Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondance CALDWELL ~, KEARNS a PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CARL G, WASS ATTORNEYS AT LAW. oF COUNSEL JAMES R, CLIPPINGER RICHARD L, KEARNS CHARLES J. D£HART, III JAMES D, CAMPBELL, JR. 3631 NORTH FRONT STREET THOMAS D. CALDW£LL. JR. JAMES L. GOLDSMITH HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17110-1533 (ig:~8-;~OOl) STANLEY J. A. LASKOWSKI JEFFREY T. MCGUIRE' DOUGLAS K. MARSICO BRETT M. WOODBURN DOUGLAS E. HERMAN RAY J..ICHALOWSKI · ALSO ^ .E.SER Or .J 8^R May 23, 2002 ~AX: thefirmOcaldwellkearns.com Richard C. Rupp, Esquire RUPP AND MEIKLE P.O. Box 395 Camp Hill, PA 17001-0395 Re: Access visit - Mildred Gerber - May 31 Dear Richard: Regrettably, your client has canceled Marilyn's visits for both May 21 and 26, without justification. My client bears the burden of traveling a great distance and at substantial expense to be able to have a short visit with her mother. As the last two visits have been canceled, Marilyn is next available on May 31, 2002 from I p.m. to 5 p.m. (CDT) for a visit with Mildred. I have explained previously that conducting these visits between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. are not acceptable or feasible for Marilyn due to her work schedule and travel needs. On the other hand, you have yet to offer any explanation as to why the visits must occur only during this time period (or for that matter must exclude Tuesdays and Thursdays). Please confirm that your client will comply with the next requested visit of May 31, 2002 (lp.m. - 5 p.m. CDT) and do so sooner than the eve of the visit as has been done for prior requests. V~ery~-u:l.y yours.' ~_ Stanley J.A(. Laskowski CALDWELL & KEARNS SJAL:sl cc: Marilyn J. Gerber Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail 01-607 FROM : Rupp & Meikle FAX NO. : 730 0214 MaW. 21 2002 09:31AM P1 LAW OFFICES RUPP AND MEIKLE A PRO~EI)8IONA. L. (]ORPO~.ATION ~e~BE~r ~. R~V, ~. CAMP HILL, PA 17011 ~0 ~DD~ss A~ MEIK~ ERIK~ON (1954-82) ~-MAIL: R~PLAWI~AOL.COM C~P ~L, PA 1{~1-~95 May 21,2002 VIA FAX - 232-2766 Stanley J. Laskowski, Esquire Caldwell & Keams 3631N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Re: Marilyn Gerber - Mildred Gerber access visits Dear Stan: i wrote you yesterday by fax in error. ! misunderstood the Guardian's message to me. The Guardian did not set up for any access visit today, May 21, based on our previous communications to you that mom would be unavailable for access visits on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Further, all other access visits would occur from 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. CDT, unless otherwise mutually agreed by both parties. I attempted to call you upon learning of my error before 6:00 p.m. yesterday, May 20, with the correct message, but i could only leave a message on your voice mail system. I very much regret this error in communication ' ' RCR/lin cc: Col. Frederick E. Gerber, Il, Guardian CALDWELL ~ KEARNS ' A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CARL G. WASS JAMES R. CLIPPINGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW of COUNSEL CHARLES J. D£HART. III RICHARD L. KEARNS JAMES D. CAMPBELL. JR. 3631 NORTH FRONT STREET THOMAS D. CALDWELL. JR~ JAMES L. GOLDSMITH HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17110-1533 .9za-ZO0. STANLEY J. A I LASKOWSKI JEFFREY T. MCGUIR[* DOUGLAS K. MARSICO ~IRETT 1,4. WOODBURN DOUGLAS E. HERMAN RAY J. NICHALOWSKI thefirmt}c~ldwellkearns.corn Richard C. Rupp, Esquire RUPP AND MEIKLE P.O. Box 395 Camp Hill, PA 17001-0395 Re: Access visits - Mildred Gerber - May 21 Dear Richard: I am in receipt of your fax this afternoon regarding tomorrow's access visit. I have again attempted to reach you by phone to discuss these matters without success. Marilyn can only be available I:00 - 5:00 p.m.(CDT) tomorrow due to her confirmed travel arrangements. As of this date I have not received from you any substantive response to my letters of May 3 and May 6, 2002. The activities in which Mildred participates tomorrow can be attended and supported by Marilyn, wherever they may be located. You have provided no basis to support otherwise and thus Mr. Gerber is in contempt of the court's order. In accordance with that order, Marilyn will be arriving at the Embassy Suites by 1:00 p.m. tomorrow. Please advise your client accordingly and if you have any questions, please contact me. Ve~'~Elyyours, (~ / Stanley J.A.t~{,askowski CALDWELL & KEARNS SJAL:sl cc: Marilyn