The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-0608STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. M_w CIVIL TERM : IN CUSTODY PRAECIPE Please register the Order of April 24, 2007 from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Clackamus, No. DR03 03721, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5445. The name and address of the person seeking registration is Stephanie Cornwall, 4236 Carlisle Road, Gardners, Pennsylvania, 17324. Th6 natural father of the child, and the only other party in interest, is George M. Cornwall, III, of 10 C Orange Street, Mount Holly Springs, Pennsylvania, 17065. Date: 1 - Q q-K)$ Respectfully submitted, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Es uire Attorney for Plaintiff GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5551 (800) 347-5552 VERIFICATION I verify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the Order of April 24, 2007 from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Clackamus, No. DR03 03721 is the most current Custody Order in existence that it has not been modified. I verify that the statements made in this and the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904. relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. DATE: ? - SfiE ANI .CORNWALL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 AZI f7 EN , Woo? IN THE CIRCUIT COU T OF THIMATE OY..OREGO FOR THE COUNTY OF CLACKAMAS Family Law Department In the Matter of the Marriage of: ) GEORGE MACKIE CORNWALL III, ) No. DR03 03721 Petitioner, ) SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT MODIFYING PARENTING TIME AND and ) CHILD SUPPORT ) STEPHANIE LYNN CORNWALL, ) Respondent. ) THIS MATTER came before the Honorable Steven L. Maurer on the 18`x' day of January, 2007 for hearing on the parties' respective motions; Petitioner appeared in person and by and through his attorney, Robert F. Demary; Respondent appeared by telephone and by and through her attorney Larry Jay Blake, Jr.; and the court being fully advised, THE COURT HEREBY FINDS as follows: 1. That no further benefit is to be derived from the supervised parenting schedule of the Petitioner; 2. The court was presented with no evidence of the child being at risk or that unsupervised parenting time would be adverse. to the child's interest; 3. The court finds Dr. Ransford's proposal measured and considered and provides a 23 balance and protection for the child to have a relationship with Petitioner.. 24 \\\\\ 25 \\\\\ 26 \\\\\ PAGE 1 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT Robert Demary PC, OSB 89162 Attorney at Law 1000 S.W. Broadway Suite 24oo Portland, Oregon 97205 - (503)727-o6oo 4. The court also finds that Petitioner's potential income is $5,000 per month in 1 addition to his military income of $1,333 per month for a total of $6,333 per 2 month. 3 5. The court finds the Respondent's income to be $5,257 per month. 4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 5 1. The parenting proposal recommended by Dr. Ransford shall be immediately 6 implemented, and the parties are ordered to comply with said schedule. The court hereby vacates all restrictions on telephone calls, communication and gifts&-bk, a,,,k , 7 ?Cl 8 2. The parenting schedule shall be as recommended by Dr. Ransford, a copy of 9 which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set 10 forth. Said recommended schedule is more fully detailed in Exhibit 2 which is attached hereto 11 and incorporated herein by reference, ? eati,&a ]-h -1 Way parenting time sc 12 13 w ' ?ierPt c F h;h;t tt? inrnrnnr?+P? fore:« :• e 14 3. Petitioner shall continue to have reasonable telephone contact with the minor Vchild t t" limited to the calls previously ordered on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday evenings at 7:30 p.m. eastern standard time for 15 minutes per call. 17 4. Commencing on the first day of November, 2005, and continuing on the first day 18 of each month thereafter until each child marries, dies, becomes emancipated, or ceases to be a 19 child attending school as defined by ORS 107:108(4) or any successor statute, Petitioner shall 20 pay to Respondent for which Respondent shall have judgment against Petitioner the sum of $726 21 per month as and for child support. A copy of the child support guideline calculation sheets is 22 attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 23 ORS 25.317 requires that, in most cases, child support must be paid by income 24 withholding from payer's employer via the Division of Child Support. The law allows the court 25 to grant an exception in certain circumstances. In lieu of wage withholding, payments will be 26 PAGE 2 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT Robert Aemary PC, OSB 89162 Attorney at Law 1000 S.W. Broadway Suite 2400 Portland, Oregon 97205 • (503)727-06oo made directly by Petitioner to the Division of Child Support, P.O. Box 14506, Salem, Oregon 1 97309, for appropriate distribution. The Division of Child Support shall provide the collection, 2 accounting, and enforcement services for said child support. Pursuant to HB 2235-B, the 3 Division of Child Support, or the Child Support Accounting Unit may provide the following 4 information to a parry when represented by counsel: (a) the date support was issued, (b) the 5 amount of the support order, (c) dates and amounts of payments, (d) dates and amounts of 6 disbursements, (e) the payee, (f) the amount of any arrearage, and (g) the source of the collection. 7 This method is available to the payer as an alternative to wage withholding because (a) there are 8 no arrearages in this case; (b) the payer has not previously been granted a withholding exemp- 9 tion; (c) the parties have agreed in writing to this alternative arrangement; and (d) Petitioner is 10 sufficiently protected by the mandatory withholding if nonpayment occurs. 11 5. The court finds Petitioner to not be in contempt of court based upon the court's 12 finding that Petitioner's behavior was not willful. 13 6. The Guidance Associates of Pennsylvania shall be appointed to act as parenting 14 coordinator to assist the parties with parenting issues, and the parties are ordered to comply and 15 cooperate with the parenting coordinator. The cost of such services, net of any insurance 16 payments, shall be shared equally by the parties. 17 7. Each party has leave to submit an attorney fee affidavit pursuant to ORCP 68 to 18 request fees and costs. 19 STATUTORY NOTICES. 20 ORS 25.384 - NOTICE OF INCOME WITHHOLDING 21 THIS SUPPORT ORDER IS ENFORCEABLE BYINCOME WITHHOLDING UNDER ORS 25.372 to 25.427. WITHHOLDING SHALL OCCUR IMMEDIATELY, WHENEVER THERE ARE ARREARAGESA T 22 LEAST EQUAL TO THE SUPPORT PAYMENT FOR ONE MONTH, WHENEVER THE OBLIGATED PARTY REQUESTS SUCH WITHHOLDING, OR WHENEVER THE OBLIGEE REQUESTS 23 WITHHOLDING FOR GOOD CAUSE. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR, AS APPROPRIATE, THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT WILL ASSIST IN SECURING 24 SUCH WITHHOLDING. EXCEPTIONS MAYAPPLYINSOME CIRCUMSTANCES. THE DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT SHALL PROVIDE ANNUAL NOTICE TO EACH OBLIGOR 25 AND OBLIGEE ON SUPPORT ORDERS BEING ENFORCED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 26 EXCEPTIONS TO WITHHOLDING. PAGE 3 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT Robert Demary PC, OSB 89162 Attorney at Law looo S.W. Broadway Suite 24oo Portland, Oregon 97205 • (503)727-o6oo ORS 107.106 - NOTICE TO PARENTS 1 THE TERMS OF CHILD SUPPORT AND PARENTING TIME (VISITATION) ARE DESIGNED FOR THE CHILD'S BENEFIT AND NOT THE PARENTS' BENEFIT. YOU MUST PAYSUPPORT EVEN IF 2 YOU ARE NOT RECEIVING VISITATION. YOU MUST COMPLY WITH VISITATION ORDERS EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT RECEIVING CHILD SUPPORT. 3 VIOLATION OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS AND VISITATION ORDERS IS PUNISHABLE BY FINE, IMPRISONMENT OR OTHER PENALTIES. 4 PUBLICLY FUNDED HELP MAY BE A VAILABLE TO ESTABLISH, ENFORCE AND MODIFY 5 CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS. PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT SERVICES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE. CONTACT YOUR LOCAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT CLERK, OR THE 6 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (503) 378-5567 FOR INFORMATION. PUBLICLY FUNDED HELP MAY BE AVAILABLE TO ESTABLISH, ENFORCE, AND MODIFY 7 VISITATION ORDERS. CONTACT THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT CLERK OR THE CIVIL COURT CLERK FOR INFORMATION. 8 ORS 25.020 - NOTICE OF PERIODIC REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS 9 THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT, OR EITHER OF THEM, MAY REQUEST THAT THE DEPAMTENT OF JUSTICE REVIEW THE AMOUNT OF SUPPORT ORDERED AFTER TWO YEARS 10 OR AT ANY TIME UPON A SVBSTANT7AL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES. ORS 107.159 - INTENT TO CHANGE RESIDENCE OF CHILDREN 11 EACH PARENT SHALL GIVE THE OTHER PARENT AT LEAST 60 DAYS WRITTEN 12 NOTICE OF HIS/HER INTENT TO MOVE MORE THAN 60 MILES FURTHER DISTANT FROM THE OTHER PARENT. WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE INTENT TO MOVE MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT. 13 ORS 25.020(6)(a) -NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS 14 EACH PARENT MUST NOTIFY THE COURT AND THE DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT IN WRITING OF ANY CHANGES IN HIS OR HER ADDRESS OR TELEPHONE NUMBER, OR EMPLOYER 15 AND EMPLOYER'S TELEPHONE NUMBER, WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER SUCH CHANGE. MONEY AWARD 16 Judgment Creditor: Name: Stephanie Lynn Cornwall 17 Address: 4236 Carlisle Road Gardners, PA 17324 18 Creditor's Attorney Larry J. Blake, Jr., OSB #87172 19 and Address: 3718 SW Condor, Suite 110 Portland, OR 97201 20 Telephone: (503) 228-6200 Facsimile: (503) 228-6222 21 Judgment Debtor: Name: George Mackie Cornwall, III 22 Address: 1897 Boca Ratan Drive Lake Oswego, OR 97034 23 Debtor's Attorney Robert F. Demary, OSB #89162 24 and Address: 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97205 25 Telephone: (503) 727-0600 Facsimile: (503) 727-0601 26 PAGE 4 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT Robert Aemary PC, O$B 89162 Attorney at Law looo S.W. Broadway Suite 24oo Portland, Oregon 97205 • (503)727-o6oo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Judgment Type: A. Child Support: (1) Amount of support: $726 (2) Number of children: One (3) Beginning date for child support payments: 11101105 (4) Ending date for child support payments: (a) Age of majority; (b) Child attending school per ORS 107.108(4); (c) Other: Dies, marries or becomes emancipated (5) Other child support payment information (if any): Shall not be paid by wage withholding B. Judgment Interest: Nine percent (9%) per annum simple DATED this 1-4 day of klp? '2007. r4ircuit Court Judge k 25 26 PAGE 5 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT Robert Demary PC, OSB 89162 Attorney at Law looo S.W. Broadway Suite 24oo Portland, Oregon 97205 • (503)727-o6oo PARENTING SCHEDULE Month 1: weekly, mid-week parenting time only Month 2: mid-week parenting times + a five-hour contact every other Saturday Month 3: midweek parenting tunes + a Friday afternoon to Saturday noon overnight contact every other week Month 4: mid-week parenting times + a Friday afternoon to Saturday noon overnight contact on Mr. Cornwall's first weekend + a Friday afternoon to Sunday noon overnight contact on his second weekend Month 5: mid-week parenting times + a Friday afternoon to Sunday noon overnight contact every other week Month 6: full implementation of recommended schedule 2. The following suggestions are offered regarding holiday and vacation parenting times: a) Summer holidays: In addition to regular parenting time, I recommend that Mr. and Mrs. Cornwall each be granted a one-week vacation period (defined as seven consecutive days). b) Thanksgiving holi day: Thanksgiving Day and the Friday following Thanksgiving can be rotated between the parents with the weekend falling as it does per the standard schedule. c) Winter break: These holidays can be rotated between the parents such that Mackie spends the first portion of each winter break with one parent and the second half of winter break with the other parent d) Spring break: This holiday can also be rotated between the parents. To avoid confusion, I recommend defining spring break as Monday through Friday and letting weekend parenting time fall as it ordinarily would per the standard schedule. 3. I also recommend appointing a parenting coordinator to oversee the transition to normalized parenting time. This professional should have experience. in child development, family therapy, and divorce-related. disputes. I'm happy to offer specific referrals upon request. In the event that Mr. Cornwall relocates to Pennsylvania and jurisdiction of this case is transferred, it may be necessary to identify a mental health professional suitable for this role and expressly define his or her role, since to my knowledge there is no parenting coordinator statute in Pennsylvania. EXHIBIT ' PAGE / OF 03%29/2007 15:16 503239 I 83/27/2867 22:4 717-323-0053 PDC LOGISTICS LLU PAGE 03/03 PAGE 02 Parenting Plan, Detail schedule Mackie Comwall Int1all Months of F%n TIMES 9e*nning Date _ Ending date Start End Comments PM 8.00:00 PM (f. Ta Wednesday, January 24. 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 Wednnesday, January 31, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM 1 \ 1 Wednesday, February 07, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM l *Wednesday. February 14, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 12;00:00 PM 8:00:00 PM (No School) "Wednesday, February 21, 2007 Afternoon & Evening only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM J,,SWednesday, Febmmq 28, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM -Saturday, March 03, 2007 Morning & aitemcmn 10;00:00 AM 3:00:00 PM f Wednesday, March 07, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, March 14, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Saturday, March 17, 2007 Morning & afternoon 12:00:00 PM 5:00:00 PM Wednesday, March 21, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, March 28, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3;20;00 PM 8:00:00 PM 1 Friday, March 30, 2007 o Saturday, March 31, 2007 3•.20:00 PM 4:09t8BPM I ? 1 Wednesday, April 04, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, April 11, 2007 Aftemoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Friday. April 13, 2007 (j) Saturday, April 14, 2007 3:20:00 PM 4419,00 PM I Wednesday, April 18, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, April 25, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Friday, April 27, 2007 Cij 5,;,t-..SwPA2Y, April 29, 2007 3:20:00 PM 4x WO PM i z •`u"° Wednesday, May 02, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, May 09, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Friday, May 11, 2007 Sunday, May 13, 2007 3:20:00 PM 84040-2U Dad's Birthday i Wednesday. May 16, 2007 Aftemoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, May 23, 2007 Afternoon & Evening only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Friday, May 25, 2007 Monday, May 28, 2007 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Memorial day Wednesday, May 30, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3.20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, June 06, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20;00 PM 6:00:00 PM Friday, June 08, 2007 Monday, June 11, 2007 12:00;00 PM 8:30:00 AM No School Wednesday, June 13, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, June 20, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8'00:00 PM Friday, June 22, 2007 Monday, June 25, 2007 12:00:00 PM 8:30:00 AM No School Wednesday, June 27, 2007 Aftemoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, July 04, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 8:00:00 AM 11:00:00 PM July 4th Friday, July 06, ?_007 Monday. July 09, 2007 12:00:00 PM 8:30:00 AM No School Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, July 1 S, 2007 Afternoon '& Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Friday, July 20, 2007 Monday, July 23, 2007 12:00,00 PM 8:30:00 AM No School Wednesday, July 25, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, August 01, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Friday, August 03, 2007 Monday, August 06, 2007 12:00:00 PM 8:30:00 AM No School Wednesday, August 08, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8;00.00 PM Wednesday, August 15, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00;00 PM. Friday, August 17, 2007 Monday, August 27, 2007 12:00:00 PM 8:30:00 AM Vacation School Most Wednesday, August 29, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Likely in session Friday, August 31, 2007 Monday, September 0$, 2007 12:00:r)0 PM 8;30:00 AM Mon labor day NOTES: Thereafter Wednesday afternoon P< = venings, Alternate 60 Hour Weekends Holiday Schedule for 11107 and thereafter to be developed by parenting Coordinator, If any visit is missed, schedule continues. Parties are free to adjust times as EMIBIT may be mutaily agreed or may be referred to Parenting Coordinator. PAGE ? OF? MULTNOMAH WUNTY STANDARD PARENTING TIME GUIDELINES (1) The purpose of the pareking time guidelines is as follows: (A) It is the policy oft court to encourage the parties to work out their own parenting time schedule, either betwee themselves or through mediation. The court will generally approve any schedule agreed on by the parties; (B) However, if the parties ar \parti e to agree on a schedule which best suits their family circumstances, the following parme guidelines, when appropriate, will be used by the court as a basis for establishing ptime. Because the circumstances of each family differ, the parenting time schedulished by the court may provide for more or less parenting time than desired by ths. (C) Additionally, the fol lowing parent g time guidelines are inapplicable to families experiencing domestic violence, mental he th or substance abuse issues. For cases not involving such problems, and in which the p ents are managing separation of the family unit with civility, the guidelines set forth reasonab parenting time for a non-custodial parent; (D) The following parenting time guidelinesnot establish a minimum standard for parenting time and are not intended as mandato rovisions, under any circumstance. (2) The non-custodial parent will have parenting time ' h a minor child on alternating weekends from 6:00 pm Friday to 6:00 pm Sunday. (3) In the absence of a showing that such would not permit he maintenance of a significant preexisting parent-child attachment, parenting time with children ess than three years of age shall be: (A) Birth to 18 months - twice per week for two hours 13fr visit; (B) 18 to 30 months - once per week for six hours; (C) 30 to 36 months - Friday at 6:00 pm until Saturday at 6:09 pm on alternate weekends. (4) The non-custodial parent shall also have parenting time for 14 umn rrupted days during the summer with children six and over. The non-custodial parent shall notify th custodial parent in writing prior to April 15th of each year which days the non-custodial parent selected for parenting time. The custodial parent shall likewise have the right to a two-week vacatio each summer during which the non-custodial parent's parenting time need not be honored, if the vac ion is out of town. The custodial parent shall advise the non-custodial parent of such vacation plans 1st of each year. Once designated, changes in the summer parenting time schedule allowed except by agreement of both parties. Failure of either party to make a tim summer parenting time will not result in forfeiture of parenting time rights but will custodial parent having the right to designate the summer parenting time, or in the Supplementary Local Rules Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County Effective February 1, 2003 75 later than May ,hall not be designation of It in the