent that the father wishes to have an assessment by Deborah Salem to include the child William Rogers, IT IS ORDERED that the child shall be made available for such assessment. (2) To the extent that the father wants the mother, Christina R. Rogers, to court. ') ~ participate in an assessment, she is not required to do so. --1heresa Barrett Male, Esquire For William G. Rogers :sal ~ ~,OS OS;~ / v6irk Berry, Esquire For Christina R. Rogers --- \ .,' ;JJn:) 81:2 Hd L2 AnlSOOZ AtfilO;.jCHJ.OUd 3H1 :IO 3:il:J.10-{J3li:J - '!h;~!'i Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 tbm@tbmesquire.com Counsel for Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WilLIAM G. ROGERS Plaintiff v. ~'I3;1. NO. 03~CivilTerm CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVil ACTION - CUSTODY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DIRECTED TO CHILD 1. On Friday, June 17, 2005, a subpoena arrived via certified mail from Defendant's counsel at the office of Plaintiff's counsel. A copy of the subpoena is attached as Exhibit 1.1 2. Although the subpoena was sealed on June 7, 2005, it was not postmarked for service until June 15, 2005. 1 Because Plaintiff's counsel was not in her office on June 17, 2005, she was not able to review the subpoena until over the weekend. 3. The subpoena directs the child, William Henry Rogers, to appear and testify at the June 22, 2005 hearing.2 4. The child is four years old.3 Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court quash the subpoena. Respectfully submitted, L~~ Theresa Sarrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: June 19, 2005 2 Pursuant to the November 9, 2004 order, the child currently is in the custody of his father, Plaintiff William G. Rogers. 3 William's birthdate is April 12, 2001. 2 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WilLIAM G. ROGERS Plaintiff File No. 03 - 4432 v. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TESTIFY TO: William Henry Rogers; bv William G. Rogers 2061 Pinewood Drive ClarkBville, 1N 37042 1. You are ordered by the court to come.tcCourtroom number 2 Of the Cumberland County Courthouse. 1 Courthouse Square (Specify Courtroom or other place) at Carlisle Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 9:00 o'clock,.A.. M,. to testify on behalf of Christina: ROll:ers in the above case, and to remain until excused. 2. And bring with you the following: If you fail to attend or to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, you may be subject to the sanctions authorized by Rule 234.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to costs, attorney fees and imprisonment. REQUESTED BY A PARTY/ATIORNEY IN COMPLIANCE WITH Pa.R.C.P.No.234.2(a): Name: Dirk Berry, Esquire Address: 44 5. Hanover Street (;arhsie, l' A l/U 13 Telephone: (711) 243-4448 Supreme Court ID # 81947 Proth otary/Cle iv' ion Date: 7.ACbS- 4~~W Seal of the Court Deputy OffiCial Note: This form of subpoena shall be used whenever a subpoena is issuable, including hearings in connection with depositions and before arbitrators, masters, connnissioners, etc. in compliance with Pa. R.c.p .No.234.1. If a subpoena for a production of documents, records Or things is desired, complete paragraph 2. (Eff. 7/97) PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving 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 fax and first-class mail addressed as follows: Dirk E. Berry, Esquire 44 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant ~~~u)1t4 Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: June 20, 2005 o it::~ 0~~,;' ~~.,: ~~~' !j '" = = c.n c.... c:: ;;;::: N o ~ :f mf!J "'T)rT1 59 -...6 :T:;F{ ~C) ::sm --l ?G -< :>> ::ll; ':'? RECEIVED JUN 20 20fi5/ Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 tbm@tbmesquire.com Counsel for Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM G. ROGERS Pia i ntiff v. NO. 03-4432 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, June ~ , 2005, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Subpoena Directed to Child, the Court GRANTS the motion. The subpoena directing William Henry Rogers to attend and testify is QUASHED. BY T!;IE'"COURT: / / , Dj,stribution ...'fheresa Barrett Male, Esq., 513 N. Second St., Harrisburg, PA 17101 ~irk Berry, Esq., 44 S. Hanover St.. Carlisle, PA 17013 ~~~~ D'rP ~~,~ ~ }'c_!J:nc,<"j {':' -;:'~y/,,!('jJ n :01 WV OZ rmrsoOl "',/'0""'" '1'''''.1' :JH' .10 At} If.!i. i ,;;U;- !\.h.JO ~ .i.... 38!:!:iG-n=JlI::J WILLIAM G. ROGERS, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT 03-4432 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY BEFORE BAYLEY, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~day of July, 2005, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The provision in the order of November 9, 2004, providing that "if the father is deployed militarily, the mother shall have temporary physical custody of William during such deployment," IS VACATED. (2) The order of November 9, 2004, is amended to add the following provisions: (a) Commencing on any date the father leavE~s for Iraq, until he returns, the mother shall have physical custody of William Rogers, born April 12, 2001. (b) During such period, Maggie Rogers shall have William: (i) From Tuesday, December 27, 200ci, until Saturday, January 7, 2006. (ii) From Saturday, April 15, 2006, until Saturday, April 29, 2006. (iii) From Saturday, July 1, 2006, until Saturday, July 15, 2006. (3) All exchanges shall occur in Huntington, West Virginia. (4) During any time that the father is overseas, the mother shall always have 03-4432 CIVIL TERM William talk to him when he calls, and shall immediately respond with substance to his emails. Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire For William G. Rogers Dirk Berry, Esquire For Christina R. Rogers :sal Edgar B. B;ayiey, J. '~ 'i_IIOs' ~ 9-. -2- WILLIAM G. ROGERS, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT 03-4432 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY BEFORE BAYLEY, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COllRT Bayley, J., July 8, 2005:-- William Rogers, age 24, and Christina Rogers, age .24, are the parents of William Henry Rogers, age 4, born April 12, 2001. They were married on September 18, 2000. They separated in January, 2003, and divorced in April, 2004. The father is remarried and lives with his wife Maggie, in Clarksville, Tennessee. He is a United States Army Sergeant in the 1015t Airborne Division at nearby Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. The mother lives in Carlisle, Cumberland County. She works in a restaurant, generally Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. This was her second marriage. She has a six-year-old son, Colton, to her first husband who is in the United States Army and stationed at Ft. Drum, New York.' William Rogers was stationed in Iraq from February, 2003 until February, 2004. , Colton's father is going to be assigned to Iraq around the 19nd of the summer. Right now, Colton sees his father when the father comes to Carli!lle. 03-4432 CIVIL TERM Just before his deployment he and the mother, who had belen living in Clarksville, separated. She returned to Carlisle where her mother live!;. When the father returned from Iraq, he and the mother could not agree on a custody schedule for William. A temporary order was entered on February 25, 2004, providing the father with extended time with his son in Tennessee. Following a full custody hearing, an order was entered on November 9, 2004, providing the parents with shared legal custody of William, and equal shared physical custody alternating in two month se~,ments. Custodial exchanges are made in Huntington, West Virginia. Each parent continues to have William pursuant to this order. The father is again going to be assigned to Iraq nealr the end of this summer or the beginning of fall.' The order of November 9,2004, provided that "if the father is deployed militarily, the mother shall have temporary physical custody of William during such deployment." The father now seeks to change the pwvision so that while he is in Iraq, his wife can continue to have William on the current alternating two-month schedule. Maggie is a substitute school teacher. She is seeking a full-time position for the 2005-2006 school year, although she will continue to substitute if unable to obtain such a position. The father's parents and other members of his family live approximately a five hour drive south of Clarksville. During each of the father's periods of temporary physical custody with William, he and his wife have taken him to visit his 'The father's Army commitment ends on October 31,2007. He intends to leave the Army at that time. -2- 03-4432 CIVIL TERM parents and other family members two times. Maggie inte,nds to continue such visits if William is with her. When working, she intends to place William in daycare in Clarksville, in the same facility where the father placed William when they were both working during his periods of temporary physical custody. After a review of all of the evidence, including the te,stimony of an evaluator retained by the father, Deborah L. Salem, the Clinical Director of Interworks in Harrisburg, we are s.atisfied that William has developed a close relationship with his step-mother. William is a happy, thriving child when he is with his mother and his father and step-mother. The father had considerable difficulty getting information about William from the mother during his previous assignment to Iraq. The mother attributes that to hard feelings resulting from their then recent breakup. She testified that her conduct will be different during his next tour. The father seeks consistency for William when he is again deployed to Iraq. He fears that William will feel abandoned if he loses contact with his family. The mother, while not objecting to limited periods for William to be with Maggie, objects to her having equal shared physical custody. A custody order is modifiable without proof of a substantial change in circumstances where such modification is in the best interest of the child. McMillen v. McMillen, 529 Pa. 198 (1992). The paramount consideratil:m in a custody dispute is the best interest of the child. Jackson v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2004). This requires consideration of those factors which "legitimately affect the child's physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being." Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261 -3- 03-4432 CIVIL TERM (Pa. Super. 2004). The phrase "in loco parentis" refers tCl a person in the situation of a lawful parent who assumes the obligations incident to the parental relationship without going through the formality of a legal adoption. Commonwealth ex reI. Morgan v. Smith, 429 Pa. 561 (1968). The status of in loco parenti!l embodies two ideas; first, the assumption of a parental status, and, second, the discharge of parental duties. Id. The rights and liabilities arising out of an in loco parentis relationship are, as the words imply, exactly the same as between parent and child. Spellls v. Spells, 250 Pa. Super. 168 (1977); T.B. v. L.R.M., 567 Pa. 222 (2001). As set forth in Spells, the in loco parentis basis for standing recognizes that the need to guard the family from intrusions by third parties and to protect the rights of the natural parent must be tempered by the paramount need to protect the child's best interest. Thus, while it is presumed that a child's best interest is served by maintaining the family's pnivacy and autonomy, that presumption must give way where the child has established strong psychological bonds with a person who, although not a biological parent, has liv,ed with the child and provided care, nurture, and affection, assuming in the child's eye a stature like that of a parent. Where such a relationship is shown, our courts recognize that the child's best interest requires that the third party be granted standing so as to have the opportunity to litigate fully the issue of whether that relationship should be, maintained even over a natural parent's objections. Where a petitioner who is not biologically related to the child but has established a parent-like relationship with the child seeks not to supplant the natural parent, but only to maintain his relationship with the child through -4- 03-4432 CIVIL TERM reasonable visitation or partial custody, the burden to establish standing is easier to meet. J.A.L. v. E.P.H., 682 A.2d 1314 (Pa. Super. 