J. Gerber Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail 01-607 CALDWEIL ~ KEARNS a PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CARL G. WASS ATTORNEYS AT LAW of COUNSEL JAMES R. CLIPPINGER RICHARD I. KEARNS CHARLES J. DEHARt. Ill JAMES D. CAMPBELL. JR, 3631 NORTH FRONT STREET THOMAS D, CALDWELL, JR, JAMES L. GOLDSMITH HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17110-1533 11928-2OOll STANLEY J, a. LASKOWSKI JEFFREY T. ~4cGUIREe DOUGLAS K. MARSICO BRETT M. WOODBURN DOUGLAS E. HERMAN RAY J. MICHALOWSKI May 6, 2002 FAX: 717-23~-~766 thefirm@caldwellkearns.com Richard C. Rupp, Esquire FACSIMILE - U.S. MAIL Rupp and Meikle P. O. Box 395 Camp Hill, PA 17011-0395 RE: Mildred J. Gerber Dear Richard: I am in receipt this afternoon by fax of your letter dated May 3, 2002. Your accusations and suppositiot~.s concerning Marilyn as stated therein are without merit and factual basis. For instance, Marilyn in fact was not in Chicago on Tuesday, April 30, but in Harrisburg. Your information is wholly unfounded and so is the alleged skepticism for unreasonably insisting on a visit to occur between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. (CDT) in Chicago. You have not provided any information regarding Mildred's alleged Alzheimer's activities, their location, nature and extent, type, time or the identity of the facility. Them are a variety of adult centers and facilities in the area where Mildred is staying that offer alzheimer's activities, mondays through fridays, generally 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., which offer flexible scheduling. Similarly, you have not provided any basis as to why Marilyn could not attend, assist or even just observe her mother's activities. Families of alzheimer's patients are encouraged to participate and share in such activities. I again note that Marilyn will support her mother's activities and will go tomorrow wherever they are to be held so that any cancellation by the guardian of either the visit or Mildred's activities is entirely unnecessary. Please confirm upon receipt of this letter whether a time conflict still exists for tomorrow's visit or if the guardian will not permit the visit to occur. As you have chosen apparently not to discuss these issues or provide basic information, we find your client's efforts disingenuous and obstructive to complying with the court order. I asked that you call me to discuss these matters in detail but to no avail. Unfortunately, it appears we will need to bring the timing and location issues in general to the court for a resolution unless you advise me promptly that your client is willing to reconsider his decision. Stanley J. AsVLaskowski CALDWEL'L & KEARNS SJAL:lb cc: Marilyn Jo Gerber CALDWELL ~: KEARNS A pROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OF COUNSEL CARL G. WASS ATTORNEYS AT LAW RICHARD L. KEARNS JAMES R. CLIPPINGER CHARLES J- D£HART. III 3631 NORTH FRONT STREET THOMAS D. CALDW[LL. JR. JAMES D. CAMPBELL. JR. JANES L. GOLDSMITH HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17110-1533 119z8- ZOOlJ STANLEY J- A. LASKOWSKI JEFFREY T. McGUIRE* DOUGLAS K. MARSICO BRETT N. WOODBURN OOUGL^S E..E.MA" May 3, 2002 RAY J. MICHALOWSKI FAX: 717-~:3Z-~:766 eALSO A MEMBER OF' NJ BAR thefirm~caldwellkeams.com Richard C. Rupp, Esquire Rupp and Meikle P. O. Box 395 Camp Hill, PA 17011-0395 RE: Mildred J. Gerber Dear Richard: I have endeavored on prior occasions to relate to you my client's abilities and limitations to be available for visits and traveling to the Chicago area, but sadly to no avail. My client and I are attempting to apprise you of available dates for visits as soon as they become known to Marilyn, and we shall continue to do so. Mafilyn testified at the hearings as you recall, at least in pail, concerning the nature of her employment. Shifts are assigned to her at times normally 10 to 14 days, for example, in advance. Marilyn surely would like to obtain a more firm work schedule for a month or greater period of time in advance; however, she has no control over doing so. When longer term arrangements are able to made by her employer with hospitals and care providers, perhaps longer term scheduling from Marilyn's shifts will be available. For example, Marilyn received only this morning her proposed work schedule for the remainder of May. Based on that schedule, I am reporting to you that she can be available and commit to visits with her mother on May 15, 21 and 26, 2002. Please confirm these dates with the guardian. As Mafilyn's shifts vary, it is difficult