ase f the EMBIT PAGE_ _ OF, custodial parent failing to gi a notice, the parenting time lost by the non-custodial parent shall be subject to make-up parentin time. (5) The child shall be read for parenting time, and be picked up from the front steps of the custodial parent's residence, no ore than 15 minutes early nor 15 minutes late. Return of the children to the front steps of the ustodial parent's residence is also subject to the 15-minute rule. The non-custodial parent shall fe d the child the evening meal prior to returning the child. (6) Except as to a child under ee years, whenever the weekend or other parenting time provided herein falls adjacent to a s ool holiday or legal holiday, including Labor Day, such weekend or other parenting time shall include a adjacent holiday, either Friday or Monday. (7) If a non-custodial parent fails t exercise the scheduled parenting time for any reason other than a substantial medical problem, they will be no postponement or scheduling of a make-up period of parenting time. If there is a substant' medical problem, the non-custodial parent will be allowed a make-up visit on the succeeding available eekend. (8) Both parties will provide addresses d contact telephone numbers to the other party and will immediately notify the other party of any erne ency circumstances or substantial changes in the health of the child. However, both parties s refrain from releasing the other party's phone number to third parties. (9) The non-custodial parent shall also have th =or ted right to correspond with the child and may telephone the child no more than once per we5 minutes or less during reasonable hours without interference or monitoring by the custodial ent or anyone else in any way. Each parent shall allow the child to telephone the other parent at r asonable hours and with reasonable frequency, if the child wishes. (10) Both parties are restrained and enjoined from g derogatory comments about the other party or in any other way diminishing the love, respect, affection that the child has for either party- (11) In addition to the parenting time specified in the precling paragraphs, the non-custodial parent shall have parenting time as follows: (A) Christmas (or significant holidays in other religioks) (i) For children 30 months to six years of age: even-numbered years, on Christmas Eve from noon until 10:00 am on Christ s Day, in odd-numbered years, from 10:00 am until 8:00 pm on Christmas Day; (ii) For children six and over: in even numbered yeaj commencement of the school holiday through 10:00 am numbered years, from 10:00 am Christmas Day until Jar Supplementary Local Rules Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah Effective February 1, 2003 76 the time from the hristmas Day, in odd- 6 1 st at noon. OlBrr _-3_ PAGE ? Of,? (B) Thanksgi ' Day in odd-numbered years from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 pm (C) Father's/Mothe 's Day each year from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 pm (12) A child is not permitted to termine whether the child wishes to visit with the non-custodial parent. Personal plans of the custo ' parents or child, school activities, church activities, and other considerations are not reasons for to adhere to the parenting time schedule set forth in this rule. (13) Parenting time, however, between a child's employment and age-appropriate ac and a party shall take into consideration the (See SLR 8.075) hl__?? Supplementary Local Rules Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County Effective February 1, 2003 77 PAGE _,T OF,2 EXHIBIT CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION WORKSHEET (CSCW) To determine Parent A and Parent B, see instructions Parent A Stephanie Parent B George # of Joint Children 1 Parent A Parent B Combined Income 1. Gross Monthly Income $5,257 $6,333 Ia. Rebuttal amount applied, if any (see worksheet S-4) $0 $0 2. Spousal support received $0 $0 3. Spousal support and/or mandatory union dues paid $0 $0 4. Modified Gross Monthly Income (to line I :add or subtract line $5 257 $6 333 la, add line 2, subtract line 3); enter result , , Adjustments 5. Social Security benefits or Veterans' benefits received for joint child(ren) (enter in column of parent for whose disability or $0 $0 retirement benefits are received, regardless of who actually receives benefits) 6a. Number of nonjoint children for each Parent 0 0 6b. Credit for nonjoint children (reference scale for each Parent's income from line 4, using number of nonjoint children for each $0 $0 Parent, as appropriate) 7. Adjusted Gross Monthly Income (add lines 4 and 5 and subtract line 6b, for each parent); Combine amounts for Parent A $5,257 $6,333 $11,590 and Parent B and enter result in 3rd column 8. Percentage share of income (each parent's income from line 7 45.4% 54.6% divided by the combined income) Basic Child 9. Basic Child Support Obligation (reference scale for combined $1 137 Support income from line 7 and number of joint children) , 10. Each parent's pro rata basic child support obligation (line 8 $516 $621 times line 9 for each parent). Do parties have a current written agreement or court order for parenting time equal to 20% or greater for both parents, and/or have split custody? If yes, complete worksheet S-2 and enter result below; if no, continue to line 12a. 11. Each parent's pro rata basic child support obligation after parenting time credit from worksheet S-2, line 3 or 4c. Low income 12a. Each parent's single income obligation (reference scale for Adjustment each parent's modified gross monthly income from line 4 and $776 $838 number of joint children) 12b. Monthly child support obligation before costs and adjustments >If no parenting time credit is included, enter zero for Parent A, enter the lesser of line 10 and line 12a for Parent B; >If worksheet S-2 for parenting time is completed, enter the lesser of line 11 and line 12a for each parent Page 1 of 2 - CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION WORKSHEET (CSCW) CSF 02 0809A (Rev 08/25/03) $0 $621 EXHIBIT PAGE __Z__ OF, Costs & 13a. Child care costs for joint children (see worksheet S-3) $225 $0 Adjustments Enter costs in column 13b. Medical expenses (not health care coverage costs - see 13c) $0 $0 of parent who incurs cost 13c. Health care coverage $0 $40 13d. Rebuttal amount applied, if any (amount by which cost of care $0 $0 should be increased or decreased for parent)(see worksheet S-4) 13e. Total Costs (add lines 13a, 13b and 13c for each parent; add or $225 $40 subtract line 13d) 14. Costs owed to Parent B (line 8, Parent A times line 13e, Parent $18 B; if no Parent A, enter amount from line 13e) 15. Costs owed to Parent A (line 8, Parent B times line 13e, Parent $123 A) 16. Monthly child support obligation after costs (line 12b, column 1 plus line 14 for Parent A and line 12b, column 2 plus line 15 for $18 $744 Parent B) 17. Net child support obligation (subtract smaller amount on line 16 from greater amount and enter result on line for parent with greater $0 $726 obligation; enter zero for other parent) Benefits Adjustment 18. If SSB or VB is received by Parent A as representative payee $0 for joint child(ren) as a result of Parent B's disability or retirement Computing 19. Total Child Support Obligation a Final Parent A - enter figure from line 17, Parent A $0 $726 Obligation Parent B - line 17 minus line 18; if negative value, enter zero Ability to Pay 20a. Enter modified gross monthly income (from line 4) for each $5 257 $6 333 Calculation parent. , , 20b. Self Support Reserve 884.00 884.00 20c. Each parent's income available for support (line 20a minus $4 373 $5 449 line 20b) , , 21. Monthly Child Support Obligation (enter the lesser of line 19 $0 $726 or line 20c) 21 a. Rebuttal amount applied, if any (see worksheet S-4) $0 $0 22. Total Monthly Child Support Obligation After Rebuttal (add or subtract line 2] a from line 21) $0 $726 Comments: Calculated by the Oregon Child Support Guidelines Calculator (hfp://www.dcs.state.or.us/calculator/) on 2/5/2007 at 4:36:32 PM. Nonjoint child(ren) of Parent A: Nonjoint child(ren) of Parent B: Page 2 of 2 - CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION WORKSHEET (CSCW)?? 7 CSF 02 0809A (Rev 08/25/03) PAGE OF CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION SUPPLEMENTAL WORKSHEETS Parent A Stephanie Parent B George FEDERAL TAX CREDIT TABLE Gross Monthlv Income Tax Credit % $ 0 to 1,250 35% 1,251 to 1,417 34% 1,418 to 1,583 33% 1,584 to 1,750 32% 1,751 to 1,917 31% 1,918 to 2,083 30% 2,084 to 2,250 29% 2,251 to 2,417 28% 2,418 to 2,583 27% 2,584 to 2,750 26% 2,751 to 2,917 25% 2,918 to 3,083 24% 3,084 to 3,250 23% 3,251 to 3,417 22% 3,418 to 3,583 21% 3,584 to no limit 20% OREGON TAX CREDIT TABLE Gross Monthly Income Credit % $ 0 to 416 30% 417 to 833 15% 834 to 1,250 8% 1,251 to 2,083 6% 2,084 to 2,916 5% 2,917 to 3,750 4% Page 1 of 1 - CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET S-3 (CHILD CARE CREDIT COMPUTATION) CSF 02 0809D (New 03/06/03) BIT PAGE WORKSHEET S-3 (CHILD CARE CREDIT COMPUTATION) 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that I served a true copy of SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT 3 MODIFYING PARENTING TIME AND CHILD SUPPORT on the named individual below: 4 Larry Jay Blake, Jr. Attorney at Law 5 3718 SW Condor, Ste. 110 6 Portland, OR 97239 7 Attorney for Respondent 8 by the following indicated method or methods: 9 by mailing full, true, and correct copies thereof in sealed, first-class postage-prepaid envelopes, 10 addressed to the persons named above at their last-known addresses as set forth above, and deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Portland, Oregon, on the date set forth below. 11 by causing a full, true and correct copy thereof to be hand delivered to the attorney named 12 above on the date set forth below. 13 - by sending a full, true, and correct copy thereof via overnight courier, in a sealed prepaid 14 envelope, addressed to the attorney named above at said attorney's last-known office address as set forth above, on the date set forth below. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - by faxing a full, true and correct copy thereof to the attorney, at the last-known fax number for the attorney's office, on the date set forth below. DATED: April 5 2007. f7 Attorney for Petitioner 25 26 Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Robert Demary PC, OSB 89162 Attorney at Law looo S.W. Broadway Suite 2400 Portland, Oregon 97205 - (503)727-o6oo (IS N Q 771 IN a Certified True Copy Of The Original Day Of De4-_, no 4 Dated This 0-4 nt ;' Trial Court Administrator r B •'>5,E ter x:1,}7 y' ?v-? STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM : IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF A FOREIGN DECREE AND NOW comes Petitioner, Stephanie L. Cornwall, the above Plaintiff, by and through her attorney, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire, and the law firm of Griffie and Associates and avers as follows: 1. Petitioner is the above named Plaintiff, Stephanie L. Cornwall, hereinafter referred to as "Mother," an adult individual current residing at 4236 Carlisle Road, Gardners, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Respondent is George M. Cornwall, the above named Defendant, hereinafter referred to as "Father," an adult individual currently residing at IOC Orange Street, Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. The parties are subject to an Order of Court, dated April 24, 2007, from the Circuit Court of the state of Oregon for the county of Clackamus, with said Order being registered in Pennsylvania on January 28, 2008 in regards to custody of their son, George "Mackie" Cornwall, IV, born November 11, 1998, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as "Exhibit A." 4. Pursuant to the Order, Father exercises periods of custody every Wednesday afternoon and evenings and alternate sixty (60) hour weekends. S. Stanley E. Schneider, Ed.D., has been serving as the parenting coordinator for the parties pursuant to the Oregon Order and on or about September 7, 2008, in a session with the parties, Dr. Schneider stated, over Mother's objection, that Bather would begin exercising overnight periods of custody ever Wednesday to Thursday. 6. Dr. Schneider, as parenting coordinator, has stated to undersigned counsel that he believes that he has the authority to make such changes to the Order and stands by his modification of the Order. 7. Said Order has been registered in Pennsylvania only for enforcement purposes. 8. Larry J. Blake, Jr., Esquire, counsel for Mother in regards to the Oregon litigation, was involved in the litigation as between the parties that resulted in the Order of April 24, 2007, and Attorney Blake has prepared correspondence, dated October 21, 2008, in regards to what was intended by the Order and clarifying the role of a parenting coordinator in Oregon, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as "Exhibit B." 9. It is believed and therefore averred that our Court, while having jurisdiction to enforce the Order, will interpret Oregon law, however, pursuant to either Oregon or Pennsylvania law, it is believed and therefore averred that a parenting coordinator does not have the authority to modify the basic structure of a custody Order in the matter as modified by Dr. Schneider. i d 10. Father has no attorney of record, therefore, notice is being provided to him by first class mail, postage prepaid at IOC Orange Street, Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 11. No Judge has been involved in this matter as the only activity has been registering the Order for enforcement purposes. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests this Honorable Court enforce the Order of April 24, 2007 from the Circuit Court of the state of Oregon for the county of Clackamus, Number DR 03- 03721, and reiterate that the terms, as set forth in full, in said Order control unless and until there is further Order of Court. Respectfully Submitted, N&" fa. rv.np sid'-A IN Herman-Snyder, Es uire Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner GRIFFIE AND ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5551 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. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. DATE:?? u EP ANIE . CORNWALL f 1 1051, TSBED 2 4 ZTOF IN THE CIRCUIT CO ATE REGO 5 FOR THE COUNTY OF CLACKAMAS 6 Family Law Department 7 In the Matter, of the Marriage of. ) g GEORGE MACKIE CORNWALL III, No. DR03 03721 9 Petitioner, ) SUPP1.8MENTAL JUDGMENT MODIFYING PARENTING TIME AND Io and ) CHILD, SUPPORT . ) 11 STEPHANIE LYNN CORNWALL; 12 Respondent. 13 THIS. MATTER came before the Honorable Steven L. Maurer on the 18" day of January, 14 2007 for hearing on the parties' respective motions; Petitioner appeared in person and by and 16 through his attorney, Robert F. Demary; Respondent appeared by telephone and by and through 16 her attorney Larry Jay Blake, Jr.; and the court being fully advised, 17 'THE COURT HEREBY FINDS as follows: 18 1. That no further benefit is to be derived, from the supervised parenting schedule of 19 the Petitioner; 20 .. 2. The court was presented with no evidence of the child being at risk or that 21 unsupervised parenting time would be adverse.-to the child's interest; 22 3. The court finds Dr. Ransford's:proposal measured and, considered and provides a 23 balance and protection for the child to have a relationship with Petitioner, 24 \\\\\ 25 1\\\\ 26 \\\\\ PAGE 1- STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY ORT RobW Demmy PC, OSB 88162 at Law Attorney P-4 iooo.S.W. Broadway A 4. The court also finds that Petitioner's potential income is $5,000 per month in 1 addition to his military income of $1,333 per month for a total of $6,333 per 2 month. 3 5. The court finds the Respondent's income to be $5,257 per month. 4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 5 1. The parenting proposal recommended by Dr. Ransford shall be immediately 6 implemented, and the parties are ordered to comply with said schedule. The court hereby vacates 7 _ D_'? n all restrictions on telephone calls, communication and gifts&,44,,,,, 8 2. The parenting schedule shall be as recommended by Dr. Ransford, a copy -of 9 which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set 10 forth. Said recommended schedule is more fully detailed in Exhibit 2 which is attached hereto 11 and incorporated herein by reference, holi,??y? ?r? ??g time schedule 12 13 ,r?tn ac F?rhihit anA ir,rnrnnratArl' N - ..o 14 3. Petitioner shall continue to have reasonable telephone contact with the minor 1 • child ffiel. limited to the calls previously'ordered on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday evenings at 7:30 p.m. eastern standard time for 15 minutes per call. 17 4. Commencing on the first day of November, 2005, and continuing on the first day 18 of each month•thereafter until each child marries, dies, becomes emancipated, or ceases to be a 19 child attending school as defined by ORS 107:108(4) or any successor statute, Petitioner shall 20 pay to Respondent for which Respondent shall have judgment against Petitioner the sum of $726 21 per month as and for child support. A copy of the child support guideline calculation sheets is 22 attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 23 ORS 25.317 requires that, in most cases, child support must be paid by income 24 withholding from payer's employer via the Division of Child Support. The -law allows the court ?5 to grant an exception in certain circumstances. In lieu of wage withholding, payments will be 26 PAGE 2 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT Robert Demary PC, OSB 89162 Attorney at law 1000 S.W. Broadway 0114. ? ? An made directly by Petitioner to the Division of Child Support, P.O. Box 14506, Salem, Oregon 1 97309, for appropriate distribution. The Division of. Child Support shall provide the collection, 2 accounting, and enforcement services for said child support Pursuant, to HB 2235-B, the 3 Division of Child Support; or the Child Support Accounting Unit may provide the following 4 • information to aparty when represented'by counsel: (a)-the date support was issued, (b) the 5 amount of the support order, (c) dates and amounts of payments, (d) dates and amounts of 6 disbursements, (e) the payee, (f) the. amount of any arrearage, and (g) the source of the collection. 7 This method is available to the payer as an alternative -to wage withholding because (a) there are 8 no arrearages in this case; (b) the payer has not previously been. granted a withholding exemp- 9 tion;,(c) the parties have agreed in writing to this alternative arrangement; and (d) Petitioner is 10 sufficiently protected by the mandatory withholding if nonpayment occurs. 11 5. The court finds Petitioner to not be in contempt of court based upon the court's 12. finding that Petitioner's behavior was not willful. 13 6. The Guidance Associates of Pennsylvania shall be appointed to act as parenting 14 coordinator to assist the parties with:parenting issues, and the parties are ordered to comply and 15 cooperate with-the-parenting coordinator. The cost of-such services, net of any insurance 16 payments, shall be shared equally,by the parties. 17 7. Each parry has leave to submit an'attorney fee affidavit pursuant to ORCP 68 to 18 request fees and costs. 19 STATUTORY NOTICES. 20 ORS 25.384 -NOTICE OFINCOAM WITHHOLDING 21 79M SUPPORT ORDER IS ENFORCEABLEBYINCOME WITHHOLDING UNDER ORS 25.372 to 22 25.427. W77 ZOLDINGSHALL OCCUR IMMEDIATELY, WHENEVER TUEREAREARREARAGESAT LEAST EQUAL TO THESUPPORTPAYMENT FOR ONEMONTH, WHENEVER THEOBLIGA7ED P.AR77REQUEMSUMWITHHOLDEM, OR WHENEVER THE OBLIGEEREQUF.S7S 23 WITBHOLD.IIVGFOR-GOOD CAUSE TREDISTRICTA7TORNEYOR, ASAPPROPRIATE; THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT WILL ASSLST IN SECURING SUCH WITHHOLDING.. EXCEPTIONSMAYAPPLYINSOME CIRCUMSTANCES. 