1996). Neither counsel nor this court have located a case in Pennsylvania granting a step-parent shared physical custody when a parent with custodial rights is away for a substantial period of time. We do not believe that equal shared custody between the mother and Maggie, who only came into William's life in FE!bruary, 2004, is warranted. However, some continuity with the father's family is reasollable while he serves another year in Iraq. Accordingly, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~day of July, 2005, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The provision in the order of November 9,2004, providing that "if the father is deployed militarily, the mother shall have temporary physical custody of William during such deployment," IS VACATED. (2) The order of November 9, 2004, is amended to .add the following provisions: (a) Commencing on any date the father leaves for Iraq, until he returns, the mother shall have physical custody of William Rogers, born April 12, 2001. (b) During such period, Maggie Rogers shall have William: (i) From Tuesday, December 27,2005" until Saturday, January 7, 2006. (Ii) From Saturday, April 15, 2006, until Saturday, April 29, 2006. (iii) From Saturday, July 1, 2006, until Saturday, July 15, 2006. -5- 03-4432 CIVIL TERM (3) All exchanges shall occur in Huntington, West Virginia. (4) During any time that the father is overseas, the mother shall always have William talk to him when he calls, and shall immediately respond with substance to his emails. By th~.c-6u rt, Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire For William G. Rogers Dirk Berry, Esquire For Christina R. Rogers :sal -6- '.f!'\1).'sr\:f',J::f,-l t i \!(',(('1 .'':'''In''' I\J.., ,J '_"._' ,_.. _._'" ,...; ~o :i1 Pd 8-- lnrsool I L~"" .." " "" , :J'Hl ~o ^(,:H'.~\..i\,....~-.~t..)(10.... .:;I l:,\!.L:!c}-o:n!:1 ~e.\e 'Oe.~~e~ c,:!>9 ",... """ . .. "'" "'- ,"'" ""... ~'" _.<< .",>if' ,,,w#' ",,,,, <P'''''' ,,;tJS' "".pQ ,"~." ........."'" .,. '" <>l"" \'O~@fo.Y;j \ ,o~ f(\e.\(\'iffi . ,,~O~ ?I,; cooJ(\'ift [\ Orr CO~' '. CO\J?- ?-.oG~?-.S ,.\\\..:0[>.~ G: ",-~ ". ?\-a,''- ":}.b~ C;\~\\ '. ~O' o?i . C\JS,\O'i>i , C'\\O~ - '. C~\\.. f>l 't..~\O\) ,. . S~OO' ~ ~ ~cf><~' ife'o Ol ~o \\U'Q \. "",,\0,':,,;..... 'S >J.o~\O'" ~~<.~\..o'{>l\<."'~ """" """," ~V'~\'i\..;.Q\"'''' ~<.fJ ... ,,^.'" 'i'.... " -a, c:,e~~e "rr-a,'I.'(Ie~ l' 00''' \. a' <>>' . .,r,."'''' G. " ...'" ." "..' ,,~ .'",.", · <"".,ft ~\ '" ,,,,"" O' 0"'-" 0 ,0 "" " .,.,..." ' , 9, "" '.. <,,'"" QW<>"'" ~ ~""",,,, ",.,,,,,,, -' ,o'/' ~(<f1'" ,~"" 01'" , -.,,,, """ \Jf".o.e~ 'I.'(\e 1 ']..r:fJ'6,-a, ']... f".'I.\\ [>.'J~'Js'l. ' oo~e~s 'J ,-"ef".'I'J ,. ",,\\~\-a,{f". " c'Js'l.oo.'l ' . o.e~\O'leo.. . " 'I.'(\e~\S df".'I.\\ ,I> ",,\\\\-a,{f". v 'I. se~'l.e'l' 'l.oo.'l 0' ~ -a,'00'J 'f". c'Js 0. of". 0 >'" '1.0 ~e'@.\ .oe~\o'le 'Il-a,f".v-' . \ 'Oe ~e rr-a,'I.'(Ie~ 'r-.e 'Il\~\ e~\O~s, 'I.'r-.-a,'I. '(\\s s'J~ ,",e~ 'Oe~\e>Jec:, A-a,'l.e'IO{f". rr-a,'I.\' . r- 0' 'I.'(\e v (J,. ~\1{f".1>'I.\0 e'" f".o'l. '(\1>>Je cof". 'O'J'I. 'r-.e 0.0 3. 5. Although the parties privately have discussed extending Father's custody period, they have not been able to reach an accord. 6. By faxed letter dated August 1. 2005, Father's counsel requested that Mother's counsel concur in the extension.1 7. Counsel has not received a response. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that the court enter an order extending Plaintiff's period of custody until he is re-deployed. L~ Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court #46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: August 2. 2005 1 The delay in filing this motion is attributable solely to counsel's calendar. Counsel was away from June 30 until July 5 and from July 8 until July 25. During the week of July 25, counsel had full-day hearings on the 27th and the 29th and a half-day hearing on the 28th. Additionally, Father had hoped that he could resolve this without the need for intervention by counselor the court. 2 VERIACATlON I verify thzlt lt1e statemerlts made In the fOl"9lOln. doCUll'Klnt are w. and correct. I undntend that fa/8e etatements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, c.s. ~ 4904, relatin. to unsworn falsification to lIutholitlee. (~C/!'____ WilRam G. Rag... Date:~ j~tA.CI- PCbS PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving 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 fax and first-class mail addressed as follows: Dirk Berry, Esquire 44 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 L~k Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: August 2, 2005 ~ ~ () "fl ::;:J f,'1 ~ , N - S- \ - -,'" ..) , Gi G C;:) ~ ~ - v \ ;y ~ WILLIAM G. ROGERS, PLAINTIFF V. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 03-4432 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ day of August, 2005, the within motion IS DENIED. If the parties cannot agree, the court will entertain consideration of a motion for an additional period of custody with the father closer to the time he is expected to deploy. ~resa Barrett Male, Esquire For William G. Rogers ~ Berry, Esquire For Christina R. Rogers :sal By theS;cOOrt, ~ Edgar B. Bayley, J. ...., ,. o <'\1 I c.~ :':) "'-''-!;' w~, L-5 ~-'> <'"" <::;:) ;:::: '- v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. (n...... 1~'1~1- CIVil TERM WilLIAM G. ROGERS, Plaintiff/Petitioner CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DefendantlRespondant : CIVil ACTION - lAW : IN CUSTODY MOTHER'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTlIR TO FATHER'S PETITION TO EXTEND CUSTODY PERIOD AND NOW, comes Christina Rogers, by her attoml:y, Dirk E. Berry, Esquire, and respectfully avers as follows: 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted upon information and belief. 5. Denied. The parties have not discussed, nor has Mother agreed to, any modifications to the most recent Order dated July 8, 2005. 6. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that Father's counsel made the indicated request. It is denied that Mother concurs, as may be inferred from the wording of this paragraph. Mother does not concur with Father's request and seeks only to enjoy her portion of custody as awarded to her under the, current Order. 