for purposes of timing, to arrange a period with appropriate travel to and from Chicago, particularly for single day travel. Multiple day travel is not feasible as it would conflict with such schedule. By the time Marilyn travels to the airport, completes her flight, passes through security at both ends, obtains transportation or rental of a car, and travel to the location for the visit, it is not reasonable or possible for her to arrive at the guardian's designated site before 1:00 p.m. Marilyn's visitation days with her mother, for example, are preceded and followed by an evening and/or night shift, which makes arranging travel difficult. Generally, therefore, visitation between 1:00 and 5:00 p.m. best accommodates the time when Marilyn can make herself available and travel to and from Chicago. As I explained to you previously, Mildred's schedule is more flexible under the circumstances due to her limited Richard C. Rupp, Esquire May 3, 2002 Page 2 abilities and activities. Therefore, we have offered and requested before that reconsideration be given by the guardian as to the physical arrangements made for the visit. Marilyn remains willing to go where her mother is located to provide minimal discomfort and disruption to her. Marilyn's attendance or even participation with her mother in her normal Alzheimer acitivities, for example, should pose no problem and lead to a more productive visit. My client as you should know is specifically trained and experienced in this type of care. I understand the Social Worker, Joan Jackson, which has been engaged by the guardian, would agree that the current isolated hotel arrangements are not optimal for Mildred's condition or conducting a reasonable visit as ordered by the Court. I understand that Mildred is saddened by the continued hostility and interference during visitations which is interjected against Marilyn and frustration is exhibited at the location chosen for those visits. More detail on Mildred's Alzheimer's activities is requested and would be greatly appreciated. We understand that a senior citizen center and her Alzheimer's activities may be available on any day. Allowing Marilyn to participate or at least attend such activities would provide a variety of contact, stimulation and social interaction for Mildred and foster overall a less stressful enviromnent than currently exists than a highly structured and supervised visitation in an isolated hotel room. We understand that Ms. Jackson would concur that interaction at the center would be beneficial to Mildred. Please confirm the arrangements and location for Marilyn's visit on May 7. Again this is needed to occur between 1:00 and 5:00 p.m. on this day. Also please confirm visitation for May 15, 21 and 26 from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. All times noted herein are CDT. I shall look forward to your response. If you have any questions or would like to discuss these matters in more detail, please call me. Very truly yours, CALDWELL & KEARNS SJAL:Ib FACSIMILE/U.S. MAIL cc: Marilyn Jo Gerber 33397/00-556 CALDWELL & KeARNS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CARL G. WA$S ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COUNSEL JAMES R. CLIPPINGER THOMAS D. CALDWELL, JR. RICHARD L. KEARNS CHARLES J. D£HART. III 3631 NORTH FRONT STREET JAMES D. CA,PBELL. JR. JAMES L. GOLDSMITH HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17110-1533 STANLEY J. A. LASKOWSKt JEFFREY T. McGUIRE' .OUGLAS ...ARs,co April 5, 2002 BRETT I.t. WOODBURN DOUGLAS E. HERMAN FAX: 717-:~32-2760 RAY U. MICHALOWSF, I theflrm~calctwellkeams.com 'ALSO A MEMBER OF NJ BAR Richard C. Rupp, Esquire RUPP AND MEIKLE P. O. Box 395 Camp Hill, PA 17011-0395 RE: Mildred J. Gerber Dear Richard: Thank you for your letter of April 4, 2002. I take your comments, however, as indicative of the disdain, contempt and disregard your client holds for Marilyn as well as the Order issued by Judge Bailey. The actions of he and Jane demonstrate that they indeed advocate their own interests above that of Mildred. ! further take exception with any accusation or imphcation that your client has been threatened or is acting under any duress to accommodate the visitation which the Court has ordered. A valid Court Order was issued by Judge Bailey in providing for minimal contact ultimately as a consequence of your client's steadfast refusal to accommodate any contact. Clearly the Court disagrees with his exercise of judgment and discretion in these matters. I look forward to your advising me today of the