24 . THE DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT SHALL PROVIDE ANNUAL NOTICE TO EACH OBLIGOR 25 AND OBLIGEE ON SUPPORT ORDER, BEING ENFORCED BY =DLS7RICT ATTORNEY OR SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF TBEAVAILABHJTY OF THEREQUDMWNTS FOB 26 EXCEPTIONS TO WITHHOLDING PAGE 3 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT Robert Demary PC, OSB 89162 Attorney at Law looo S.W. Broadway fi.ri+o OAnn ORS 107.106 - NOTICE TO PARENTS 1 -THE TERMS OFCIIILD SUPPORTAND PAIWN22NG TIME (VISITATIO)9 AREDESIGNED FOR THE CBTLD'SBENEFITAND NOT THEPARENTS' BENEFIT: YOUMUST PAYSUPPORT EVMV IF 2 YOUARE NOT RECMMWG YISITATIDN. YOU MUST COMPLY WITf MITATION ORDERS EVEN IF YOUARE NOT RECEIVING CHILD SUPPORT. 3 VIOLATION OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS AND VISITATION ORDERS IS PUNISHABLE BY FINE, IMPRISONMENT OR OTHER PENALTIES. 4 PUBLICLYFVNDED HELP MAYBE AVAILABLE TO ESTABLISH, ENFORCE AND MODIFY 5 CHILD SUPPORTORDER& PATIO..RNITYESTABLIMMVTSERVICESAREALSOAVAHABLE CONTACT YOUR LOCAL DIST,RICTATTDRNEY, DOMEMCRELATIONS COURT CLERIC, OR 2TIB 6 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SER VICES (503) 37&5567 FOR INFORMATION. PUBLICLYFUNDED HELP MA Y BE A VALtABLE TO ESTABLISH, ENFORCE, AND MODIFY 7 VISITATION ORDERS CONTACT THE DOMEUTICREL47YONS COURT CLERK OR TUE-CIVIL COURT CLEM FOR INFORMATION. $ ORS 25.020 - NOTICE OF PERIODIC RENEWAND MODLFICA770NOF CHLLD SUPPORT ORDERS 9 TUEPET7770NER AND THE RESPONDENT, OR EITHER OF THEM, MAYREQUEST TEAT THEDEPAMTENT OFJUS27CE REVIEW TREAMOUNT OFSUPPORT ORDERED AFTER TWO YEARS 10 OR AT ANYTIME UPONA S.UBSTANTML CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES. ORS 107.159 - INTENT TO CHANGE RESIDENCE OF CHILDREN . 1x EACSPARENT SHALL GIVE THE OTHER PARENTA TLE4ST 60 DAYS WRITTEN 12 NOTICE OFBZWBER INTENT TO MOVE MORE THAN 60 MILES FURTHER DISTANT FROM THE, OTHER PARENT. WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE INTENT TO MOVE MUST BE FILED WITS THE COURT. 13 ORS 25.020(0(a) - N07IFIC4 770N OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS 14 EACHPARENT MUST NOTIFYTHE COURTAND TREDIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT IN WRITING OFANYCHANGESINHIS OR HER ADDRESS OR TELEPHONE NUMBER, OR EMPLOYER 15 AND EMPLOYER'S TELEPHONE NUMBER, WITHIN 10 DAYSAFTER SUCH CHANGE 16 MONEY AWARD x7 Judgment Creditor: Name: Stephanie Lynn Cornwall Address: 4236 Carlisle Road 18 Gardners,'PA 17324 19 Creditor's Attorney marry J. Blake, Jr., OSB #87172 and Address: 3718 SW Condor, Su 110 - Portland, OR 97201 20 Telephone: (503) 228-6200. Facsimile: (503) 228-6222 21 Judgment Debtor: Name: George Mackie Cornwall, III 22 Address: 1897 Boca Ratan Drive 23 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Debtor's Attorney Robert F. Demary, OSB #89162 24 and Address: 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97205 25 Telephone: (503) 727-0600 26 Facsimile: (503) 727-0601 PAGE 4 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND CEMD SUPPORT Robert Demary PC, O$B 89162 Attorney at law iooo S.W. Broadway Judgment Type: . 1 A. Child Support: 2 (1) Amount of support: $726 3 (2) Number of children: One (3) Beginning date for child support payments: 11101105 4 (4) Ending date for child support payments: (a) Age of majority; 5 (b) Child attending school per ORS 107.108(4); (c) Other: Dies, marries -or becomes emancipated 6 (5) Other child support payment information (if any): Shall not be paid by wage withholding 7 B. Judgment Interest: Nine percent (9%) per annum simple 8 DATED this day of , 2007. 9 10 4ircuit Court Judge 11 12 Prepared d mitted by: ep a da Cd 13 14 r re ;4Attomey brTgobner 15 16 17 18 ' 19 20 21 .22 23 24 25 26 PAGE 5 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND CH LD SUPPORT Robert Demary PC, -DSB 89162 Attorney at raw iooo S.W. Broadway Q-+. nwnn PARENTING SCHEDULE Month 1: weddy, mid-week parenting time only .. Mouth 2: mid-week parenting times + a five hour contact every other Saturday Month 3: mid-week parenting times + a Friday afternoon to Saturday noon overnight contact every other week Month 4: mid-week parenting times + a Friday afternoon to Saturday noon overnight contact on Mr. Cornwall's first weekend + a Friday afternoon to Sunday noon overnight contact on his second weekend. Month 5: mid-week parenting times + a Friday afternoon to Sunday noon overnight contact every other week Month 6: full implementation of recommended schedule 2. The following saggestions are offered regarding holiday and vacation parenting times: - . a) Summer holidays: In addition to regular parenting time, I recommend that Mr. and Mrs. Comwall each be granted a one-week vacation period (defined as seven consecutive days). b) Thanks"u holiday: Thanksgiving Day and the Friday following Thanksgiving can be rotated between the parents with the weekend 13in as it does per the standard schedule. c) Virmtar break: These holidays can be rotated between the parents such that Mackie spends the first portion of each winter break with one parent and the second half of winter break with the other parent. d) Suring brcalo This holiday can also be rotated between the parents. To avoid confusion, I recommend defining spring break as Monday through Friday and letting weekend parenting time fall as it ordinarily would per the standard schedule. 3. I also recommend appointing a parenting coordinator to oversee the transition to normalized parenting time. This professional should have expert ence.m child development, family therapy, and divorce-related. disputes. I'm happy to offer specific referrals upon request. In the event that Mr. Cornwall relocates to Pennsylvania and jurisdiction of this case is transferred, it may be necessary to identify a mental health professional suitable for this role and expressly define his or her role, since to my knowledge there is no parenting coordinator statute M` Pennsylvania. EXHIBIT PAGE OF _? 83%29/2007 15:16 503239 I PAGE 03/03 93/27/2807 22:86 717-323-0053 PDC LOGISTICS LLc PACE 02 Parentn0 Plan, u f Pan I ll M th Datell schedule M aide COrrlWBII To " n a on s o geeinrbng bale r EndhV date, w?wwu, rr•w?wwr,r• Start , , End Conmramts u , ¦,www n , r Wednesday, January 24, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM cyG14? sec Wednesday, January 31, 2007 Afternoon & Evening 0* 3:20:00 PM BIWIX PM t \ J Wednesday. February 07, 2007 AfmmOW & EvWkV 0* 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM #fWsdMaday, Pebrwry 14,2W Afhmoon & Evening Otiiy 12:00 PM B-00:00 PM (No School Wednesday, Febn" 21,2M7 Afternoon & Evening Orgy 320:00 PM 8:00:00 PM /.I" Wednesday, FabW 25, 2007 Aftmoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8;000 PM _. T? Saturday, March 03, 2007 Mamma & atterno m 10:00:00 AM 3:00:00 PM Wednewley, March 07, 2007 Affr:+mow & Evening Orly 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, Meat 14, 2007 N*now & Evening D* 310:00 PM 8:0.00 PM Saloday, March 17, 2007 Morning & afternoon 1 ;00 PM 5!00.-OD PM wedneeday, March 21.2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 92= PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, March 28, 2007 Aitemoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8.'00:00 PM Friday, March 30, 2007 [) Saturday, March 31, 2DO7 3:20:00 PM 4:KN* PM I r Wednesday, April 04, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, April 11, 2007 Aftemoon & Evening Only 3:20: PM 8:00:00 PM Friday. Aprils 1$,21V? 'a Saturday, April 14, 2007 320:00 PM 4 PM t',?- __,Wdnesday, Apra! 18, 2007 Aftemoon & Evening Only 3.20:00 PM 800:00 Iapll Wednesday, April 2S, 2007 Aftamoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PU 8;00:00 PM Friday, Apra 27, 2007 (? . ",SuF?lay. April 29, 2007 3:20:00 PM 4r,i*a PM i Z •` t Wednesday, May 02, 2007 Aftemon & Evermlg Only 320:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, May 09, 2007 Abrnoon & Evening Oniy 320:00 PM 8:00,00 PM Friday, May 11.2007 0 Sunday, May 13, 2007 320:00 PM -0A 4;0aa 0 Dad's i3a #Way ? Wednesday. May 16, 20a7 Afternoon & Evening Only 320:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, May 23, 2007 Afornoon & Evening Only 320:00 PM 8:DD-w PM Friday, May 25, 200'7 Monday, May 213, 2007 3:20:00 PM B:0W*.W PM Memorial day Wednesday, May 30, 2007 Afternoon & Evening One 3:20;00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, June 08. 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8.00:00 PM Friday, June 08, 2007 Mandiy, Jena 11, 2007 12:00.M PM 8:30:00 AM No School Wednesday, June 13, 2007 Aftornoon & Evening Only 32.0:1)0 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, June 2o, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 320;00 PM $:00:00 PM Friday, June 22, 2007 Monday, June 25, 2007 12:00:00-PM 8 0:00 AM No School Wednesday, June 27, 2001 Afternoon & Evening Only 320:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday July 04, 2007 Aftemoon & Evening Only 8:00:DD AM 11:00:00 PM July 4th Friday, July 08, 2007 Monday. July 02. 2W7 12:00:00 PM 8:80:00 AM No School Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Afternoon & Eveoirg Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, July 18, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM B:W.w PM Friday, July 20, 2007 Monday, July 23, 2007 12;40.00 PM 8:3D.-W AM No 5oWol Wednesday, July 2& 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 320:10 PUI 8:00= PM Wednesday, August 01, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM gl00:00 PM • Friday. August 03, 2007 Monday, August 06, 2007 12:00 0 PM B.,W. a AM No School Wednesday, August 08, 2007 Afternoon & Evening only 3:20:00 PM S:00:00 PM Wednesday, August 15, 2007 Aftemoon & Evening Only 3:2D:00 PM 8:00;01 PM, Friday, August 17, 2007 Monday, August 27.2007 12:00:00 PM 8:30:00 AM Vio'dOn Wednesday, August 29, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 320:00 PM fthool Most 8:00:00 PM Likely, in session Frey. August 31. 7.007 Monday, September 03, 2007 12:00:00 PM 8;30:00 AM school Tue Mon labor day nrar,?s: . 'ftierra4tgr Wednesday eitomoon c -venings, Alternate 60 }lour Weekends Holiday Schedule for 11107 and thereafter to be developed by parenting Ociordinstor, If any If any visa is misaed, schedule cantanum Parties are free to adjust times as may be mutally agreed a may be renerred to Parenfing Coardrrnator. PAGE ? OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY STANDARD PARENTING TIME GUIDELINES (1) The purpose of the pare'*g time guidelines is as follows: (A) It is the policy of tlA court to encourage the parties to work out their own parenting or through mediation. The court will generally approve any schedule agreparties; time schedule, either betw Nthep (B) However, if the pato agree on a schedule which best suits their family circumstances, the followime guidelines, when appropriate, will be used by the court as a basis for establitime. Because the circumstances of each family differ, the parenting time ssped by the court may provide for more or less parenting time than desire(C) Additionally, the following pare time guidelines are inappli cable to families experiencing domestic violence, mental th or substance abuse issues. For cases not involving such problems, and in which the p tits are managing separation of the family unit with civility, the guidelines set forth reasonab parenting time for a non-custodial parent; (D) The following parenting time guidelines ?o not establish a minimum standard for parenting time and are not intended as mandato ovisions, under any circumstance. (2) The non-custodial parent will have parenting time w?th a minor child on alternating weekends from 6:00 pm Friday to 6:00 pm Sunday. \ - (3) In the absence of a showing that such would not perznit?he maintenance of a significant preexisting parent-child attachment, parenting. time with childr= ss than three years of age shall be: (A) Birth to 18 months - twice per week for two hours * visit; (B) 18 to 30 months - once per week for six hours; (C) 30 to 36 months - Friday at 6:00 pm until Saturday at 6:OQ pin on alternate weekends. ted days during the (4) The non custodial parent shall also have parenting time for 14 Napd summer with children six and over. The non-custodial parent shall notodial parent in writing prior to April 15th of each year which days the non-custodial pselected for parenting time. The custodial parent shall likewise have the right to atwo-week ach summer during which the non-custodial parent's parenting time need not be honored, ion is out of town. The custodial parent shall advise the non-custodial parent of such vacalater than May I st of each year. Once designated, changes in the summer parenting tishall not be allowed except by agreement of both parties. Failure of either party to me designation of summer parenting time will not result in forfeiture of parenting time rill re It in the custodial parent having the right to designate the summer parenting tie case f the Supplementary Local Rules 1 Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County Effective February 1 2003 75 EXHIBIT PAGE ?_ OF custodial parent Wing to gi a notice, the parenting time lost by the non-custodial parent shall be subject to make-up parentin time. (5) The child shall tfoal oor parenting time, and be picked up from the front steps of the custodial parent's residce, no re than 15 minutes early nor 15 minutes late. Return of the children to the front steps of the adial par ent's residence is also subject to the 15-minute rule. The non-custodial parent shall fe?d the child the evening meal prior to rd ning the child. (6) Except as to a child utoca r years, whenever the weekend or other parenting time provided herein falls adjacent 01 holiday or legal holiday, including Labor Day, such weekend or other parenting time shall include adjacent holiday, either Friday or Monday. () If a non-custodial =olernn, fails t exercise the scheduled parenting time for any reason other than a substantial medical will be no postponement or scheduling of a make-up period of parenting time. If there is a medical problem, the non-custodial parent will be allowed a make-up visit on the succeeding available eekend. (8) Both parties will provide addresses a'o contact telephone numbers to the other party and will immediately notify the other party of any _ emi*gmry circumstances or substantial changes in the health of the child.. However, both parties s refrain from releasing the other party's phone number to third parties. (9) The non-custodial parent shall also have unlimited right to correspond with the child and may telephone the child no more than once per wee for 15 minutes or less during reasonable hours without interference or monitoring by the custodial or anyone else in any way. Each parent rent shall allow the child to telephone. the other parent at t onable hours and with reasonable frequency, if the child wishes. (10) ' Both parties are restrained and enjoined from rna?n derogatory comments about the other party or in any other way diminishing the love, respect, affi affection that the child has for either party. (11) In addition to the parenting time specified in the prec;, ng paragraphs, the non-custodial parent shall have parenting time as follows: (A) Christmas (or significant holidays in other religio?s) (i) For children 30 months to six years of age: even numbered years, on Christmas Eve from noon until 10:00 am on Day, in odd-numbered years, from 10:00 am until 8:00 pm on Christmas Day, (ii) For children six and over. in even numbered yeA the time from the commencement of the school holiday through 10:00 am Nhristmas? Day, in odd- numbered years, from 10:00 am Christmas Day until Jan 1 st at noon. Supplementary Local Rules ?- Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah Co ty Effective February 1, 2003 76 IT -3 PAGE _ OF a_ (B) Thanks' ' Day in odd-numbered years from 10:00 am. until 7:00 pm (C) Father's/Mo 's Day each year from 10:00 am. until 7:00 pm (12) A child is not permitted to ermine whether the child wishes to visit with the non-custodial parent. Personal plans of the cust2wto parents or child, school activities, church activities, and other considerations are not reasons for adhere to the parenting time schedule set forth in this rule. . (13) Parenting time, however, between a child's employment and age-appropriate ac (See SLR 8.075) and a party shall take into consideration the Supplementary Local Rules Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County Effective February 1, 2003 77 MW PAGE .sue OF 2, CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION WORKSHEET (CSCW) To determine Parent Parent A Stephanie A and Parent B, see instmetions Parent B George # of Joint Children 1 Income 1. Gross Monthly Income Ia. Rebuttal amount applie( 2. Spousal sunnort received 3. Spousal support and/or mandatory union dues paid 4. Modified Gross Monthly Income (to line l -add or subtract line la, add line 2, subtract line 3); enter result Adjustments. 5. Social Security benefits or Veterans' benefits received for joint child(ren) (enter in column of parent for whose disability or retirement benefits are received, regardless of who actually receives benefits) 6a. Number of nonjoint children for each Parent 6b. Credit for nonjoint children (reference scale for each Parent's income from line 4, using number of nonjoint children for each Parent, as appropriate) 7. Adjusted Gross Monthly Income (add lines 4 and 5 and subtract line 6b, for each parent); Combine amounts for Parent A and Parent B and enter result in 3rd column Basic Child 9. Basic Child Support Obligation (reference scale for combined Support income from he 7 and number of joint children) $1,137 10. Each parent's pro rata basic child support obligation (line 8 $516 $621 . times line 9 for each parent). Do parties have a current written agreement or court order for parenting time equal to 20% or greater for both parents, and/or have split custody? If yes, complete worksheet S-2 and enter result below; if no, continue to line 12a 11. Each parent's pro rata basic child support obligation after parenting time credit from worksheet S-2, line 3 or 4c. Low Income 12a. Each parent's single income obligation (reference scale for Adjustment each parent's modified gross monthly income from line 4 and .$776 $838 - number of joint children). 12b. Monthly child support obligation before costs and , adjustments ' >If no parenting time credit is included, enter zero for Parent $0 $621 A, enter the lesser of line 10 and line 12a for Parent B; J >If worksheet S-2 for parenting time is completed, enter the lesser of line 11 and line 12a for each parent Page I of 2 - CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION WORKSHEET (CSCW) CSF 02 0809A (Rev 08125/03) EIDIT PAn;: / nr Parent A Parent B Combined $5,257 $6,333, $0 $0 $0 $0. ' ?.. .. $0 $0 $5,257 $6,333 4 $0 $0,? 0 0 $0 $0 $5,257 $6,333 $11,590 8. Percentage share of income (each parent's income from line 7 45.4% 54.6% divided by the combined income) if any (see worksheet Costs & 13a. Child care costs for joint children (see worksheet S-3) $225 $0 ' Adjustments 13b. Medical expenses (not health care cove Enter costs in column rage costs -see 13c) $0 $0 of past who incurs cost 13c. Health care coverage $0 $40 T;? w 13d. Rebuttal amount applied, if any (amount by which cost of care $p $0 F' should be increased or decreased for parent)(see worksheet S-4) 13e. Total Costs (add lines 13a, 13b and 13c for each parent; add or $225 $40 subtract lino 13d) , 14. Costs owed to Parent B (line 8, Parent A times line 13e, Parent if B $18 ra ; ' ; no Parent A, enter amount from line 13e) _ ... 15. Costs owed to Parent A (line 8, Parent B times line 13e, Parent ?u , A) . W $123 ?4x 16. Monthly child support obligation after costs (line 12b,.column 1 plus line 14 for Parent A and line 12b, column 2 plus line 15 for $18 $744 ` Parent B) 17. Net child support obligation (subtract smaller amount on line 16 from greater amount and enter result on line for parent with greater $0 $7268 . obligation; enter zero for other parent) Benefits Adjustment 18. If SSB or VB is received by Parent A as representative payee n $0 far joint child(ren) as a result of Parent B's disability or retirement ` T'a Computing 19. Total Child Support Obligation a Final Parent A - enter figure from line 17, Parent A $0 ' ` $726 Obligation Parent B - line 17 minus line 18; if negative value, enter zero ?. Ability to Pay 20a. Enter modified gross monthly income (from line 4) for each Calculation parent. 