7. Admitted. Father's counsel faxed Father's request on August 1, 2005 and filed on August 2,2005. Mother's counsel was in Philadelphia on August 1, 2005. Mother's counsel contacted Mother on August 2, 2005 and Father's counsel filed before Mother's response was confirmed by undersigned counsel. WHEREFORE, Mother respectfully requests that Father's Petition to Extend Custody Period be DENIED. NEW MATTER. ATTORNEY'S FEES 8. Paragraphs 1 through 7 are hereby incorporated as if set forth fully herein. 9. Father's actions have manifested apattem of first enjoying his court- ordered custody period and then moving or petitioning to mduce or eliminate Mother's corresponding custody period. 10. Father has twice litigated the same issues, that are in the instant petition, in the last ten (10) months, before this Honorable Court, the most recent Order from which is dated July 8, 2005. 11. Father's overly litigious actions have become burdensome and vexatious. 12. Father's actions have forced Mother to inc\IJr additional attorney's fees and costs that would not be necessary but for Father re-litigating issues that have been recently heard and decided by this Honorable Court. WHEREFORE, Mother, Christina Rogers, respectfully requests this Honorable Court award appropriate attorney's fees and costs to Mother. ~i~ Dirk E. Berry, Esquire Attorney for Mother 44 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-4448 --- VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Answer with New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. S 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Quq. ~ 02fJOS Date tJ ~ WILLIAM G. ROGERS, PlaintifflPetitioner : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 99- 13'14 CIVIL TERM CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, Defendant/Respondant : CIVIL ACTIONI . LAW : IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dirk E. Berry, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this day Mother's Answer with New Matter to Father's Motion to Extend Custody Period was served by first class mail, postage pre-paid upon the following person: Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 17101 Date: 2- 'i-oS- Ll~jy ~ Dirk E. Berry, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner 44 S. Hanover St. Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-4448 (~ \.0 f',,_) (,~,j ~., c.::) ,..~} , n 1~ C '"~. :, () .J "'J ~:~g ':J (~_, I ~-'~ ~~~ WILLIAM G. ROGERS, PlaintifflPetitioner : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PlEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYlVANIA v. : NO. 03 - 4432 CIVIL TERM CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DefendantJRespondant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF A CUSTODY OR PARTIAL CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW comes Christina Rogers, natural mother of the subject child, by her attorney, Dirk E. Berry, Esquire, and respectfully avers as follows: 1. The petition of Christina Rogers respectfully represents that on November 9,2004, an Order of Court was entered, modified by Orders of Court dated July 8, 2005 and August 2, 2005, for Physical and Legal Custody, true and correct copies of which are attached. 2. This Order should be modified because: a. Father appears to have separated from Maggie Rogers. Court-ordered custody resident in Maggie Rogers, who is not biologically related to the child, is no longer appropriate. b. Father's duty station status and potential continued employment with the U.S. Army has made the previously ordered transportation and exchange point provisions impractical. Father had previously assured This Honorable Cowt that he would leave the u.s. Army and therefore, additional transportation requirements necessitated by Father's voluntary decision to re-enlist should become father's responsibility. c. The parties have reached some agreements and desire to have such agreements made a part of the Custody Order, to wit: (1) Mother will continue to enjoy Primary Physical Custody (2) Father will enjoy periods of Partial Physical Custody every other major holiday period and for most of the child's summer vacation. WHEREFORE, Petitioner, Christina Rogers, respectfully requests this Honorable Court modify the existing Order for primary physical or partial physical custody of the child, William Henry Rogers, because it will be in the best interest of the child. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF DIRK BERRY, ESQ. p)0 Dirk E. Berry, Esquire Attorney for PlaintiffIPetitioner 44 S. Hanover St. Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-4448 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ~ 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. / / /C}?l/cYOO~ I I Date (O/(p/lJ;~~ Christina R. Rogers WILLIAM G. ROGERS, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT 03-4432 CIVIL TERM AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT CN1- day of November, 2004, following a hearing on , the merits, IT IS ORDERED: (1) All prior custody orders are vacated and replaced with this order. (2) William G. Rogers and Christina R. Rogers shall have shared legal custody of William Henry Rogers, born April 12, 2001. (3) The parents shall have shared physical custody of William on the following schedule until William starts kindergarten: a. The father shall have William from November 9, 2004 until Sunday, December 26, 2004. b. The mother shall have William until Sunday, February 20, 2005. c. The father shall have William until Sunday, April 17 , 2005. d. The mother shall have William until Sunday, June 12, 2005. e. The father shall have William until Sunday, August 7,2005 f. The mother shall have William until Sunday, October 2, 2005. g. The father shall have William until Sunday November 1~, 2005. h. The mother shall have William until Monday, December 26', 2005. I. The father shall have William until Sunday, February 19, 2006. J. The mother shall have William until Sunday, April 16, 2006. k. The father shall have William until Sunday, June 11, 2006. I. The mother shall have William until Sunday, August 6, 2006. (4) Unless the mother and father agree to amend this order so that William can attend kindergarten from one of their homes, a petition seeking a further hearing shall be filed by either parent not later than June 12, 2006. A hearing will then be scheduled, without referring the case back to conciliation, to establish a custodial arrangement consistence with William attending kindergarten. (5) All transfers shall take place at 3:00 p.m., in Huntington, West Virginia. The parents shall talk by telephone on the day prior to all transfers in order to confirm arrangements. The parents shall carry cell phones on the day of the transfers so that they may be in contact in case of unforeseen circumstances. (6) If the father is deployed militarily, the mother shall have temporary physical custody of William during such deployment. (7) During the periods in which William is with one parent that parent shall make arrangements for William to talk by telephone with the other parent twice per week. /~ // /1 B.y..t.