location of the visit for Sunday. Marilyn objects, however, to conducting the visit at another location other than Jane's home and certainly under any conditions and circumstances as were arranged for February 9. We ask that Mr. Gerber reconsider his decision in this matter. If the visit occurs Sunday at a location other than Jane's home, Mafilyn certainly will still attend, but under protest as this apparently will be the only circumstances under which it appears that Mr. Gerber will comply xvith the Court Order. Therefore, Marilyn's visit on Sunday under these circumstances is not to be deemed as a consent to the accommodations for this or future visits. We have concern over the location and accommodations to be arranged for this visit generally. Being in an unfamiliar environment does not promote a stress free atmosphere for Mrs. Gerber. It may tend to make her uncomfortable and detract from any communication between her and Mafilyn. Conducting the visit under conditions similar to Febn, ary 9 are unacceptable also. If the visit, for example, is confined to a small room, has no ability for Mrs. Gerber to be able to walk around, change locations, rest or nap, or even get something to eat or drink at her leisure, then the visit will be set up for failure as such conditions will lend itself to disorientation, confusion, fatigue and impatience by Mrs. Gerber. Such conditions will not be tolerated as an excuse to terminate or shorten the visit. Any efforts to persuade or impress upon Mrs. Gerber that these accommodations are caused by Richard C. Rupp, Esquire April 5, 2002 Page 2 Marilyn are wholly inappropriate as Marilyn is willing to go wherever her mother is staying and conduct herself appropriately. For the interest of all parties, and particularly Mrs. Gerber, it is in her best interest to be in at least the surroundings, i.e. Jane's home, with which she has some familiarity and is oriented. Longer term best interests and a proper care and treatment program for Mrs. Gerber would dictate that she be returned to her own New Cumberland home where she resided for 34 years, close to her friends and community, as well as closer to Mr. Gerber, whom I surmise has not seen her but perhaps once in the last three months. If I am not accurate concerning Mr. Gerber's visits with his mother, I would appreciate your updating me. Both Mr. Gerber and Ms. Herin have known full well that Marilyn has been seeking access visits with her mother. This was certainly known at some time when Mr. Gerber decided that Mrs. Gerber was to remain in Chicago. Originally as you recall, her visit to Chicago, according to Attorney Verney, was for merely a holiday visit. Mr. Gerber then is exercising his judgment apparently to allow Mrs. Gerber to stay in Jane's home. As such, this is Mrs. Gerber's location in accordance with the stated Court Order. Mrs. Gerber certainly still has some rights, desires and interests in establishing her own living environment. Over approximately the past 20 years prior to these proceedings, Marilyn has been a frequent visitor, including longer term stays, at Ms. Heflin's residences in Dallas, California and Chicago. Over approximately the last 12 years Marilyn has stayed at times in Lombard at Ms. Heflin's home and is familiar with its rooms, layout and facilities. We suggest that Mr. Gerber revisit this matter with Ms. Herin as to whether some other arrangement may be made for the four-hour visit. It is regrettable that Ms. Herin will not interact with Marilyn. For the best interests of Mrs. Gerber, Marilyn remains willing to work towards a resolution with Mr. Gerber and Ms. Herin of their differences. If you would like to discuss these matters further, please call me. ~t~:3~Ir~ ly yours, Stanley J.A. L~skowski CALDWELL & KEARNS SJAL/lb FACSIMIkE cc: Marilyn Jo Gerber 01-607/31435 CALDWELL ~, KEARNS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CARL G. WASS ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COUNSEL JANES R. CLIPPINGER THOMAS D. CALDWELL. JR. CHARLES J, DE. HART. III RICHARD L. KEARNS 3631 NORTH FRONT STREET JAMES D. CAMPBELL. JR. JANES L. GOLDSMITH HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17110-1533 STANLEY J. A. LASKOWSKI JEFFREY T. MCGUIREe DOUGLAS K. NARSICO BRETT M. WOODBURN 7'17-:33:~- 7~,61 DOUGLAS E. HERMAN FAX: 717-P'32-2766 RAY J. MICHALOWSKI thefirmOcaldwellkeams.com *ALSO A MEMBER OF NJ BAR April 4, 2002 Richard C. Rupp, Esquire RUPP AND MEIKLE P.O. Box 395 Camp Hill, PA 17001-0395 Re: Mildred Gerber Dear Richard: Thank you for your letter which you faxed to me yesterday. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the visits to occur on April 12 and 17. Please advise whether April 24 or 25 would be suitable. For each of these dates please confirm that they will be taking place where Mrs. Gerber is staying (Jane's home) and who will be present to implement them. I believe clarity in our communications as to these arrangements will be beneficial to all particularly upon consideration of the distance of travel involved for Marilyn. As to the April 7 visit and remaining matters noted in your letter, issues of access brought to the court on Marilyn's petition have been addressed and the record completed. This is noted in the Court's order of March 15, 2002. All of the past incidents to which you allude are refuted by Marilyn. The claims which you continue to attempt to reassert regarding Marilyn's prior alleged conduct are unfounded, particularly those concerning purported stalking and harassment. The testimony at the prior heatings clearly indicated that at no time did Marilyn cause physical harm to her mother in the care she was providing. I would concur that, given the condition of Mrs. Gerber that was observed at the March 21 heating, a stress free environment should be maintained as much a possible. We have concerns too, however, regarding Mr. Gerber's and Jane's continued preemptive confrontational nature with Marilyn, which was exhibited in the heatings and the February 9 visit, and its stressful effect upon Mrs. Gerber. I believe the Court order entered March 27, 2002 is clear that visits are to be allowed and when Marilyn can arrange to be available where her mother is located. Mrs. Gerber has been in Chicago for the past three months and we were informed at the March 21 heating that she would be returning to and remaining at Jane's home. Although Mr. Gerber may not be available on April 7, as Mrs. Gerber is presently at Jane's home and is being attended to by caregivers daily, Richard C. Rupp, Esquire April 4, 2002 Page 2 either Jane or such caregivers are available to implement a visit. I find from your response no impediment or basis not to implement a visit by Marilyn with her mother on April 7. Marilyn is available and has committed to arrangements to travel to Chicago for April 7. Please advise as to what arrangements yet otherwise need to be made as this was not elaborated upon in your reply. I communicated Marilyn's request to you promptly last week, as you noted, after entry of the Court's order. It appears that adequate notice has been afforded and therefore Marilyn respectfully declines to forego her visit on April 7. We will object strongly to a declination of a visit by Marilyn on April 7 based upon your reply. Please confirm by the end of the day whether Mr. Gerber will allow Sunday's visit. Please confirm who will be present to implement the visit so that Marilyn can make appropriate contact upon her arrival Sunday. If the visit will not be accommodated we have no alternative but to take the matter to the Court tomorrow accordingly. If you should have any questions, please call me. Otherwise, I shall look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, Stanley J.A. Laskowski SJAL:sl cc: Marilyn Gerber Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail FROM : Rupp & Meik]~ FAX NO. : ?50 0214 Aug. 06 2002 03:06PM P1 LAW OI~FICES RUPP AND MEIKLE · ~ Pno~sSiON~ co{~Po~.~o~ RIC~ao C. aUPe C~p HII.I., PA 17011 A~ ~l~ E~K~ (1~54-62) (TI~ 761-34~9 P,O. ~X ~ ~P~: (717) 7~214 August 6, 2002 VIA FAX - 232-2766 Stanley J. Laskowski, Esquire Caldweil & Kearns 3631N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Re: Marilyn Gerber - Access Visits with Mildred Gerber Dear Slam This letter will confirm my office's telephone message to your office yesterday, Monday, August 5, that the Guardian will allow an access visit between Marilyn and her mother on Wednesday, August 7, from 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. CDT if Marilyn insists on those times. We reiterate that the Guardian believes lhose limes may not be in the best interests of her mother for her health and well-being. However, if Marilyn insists on those times, the Guardian will allow the access visit at these times; in spite of the fact that there are planes that fly from Harrisburg to Chicago to permit an access visit beginning at 10:00 a.m. CDT. Furthermore, the Guardian has approved Marilyn's requested access visits for Wednesday, August 14, and Wednesday, August 21, also from 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. CDT