20b. Self Support Reserve 20c. Each parent's income available for support (line 20a minus line 20b) Comments: Calculated by the Oregon Child Support Guidelines Calculator (http://www.dcs.state.or.us/calculator/) on 2/512007 at 4:36:32 PM. Nonjoint child(ran) of Parent A: Nonjoint child(ren) of Parent B: Page 2 of 2 - CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION WORKSHEET (CSCW) CSF 02 0809A (Rev 08/25/03) MW I/ NOMMOM PAGE-9-0F.,3 $5,257 $6,333 884.00 884.00 $4,373 $5,449 21. Monthly Child Support Obligation (enter the lesser of line 19 or line 20c) $0 $726 219- Rebuttal amount applied, if any (see worksheet S-4) $0 $0. 22. Total Monthly Child Support Obligation After Rebuttal $0 $726 (add or subtractline 21 a from line 21) CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION SUPPLEMENTAL WORKSHEETS Parent A Stephanie Parent B George WORKSHEET S-3 (CHILD CARE CREDIT COMPUTATION) Parent A Parent B 1. Monthly cost of child care for joint children age 12 or under and older children $275 $0 with disabilities who are not able to care for themselves 2. If child care provided for one joint child, enter the lesser of line 1 or $250; if child care provided for two or more joint children, enter the lesser of line 1 or $500; $250 enter amounts only for child(ren) in parent's custody greater than 50% ofthe time; if $0 child(ren) in parent's care less than 50%, enter zero. 3. Estimated Federal Monthly Child Care Credit (multiply federal tax credit % for parent's modified gross monthly income (CSCW, line 4) by the amount of child care $50 $0 from he 2) 4. Estimated Oregon Monthly Child Care Credit (multiply state tax, credit % for parent's modified gross monthly income (CSCW, line 4) by the amount of child care $0 $0 from line 2) 5. Total Estimated Tax Credits (add line 3 and line 4 for each parent) $50 $0 6. Net Child Care Cost (subtract line 5 from line 1) $225 $0 FEDERAL TAX CREDIT TABLE Gross Monthly Income Tax Credit % $ 0 to 1,250 35% 1,251 to 1,417 34% 1,418 to 1,583 33% 1,584 to 1,750 32% 1,751 to 1,917 31% 1,918 to 2,083 30% 2,084 to 2,250 29% 2,251 to 2,417 28% 2,418 to 2,583 27% 2,584 to 2,750 26% 2,751 to 2,917 25% 2,918 to 3,083 24% 3,084 to 3,250 23% 3,251 to 3,417 22% 3,418 to 3,583 21% 3,584 to no limit 20% OREGON TAX CREDIT TABLE Gross Monthly Income Credit % $ 0 10 416 30% 417 In 833 15% 834 to 1,250 8% 1,251 to 2,083 6% 2,084 to 2,916 5% 2,917 to 3,750 4% Page 1 of 1- CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET S-3 (CHILD CARE CREDIT CONIPUTATION) CSF 02 0809D (New 03106/03) sonarr---q, PAGE„ya0E --. .4_ I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that I served a true copy of SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT 3 MODEn?ING PARENTING TIME AND CHILD SUPPORT on the named individual below: 4 Larry Jay Blake, Jr. Attorney at Law 5 3718 SW Condor, Ste. 110 6 Portland, OR 97239 7 Attorney for Respondent 8 by the following indicated method or methods: 9 7)? by mailing full, true, and correct copies thereof in sealed, first-class postage-prepaid envelopes, 10 addressed to the persons named above at their last-known addresses as set forth above, and deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Portland, Oregon, on the date set forth below. 11 - by causing a full, true and correct copy thereof to be hand delivered to the attorney named 12 above on the date set forth below. 13 ` by sending a full, true, and correct copy thereof via overnight courier, in a sealed prepaid 14 envelope, addressed to the attorney named above at said attorney's last-known office address as set forth above, on the date set forth below. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 by fazing a full, true and correct copy thereof to the attorney, at the last-known fax number for the attorney's office, on the date set forth below. DATED: April 5_2007. / Attorney for Petitioner 25 26 Page 1- CER'T'IFICATE OF SERVICE Robert Demary PC, OSB 89162 Attorney at Law 1000 S.W. Broadway Catific d True Copy Of The OdgiiW DOW This J4 Day Of _&j..> 20Q? z' Trial Cow A&6 By. ---i?•a -.- Re: In the Marriage of Cornwall and Cornwall To Whom It May Concern: -"IWO aamnrea in RUM *' Advio d in Oregon October 21, 2008 Via Fax and Mail: 717-243-5063 & Warhington This letter is in reference to the above-entitled matter and my former representation of Stephanie Cornwall. I was Ms. Cornwall's attorney for her dissolution proceeding that was filed in Clackamas County, State of Oregon, bearing the case number DR03-03721, I have been asked to provide this correspondence regarding the parties' Supplemental Judgment Modifying Parenting Time and Child Support and the specific provision regarding parenting plan modifications and the use of a parenting time coordinator. .Iri,this,case; the parties underwent a pare nt}ng.and custodyevaluation aswelt aspsycliological:'evaluation.tp assist in deternunaion of what type,of parenting plan and custody arrangement would-be irahe minor child's best interests. e parties stipulates. to fhe iianussioii of the. reports .and evaluations which ultimately found that the.Petitioner, Mr. Cornwall, suffered from various Axis II personality disorders that placed the parties' son at future risk_of harm, and"that Mr. Cornwall was unable to recognize boundaries and accept that his marriage was over. Due to the lack of boundary recognition and the constant unwanted attempts by Mr. Cornwall in trying to reconcile with my client, the custody evaluator determined that parenting time disputes and discussions would need to occur through a parenting coordinator. This individual was to provide a neutral means of communication between the parties regarding parenting time issues and assist Mr. Cornwall in adhering to the boundaries established by my client. The state of Oregon does not have a statute or guidelines for a "parenting coordinator". In this particular case, it was initially ordered that "Supervised visitation and supervised telephone contact shall not be altered, modified, terminated or changed in any manner prior to completion of a follow-up child custody evaluation to be performed by a child custody specialist." This restriction was ordered due to Mr. Cornwall's behavior both in and out of court and the findings of the evaluators. When parenting coordinators are utilized, generally it is their role to assist in limited issues regarding transportation issues, limited modifications in parenting time such as changing the date of a visit or hour of a visit, and telephone contact issues. Modifications to parenting time such as providing overnghts :where overnights were not previouslyprovidecl are not in "the discretion of 'the parenting coordinator, urdess the courtspeeifically, orders that a coordinator has'such power. Generally Modifications ,of that nature require a formal hearing and the co issuing a fulirig'on the matter. `This is especiallytrue where there are numerous issues and concems-raised regarding one 3700 Barbur Building, 3 , Portland, OR 97239 Telephone: 503.228.6200 Email: law@LvTy blakejr.com Ms. Herman-Snyder October 21, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Re: Cornwall parent's ability to provide a safe environment for the child and where there is a prior court order requiring additional evaluations to ensure the child's best interests are met prior to any modification. The initial parenting plan mentioned above contained in the parties' Limited judgment regarding Custody and Parenting Plan was later modified by the Supplemental judgment entered on April 24, 2007 which eliminated the supervised parenting time provision and provided for a more normalized parenting plan for Petitioner. The Supplemental judgment specifically included another parenting plan evaluator's recommendation and incorporated the recommendation into the judgment. The evaluator stated in his recommendation that a parenting coordinator would be recommended to oversee the transition to normalized parenting time. The evaluator's recommendation stated "This professional should have experience in child development, family therapy, and divorce-related disputes. I'm happy to offer specific referrals upon request. In the event Mr. Cornwall relocates to Pennsylvania and jurisdiction of this case is transferred, it may be necessary to identij a mental health professional suitable for.this zxle and mpressy define his or her role, since to my knowledge there is no parenting coordinator statute in Pennsylvania." I am unaware of any court order or judgment that has been sought or entered since Mr. Cornwall's relocation to Pennsylvania that provides any criteria or definition for the role that the parenting coordinator is to follow. Based upon the evaluator's recommendation and language utilized, it was my understanding that while Mr. Cornwall was still residing in Oregon this parenting coordinator would simply assist with the transition from supervised parenting time to normalized parenting time and address the parties various concerns that normally arise under such a transition. I don't believe it was ever the intention that the parenting coordinator would make unilateral changes to the parenting plan that was implemented in the Supplemental Judgment. It is my understanding that the current parenting coordinator utilized by the parties, Dr. Schneider, is attempting to implement that the Petitioner, Mr. Cornwall receive a mid-week overnight parenting time visit. Based upon my recollection of the case history, the court's ruling, and the evaluator's accepted recommendations, Dr. Schneider's modification is not within his discretion as a "parenting coordinator" and that said modification would have to be ordered by the court. If you have any further questions regarding this matter or this correspondence, please do not hesitate in contacting my office. Very truly, 3),Ours, Larry J. Blake, Jr. LJB.sr Cc: File Stephanie Cornwall 3700 Barbur Building, 3718 SW Condor, Suite 110, Portland, OR 97239 Telephone: 503.228.6200 Facsimile: 503128.6222 Email: lav alarryjblakejr.com I ' r . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. I, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire, hereby certify that I did, the )V day of October, STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant 2008, cause a copy of Petitioner's Petition for Enforcement of a Foreign Decree to be served upon Respondent and the parenting coordinator, Stanley E. Schneider, Ed.D. by serving them by first-class mail, postage prepaid at the following addresses: George M. Cornwall 10C Orange Street Mt. Holly Springs, PA 17065 DATE: I p--13-$ Stanley E. Schneider, Ed.D. Guidance Associates of Pennsylvania 412 Erford Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 SAa+-?k 1t.43Uhnn- -- Hannah Herman-Snyder, Es irc Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-5551 (800)347-5552 ? e Rj STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff, VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF A FOREIGN DECREE AND NOW comes Respondent, George M. Cornwall, the above defendant, Pro Se, and avers as follows: 1. Respondent is the above named Defendant, George M. Cornwall, herein after referred to as "Father" an adult individual currently residing at 1897 Boca Ratan Drive, Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon. Father also maintains a secondary residence in Mt. Holly Pennsylvania which is used as a location for parenting time with our son, George M. Cornwall IV, born November 11, 2008. 2. Petitioner is the above named Plaintiff, Stephanie L. Cornwall hereinafter referred to as "Mother", an adult individual currently residing at 4236 Carlisle Road, Gardners, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. The parties are subject to an Order of Court, dated April 24, 2007 from the Circuit Court of the sate of Oregon for the county of Clackamas, with such order being registered in Pennsylvania on January 28, 2008. -1- 4. The petitioner asks that the instant order be "enforced°, alleging that the Court Appointed Parenting Coordinator may have exceeded his authority by ordering a minor change to the parenting plan against wishes of the mother. The petitioner presents a letter from counsel asserting that the Oregon statutes may not provide for such changes to be made in the best interests of the child. 5. Respondent believes that the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS Chapter 107) do indeed provide for the appointment of a parenting coordinator and further go on describe the qualifications and duties of the Parenting Coordinator. Defendant avers that the Parenting Coordinator is acting in full accord with relevant ORS Statutes and established rules for his conduct as set by the Oregon Family Law Advisory Counsel. Moreover the parenting plan specifically provides that in the event the parties are not able to resolve differences relating to the changing needs of the child as he matures, that they shall be resolved by the Court Appointed Parenting Coordinator. Thus this petition is completely inappropriate in that it is asking the court to enforce the courts order against not the defendant but in fact against the court's own appointed officer. 6. ORS Chapter 107 further provides for an expedited hearing procedure in the event of a custody dispute. Petitioner should be directed to seek such remedies as provided under the Oregon Statute. -2- 7. Respondent is an Oregon Resident, the order in question is an Oregon order and the Parenting Coordinator was appointed under the relevant Oregon law. Thus the matter should be pursued in the proper venue, the state of Oregon. 8. The court should also be aware that the Petitioner has for the past 18 months been working on an Agreement in Principle, (AIP) leading to a stipulated jurisdiction, custody and parenting order to be filed in Pennsylvania. Thus the instant petition appears to be a disingenuous, even frivolous, attempt to not undermine that process but misinform the court. 9. The court would be well advised to recall that in a prior custody action in this court in about 2001, the Petitioner was fond in contempt of this court and ordered to post a surety deposit of $5,000 to ensure her future compliance with orders of this Court with respect to her minor children. 10. The Respondent respectfully requests that this petition be summarily dismissed, or in the alternative that this matter be set for hearing forthwith. 11. The respondent appearing "Pro-se" begs the Court's indulgence if this pleading is in anyway imperfect as to form and apologizes for any inconvenience so caused. 1 Dated this 13'hday of November, l George M. Cornwall (Pro SE) -3- ?w .? 33 r .y EsS "? STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff, VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant Re 5yo/1/S'f-- : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY AND NOW comes Respondent, George M. Cornwall, the above defendant, Pro Se, and avers as follows: 1. Respondent is the above named Defendant, George M. Comwall, herein after referred to as "Father" an adult individual currently residing at 1897 Boca Ratan Drive, Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon. Father also maintains a secondary residence in Mt. Holly Pennsylvania which is used as a location for parenting time with our son, George M. Comwall IV, born November 11, 2008. This address data is duty recorded with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation in the form of a declaration of residency filed July 20, 2008. 2. Petitioner is the above named Plaintiff, Stephanie L. Cornwall hereinafter referred to as "Mother", an adult individual currently residing at 4236 Carlisle Road, Gardners, Cumberiand County, Pennsylvania. -1- 3. The parties are subject to an Order of Court, dated April 24, 2007 from the Circuit Court of the state of Oregon for the county of Clackamas, with such order being registered in Pennsylvania on January 28, 2008. 4. The petitioner asks that the instant order be "enforced, alleging that the Court Appointed Parenting Coordinator may have exceeded his authority by ordering a minor change to the parenting plan against wishes of the mother. The petitioner presents a letter from counsel asserting that the Oregon statutes may not provide for such changes to be made in the best interests of the child. 5. Respondent believes that the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS Chapter 107) do indeed provide for the appointment of a parenting coordinator and further go on describe the qualifications and duties of the Parenting Coordinator. Defendant avers that the Parenting Coordinator is acting In full accord with relevant ORS Statutes and established rules for his conduct as set by the Oregon Family Law Advisory Counsel. Moreover the parenting plan specifically provides that in the event the parties are not able to resolve differences relating to the changing needs of the child as he matures, that they shall be resolved by the Court Appointed Parenting Coordinator. Thus this petition is completely inappropriate in that it is asking the court to enforce the courts order against not the defendant but in fact against the court's own appointed officer. -2- 6. ORS Chapter 107 further provides for an expedited hearing procedure in the event of a custody dispute. Petitioner should be directed to seek such remedies as provided under the Oregon Statute. 7. Respondent is an Oregon Resident, the order in question is an Oregon order and the Parenting Coordinator was appointed under the relevant Oregon law. Thus the matter should be pursued in the proper venue, the State of Oregon. 8. The court should also be aware that the Petitioner has for the past 18 months been working on an Agreement in Principle, (AIP) leading to a stipulated jurisdiction, custody and parenting order to be filed in Pennsylvania. Thus the instant petition appears to be a disingenuous, even frivolous, attempt to not only undermine that process but also purposely misinform the court. 9. The court would be well advised to recall that in a prior custody action in this court in about 2001, the Petitioner was found in contempt of this court and ordered to post a surety deposit of $5,000 to ensure her future compliance with orders of this Court with respect to her minor children. 10. The Respondent respectfully requests that this petition be summarily dismissed, WITH PREDUDICE. In any case, Plaintiff has taken no action to move this case forward since its filing on or about October e, 2008. Thus a period of Ninety Days has or will soon have elapsed, and defendant should not be burdened indefinitely with this pending matter; -3- i especially when the proper venue Is not within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 11. Counsel for the plaintiff has refused to correct the erroneous address In the original information presented to the this court despite repeated oral and written requests to do so; ostensibly because defendant by appearing "Prase" is somehow incompetent to accurately state his proper address. 12. The court Is reminded that it is the Mother, not the Father that is currently refusing to follow the directives of the duly appointed Parenting Coordinator, and is thus apparently in contempt of the Oregon Order. Thus the plaintiff apparently seeks to have this court enforce the order by seeking sanctioning of the Plaintiff. The motivation for this strange course of action remains inexplicable to the Defendant. 13. The respondent appearing "Pro-se" begs the Court's indulgence if this pleading is in anyway imperfect as to form and apologizes for any inconvenience so caused. Dated this 8th day of January, 2009 ALtl?& -? George M. Cornwall (Pro SE) -4- C> cam' t.. Lv WITH PROUDICE AND NOW comes Respondent, George M. Cornwall, the above Defendant, STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff, VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 08-608 CIVIL TERM : IN CUSTODY ANSWER AND REQUEST FOR DISMLSSAL OF PETITION TO ENFORCE A FOREIGN DECREE appearing Pro-Se, and concerning the Plaintiffs petition, avers as follows: 1. Paragraph 1, Agreed: 2. Paragraph 2, Do Not Concur. Respondent is the above named Defendant, George M. Cornwall, herein after referred to as ""Father" an adult individual currently residing at 1897 Boca Ratan Drive, Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon. Father also maintains a secondary residence in Mt. Holly Pennsylvania which is used as a location for parenting time with our son, George M. Cornwall IV, born November 11, 2008. Statements to this court to the effect that defendant has been properly served are simply not accurate. 