~e"court, 4./ /../// / < '(/ , '... "4.. ANA Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire F or William G. Rogers ( Dirk Berry, Esquire For Christina R. Rogers :sal ~';-..~ U"'" COr-.-y FT:f'H ~Ef"'w~~:' ,-; ,- t t' ".>......:\'.,.. "....\.. " ... 'rnonY\I:.,~er9f.;~,e"'::L\'''''''' -", "~-._ .' - ~ - oJ seal cf ~"'ai...1 c}, ~ 2' .: Ii:::,.,... >'nq,,~,_~];~( n~"\: X~71...ilimJJ.M 'P';Jh~;:>.. : WILLIAM G. ROGERS, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLI;AS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT 03-4432 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY BEFORE BAYLEY. J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~day of July, 2005, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The provision in the order of November 9, 2004, providing that "if the father is deployed militarily, the mother shall have temporary physical custody of William during such deployment," IS VACATED. (2) The order of November 9, 2004, is amended to add the following provisions: (a) Commencing on any date the father leaves for Iraq, until he returns, the mother shall have physical custody of William Rogers, born April 12, 2001. (b) During such period, Maggie Rogers shall have William: (i) From Tuesday, December 27, 2005, until Saturday, January 7, 2006. (ii) From Saturday, April 15, 2006, until Saturday, April'29, 2006. (iii) From Saturday, July 1, 2006, until Saturday, July 15, 2006. (3) All exchanges shall occur in Huntington, West Virginia. (4) During any time that the father is overseas, the mother shall always have 03-4432 CIVIL TERM William talk to him when he calls, and shall immediately respond with substance to his emails. ./ Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire For William G. Rogers Dirk Berry, Esquire F or Christina R. Rogers :sal Tf:~!!t: rrv;.'1".! FRoM .RECCr-1U , \ ...) 1_ ;I..JI'J I I , tn T~timony w06r~, I her: UnlD s...~ my MOO and ti'nl ~ _ saki ~ at Gal tisid1 Pi. T.~~ ~ ~ 1~~ ~.~~. ~ I ProttloootBN -2- WILLIAM G. ROGERS, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT 03-4432 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY BEFORE BAYLEY, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., July 8, 2005:-- William Rogers, age 24, and Christina Rogers, age 24, are the parents of William Henry Rogers, age 4, born April 12, 2001. They were married on September 18, 2000. They separated in January, 2003, and divorced in April, 2004. The father is remarried and lives with his wife Maggie, in Clarksville, Tennessee. He is a United States Army Sergeant in the 101 st Airborne Division at nearby Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. The mother lives in Carlisle, Cumberland County. She works in a restaurant, generally Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. This was her second marriage. She has a six-year-old son, Colton, to her first husband who is in the United States Army and stationed at Ft. Drum, New York.1 William Rogers was stationed in Iraq from February, 2003 until February, 2004. 1 Colton's father is going to be assigned to Iraq around the end of the summer. Right now, Colton sees his father when the father comes to Carlisle. 03-4432 CIVIL TERM Just before his deployment he and the mother, who had been living in Clarksville, separated. She returned to Carlisle where her mother lives. When the father returned from Iraq, he and the mother could not agree on a custody schedule for William. A temporary order was entered on February 25, 2004, providing the father with extended time with his son in Tennessee. Following a full custody hearing, an order was entered .' on November 9, 2004, providing the parents with shared legal custody of William, and equal shared physical custody alternating in two month segments. Custodial exchanges are made in Huntington, West Virginia. Each parent continues to have William pursuant to this order. The father is again going to be assigned to Iraq near the end of this summer or the beginning of fal1.2 The order of November 9,2004, provided that "if the father is deployed militarily, the mother shall have temporary physical custody of William during such deployment." The father now seeks to change the provision so that while he is in Iraq, his wife can continue to have William on the current alternating two-month schedule. Maggie is a substitute school teacher. She is seeking a full-time position for -the 2005-2006 school year, although she will continue to substitute if unable to obtain such a position. The father's parents and other members of his family live approximately a five hour drive south of Clarksville. During each of the father's periods of temporary physical custody with William, he and his wife have taken him to visit his 2 The father's Army commitment ends on October 31, 2007. He intends to leave the Army at that time. -2- 03-4432 CIVIL TERM parents and other family members two times. Maggie intends to continue such visits if William is with her. When working, she intends to place William in daycare in Clarksville, in the same facility where the father placed William when they were both working during his periods of temporary physical custody. After a review of all of the evidence, including the testimony of an evaluator retained by the father, Deborah L. Salem, the Clinical Director of Interworks in Harrisburg, we are satisfied that William has developed a close relationship with his step-mother. William is a happy, thriving child when he is with his mother and his father and step-mother. The father had considerable difficulty getting information about William from the mother during his previous assignment to Iraq. The mother attributes that to hard feelings resulting from their then recent breakup. She testified that her conduct will be different during his next tour. The father seeks consistency for William when he is again deployed to Iraq. He fears that William will feel abandoned if he loses contact with his family. The mother, while not objecting to limited periods for William to be with Maggie, objects to her having equal shared physical custody. A custody order is modifiable without proof of a substantial change in circumstances where such modification is in the best interest of the child. McMillen v. McMillen, 529 Pa. 198 (1992). The paramount consideration in a custody dispute is the best interest of the child. Jackson v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2004). This requires consideration of those factors which "legitimately affect the child's physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being." Kirkendall v. Kirkendall, 844 A.2d 1261 -3- 03-4432 CIVIL TERM (Pa. Super. 