if Marilyn insists on those hours, despite the potential detriment to her mother. The Guardian implements the following requirements for conduct of the access visit for these access visits and any further access visits: 1. The visits will be conducted whenever possible by a social worker or caretaker for the mother, Mildred J. Gerber, especially one trained in the care of elderly or geriatric patients, if available. .Rcf~ & Neikl~ FRX NO. : 738 8214 Rug. 86 2¢82 03:07Pr'1 P2 2. Mother's caretaker will be ultimately responsible for mother's health, well- being and mental state during the access visit. If at any time the caretaker observes displays of emotional upset, mental upset, frustration, agitation or anger in mother, the Guardian is authorizing the mother's caretaker to take a break during the access visit for the benefit of the mother. The Guardian will allow such a break to be at the complete and ultimate discretion of the caretaker. 3. The Guardian is suggesting to the caretaker that there be a 5 - 10 minute break every hour during the access visit. 4. The Guardian is suggesting to the caretaker that there may be a longer break needed for the benefit of the mother between the first half and the second half of the access vlsJt for the mother's benefit. Again, these breaks will be at the absolute discretion of the caret0ker who is assigned at that time to taking care of the mother and such discretion may not be questioned nor challenged, as said discretion is to be exercised solely for the benefit of the mother. 5. If the caretaker observes constant agitation in the mother which cannot be mitigated, mollified or corrected by the caretaker, including the use of break times, the caretaker will be authorlzed to termlnate the access visit for the health, mental and emotional well-being of the mother. 6. Questions concerning the mother should not be made by Marilyn to either the caretaker or any other person present during ~he access visit but should rather be placed into writing and sent to the Guardian. The purpose of these requirements is to protect and promote the best interests and welfare of the mother. Also, we note that certain questions by ~Aarilyn indicate that Marilyn believes that she is "super-Guardian" over and above the Court-appointed Guardian, her brolher. The Guardian will be happy to respond to appropriate questions which should no.t be raised durinq an access visit for the benefit and well-belng of the mather, but any inquiry should be directed Jn writing to the Guardian and will be promptly responded to. RCR/lin cc: Col. Frederick E. Gerber, II, Guardian F?OI~ : ~upp 8, l'leiklc FAX NO. : ?30 02~4 Rug. 87 2002 ~2:00PM P~ LAW OFFICES RUPP AND MEIKLE A ~'~O~ES$~O~,~L com~om~y~o~ mce. l~ c. ~ C~p ~, PA 17011 ~ MA~ ADD~88 (717) 761-34~0 P.O, ~X ~ Auou~t 7, 2002 VIA FAX - 232-2766 Stanley J. Laskowski, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns 3631N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 1 7110 Re: Marilyn Gerber- Access Visits with Mildred Gerber Clarification Dear Siam It has been brought to my attention that I should make a clarification to my letter dated August 6, 2002 to you regarding the August 7 access rules and the requirements that the Guardian is imposing for the proper conduct for the access visits between Marilyn Gerber and their mother, Mildred J. Gerber. The clarification is that the Guardian proposes to have a social worker conduct the access visit and be in charge of the access visit for the benefit, welfare and well- being of the parties' mother, Mildred J. Gerber. For example, if the Guardian employs Someone from Sanders & Warren, that social worker from Sanders & Warren will be in charge of the access visit and to see that it is properly conducted to both effectuate the access visit as well as promote and protect the health, mental and emotional well-being of Mildred J. Gerber. FRO~: R~upp ~ M~ikl~ FAX NO. : ?~0 0214 Aug. 07 2002 12:01PM P2 in my letter lo you, I meant to use the word caretaker or caregiver as a synonym to social worker. However, as Jane Gerber or others may be considered a caretaker or caregiver, as distlnguished from the social worker employed by Sanders & Warren or any other firm, I wish to clarify to you that the social worker from Sanders & Warren will be designated the party in charge of lhe access visit. I hope this clarification is helpful to you. Best regards. Yours sincerely, Richard C. Rupp RCR/lin cc: Col. Frederick E. Gerber, II, Guardian Sanders & Warren Ms. Jane Heflin