3. Paragraph 3, Agreed: 4. Paragraph 4, Agreed: -1- 1 1% 5. Paragraph 5, Agreed: 6. Paragraph 6, Agreed: 7. Paragraph 7, Agreed: 8. Paragraph 8, Do Not Concur; The correspondence from attorney Blake is simply inaccurate in its recitation of the provisions of ORS 107.425, nor does it accurately reflect current practice of the hurts in working directing with the Family Law Advisory Council which does provide standards and guidelines for family practice advisors to the Oregon Courts. Moreover the subject order specifically requires that both parents comply with the directives of the court appointed parenting coordinator. Attorney Blake's reference to prior parenting plan(s) is both irrelevant and a disingenuous attempt at character assassination apparently intended to sway this court. 9. Paragraph 9, Do Not Concur; The parenting coordinator is specifically charged with monitoring the Best interest's of our son as they change over time and seeing that the parenting plan is modified as necessary to reflect those changes. This is exactly what he has attempted to do in this case, and would have save for the unwarranted interference of the Mother, based on ill informed advice form her Pennsylvania Counsel. The Matter should be remanded to Oregon for resolution. 10. Paragraph 10, Do Not Concur; Counsel has been repeatedly advised that Father is an Oregon Resident and that the appropriate address for legal -2- service is as stated above in paragraph 2. For reasons she declines to disclose, she refuses to correct this filing or perfect service. 11. Paragraph 11, Agreed: WHEREFORE, Defendant hereby moves that this Honorable Court dismiss the Plaintiff's Petition with Prejudice, and provide such additional relief as the Court may deem appropriate. Respectfully Submitted, George M. Cornwall Dated this 21st day of January 2009 RD R The Plaintiffs PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF A FOREIGN DECREE is hereby dismissed with PREJUDICE and BOTH PARTIES ARE DIRECTED to seek any future modification thereof in the appropriate Court(s) in the State of Oregon. Dated this _ th day of January, 2009 Judge Cumberland County Commonwealth of Pennsylvania -3- I verify that the statements made in the forgoing document are true and correct. I undeiV:and that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unworn falsifications to authorities. Date: January 21, 2009 George M. Cornwall -4- ?: ? - ? F:? r .?, -r°t ?' ? ?- fry ?m _ ,? :::r j ?? `°:? f :?: __ ?, sr;, ?, STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff, VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY TO DISH= PETITION TO 0-? A rogym DECREE AND NOW comes Respondent, George M. Cornwall, the above Defendant, appearing Pro-Se, and cone" the plain Ws petition, avers as "Ows: 1. Paragraph 1, Agreed: 2. Paragraph 2, Do Not ft=. Respondent is the above named Defendant, George M. Cornwall, herein after referred to as "Father" an adult individual currently residing at 1897 Boca Ratan Drive, Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon. Father also maintains a secmdary residence in Mt. Holly Pennsylvania which is used as a location for parenting time with our son, George M. Cornwall IV, born November 11, 2008. Statements to this Court to the effect that defendant has been properly served are simply not accurate. 3. Paragraph 3, Agreed: 4. Paragraph 4, Agreed: 5. Paragraph 5, Agreed: -i- w %. 6. Paragraph 6, agreed: 7. Paragraph 7, Agreed: 8. Paragraph 8, Do Not Agree; The eorresponderx:e from amotney Blake is simply inaccurate in its recitation of the provisions of ORS 107.425, nor does it accurately reflect current practice of the courts in working directing with the Family Law Advisory Council which does provide standards and guidelines for family practice advisors to the Oregon Courts. Moreover the subject order Willy requires that both parents comply with the directives of the court appointed parenting c oordir cr. AftffWY Blake's reference to prior parenting plan(s) is both irrelevant and a disingenuous attempt at character a nat. apparently intended to sway this cont. 9. Paragraph 9, Do Not Agree; The parenting coordinator is specifically charged with n"uttring the Best Interest's of our sort as they change over time and seeing that the parenting plan is modified as necessary to reflect those changes. This is exactly what he has attempted to do in this case, and would have save for the unwarranted interference of the Mother, apparently based on advice from her Pennsylvania Counsel. The Matter should be remanded to Oregon for resolution. 10. Paragraph 10, Do Not Agree; Counsel has been repeatedly advised that Father is an Oregon Resident and that the appropriate address for legal service is as shed above in paragraph 2. For reasons she declines to disclose, she refuses to correct this filing or perfect service. -2- 11. Paragraph 11, Agreed: 12. Since the filing of this petition, the Parenting Coordinator appointed under the Oregon Order, Dr. Stanfy Schneider of Camp Hill, has been unable to carry out his duties because of the uncertainty created by the piaintifPs petition, which has not been heard or otherwise brought before the court for action since its filing in October, 2008. This serves to frustrate the intent of the Oregon Court in appointing Dr. Schneider. WHEREFORE, Defendant hereby moves that this Honorable Court dismiss the Piainttfrs Petition, and provide such additional relief as the Court may deers appropriate. Defendant is unable to proceed in either the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or in The State of Oregon as long as th"s petition remains pending. Defendant believes that the proper jurisdiction for this matte remains where it originated, in the State of Oregon. Respectfully Submitted, ?f Geomft M. CAriw all [)aged this 2°d day of February 2009 -3- 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. Secticm 4904, relating to unswom falsific Dons to ate. Date: January 21, 2009 George M. Cornwall -5- ? ? ?<, ?: ? ?? ,:? ?_ 4.R ?7 ? *..n r a ? 1 ?? .. `t7 ,? -? ?;:' .? STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AND NOW comes Petitioner, Stephanie L. Cornwall, the above named Plaintiff, by and through her attorney, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire, and the law firm of Griffie and Associates and petitions the Court as follows: 1. Petitioner, hereinafter "Mother," is Stephanie L. Cornwall, the above named Plaintiff. 2. Respondent, hereinafter "Father," is George M. Cornwall, the above named Defendant. 3. The parties are the natural parents of George "Mackie" Cornwall, IV, born November 11, 1998. 4. The parties are subject to an Order of Court dated April 24, 2007 from the Circuit Court of the state of Oregon for the county of Clackamus with said Order being registered in Pennsylvania on January 28, 2008, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A". 5. Pursuant to the Order, Father exercises periods of custody every Wednesday afternoon and evening and alternate sixty (60) hour weekends. 6. Stanley E. Schneider, Ed.D. has been serving as the parenting coordinator for the parties pursuant to the Oregon Order and on or about September 7, 2008, in a session with the parties, Dr. Schneider stated, over Mother's objection, that Father would be exercising overnight periods of custody every Wednesday to Thursday. 7. Father exercised his first period of custody overnight from Wednesday to Thursday beginning on January 21, 2009. 8. While the parenting coordinator may have stated that he had the authority to grant Father an extra overnight, Mother believes and therefore avers that a parenting coordinator does not have authority to alter a Court Order in any substantial manner and, therefore, that Respondent willfully failed to comply with the terms of the Court Order by failing to return the child on the evening of January 21, 2009. 9. Mother requested Father to comply with the Court Order by contacting him on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 and was informed by Father that he had no intention of returning the child to her custody. 10. There has been no prior Judge involved in this custody matter. 11. Father is being provided notice of the filing of this pleading at 1897 Boca Ratan Drive, Lake Oswego, Oregon, and 10 Orange Street, Mt. Holly Springs, Pennsylvania by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court adjudge the Respondent in contempt of the Order registered in Pennsylvania on January 28, 2008, to impose such sanction and penalties as the Court deems appropriate to assure the Respondent's future compliance with the Court's Orders in this matter, the Petitioner be awarded compensatory custodial time from the time wrongfully deprived from her by Respondent, and that Petitioner be awarded attorney's fees which the Court deems equitable and just. Respectfully Submitted, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esqui Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner GRIFFIE AND ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5551 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. Section 4904, relating to unworn falsifications to authorities. DATE: ' T HA L. CORNWALL STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire, hereby certify that I did, the .1' :?' day of February, 2009, cause a copy of Petitioner's Petition for Contempt to be served upon Respondent by serving him by first-class mail, postage prepaid at the following addresses: George M. Cornwall 1897 Boca Ratan Drive Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 DATE: I-,I - O? George M. Cornwall 10 Orange Street Mt. Holly Springs, PA 17065 pan - Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esqu- Attorney for Plaintiff?Petitioner GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-5551 (800)347-5552 9 Co C `' s i e? MP3 Z 1J STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2008-608 CIVIL ACTION LAW GEORGE M. CORNWALL IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday, February 09, 2009 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Jacqueline M. Verney, Esq. , the conciliator, at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 8:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and nareovu the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: /s/ ac ueline M. Verne Es . 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 PAPERTO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHEkE'YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 0 ?, 40 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AND NOW comes Petitioner, Stephanie L. Cornwall, the above named Plaintiff, by and through her attorney, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire, and the law firm of Griffie and Associates and petitions the Court as follows: I. Petitioner, hereinafter "Mother," is Stephanie L. Cornwall, the above named Plaintiff. 2. Respondent, hereinafter "Father," is George M. Cornwall, the above named Defendant. 3. The parties are the natural parents of George "Mackie" Cornwall, IV, born November 11, 1998. 4. The parties are subject to an Order of Court dated April 24, 2007 from the Circuit Court of the state of Oregon for the county of Clackamus with said Order being registered in Pennsylvania on January 28, 2008, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A". 5. Pursuant to the Order, Father exercises periods of custody every Wednesday afternoon and evening and alternate sixty (60) hour weekends. 6. The parties arranged, between the two of them, that Father would exercise custody during the child's school break from Wednesday, February 11, 2009 through Monday, February 16, 2009. 7. Mother contacted the school on Tuesday, February 17, 2009, as she was going to pick up the child for a doctor's appointment at the end of the day, only to learn from the school that the child was not in school. 8. Mother obtained information from the school that Father, during a parent teacher conference on Thursday, February 12, 2009, filled out a form and informed the school that the child would be visiting family in Oregon through to Tuesday, February 18, 2009 and that he would provide the form to Mother and have her sign it as well. 9. Father, despite his representations to the school, never discussed this issue with Mother, never provided the form to Mother, and would not respond to Mother's attempts at contact after she learned the child was not in school. 10. A Petition for Contempt is currently pending with a conciliation conference scheduled for Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. such that this is Father's second violation of the current Court Order within two (2) months. 11. Petitioner requests that this matter be heard at the same time as the conciliation conference currently scheduled for Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. 12. There has been no prior Judge involved in this custody matter. 13. Father is being provided notice of the filing of this pleading at 1897 Boca Ratan Drive, Lake Oswego, Oregon, and 10 Orange Street, Mt. Holly Springs, Pennsylvania by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court adjudge the Respondent in contempt of the Order registered in Pennsylvania on January 28, 2008, to impose such sanctions and penalties as the Court deems appropriate to assure the Respondent's future compliance with the Court's Orders in this matter, the Petitioner be awarded compensatory custodial time from the time wrongfully deprived from her by Respondent, and that Petitioner be awarded attorney's fees which the Court deems equitable and just. Respectfully Submitted, Y Hannah Herman-Snyder, Es ire Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner GRIFFIE AND ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5551 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. Section 4904, relating to unworn falsifications to authorities. z ---/z el- - DATE: t-- -z1 S EP ANIE ORNWALL +r _n .....U??I 4 IN THE CIRCUIT CO T OF TI?SfiATE REDO 5 FOR THE COUNTY OF CLACKAMAS 6 Family Law Department 7 In the Matter. of the Marriage of } g GEORGE MACKIE CORNWALL III, No. DR03 03721 9 Petitioner, ) SUPPLt ENTAL JUDGMENT MODIFYING PARENTING TIME AND 10 and CHILD SUPPORT . 11 STEPHANIE LYNN CORNWALL; Respondent. ; 12 1$ THIS.MATTER came before the Honorable Steven L. Maurer on the le-day of January, 14 2007 for hearing on the parties' respective motions; Petitioner appeared in person and by and 15 through his attorney, Robert F. Demary; Respondent appeared by'telephone and by and through 16 her attorney Larry Jay Blake, Jr.; and the court being fully advised, 17 THE COURT HEREBY FINDS as follows: 18 1. That no further benefit is to *be derived, from the supervised parenting schedule of 19 the Petitioner; ; 20 2. The court, was presented with no evidence of the child being at risk or that 21 unsupervised parenting time would be adverse.-to the child's interest; 22 3. The court finds Dr. Ransford's;proposal measured and considered and provides a 23 balance and protection for the child to have a relationship with Petitioner, 24 \l\i\ 25 \\\\\ in 26 i\\\\ PAGE 1 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND'CHILD SUPPORT Rob%t Denary PC, oSB 8062 Attorney at Law woo•S.W. Broadwav N 4 .- l 4. The court also finds that Petitioner's potential income is $5,000 per month in 1 2 addition to his military income of $1,333 per month for a total of $6,333 per month.. 3 5. The court finds the Respondent's income to be $5,257 per month. 4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 5 1. The parenting proposal recommended by Dr. Ransford shall be immediately 6 implemented, and the parties are ordered to comply with said schedule. The court hereby vacates 7 all restrictions on telephone calls, communication and gifts{,-U, t,Q?,?Q??? 8 2. The parenting schedule shall be as recommended by Dr. Ransford, a copy of 9 which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and•incorporated herein by reference as though fully set to forth. Said recommended schedule is more fully detailed in Exhibit 2 which is attached hereto 11 arid incorporated herein by reference„ ?++?•????-"Aafiee-aaOay 1grent ng time sebt-ule 12 13 Whieh iS UL thed`WiiY 1n ar Pvhihit I snrq ;nCQzP4iM+Pl1 tae«..'... ivm'e° wicm + no y aoxv? v7-w 14 3. Petitioner shall continue to have reasonable telephone, 'contact with tht minor child im m4limited;to the calls previously"ordered,on Tuesday,.Thursday and Sunday evenings at 7:30 p.m. eastern standard time, for, 15 minutes per call. 17 4. Commencing on the first day of November, 2005, and continuing on the first day 18 of each month'thereafter until each child marries, dies, becomes emancipated, or ceases to be a lg child attending. school as defined by ORS 107:10$(4) or any successor statute, Petitioner shall 20 pay to Respondent for which Respondent shall have judgment against Petitioner the sum of $726 21 per month as and for -child support. A copy of the child support guideline, calculation sheets is 22 attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 23 ORS 25.317 requires that, in most cases, child support must be paid by income 24 withholding from payer's employer via the Division of Child Support.. The 'law allows the court 25 to grant an exception in certain circumstances. In lieu of wage withholding, payments will be 26 PAGE 2 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT Robert Aemary PC, OSB 8gi62 Attorney at Law iooo S.W. Broadway fem.- .. made directly by Petitioner to the Division of Child Support, P.O. Box 14506, Salem, Oregon 1 • 97309, for appropriate distribution. The Division of Child Support shall provide the collection, 2 accounting, and enforcement services for said child support. Pursuant to HB 2235-B, the 3 Division of Child Support; or the Child Support Accounting Unit may provide the following 4 information to aparty when represented'by counsel: (a) the date support was issued, (b) the 5 amount of the support order, (c) dates and amounts of payments, (d) dates and amounts of 6 disbursements, (e) the payee, (f) the amount of any arrearage, and (g) the source of the collection. 7 This method: is available to the payer as an alternative to wage withholding because (a) there are 8 no arrearages in this case; (b) the payer has not previously been, granted a withholding exemp- 9 tion;.(c) the parties have agreed in writing to this alternative arrangement; and (d) Petitioner is 10 sufficiently protected by the mandatory withholding if nonpayment occurs. 11 5. The courtfinds Petitioner*to not be in contempt of court based upon the court's 12 finding that Petitioner's behavior was not willful. 13 6. The Cruidance Associates of Pennsylvania shall be appointed to act as parenting 14 coordinator to assist the parties with:parenting issues, and the parties are ordered to comply and 15 cooperate, with-the.parenting coordinator. The cost of-such services, net of any insurance 16 payments, shall be shared equally, by the parties. 17 7.. Each party has leave to- submit an attorney fee affidavit pursuant to OACP 68 to 18 request fees and costs. 19 STATUTORY NOTICES. 20 ORS 25.384 - NOTICE OFINCOAM WITHHOLDING 21 THIS SUPPORT ORDER IS ENFORCEABLE BYINCOME WITHHOLDING UNDER ORS 25.372 to 25.427. Wr=OLDINGSHALL OCCVRIMMEMTELY,'OHENEVER THERE AREARREARAGESAT 22 LEAST EQUAL TO THESVPPORT PAYMENT FOR ONE MONTH, *7jENEVER THE OBLIGATED PART FREQUESTSSUCH WITHHOLDING, OR WHENEVER THE OBLIGEEREQUESTS 23 WITHHOLDRYG FORGOOD CAUSi" THEDISTRICTATTORNEYOR, ASAPPROPRIATE; THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT W ML ASSIST IN SECURING 24 SUCH WITHHOLDING.. EXCEPTIONS MA YAPPL YIN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES: . THEDMISIONOF CHILD SUPPORT SHALL PROVIDEANNUAL NOTICE TO EACH OBLIGOR 25 AND OBLIGEE ONSUPPO$T ORDERSBEING ENFORCED BYTHEDISTRICTATTORNEYOR SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISIONOF THEAVAILABHJTY OF THEREQUIREMENTS FOR 26 EXCEPTIONS TO WITHHOLDING. PAGE 3 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT Robert Denary PC, OSB 89ibt Attorney at law iooo S.W. Broadway i ORS 107.106- NOTICE TO PARENTS 1 THE TERMS OFC07L SUPPORTAND PARENTING TIME (PISITATIOAQ AREDESIGNED FOR THE CHILD'SBENEFITAND NOT THE PARENTS' BENEFIT YOUMUSTPAYSUPPORT EVENIF 2 YOUARE NOT RECEIVING VISITATION. YOU MUST COMPLY WITH VISITATION ORDERS EVEN IF YOUARE NOT RECEIVING CHILD SUPPORT. 