2004). The phrase "in loco parentis" refers to a person in the situation of a lawful parent who assumes the obligations incident to the parental relationship without going through the formality of a legal adoption. Commonwealth ex reI. Morgan v. Smith, 429 Pa. 561 (1968). The status of in loco parentis embodies two ideas; first, the assumption of a parental status, and, second, the discharge of parental duties. Id. The rights and liabilities arising out of an in loco parentis relationship are, as the words imply, exactly the same as between parent and child. Spells v. Spells, 250 Pa. Super. 168 (1977); T.B. v. L.R.M., 567 Pa. 222 (2001). As set forth in Spells, the in loco parentis basis for standing recognizes that the need to guard the family from intrusions by third parties and to protect the rights of the natural parent must be tempered by the paramount need to protect the child's best interest. Thus, while it is presumed that a child's best interest is served by maintaining the family's privacy and autonomy, that presumption must give way where the child has established strong psychological bonds with a person who, although not a biological parent, has lived with the child and provided care, nurture, and affection, assuming in the child's eye a stature like that of a parent. Where such a relationship is shown, our courts recognize that the child's best interest requires that the third party be granted standing so as to have the opportunity to litigate fully the issue of whether that relationship should be maintained even over a natural parent's objections. Where a petitioner who is not biologically related to the child but has established a parent-like relationship with the child seeks not to supplant the natural parent, but only to maintain his relationship with the child through -4- 03-4432 CIVIL TERM reasonable visitation or partial custody, the burden to establish standing is easier to meet. J.A.L. v. E.P.H., 682 A.2d 1314 (Pa. Super. 1996). Neither counsel nor this court have located a case in Pennsylvania granting a step-parent shared physical custody when a parent with custodial rights is away for a substantial period of time. We do not believe that equal shared custody between the mother and Maggie, who only came into William's life in February, 2004, is warranted. However, some continuity with the father's family is reasonable while he serves another year in Iraq. Accordingly, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ day of July, 2005, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The provision in the order of November 9, 2004, providing that "if the father is deployed militarily, the mother shall have temporary physical custody of William during such deployment," IS VACATED. (2) The order of November 9, 2004, is amended to add the following provisions: (a) Commencing on any date the father leaves for Iraq, until he returns, the mother shall have physical custody of William Rogers, born April 12, 2001. (b) During such period, Maggie Rogers shall have William: (i) From Tuesday, December 27,2005, until Saturday, January 7, 2006. (ii) From Saturday, April 15, 2006, until Saturday, April 29,2006. (iii) From Saturday, July 1,2006, until Saturday, July 15, 2006. -5- 03-4432 CIVIL TERM (3) All exchanges shall occur in Huntington, West Virginia. (4) During any time that the father is overseas, the mother shall always have William talk to him when he calls, and shall immediately respond with substance to his emails. .--------.~. _.~ . /. .- .-- v./ .,... "r;'" ,...,,, By t~t? Court, /:::~../ ~'.", / /'// /. . ~~~' Edgar B. Bayley, J. I ! Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire For William G. Rogers ) Dirk Berry, Esquire For Christina R. Rogers :sal -6- " WILLIAM G. ROGERS, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CHRISTINA R. ROGERS, DEFENDANT 03-4432 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ day of August, 2005, the within motion IS DENIED. If the parties cannot agree, the court will entertain consideration of a motion for an additional period of custody with the father closer to the time he is expected to deploy. By the GotlrC .,/ Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire For William G. Rogers Dirk Berry, Esquire For Christina R. Rogers :sal .. Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 tbm@tbmesquire.com Counsel for Plaintiff {~~ ( ~:> :.:'__J .::) ~~'\ ~ -n - , : -._! .' 1;=-:';; L .I COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANfA' I' ...-,:-~ WILLIAM G. ROGERS Plaintiff .', ; ( -:..' v. NO. 03-5532 Civil CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND CUSTODY PERIOD PENDING RE-DEPLOYMENT TO IRAQ 1. Plaintiff William G. Rogers ("Father"), a sergeant with the United States Army 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), is re-deploying to Iraq. 2. Under the terms of the November 9, 2004 custody order, Father has custody of William Henry Rogers until August 7, 2005, at which time William will return to Defendant's custody. 3. Father wants to retain custody of William until Father is deployed. 4. Father believes that he will be re-deployed on or about September 25, 2005, but he does not have confirmation of the date from his superiors. 5. Although the parties privately have discussed extending Father's custody period, they have not been able to reach an accord. 