3 VIOLATION OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDERSAND VISITATION ORDERSISPUNISHABLE BY FINE, bWPRISONMENT OR OTHER PENALTIES 4 PUBLICLYFUNDED HELP MAYBE AVAU ABLE TO ESTABLISH, ENFORCE AND MODIFY 5 CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS PAMA7TYESTABLISRMENT SERVICESAREALSO AVAILABLE CONTACT YOUR LOCALE DISTRICTA770RNEY, DOMESTICRELATIONS COURT CLERK, OR THE 6 DEPARTMEWOFHUMANSERVICES(S03)378-5567 FOR INFORMATION. PUBLICLYFUNDED HELPMAYBEAVAHABLE TO ESTABLISH, ENFORCE; AND MODIFY 7 VISITATION ORDERS CONTACT TREDOMFSTICRELATIONS COURT CLERK OR 77ZE-CIVIL COURT CLERK FOR DMORMAT70N. $ ORS25.020 -NOTICE OFPERIODICREVIEWAND MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS 9 THE PETITIONER AND THERESPONDENT, OR EITHER OF THEM, MAYREQUEST THAT TEE DEPAMTENT OF JUSTICE REVIEW THE AMOUNT OF SUPPORT ORDERED AFTER TWO YEARS 10 OR ATANYTMIE UPONA SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES. ORS 107.159 - INTENT TO CHANGERESIDENCE OF CHILDREN . 11 EACHPARENT SHALL GIVE THE OTHER PARENTAT LEAST 60 DAYS WRITTEN 12 N077CE OFHIS/HER INTENT TO MOVE MORE THAN 60 AMES FURTHER DISTANT FROM TUE. OTHER PARENT. WRITTENNO77CE OF THE INTENT TO MOVE MUST BE FILED WITH 7HE'COURT 13 ORS 25.OZ M (a) NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE OFADDRESS 14 EACHPARENT MUST NOT7FYTHE COURTAND 72W DI MION OF CHILD SUPPORT IN WRITING OFANYCHANGES INHIS OR HER ADDRESS OR TELEPHONE NUMBER, OR EMPLOYER 15 AND. EMPLOYER'S TELEPHONENUMBER, WPTHW 10 DAYSAFTER SUCH CHANGE 16 MONEY AWARD 17 Judgment Creditor: Name: Stephanie Lynn Cornwall Address: 4236 Carlisle Road 18 Gardners,-PA 17324 Creditor's Attorney : Larry J. Blake, Jr., OSB #87172 19 ' and Address: 3718 SW. Condor, .Suite 110 - Portland,• OR 97201 20 Telephone: (503) 228-6200. Facsimile: (503) 228-6222 21 Judgment Debtor: Name: George Mackie Cornwall, lII 22 Address: 1897 Boca Ratan Drive 23 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 24 Debtor's Attorney Robert F. Demary, OSB #89162 and Address: 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2400 ?5 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 727-0600 26 Facsimile: (503) 727-0601 PAGE 4 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE. CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT Robert Demary PC,. o$B 89i6a Attorney St Law 1000 S.W. Broadway Judgment Type: . 1 . A. Child Support: 2 (1) Amount of support: $726 3 (2) Number of children: One (3) Beginning date for child support payments: 11/01/05 4 (4) Ending date for child support payments: (a) Age of majority; 5 (b) ?ffierD hild attendni school per ORS 107.108(4); (c}ies, mames ?or becomes emancipated withholding 6 (5) Other child support payment information (if any): Shall not be paid by wage 7 B. Judgment Interest: Nine percent (9%) per annum simple g DATED this day of 2007. 9 10 4p, uit Q Court ?Judge 11 12 Prepared -and mitted by: 13 14 bbert F. many OSB #8916 Attorney for a over 15 16 17 18 19 . 20 21 .22 " 23 24 25 26 PAGE 5 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT Robert Demary PC, USB 89162 Attorney at Law iooo S.W. Broadway PARENTING SCHEDULE Month 1: weekly, mid-week parenting time only Month 2: mid-week parenting times + a five-hour contact every other Saturday Month 3: mid-week parenting times + a Friday afternoon to Saturday noon overnight contact every other week , Month 4: mid week punting tunes + a Friday afternoon to Saturday noon overnight contact on I& Cornwall's fast weekend + a Friday afternoon to Sunday noon overnight contact on his second weekend. Month 5: mid-week parenting times + a Friday afternoon to Sunday noon overnight contact every other week Month 6: full implementation of recommended schedule 2. The following suggestions are offered regarding holiday and vacation parenting times: a) Summer holidays: In addition to regular parenting time, I recommend that Mr. and Mrs. Cornwall each be granted a one-week vacation period (defined as seven consecutive days). b) Thanksgivm hg- oliday: Thanksgiving Day and the Friday following ThanksgKing can be rotated between the parents with the weekend llin as it does per the standard schedule. c) Winter break: These holidays can be rotated between the parents such that Mackie spends the first portion of each winter break with one parent and the second half of winter break with the other parent d) 4„pling break This holiday can also be rotated between the parents. To avoid confiision, I recommend defining spring break as Monday through Friday and letting weekend parenting time fall as it ordinarily would per the standard schedule. 3. I also recommend appointing a parenting coordinator to oversee the transition to normalized parenting time. This professional should have mperienee.in child development, family therapy, and divorce-related. disputes. I'm happy to offer specific referrals upon request. In the event that Mr. Cornwall relocates to Pennsylvania and jurisdiction of this case is transferred, it may be necessary to identify a mental health professional suitable for this role and expressly define his or her role, since to my knowledge there is no parenting coordinator statute in Pennsylvania. EXHIBIT PAGE I OF 83%29/2887 15:16 503239- 1 03/27/2887 22:30 717-323-8653 POC LOGISTICS LLC 320:00 PM 3:20:00 PM 3:200 PM !2.•0010 PM 32M PM 3:20:0 PM 1{!:00:00 AM 3:20:00 PM 320A0 PM 12:OQ:oo PM 92,0:00 PM 3:20da0 PM 320:00 PM 5:20:0 PM 3:20:00 PM 3:20:00 PM 3:20:00 PM 3:20:00 PM 3:20:00 PM 320:00 PM 3:20:00 PM 3:20:00 PM 3:20:00 PM 320:00 PM 3:20:00 PM 3:9:00 PM 3:20:00 PM 12:00.0 PM 320:00 PM 3:200 PM 12:00:00-PM 3.'28:08 PM BOOM AM 12:00:00 PM 3:20:00 PM 3:20:00 PM 12:00.00 PM 3:20:00 PM 3;30:00 PM 11100:D0 PM 3:20:00 PM 3:20•.00 PM 12:0:00 PM Parenting Plan, Detail schedule Mackie COMWW1 tnttal , on tae of Plan 71ML=S da* Ir.r, pp? Snarl End Comments Wednesday, January 24. Aftemoon & Evening Only Wednesday, 41wrim 31, 2047 Afternoon & Evening Only T 1 Wedn y. Fdrmy07. 2W7 Anwoon & Evening Only t.,J VfWn*ws*, i=ebruary 14,2W7 Aft now & Evening O riiy "vednesday, Febn*y 21, 2007 Afternoon & Eve ft Only Wecmaeda ' Febnary 28, 2007 Afwrx r, & Evening Only A fturdey, M" 03, 2007 Mornfig & aftemonn Wednesday, Mang 07, 2007 Aflemoon & Evening Only W**=dity, March 14, 2.007 Afternoon & Evening Orgy Wurc*, man* 17.2w Morning & Awnaorr ?1 fednesday. Mere 21. =7 Afternoon & Evening Only Wrdttesday, Match 28,2W7 Afternoon & Evening Only Friday, March W. 2007 Saturday, march at 2007 Wednesday, April o4, 2007 Afternoon & 9vaning Only Wednesday, April 11, 2007 Afionoon & Evening Only Friday. April 13, Z007 t? Saturday, AprN 14, 2007 _._3l Onesday. April it, 2007 Afb"oon & Evening Only Wsdneedoy. April 25, 2007 Aftamoon A Evening Only Frirtay. April 27.2007 ii S.Z-SWWW, April 29, 2007 Wedowday, May 02, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only Wednesday, May 09, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only Friday. May 11, 207 Q Suriclay, May 13, 2007 Wednesday, May 18.2007 Afternoon & Evening Only Wednesday, May 28.2007 Aftemoon & evening Only Friday, May 25, 2007 Monday, may 28, 2007 Wednesday, May 30, 2007 Aftemoan & Evening Only Wednesday, June 06, 2W Afternoon & Evening Only Friday, June 08, 2007 Monday, Jun 11, 2007 Wednesdey, June 13, 2007 Afteemmoan & Evening Only Wsdnaedlry. June 20, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only Friday, Jane 22, 2007 Monday, Jung 25, 2007 Wednesday. Junk 27,2W? Aftemoan & Evening Only Wednesday, Juy 04, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only Friday, July 05. 7 Monday. July CIO, 2W7 Wednesday, July 11.201X7 Afternoon & Evaft Only Wedruaedey, July 18, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only F'rMW Judy 20, 2007 Monday, July 23, 2007 Wednesday. July 28.2007 Afternoon & Evening only wsdm6sdmy, Augur, 01, 2007 Afternoon & evening only Friday. August 03, 207 MoMVtay, August 00, 2007 Wednwsday, August 08, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only WcdneadAy. August 15, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only Friday. Augur 17,2W7 Monday, August 27, 2007 Wednesday. August 22,2W7 Afternoon & Evening Only Friday. August 81.2007 Monday, September 03, 20D7 MOTES, Tk, 'Jftar Wednesday atmmoun Evenings. Aiternato 60 Hour Weekends Holiday Schedule far 11!07 and thereafter to be developed by parenting Coordinator, If any visit Is missed. schedule continues. Parties are free to adjust times as may be mutsiiy agreed or may be mferre d to Parenting Coordinator. 3:20:00 PM PACE 03/03 PAGE 82 8:00:00 PM? sC9t &OQ•00 PM 8:00:00 PM 8:00:00 PM (No School) 8:00:00 PM 8:00.00 PM 3:00:00 PM (1:00:00 PM 8:0&00 PM 5:W:DD PM 8:00:00 PM 8:00:00 PM •4,OW PM 12' ' 8:0:00 PM 8:00:00 PM *SOC PM i'r- t tom' SOD= PM 8;00:00 PM "0" PM i z `cv? 8:00:00 PM 8:00:00 PM - :gp 4:,Op=L2U Dad's Sklyday 8:00:01) PM e:00:w PM 8:00,M PM Memorial asy 8:00:00 PM 8.00:00 PM $:30:00 AM No School 8:00:00 PM $:00:04 PM 8:30-00 AM No School 8:00:00 PM 11:WQ:t0 PM July 4th 9.30:00 AM No School 8:00:00 PM 8:00:00 PM 8:30:00 AM No So aol A:00:w PM 8:00:00 PM 8:30:00 AM No School 8:00,00 PM t3:00,M PM. 8:30:00 AM Vacation St pool Most B.-00:00 PM 1.11mly in session 12:00:x0 PM 9,30.00 AM School 'rue Mon labor day wBiT 2, PAGE OP? MULTNOMAH OOUNTY STANDARD PARENTING TIME GUIDELINES (1) The purpose of the pare*g time guidelines is as follows: (A) It is the policy of court to encourage the parties to work out their own parenting time schedule, either betty themselves or through mediation The court will generally approve any schedule agreed on by the parties; (B) However, if the parties ar\unable to agree on a schedule which best suits their family circumstances, the following p en" time guidelines, when appropriate, will be used by the court as a basis for establishing p . time. Because the circumstances of each f unfly differ, the parenting time schedule est fished by the court may provide for more or less parenting time than desired by the p s. (C) Additionally, the following par time guidelines are inapplicable to families experiencing domestic violence, mental he th or substance abuse issues. For cases not involving such problems, and in-which the p ents are managing separation of the family unit with civility, the guidelines set forth reasonAp parenting time for a non-custodial parent; (D) The following parenting time guidelines too not establish a minimum standard for parenting time and are not intended as mandatoryVrovisions, under any circumstance. (2) The non-custodial parent will have parenting time a minor child on alternating weekends from 6:00 pm Friday to 6:00 pm Sunday. (3) In the absence of a showing that such would not permit maintenance of a significant preexisting parent-child attachment, parenting.time with children ss than three years of age shall be: (A) Birth to 18 months - twice per week for two hours * visit; (B) 18 to 30 months - once per week for six hours; (C) 30 to 36 months - Friday at 6:00 pm until Saturday at 6:OQ pm on alternate weekends. (4) . The non-custodial parent shall also have parenting time for 14 unin ted days during the summer with children six and over. The non-custodial parent shall notify custodial parent in writing prior to April 15th of each year which days the non-custodial parent selected for parenting time. The custodial parent shall likewise have the right to atwo-week vacatio each summer during which the non-custodial parent's parenting time need not be honored, if the va on is out of town. The custodial parent shall advise the non-custodial parent of such vacation plans o later than May 1st of each year. Once designated, changes in the summer parenting time sched shall not be allowed except by agreement of both parties. Failure of either party to make a time designation of summer parenting time will, not result in forfeiture of parenting time rights but will re t in the custodial parent having the right to designate the summer parenting time, or in the case f the Supplementary Local Rules Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County Effective February 1, 2003 75 EXHIBIT Pa r,%;: / nF custodial parent failing to gi a notice, the parenting time lost by the non-custodial parent shall be subject to make-up. ' time. (5) The child shall be read for parenting time, and be picked up from the front steps of the custodial parent's residence, no ore than 15 minutes early nor 15 minutes late. Return of the children to the front steps of the odial parent's residence is also subject to the 15-minute rule. The non-custodial parent shall fe the child the evening meal prior to returning the child. (6) Except as to a child under ee years, whenever the weekend or other parenting time provided herein falls adjacent to. a s of holiday or legal holiday, including Labor Day, such weekend or other parenting time shall include adjacent holiday, either Friday or Monday. (7) If a non-custodial parent fails t exercise the scheduled parenting time for any reason other than a substantial medical problem, m will be no postponement or scheduling of a make-up period of parenting time. If there is a sub medical problem, the non-custodial parent will be allowed a make-up visit on the succeeding available eekend. (8) Both parties will provide addresses a?d contact telephone numbers to the other parry and will immediately notify the other party of any eme ency circumstances or substantial changes in the health of the child However, both parties s refrain from releasing the other party's phone number to third parties. (9) The non-custodial parent shall also have On-- 11T, unlimited right to correspond with the child and may telephone the child no more than once per wee for 15 minutes or less during reasonable hours without interference or monitoring by the custodial or anyone else is any way. Each parent shall allow the child to telephone. the other parent at Irnable hours and with reasonable frequency, if the child wishes. `` (10) ' Both parties are restrained and enjoined from ma?ng derogatory comments about the other party or in any other way diminishing the love, respect, add affection that the child has for either party. (11) In addition to the parenting time specified in the precding paragraphs, the non-custodial parent shall have parenting time as follows: ll (A) Christmas (or significant holidays in other (i) For children 30 months to six years of age: even-numbered years, on Christmas Eve from noon until 10:00 am on Chris s Day, in odd-numbered years, from 10:00 am until 8:00 pm on Christmas Day; (u) For children six and over: in even numbered ye the time from the commencement of the school holiday through 10:00 am Day, in odd numbered years, from 10:00 am Christmas Day until Jan 1st at noon. Supplementary Local Rules . Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah Co ty Effective February 1, 2003 76 BIT. PAAF ,Q OF .-_2S T (B) Thanks " Day in odd-numbered years from 10:00 am until 7:00 pm (C) Fath&s/Mo 's Day each year from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 pm (12) A child is not permitted to tcimine whether the child wishes to visit with the non-custodial parent. Personal plans of the custo ' parents or child, school activities, church activities, and other considerations are not reasons for ' ' to adhere to the parenting time schedule set forth in this rule. . (13) Parenting time, however, between a enager and a party shall take into consideration the child's employment and age-appropriate act' 'es. (See SLR 8.075) Supplementary Local Rules Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County Effective February 1, 2003 77 IBff PAGE , 3. OF ? CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION WORKSHEET (CSCW) To determine Parent Parent A Stephanie A and Parent B, see insWctions Parent B George # of Joint Children 1 Parent A Parent B Combined Income 1. Gross Monthly Income $5,257 $6,333 Ia. Rebuttal amount applied, if any (see worksheet S-4) $0 $0 2. Spousal support received $0 $0 3. Spousal support and/or mandatory union dues paid $0 $0 4. Modified. Gross Monthly Income (to line 1:add or subtract fine $5,257 $6,333 Y? , la, add line 2, subtract line 3); enter result Adjustments. 5. Social Security benefits or Veterans' benefits received for joint child(ren) (enter in column of parent for whose disability or $0 $0 retirement benefits are received, regardless of who actually receives benefits) 6a. Number of nonjoint children for each Parent 0 0 6b. Credit for nonjoint children (reference scale for each Parent's income from fine 4, using number of nonjoint children for each $0 $0 ; Parent, as appropriate) 7. Adjusted Gross Monthly Income (add lines 4 and 5 and subtract line 6b, for each parent); Combine amounts for Parent A $5,257 $6,333 $11,590 and Parent B and enter result in Yd column 8. Percentage share of income (each Parent's income from line 7 45.4/e 0 54.60 k divided by the combined income) r" Basic Child 9. Basic Child Support Obligation (reference scale for combined $1 137 Support income from line 7 and number of joint children) .rye , , 10. Each parent's pro rata basic child support obligation (line 8 $516 $621 times line 9 for each parent). !1" ' Do parties have a current written agreement or court order for parenting time equal to 20% or gr eater for both parents, andlor have split custody? If yes, complete worksheet S-2 and enter result below, if no, continue to line 12m . 11. Each parent's pro rata basic child support obligation after parenting time credit from worksheet S-2, line 3 or 4c. Low Income Adjustment 12a. Each parent's single income obligation (reference scale for each parent's modified gross monthly income from line 4 and number df joint children). 12b. Monthly child support obligation before costs and adjustments >If no parenting time credit is included, enter zero for Parent A, enter the lesser of line 14 and line 12a for Parent B; >If worksheet S-2 for parenting time is completed, enter the lesser of line 11 and line 12a for each parent Paee i of 2 - CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION WORKSHEET (CSCW) -. nQMV03) EXHIBIT Costs & 13a. Child care costs for joint children (see worksheet S-3) $225 $0 Adjustments Entu costs in column 13b. Medical expenses (not health care coverage costs - see 13c) $0 $0 of PWWt who incurs cost 13c. Health care coverage $0 $40 13d. Rebuttal amount applied, if any (amount by which cost of care $0 $0 should be increased or decreased for parent)(see worksheet S-4) 13e. Total Costs (add lines 13a, 13b and 13c for each parent; add or $225 $40 subtract line 13d) 14. Costs owed to Parent B (line 8, Parent A times line 13e, Parent $18 B; if no Parent A, enter amount from line 13e) 15. Costs owed to Parent A (line 8, Parent B times line 13e, Parent $123 A) Monthly child support obligation after costs (line 12b, .column 1 . .16. plus line 14 for Parent A and line 12b, column 2 plus line 15 for $18 $744 Parent B) a 17. Net child support obligation (subtract smaller amount on line 16 from greater amount and enter result on line for parent with greater $0 $726 obligation; enter zero for other parent) Benefits Adjustment 18. If SSB or VB is received by Parent A as representative payee $0 for joint child(ren) as a result of Parent B's disability or retiremen t . z Computing 19. Total Child Support Obligation a Fiual Parent A - enter figure from line 17, Parent A $0 $726 Obligation Parent B - line 17 minus line 18; if negative value, enter zero 20a. Enter modified gross monthly income (from line 4) for each Ability to Pay $5,257 $6,333 Calculation parent. 20b. Self Support Reserve 884.00 884.00 - 20c. Each parent's income available for support (line 20a minus $4,373 $5,449 line 206) 21. Monthly Child Support Obligation (enter the lesser of line 19 $0 $726 or line 20c) h ., 21a. Rebuttal amount applied, if any (see worksheet S4) $0 $0 22. Total Monthly Child Support Obligation After Rebuttal $0 1 $726 (add or subtract line 21 a from line 21) 4-. Comments: Calculated by the Oregon Child Support Guidelines Calculator (http://www.dcs.state.or.us/calculator/) on 215/2007 at 4:36:32 PM. Nonjoint child(ren) of Parent A: Nonjoint child(ren) of Parent B: Page 2 of 2. CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION WORKSHEET (CSCW) OMIT 'T ^^ 'Ono A (Rev 08/25/03) AA YP??66ii I NOWANAW& Fj A t±ff- 01 eyw *-I CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION SUPPLEMENTAL WORKSHEETS Parent A Stephanie Parent B George WORKSHEET S-3 (CHHB,D CARE CREDIT COMPUTATION) Parent A Parent B 1. Monthly cost of child care for joint children age 12 or under and older children $275 $0 with disabilities who are not able to care for themselves 2. If child care provided for one joint child, enter the lesser of line 1 or $250; if child care provided for two or more joint children, enter the lesser of line I or $500; $250 $0 enter amounts only for child(ren) in parent's custody greater than 50% of the time; if child(ren) in parent's care less than 50%, enter zero. 3. Estimated Federal Monthly Child Care Credit (multiply federal tax credit % for parent's modified gross monthly income (CSCW, line 4) by the amount of child care $50 $0 from line 2) 4. Estimated Oregon Monthly Child Care Credit (multiply state tax credit % for parent's modified gross monthly income (CSCW, line 4) by the amount of child care $0 $0 from line 2) 5. Total Estimated Tax Credits (add line 3 and line 4 for each parent) $50 $0 6. Net Child Care Cost (subtract line 5 from line 1) $225 $0 FEDERAL TAX CREDIT TABLE Gross Monthly Income Tax Credit % $ 0 to 1,250 35% 1,251 to 1,417 34% 1,418 to 1,583 33% 1,584 to 1,750 320/0 1,751 to 1,917 31% 1,918 to 2,083 30% 2,084 to 2,250 29% 2,251 to 2,417 28% 2,418 to 2,583 27% 2,584 to 2,750 26% 2,751 to 2,917 25% 2,918 to 3,083 24% 3,084 to 3,250 23% 3,251 to 3,417 22% 3,418 to 3,583 21% 3,584 to no limit 200A OREGON TAX CREDI T TABLE Gross Monthly Income Credit % S 0 t0 416 30% 417 W 833 15% 834 t0 1,250 8% 1,251 t0 2,083 6% 2,084 to 2,916 5% 2,917 to 3,750 4% - ' ^? • CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET S-3 (CHILD CARE CREDIT COMPUTATION) Psi.= ? r j 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that I served a true copy of SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT MODIFYING PARENTING TDIE AND CHILD SUPPORT on the named individual below: 3 4 Larry Jay Blake, Jr. Attorney at Law 5 3718 SW Condor, Ste. 110 6 Portland, OR 97239 7 Attorney for Respondent 8 by the following indicated method or methods: 9 by mailing full, true, and correct copies thereof in sealed, first-class postage-prepaid envelopes, 10 addressed to the persons named above at their last-known addresses as set forth above, and deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Portland, Oregon, on the date set forth below. 11 - by causing a full, true and correct copy thereof to be hand delivered to the attorney named 12 above on the date set forth below. 13 _ by sending a full, true, and correct copy thereof via overnight courier, in a sealed prepaid 14 envelope, addressed to the attorney named above at said attorney's last-known office address as set forth above, on the date set forth below. 1$ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Attorney for Petitioner 2$ 26 Page 1- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Robert Demary PC, OSB 89162 Attorney at Law looo S.W. Broadway e..:+n ^A^^ _ by fazing a full, true and correct copy thereof to the attorney, at the last-known fax number for the attorney's office, on the date set forth below. ,? DATED: April 2007. Caffied Trw: Copy Of The Nod Dad Tills olf Day Of --fikC,, 20 TrW COW A*nWstr By; ?, } STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire, hereby certify that I did, the day of February, 2009, cause a copy of Petitioner's Petition for Contempt to be served upon Respondent by serving him by first-class mail, postage prepaid at the following addresses: George M. Cornwall 1897 Boca Ratan Drive Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 DATE: 3 -may-cl q George M. Cornwall 10 Orange Street Mt. Holly Springs, PA 17065 ,.Ak ?)UA F.-or, Atat4dja Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-5551 (800)347-5552 V-4 VV ( VV i ' STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL DEFENDANT 2008-608 CIVIL ACTION LAW . IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Friday, February 27, 2009 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Jacqueline M. Verney, Esq. , the conciliator, at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 8:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT. By: /s/ ac ueline M. Verne Es . 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 ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 1 s? unz {'} tiJo a .. STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant . IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF PURSUANT TO 23 Pa.C.S.A. 45424 -- ' F'' co -c AND NOW, comes Stephanie L. Cornwall, by and through her attorney of record, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire and the law firm of Griffie & Associates, and petitions the Court, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5424 as follows: 1. Petitioner hereinafter referred to as "Mother," is Stephanie L. Cornwall, the above named Plaintiff. 2. Respondent hereinafter referred to as "Father," is George M. Cornwall, the above named Defendant. 3. The parties are the natural parents of one child, namely, George "Mackie" Cornwall, IV, born November 11, 1998. 4. The parties are subject to an Order of Court dated April 24, 2007, from the Circuit Court of the state of Oregon, from the county of Clackamas, with said Order being registered in Pennsylvania, for enforcement purposes, on January 28, 2008, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A". 5. Pursuant to the Order of Court, Father exercises periods of custody every Wednesday afternoon and evening and alternate sixty (60) hour weekends. 6. On or about Thursday, March 19, 2009, the child reported to Mother that the previous evening Father entered the bathroom with a camera while the child was finishing his shower, and Father took nude pictures of the child in the bathroom, but then deleted them from the camera, saying they were not good pictures. 7. After the child exited the bathroom, Father began by taking a picture of the child in a towel but then encouraged him to drop his towel and once the child dropped his towel, Father took more pictures. 8. One nude picture of the child remained on the camera, which the child had in his possession and showed to Mother on Thursday, March 19, 2009, and the camera was provided to the police on Friday, March 20, 2009. 9. The police are investigating at this time, as is Cumberland County Children and Youth Services. 10. Cumberland County Children and Youth Services issued a safety plan on Friday, March 20, 2009, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "B". 11. Mother provided a copy of the safety plan to the child's school, but the school said that they would not honor said safety plan, and Mother fears for the safety of her child should he return to school such that he has not attended school during the week of March 23, 2009. 12. Mother's fears are based on a long history of issues with Father, including but not limited to Father being found guilty of three (3) counts of sexual harassment in 2003, stemming from incidents in which he went into his step-daughter, Mother's daughter's, bedroom and inappropriately touched her. 13. Mother's daughter was approximately seventeen (17) years old at the time of these incidents. 14. Father has also had other encounters with the police due to his inappropriate interaction with children, and although he has not formally been charged, he has been given warnings by the police. 15. Mother had a Protection from Abuse Order against Father in 2004 for his continued harassment of her, and based on the current events, Mother stayed in a hotel with the child on Tuesday, March 24, 2009 only to find Father in the lobby when she went to leave in the morning. 16. There has been no judge involved in this custody matter, although Father has presented documents to the Honorable Edgar Bayley regarding this case. 17. Father is being provided with notice of these pleadings at 10 Orange Street, Unit C, Mt. Holly Springs, PA, 17065, and 1897 Boca Ratan Drive, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 by U.S. mail, postage prepaid. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests your Honorable Court exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction and enter an Order preventing Father from any contact with the child until such time as the police and Children and Youth finalize their investigations and a hearing is held on the matter. Respectfully Submitted, r?%ern7?an-Snyder, Esquire Attor y for Plaintiff/Petitioner GRIFFIE AND ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5551 (800) 347-5552 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. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. DATE: 0.3 jWL&I T PHA L. CORNWALL, Petitioner I ? . 1 _ 3 D. 4 IN THE CIRCUIT CO T OF TIITATE O bREGO 5 FOR THE COUNTY OF CLACKAMAS 6 Family Law Department 7 In the Matter. of the Marriage of: ) g 'GEORGE MACKIE CORNWALL 111, No. DR03 03721 9 Petitioner, ) SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT MODIFYING PARENTING TIME AND 10 and ) CHILD SUPPORT . 11 STEPHANIE LYNN CORNWALL; 12 Respondent. ) 13 THIS.MAMR came before the Honorable Steven L. Maurer on the 18' day of January, 14 2007 for hearing on the parties' respective motions; Petitioner appeared in person and by and 15 through his attorney, Robert F. Demary; Respondent appeared by telephone and by and through 16 her attorney Lary Jay Blake, Jr.; and the court being fully advised, 17 THE COURT HEREBY FINDS as follows: 18 1. That no further benefit is to 'be derived. from the supervised parenting schedule of 19 the Petitioner; 20 2. The court was presented with no evidence of the child being at risk or that 21 unsupervised parenting time would be adverse; to the child's interest; 22 3. The court finds Dr. Ransford's.proposal measured and considered and provides a 23 balance and protection for the child to have a relationship with Petitioner, 24 \\\\\ 26 1\\\\ 26 \1\\\ PAGE 1 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND CHMD SUPPORT Robert Demary PC, OSB 89162 Attorney at Law iooo•S.W. Broadway Suite 2400 f-4 4. The court also finds that Petitioner's potential income is $5,000 per month in 1 addition to his military income of $1,333 per month for a total of $6,333 per 2 month. 3 5. The court finds the Respondent's income to be $5,257 per month. 4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 5 1. The parenting proposal recommended by Dr. Ransford shall be immediately ' 6 implemented, and the parties are ordered to comply with said schedule. The court hereby vacates 7 all restrictions on telephone calls , communication and giftsi,ti,?, w 8 2. The parenting schedule shall be as recommended by Dr. Ransford, a copy of 9 which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set 10 forth. Said recommended schedule is more fully detailed in Exhibit 2 which. is attached hereto 11 and incorporated herein by reference, aad* : asa is m^ ?????? narPn ing time SchediltP_sl?a?t+ 12 13 + 515 au.a? 'u?L?TI?IGr.P?n ar FYhibit q an + c ;1o, at:.?..a mzy48&F91W& 14 3. Petitioner shall continue to have reasonable telephone contact with the minor child ' limited to the calls previously: ordered on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday evenings at 7:30 p.m. eastern standard time for 15 minutes per call. 17 4. Commencing on the first day of November,. 2005, and continuing on the first day 18 of each month'thereafter until each child marries, dies, becomes emancipated, or ceases to be a, 19 . child attending school as defined by ORS 107:108(4) or any successor statute; Petitioner shall 20 pay to.Respondent for-which Respondent shall have judgment against Petitioner the sum of $726 21 per month as and for-child support. A copy of the child support guideline, calculation sheets is 22 attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 23 ORS 25.317 requires that, in most cases, child support must be paid by income 24 withholding from payer's employer via the Division of Child Support.. The law allows the court 25 to grant an exception in certain circumstances. In lieu of wage withholding, payments will be 26 PAGE 2 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND D-CFMD SUPPORT Robert Demary PC, OSB 69162 Attorney at Law iooo S.W. Broadway Suite 2400 I made directly by Petitioner to the Division of Child Support, P.O. Box 14506, Salem, Oregon 97309, for appropriate distribution. The Division of Child Support shall provide the collection, 2 accounting, and enforcement services for said child support. Pursuant. to HB 2235-B, the 3 4 Division of Child Support; or the Child Support Accounting Unit may provide the following information to aparty when represented by counsel: (a)-the date support was issued, (b) the 5 amount of the support order, (c) dates and amounts of payments, (d) dates and amounts of 6 disbursements, (e) the payee, (f) the, amount of any arrearage, and (g) the source of the collection. 7 This method is available to the payer as an alternative -to wage withholding because (a) there are 8 no arrearages in this case; (b) the payer has not previously been. granted a withholding exemp- 9 tion;,(c) the parties have agreed in writing to this alternative arrangement; and (d) Petitioner is 10 sufficiently protected by the mandatory withholding if nonpayment occurs. 11 5. The court finds Petitioner-to not be in contempt of court based upon the court's 12- finding that Petitioner's behavior was not willful. 13 6. The Guidance Associates of Pennsylvania shall be appointed to act as parenting . 14 coordinator to assist the parties with.parenting issues, and the parties are ordered to comply and 15 . cooperate with-the. parenting coordinator. The cost of-such services, net of any insurance 16 payments, shall be shared equally. by the parties. 17 7. Each party has leave to-submit an'attomey fee affidavit pursuant to ORCP 68 to 18 request fees and costs. 19 STATUTORY NOTICES. 20 ORS 25.384 -NOTICE OF INCOME WITHHOLDING 21 THIS SUPPORT ORDER IS ENFORCEABLE BY17VCOW WITHHOLDING UNDER ORS 25 372 to 25.427 RTMHOLDINGSHALL OCCUR ?'DL4TELY, WHENEVER THERE AREARREAR,4GESAT 22 LEASTEQUAL TO THESUPPORTPAYMENT FOR ONEMONTH, WHENEVER THE OBLIGATED P. ARTYREQUESTS SUCH WITHHOLDING, OR WHENEVER THE OBLIGEE REQUESTS 23 WITHHOLDINGFOR GOOD CAUSE. THEDISTRICTATTiORNEYOR4 ASAPPROPRUTE; THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISIONOFDIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT WILL ASSIST INSECURING 2tE SUCH WITHHOLDING.. EXCEPTIONS MAYAPPLYEV SOME CIRCUMSTANCES. THEDIVISIONOF CHILD SUPPORT SHALL PROVIDEANNUAL NOTICE TO EACH OBLIGOR 25 AND OBLIGEE ONSUPPORT ORDERS BEING ENFORCED BY THE DISTRICTATTORNEY OR SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THEAVAILABILITY OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 26 EXCEPTIONS TO WITHHOLDING. PAGE 3 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT Robert Demary PC, OSB 8916 Attorney at Law iooo S.W. Broadway Suite 2400 ORS 107.106 -NOTICE TO PARENTS 1 THE TERMS OF CHILD SUPPORT AND PARENTING TIME (VISITATION) AREDESIGNED FOR THE CHILD'SBENEFITAND NOT THEPARENTS' BENEFIT YDUMUST PAYSUPPORT ETIENIF 2 YOUARE NOT RECEIVING :VISITATION. YOU MUST COMPLY WITH VISITATION ORDERS EVEN IF YOUARE NOT RECEIVING CHILD SUPPORT. 3 VIOL4TION OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDERSAND VISITATION ORDERS IS PUNISHABLE BY FINE, IMPRISONMENT OR OTHER PENALTIES 4 PUBLICLYFUNDED HELPMAYBE AVAILABLE TO ESTABLISH, ENFORCEAND MODIFY 5 CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS. PATERNITYESTABLISHMENT SERVICES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE. CONTACT YOUR LOCAL DISTRICTATTORNEY, DOMESTICRELATIONS COURT CLERK, OR THE 6 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (503) 378-5567 FOR INFORMATION. PUBLICLYFUNDED HELP MAYBEAVAILABLE TO ESTABLISH, ENFORCE, AND MODIFY 7 VISITATION ORDERS CONTACT THEDOMESTICRELATIONS COURT CLERK OR TNIE CIVIL COURT CLERE FOR INFORMATION. 8 ORS 25.020 -NOTICE OF PERIODIC REVIEWAND MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS 9 THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT, OR EITHER OF THEM, HAYREQUEST THAT THEDEPAMTENT OFJUS77CEREVIEW T REAMOUNT OFSUPPORT ORDERED AFTER TWO PEARS 10 OR AT ANY TIME UPONA SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES. DRS 107IS9 - INTENT TO CHANGE RESIDENCE OF CHILDREN . 11 EACHPARENT SHALL GIVE THE OTHER PARENTAT LEAST 60 DAIS WRITTEN 12 NOTICE OF HIS/HER INTENT TO MOVE MORE THAN 60 MILES FURTRER DISTANT FROM THE. OTHER PARENT. RWMNNOTICE OF THE INTENT TO MOVE MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT. 13 ORS 25 020(6)(a) NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE OFADDRESS 14 EACHPARENT MUST NOTIFYTHE COURTAND THE DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT IN WRITING OFANY CHANGES INHIS OR HER ADDRESS OR TELEPHONENUMBER, OR EMPLOYER 15 AND. EMPLOYER'S TELEPHONE NUMBER, WITHIN 10 DAYSAFTER SUCH CHANGE 16 MONEY AWARD Judgment Creditor: Name: Stephanie Lynn Cornwall 17 Address: 4236 Carlisle Road 18 Gardners,*PA 1732.4 Creditor's Attorney Larry J. Blake, Jr., OSB #87172 19 and Address: 3718 SW Condor, Suite, 110 - Portland,* OR 97201 20 Telephone: (503) 228-6200. Facsimile: (503) 228-6222 21` Judgment Debtor.: Name: George Mackie Cornwall, III 22 Address: 1897 Boca Ratan Drive Lake Oswego, OR 97034 ?3 24 Debtor's Attorney Robert F. Demary, OSB #89162 and Address: 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97205 25 Telephone: (503) 727-0600 26 Facsimile: (503) 727-0601 PAGE 4 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT Robert Demary PC, 05B 8g16a Attorney at law zooo S.W. Broadway Suite 24oo Judgment Type: . 1 A. Child Support: 2 (1) Amount of support: $726 3 (2) Number of children: One (3) Beginning date for child support payments: 11101105 4 (4) Ending date for child support payments: (a) Age of majority; 5 (b) Child attending school per ORS 107.108(4); (c) Other: Dies, marries -or becomes emancipated 6 (5) Other child support payment information (if any): Shall not be paid by wage withholding 7 B. Judgment Interest: Nine percent (9%) per annum simple 8 DATED this 1-4 d of - , 2007. 9 10 ircuit Court Judge 11 12 13 14 Obner 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 .22 23 24 25 26 PAGE 5 - STIPULATED SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT Robert Demary PC, 00B 89ift Attorney at Law iooo S.W. Broadway Suite Wo PARENTING SCHEDULE Month 1: weekly, mid-week parenting time only.. Month 2: mid-week parenting times + a five-hour contact every other Saturday Month 3: midweek parenting times + a Friday afternoon to Saturday noon ovemight contact every other week Month 4: mid-week parenting times + a Friday afternoon to Saturday noon overnight contact on Mr. Cornwall's first weekend + a Friday afternoon to Sunday noon overnight contact on his second weekend Month 5: mid-week parenting times + a Friday afternoon to Sunday noon ovemight contact every other week Month 6: full implementation of recommended schedule 2. The following suggestions are offered regarding holiday and vacation parenting times: a) Summer holidays: In addition to regular parenting time, I recommend that I& and Mn. Cornwall each be granted a one-week vacation period (defined as seven consecutive days). b) Thanksgiving, holiday: Thanksgiving Day and the Friday following Thanksgiving can be rotated between the parents with the weekend falling as it does per the standard schedule. C) Virinter break These holidays can be rotated between the parents such that Mackie spends the first portion of each winter break with one parent and the second half of winter break with the other parent d) Spring break: This holiday can also be rotated between the parents. To avoid confusion, I recommend defining spring break as Monday through Friday and letting weekend parenting time fall as it ordinarily would per the standard schedule. 