6. By faxed letter dated August 1, 2005, Father's counsel requested that Mother's counsel concur in the extension.1 7. Counsel has not received a response. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that the court enter an order extending Plaintiff's period of custody until he is re-deployed. L~4~ Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court #46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: August 2, 2005 1 The delay in filing this motion is attributable solely to counsel's calendar. Counsel was away from June 30 until July 5 and from July 8 until July 25. During the week of July 25, counsel had full-day hearings on the 27th and the 29th and a half-day hearing on the 28th. Additionally, Father had hoped that he could resolve this without the need for intervention by counselor the court. 2 VERIFICATION I verify ttmt the statements made .In the 1orqolnl docurMnt are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penzdties of 18 PalOS. ~ 4904, relating to unsworn falslflcation to authorities. ('~C~ William G. Rogers Date;~ )t-ytA cl-- PCbS PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving 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 fax and first-class mail addressed as follows: Dirk Berry, Esquire 44 South Ha nover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 LL~hte- Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: August 2, 2005 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ -... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \N ~ r-:> .C:::3 o -n --1 m~ ''"71 -. J (-.::'~~ c.:;;:"'," c:J !"':.."~ . . I C) VI ...,.~) ~'. ,. ~.- ~';-T~ c.,) ::~;; :'n -< C::'l \.00 Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 tbm@tbmesquire.com Petitioner COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM G. ROGERS Plaintiff v. NO. 03-4432 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY PETITION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 1. Plaintiff retained Petitioner to represent him in this action. 2. Plaintiff has not responded to Petitioner's recent attempts to contact him. 3. Defendant's counsel concurs with this petition. A copy of counsel's letter is attached as Exhibit 1. Wherefore, Petitioner respectfully requests the court to grant this Petition to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. . Date: December 14,2006 Respectfully Submitted, !lu~ ~);rd~ Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Petitioner 2 . Exhibit 1 12/15/2005 14:55 717-243-1447 ATTORNEY DIRK BERRY PAGE 01/01 The LAW OFFICE of DIRK BERRY~ Esq.. ~~@~Oill~\m 100 DEe 1 5 2006 ~ 44 s. Hanover St. Carlisle, P A 17013 By Ph: (71'> 2434448 Fu: (717) 243-144'7 December 15,2006 Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 By Fax: 23~()2 RE: Rogers v. Rogers; Docket No. 03-4432 In Custody; Dear Attorney Male, Please allow this to confirm that I will concur in your motion to withdraw. III accordance with your stated position, I am sending service of my client's petition to both your office and directly to Mr. William Rogers at his Woodlawn, Tennessee address. Sincerely yours~ LAW OFFICE OF DIRK BERRY, ESQ. jrMP ___/ ~. Berry, Esq. cc: Christina Rogers PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving 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: Dirk Berry, Esquire 44 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant Sgt. William G. Rogers c/o Claudia Rogers 1408 Henderson Ridge Olive Hill, KY 41164 Plaintiff L~~ , Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 233-3220 Petitioner Date: December lh ,2006 o .. ' ... DEe 19 2006 fY/1 Theresa Barrett Male Supreme Court # 46439 513 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 tbm@tbmesquire.com Petitioner COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM G. ROGERS Plaintiffs v. NO. 03-4432 Civil Term CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, December ---1.1.-, 2006, the Court GRANTS Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire, leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff in this proceeding. BY THE COURT: , ' , 7' r-- ........... .. 12/19/2005 10:15 .. 'I 1:1 ;1 ~ ! 0000000000 PAGE 04 ii DEBORA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plai off : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. I!~ : CIVIL ACTION. LAW ~ : NO. 04.614 CIVIL TERM CASSIUS .::MULLEN, : De~ :: dant : IN DIVORCE I 1" FIDA VIr OF CONSENT AND WAIVER OF NOTICE ,I OF INTENTION TO REQUEST ENTRY OF A ~. i., DIVORCE DECREE UNDER S3301(c) !; OF THE DIVORCE CODE :\ COMMO I ALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) ;1 i ) SS: COUNTY.FCUMBERLAND ) 1. I A C " plaint in Divorce under ~3301(c) oflhe Divorce Code with Notice of Ii Availabili !' fCounseling was filed on February 12,2004, and served on February 12, :j I " ;1 The', an-iage of Plaintiff and Defendant is irretrievably broken and ninety (90) :i days have I;. psed from the date of filing an: ~ervice of the Complaint. " ;' .I co : ent to the entry of a Final Decree of Divorce without notice. 2. 2004. 4, I un . rstand that I may lose rights concerning alimony, division of property, " lawyer's fe l or expenses jf I do not claim them belore a divorce is granted. J. 12/19/2005 .. 10:15 III 101 I, II I ~.' " ;. BBBBEl000elEl PAGE 05 5, I un rstand that I will not be divorced untiJ a Divorce Decree is entered by the Court and tit a copy of the Decree will be sent to me immediately after it is filed with i the Protho. tary. i: 6. I ha been advised of the availability of marriage counseling and of my right to counseling ld understand that 1 may request that the Court require that my spouse and I participate counseling. 1:1 . ! 7. . rstand that the Court maintains a list of malTiage counselors in the Domestic 1 Relations . flee, which list is available to me upon request. 8. Bei so advised, { do not request that the Court require that my spouse and I i participate' .' counseling prior to a Divorce Decree's being handed down by the Court. 9. 1 ve : Y that the statements made in this Affidavit are true and correct. I at false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. '. 94904 rela : g to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: /) [ M 1A /}, / It. /J/J J '\~m L' ~.}~/1, i~JJ&{!T / Deborah L. Mullen 1,9. - /9 - c:2 ooG 12!l~/20El5 WAYNE F. SHADE Allomcy ~tl.~w n W"~l POl,,'",1 Street C.rli~le. PennsylvlInia 170IJ ElOElElEl0El0El0 PAGE 01 i ! !l DE~! RAH L. MULLEN, I i., Plaintiff :! :1 v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 04-614 CIVIL TERM CA IUS J. MULLEN, ; Defendant : IN DIVORCE II \ i AFFIDA VII OF CONSENT AND WAIVER OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REQlJEST ENTRY OF A DIVORCE DECRl~E UNDER ~3301(c) OF THE DIVORCE CODE II !: co . ONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA) ) SS: ) co TY OF CUMBERLAND 1. i: A Complaint in Divorce under ~3301 (c) of the Divorce Code with Notice of A va , bility of Counseling was filed on February 12, 2004, and served on February J 2, 200 2. II i, The marriage of Plaintiff and Defendant is irretrievably broken and ninety (90) II I' day . aye elapsed from the date of filing and sen'ice of the Complaint. j I ! 3. !I 'II consent to the entl)l of a Final Decree of Divorce without notice. II 12/19/20BG 10:1~ 00B0EH3B000 PAGE 02 WAYNE F. SHADE A 1I0Tncly 3\ L3W ~) W~~l Pumf,tl SltUl Curli.lc, Pcnnsylvan.. 17013 4. I understand that I may lose rights concerning alimony, division of property, la . 's fees or expenses if I do not claim them before a divorce is granted. 5. i! I understand that I will not be divorced until a Divorce Decree is entered by the I Cou t and that a copy of the Decree will be sent to me immediately after it is filed with I , i the ' othonotary . 6. I have been advised of the availability of marriage counseling and of my right to COll ': eling and understand that I may request that the Court require that my spouse and I I I part . 'pate in counseling. 7. I understand that the Court maintains a list of marriage counselors in the Domestic Rel1 (ns Office, which list is available to me upon request. : 8. I il Being so advised, I do not request that the Court require that my spouse and I part ~ ipate in counseling prior to a Divorce Decree's being handed down by the Court. i 1\ ~ I 12/19/2005 10:15 ~ : f j- WAYNF.. F. S~ADE AIl<.lrllcy t\l Law SJ West Pumt",cI Strecl (;arl,))c. P~t)"syl"lI.t)iA 1701~ 0000081313130 Ii! I:' 9. PAGE 03 I und ,stand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C-S. I verify that the statements made in this Affidavit are true and correct. I 949 : relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I. Oat;: I ,;-1, q! 0 (., (filii Cassius J. Mullen I: I I I: " I Iii I:' ld I" ~ I Ii i' ;1 :1 WILLIAM G. ROGERS PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. 03-4432 CIVIL ACTION LAW CHRISTINA R. ROGERS DEFENDANT IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Wednesday, December 27, 2006 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa P. Greevy, Esq. , the conciliator, at MDJ Manlove, 1901 State St., Camp HilI, PA 17011 on Friday, January 26, 2007 at 9:00 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. 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 hearinl!;. FOR THE COURT. By: Isl Melissa P. Greevy, Esq. . 11~ Custody Conciliator ~ The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR A TTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HA VE 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 ~ ~-4-~ W-J{'-1':t ~ fp-t-R?f '~ Y '? ~ ~JL. -')<J-)e-el ~ p 'Z ~ ~tl-P; ~.ae.el 60 :2 l!d 82 :l3D SDUZ FEB 0 1ZOO7 ~ WILLIAM G. ROGERS Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 03-4432 CIVIL ACTION LAW CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant IN CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF William Henry Rogers April 12, 2001 Mother 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on January 26, 2007, with the following individuals in attendance: the Mother, Christina R. Rogers, with her counsel, Dirk E. Berry. The Father, William G. Rogers, who is stationed in the military in Tennessee, participated in the conference by telephone. 3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. ~~ <3-9, ~c>7 Date J ~J~ Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire 0--- Custody Conciliator mOJ2007t 10- WILLIAM G. ROGERS Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 03-4432 CIVIL ACTION LAW CHRISTINA R. ROGERS Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this -)" day of ~~ , 2006, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The prior Orders of this Court dated November 9,2004, July 8,2005 and August 2, 2005 are vacated and replaced with this Order. 2. The Father, William G. Rogers, and the Mother, Christina R. Rogers, shall have shared legal custody of William Henry Rogers, born April 12, 2001. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, 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. Each parent shall be entitled to have equal access to all records and information pertaining to the Child including, but not limited to, school and medical records and information. 3. The Mother shall have primary physical custody of the Child. 4. The Father shall have partial physical custody of the Child during the summer school break each year, beginning on the first weekend following the last day of school and ending two weekends before the beginning of the new school year. 5. The parties shall alternate having custody of the Child on holidays. In years when the Father does not have custody on the day of the holiday, the parties shall cooperate to schedule a period of custody for the Father either preceding or following the holiday. 6. Unless otherwise agreed between the parties, all exchanges of custody shall take place at the Cracker Barrel restaurant in Fairmont, West Virginia at 12:00 noon. 7. Neither party shall do or say anything which may estrange the Child from the other parent, injure the opinion of the Child as to the other parent, or hamper the free and natural development of the Child's love and respect for the other parent. Both parties shall ensure that third parties having contact with the Child comply with this provision. 8. This Order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at 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. cc: ,;Villiam G. Rogers - Father J1Gk E. Berry, Esquire - Counsel for Mother ,'"'., ,.r'.'<.~~\("'.(~ 0.1 t-\ x-',J'> ; '"",,\'" ,...,--' \,,,V \: \U-:.;-,.....--^" r"; \ \ ~\l\ \ Or \~:r. \l~"'\ \' , .-,.., 1.~1\1 fe.1I - S \,\'1 3: '2.11 CIJ\J'\X '. _:; He~\\<';-1 , " .', Ie, ,- ': \ ., .." , ...\. " '(t:\ 'l\ .".i' ...."