3. I also recommend appointing a parenting coordinator to oversee the transition to normalized parenting time. This professional should have experience.in child development, family therapy, and divorce-related. disputes. I'm happy to offer specific referrals upon request. In the event that Mr. Cornwall relocates to Pennsylvania and jurisdiction of this case is transferred, it may be necessary to identify a mental health professional suitable for this role and expressly define his or her role, since to my knowledge there is no parenting coordinator statute in Pennsylvania. EXHIBIT 1 PAGE I OF__?__ 03%29/2007 15:16 503239 PAGE 03/03 03/27/2097 22:355 717-323-0853 POC LOGISTICS LLG PAGE 02 Parenting Plan, Detail schedule Mackie Comwall Intlel Mondia of Plan TIMES Q*gktnitig Gale E tidtnAda* Start 6ndComments Wednesday, Jetntwiy 24, 2007 Afternoon & Evening only 3:2o.-W PM 8:00:00 PM T* Wednesday, January 31, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM B:OP:DO PM 1 / Wee rday, Febnmry07, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 Pm ?? )OWednnesday, FOnwry 14, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Drily 12:00:40 PM 8:00:00 PM (No School) Wednesday, February 21, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 320:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, FeM afy 2B, 2007 Afternoon A Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM _ t3altunday, March 03, 2007 Morning & afterne m 10:00:00 AM 3:00:00 PM Wednesday, Match 07, 2007 Afternoon & evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:12000 PM Wednesday, March 14, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:10 PM 8:00:00 PM Saturday, March 17, 2007 Morning & afternoon 1100:00 PM 5:00:OD PM Wedneaday, March 21, 2007 Attemoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:0000 PM Wednesday, March 26,2W7 Aftemoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Friday March 30, 2007 Saturday, March 31, 2007 3:20:00 PM 4:0M PM I Wednesday, April 04, 2007 Attemoon & Evening Only Smoo PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, April 11, 2007 Aftemoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Friday. April IS, 2007 Q Saturday, APril 14, 2007 3:20:00 PM *OM PM I" , __-Bednesday, April 18, 2007 Aftemoon & Evening Only 220:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, April 25, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Friday. April 27, 2007 5; j--Syp*, APriI 29, 2007 3:20.00 PM 4040 PM (Z "?`C> Wednesday, May 02, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 320:00 PM 13;00:00 PM Wednesday, May 09, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8;00:00 PM Friday, May 1 f. 2007 0 Sunday, May 13, 2007 3:20:00 PM e-.0=0 0 Dad's Birthday Wednesday, May 16, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, May 23, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 320:00 PM 8:0010 PM Friday, May 25, 2007 Monday, May 2B, 2007 3:20:00 PM 6:00:00 PM Memorial any Wednesday, May 30, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:000 PM Wednesday, June 06, 2W7 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Friday, June 08, 2007 Monday, June 11, 2007 12.00:00 PM 8:30:00 AM No School Wednesday, June 13, 2007 Afternoon 8 Evening Only 320:00 PM 8:012:00 PM Wednesday, June 20, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:2000 PM 8:00:OQ PM Friday, June 22, 2007 Monday, June 26, 2007 12:00:00-13M 800:00 AM No School Wednesday, June 27, 2007 Aftamaan & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, July 04, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 8:00:00 AM 11;00'.00 PM July 4th Friday, July 06, =7 Monday. July 09, 2007 12:00:00 PM 8:30:60 AM No School Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Afiernoon & i vening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, July 18, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Friday, July 20, 2007 Monday, July 28, 2007 12:00.00 PM $:30:00 AM No School Wednesday, July 2S, 2007 Afternoon & Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8:00x00 PM Wednesday, August 01, 2007 Afternoon & Evening only 120.00 PM 8:Q0:00 PM Friday, August 03, 2007 Monday, August 06, 2007 12:00:00 PM 8:3010 AM No School Wednesday, August Ott, 2007 At'ternoon & Evening only 3:20:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Wednesday, August 15, 2007 Afternoon S Evening Only 3:20:00 PM 8130,M PM. Friday, August 17, 2007 Monday, August 27, 2007 12:00:00 PM $:30:00 AM Vacation school Most Wednesday, August 29, 200> Afternoon & Evening Only 320:00 PM 8:00:00 PM Likely in session Friday, August 31, 2007 Monday, Septembor 03, 2007 12:00:00 P44 8:30:00 AM School Tue Mon labor day NOTE., ThRrROfti fr Wednesday aftemoen P. Evenings, Alternate 60 Hour Weekends Holiday Schedule for 11107 and thereafter to be developed by parenting Oootdhaktor, If any If any vsialt sit is s mlesed, schedule continues. Parties are free (o adjust times as MIDBI 21 may be mulally agreed v, m9y b9 referund to Parenting Coordinator. PAGE ? OF MULTNOMAH (BOUNTY STANDARD PARENTING TIME GUIDELINES (1) The purpose of the parening time guidelines is as follows: (A) It is the policy of court to encourage the parties to work out their own parenting time schedule, either betwee themselves or through mediation. The court will generally approve any schedule agreed on by the parties; (B) However, if the parties ar unable to agree on a schedule which best suits their family circumstances, the following p ren ' g time guidelines, when appropriate, will be used by the court as a basis for establishing pare ing time. Because the circumstances of each family differ, the parenting time schedule est fished by the court may provide for more or less parenting time than desired by the parts s. (C) Additionally, the following parent g time guidelines are inapplicable to families experiencing domestic violence, mental he th or substance abuse issues. For cases not involving such problems, and in-which the p ents are managing separation of the family unit with civility, the guidelines set forth reasonab? parenting time for a non-custodial parent; (D) The following parenting time guidelines ?o not establish a minimum standard for parenting time and are not intended as mandatory)provisions, under any circumstance. (2) The non-custodial parent will have parenting time wkh a minor child on alternating weekends from 6:00 pm Friday to 6:00 pm Sunday. \ (3) In the absence of a showing that such would not permit\he maintenance of a significant preexisting parent-child attachment, parenting time with children`tess than three years of age shall be: (A) Birth to 18 months - twice per week for two hours * visit; (B) 18 to 30 months - once per week for six hours; (C) 30 to 36 months - Friday at 6:00 pm until Saturday at 6:0Q pm on alternate weekends. (4) . The non custodial parent shall also have parenting time for 14 Nae ted days during the summer with children six and over. The non-custodial parent shall notodial parent in writing prior to April 15th of each year which days the non-custodial pselected for parenting time. The custodial parent shall likewise have the right to a two-week each summer during which the non-custodial parent's parenting time need not be honored, i'on is out of town. The custodial parent shall advise the non-custodial parent of such vacalater than May 1 st of each year. Once designated, changes in the summerparenting til stall not be allowed except by agreement of both parties. Failure of either party to me designation of summer parenting time will not result in forfeiture of parenting time riill re It in the custodial parent having the right to designate the summer parenting tie case f the Supplementary Local Rules \ Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County Effective February 1 2003 75 PAEXHIBIT GE OF 2 , custodial parent fading to gike notice, the parenting time lost by the non-custodial parent shall be subject to make-up parentin time. (5) The child =res=nceo for parenting time, and be picked up from the front steps of the custodial parents ore than 15 minutes early nor 15 minutes late. Return of the children to the front steps of the todial parent's residence is also subject to the 15-minute rule. The non-custodial parent shall fe d the child the evening meal prior to returning the child_ (6) Except as to a child under three years, whenever the weekend or other parenting time provided herein falls adjacent to. a s of holiday or legal holiday, including Labor Day, such weekend or other parenting time shall include a adjacent holiday, either Friday or Monday. (7) If a non-custodial parent fails t exercise the scheduled parenting time for any reason other than a substantial medical problem, the will be no postponement or scheduling of a make-up period of parenting time. If there is a substan ' medical problem, the non-custodial parent will be allowed a make-up visit on the succeeding available eekend. (8) Both parties will provide addresses d contact telephone numbers to the other party and will immediately notify the other party of any eme ency circumstances or substantial changes in the health of the child. However, both parties shallrefrain from releasing the other party's phone number to third parties. (9) The non-custodial parent shall also have th inlimited right to correspond with the child and may telephone the child no more than once per wee for 15 minutes or less during reasonable hours without interference or monitoring by the custodial parent or anyone else in any way. Each parent shall allow the child to telephone. the other parent at r?,asonable hours and with reasonable frequency, if the child wishes. \\ (10) ' Both parties are restrained and enjoined from makin derogatory comments about the other party or in any other way diminishing the love, respect, add affection that the child has for either party. O (11) In addition to the parenting time specified in the prechding paragraphs, the non-custodial parent shall have parenting time as follows: (A) Christmas (or significant holidays in other (i) For children 30 months to six years of age: even-numbered years, on Christmas Eve from noon until 10:00 am on Chris Day, in odd-numbered years, from 10:00 am until 8:00 pm on Christmas Day, (ii) For children six and over: in even numbered ye the time from the commencement of the school holiday through 10:00 am Lristmas Day, in odd- numbered years, from 10:00 am Christmas Day until Jan 1 st at noon. . Supplementary Local Rules- Circmt Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah Co ty Effective February 1, 2003 76 ur PAGE _,2- OF (B) Thanksgi ' Day in odd-numbered years from 10:00 am. until 7:00 pm (C) Father's/Mo 's Day each year from 10:00 am. until 7:00 pm (12) A child is not permitted to te7p e whether the child wishes to visit with the non-custodial parent. Personal plans of the custo ' rents or child, school activities, church activities, and other considerations are not reasons for ' to adhere to the parenting time schedule set forth in this rule. . (13) Parenting time, however, between a enager and a party shall take into consideration the child's employment and age-appropriate ac ti 'es. (See SLR 8.075) AII_? Supplementary Local Rules Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County Effective February 1, 2003 77 IBIT PAGE -a OF CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION WORKSHEET (CSCW) To determine Parent Parent A Stephanie A and Parent B, see instructions parent B George # of Joint Children 1 Parent A Parent B Combined Income 1. Gross Monthly Income $5,257 $6,333 ' Ia. Rebuttal amount applied, if any (see worksheet S-4) $0 $0 -' 2. Spousal support received $0 $0 3. Spousal support and/or mandatory union dues paid $0 $0 4. Modified Gross Monthly Income (to line I :add or subtract line $5,257 $6,333 la, add line 2, subtract line 3); enter result Adjustments $ Social Security benefits or Veterans' benefits received for joint ] s child(ren) (enter in column of parent for whose disability or $0 $0 retirement benefits are received, regardless of who actually receives benefits) 6a. Number of nonjoint children for each Parent 0 0 6b. Credit for nonjoint children (reference scale for each Parent's income from line 4, using number of nonjoint children for each $0 $0 Parent, as appropriate) 7. Adjusted Gross Monthly Income (add lines 4 and 5 and subtract line 6b, for each parent); Combine amounts for Parent A $5,257 $6,333 $11,590 and Parent B and enter result in 3' column 8. Percentage share of income (each parent's income from line 7 45.4% 54.6% divided by the combined income) t Basic Child 9. Basic Child Support Obligation (reference scale for combined ,t $1,137 Support income from line 7 and number of joint children) 10. Each parent's pro rata basic child support obligation (line 8 $516 $621 n s Kt`s times line 9 for each parent). Do parties have a current written agreement or court order for parenting time equal to 20% or greater for both parents, and/or have split custody? If yes, complete worksheet S-2 and enter result below; if no, continue to line 12a. . 11. Each parent's pro rata basic child support obligation after parenting time credit from worksheet S-2, line 3 or 4c. Low income 12a. Each parent's single income obligation (reference scale for Adjustment each parent's modified gross monthly income from line 4 and number of joint children). 12b. Monthly child support obligation before costs and adjustments >If no parenting time credit is included, enter zero for Parent A, enter the lesser of line 10 and line 12a for Parent B; >If worksheet S-2 for parenting time is completed, enter the lesser of line 11 and line 12a for each parent Page 1 of 2 - CHILD SUPPORT CONFUTATION WORKSHEET (CSCW) CSF 02 0809A (Rev 08/25/03) EXHIBIT 4 PAAF / n;: 2 Costs & 13a. Child care costs for joint children (see worksheet S-3) $225 $0 Adjustments Enter costs in column 13b. Medical expenses (not health care coverage costs - see 13c) $0 $0 T of parent who incurs cost 13c. Health care coverage $0 $40 13d. Rebuttal amount applied, if any (amount by which cost of care $0 $0 should be increased or decreased for parent)(see worksheet S-4) 13e. Total Costs (add lines 13a, 13b and 13c for each parent; add or $225 $40 subtract line 13d) 14. Costs owed to Parent B (line 8, Parent A times line 13e, Parent $18 B; if no Parent A, enter amount from line 13e) 15. Costs owed to Parent A (line 8, Parent B times line 13e, Parent $123 " A). _ .16. Monthly child support obligation after costs (line 12b,.column 1 -plus line 14 for Parent A and line 12b, column 2 plus line 15 for $18 $744 Parent B) 17. Net child support obligation (subtract smaller amount on line 16 from greater amount and enter result on line for parent with greater $0 $726 ' - obligation; enter zero for other parent) Benefits Adjustment 18. If SSB or VB is received by Parent A as representative payee $0 for joint child(ren) as a result of Parent B's disability or retirement Computing 19. Total Child Support Obligation a Final Parent A - enter figure from line 17, Parent A $0 $726 Parent B - line 17 minus line 18• if negative value, enter zero Obligation ? -' Ability to Pay 20a. Enter modified gross monthly income (from line 4) for each $5,257 $6,333 Calculation parent 2 tips 20b. Self Support Reserve _ 884.00 984.00 j-+,4 p ' 20c. Each parent's income available for support (line 20a minus $4,373 $5,449 v line 20b) 21. Monthly Child Support Obligation (enter the lesser of line 19 $0 $726 or line 20c) 2Ia. Rebuttal amount applied, if any (see worksheet S-4) $0 $0 22. Total Monthly Child Support Obligation After Rebuttal (a'l.i nr enMran+ line 71 o frnm tine 7 t S $0 $726 Comments: Calculated by the Oregon Child Support Guidelines Calculator (hfp://www.dcs.state.or.us/calculators on 215/2007 at 4:36:32 PM. Nonjoint child(ren) of Parent A: Nonjoint child(ren) of Parent B: Page 2 of 2 - CHILD SUPPORT CON TUTATION WORKSHEET (CSCW) ?iy/8_g'?j{CCii1l?o ? 41 K&SUNEW? CSF 02 0809A (Rev 08/25/03) CC//llP?l@ PAGE OF CHILD SUPPORT COMPUTATION SUPPLEMENTAL WORKSHEETS Parent A Stephanie Parent B George WORKSHEET S-3 (CHILD CARE CREDIT COMPUTATION) Parent A Parent I3 1. Monthly cost of child care for joint children age 12 or under and older children $275 $0 with disabilities who are not able to care for themselves 2. If child care provided for one joint child, enter the lesser of line 1 or $250; if child care provided for two or more joint children, enter the lesser of line I or $500; ' $250 $0 enter amounts only for child(ren) in parent s custody greater than 50% of the time; if child(ren) in parent's care less than 50%, enter zero. 3. Estimated Federal Monthly Child Care Credit (multiply federal tax credit % for parent's modified gross monthly income (CSCW, line 4) by the amount of child care $50 $0 from line 2) 4. Estimated Oregon Monthly Child Care Credit (multiply state tax, credit % for parent's modified gross monthly income (CSCW, line 4) by the amount of child care $0 $0 from line 2) 5. Total Estimated Tax Credits (add line 3 and line 4 for each parent) $50 $0 6. Net Child Care Cost (subtract line 5 from line 1) $225 $0 FEDERAL TAX CREDU TABLE Gross Monthly Income Tax Credit % $ 0 to 1,250 35% 1,251 to 1,417 34% 1,418 to 1,583 33% 1,584 to 1,750 32% 1,751 to 1,917 31% 1,918 to 2,083 30% 2,084 to 2,250 29% 2,251 to 2,417 28% 2,418 to 2,583 27% 2,584 to 2,750 26% 2,751 to 2,917 25% 2,918 to 3,083 24% 3,084 to 3,250 23% 3,251 to 3,417 22% 3,418 to 3,583 21% 3,584 to no limit 20% OREGON TAX CREDIT TABLE Gross Monthly Income Credit % $ 0 to 416 30% 417 to 833 15% 834 to 1,250 8% 1,251 to 2,083 6% 2,084 to 2,916 5% 2,917 to 3,750 4% Page 1 of I - CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET S-3 (CHILD CARE CREDIT COMPUTATION) CSF 02 0809D (New 03/06/03) E'?IBIT? m PkGE? OE 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that I served a true copy of SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT MODIFYING PARENTING TIME AND CHILD SUPPORT on the named individual below: 3 4 Larry Jay Blake, Jr. Attorney at Law 5 3718 SW Condor, Ste. 110 6 Portland, OR 97239 7 Attorney for Respondent 8 by the following indicated method or methods: 9 ? by mailing full, true, and correct copies thereof in sealed, first-class postage-prepaid envelopes, 10 addressed to the persons named above at their last-known addresses as set forth above, and deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Portland, Oregon, on the date set forth below. 11 by causing a full, true and correct copy thereof to be hand delivered to the attorney named 12 above on the date set forth below. 13 by sending a full, true, and correct copy thereof via overnight courier, in a sealed prepaid 14 envelope, addressed to the attorney named above at said attorney's last-known office address as set forth above, on the date set forth below. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 by faxing a fall, true and correct copy thereof to the attorney, at the last-known fax number for the attorney's office, on the date set forth below. DATED: April 2007. Attorney for Petitioner 25 26 Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Robert Demary PC, OSB 89162 Attorney at Law iooo S.W. Broadway Certified True Copy Of The OdgW Dated This X Day Of _&f,, 20&4 . s Trial Court Admin- i?stra- ' !or g, . ;' By: ce.?-- Cumberland County Children and Youth Services Safety Plan Case Name: Case Number: Date of Plan: Child(ren) Names PL- Steps Immediate Steps to Ensure Safety Responsible Person { ;v"." 1 Additional pages may be added as necessary", - ...•.. Resno-nsible Persons Signatures t Si Dat Safety Plan Name ure gna e Giv Mailed A ? ?J C ,• j County A enc Si attires Caseworker Date ++it1? " Su ervis ate Note: If any of the responsible persons find themselves unable to fulfill the obligations as detailed by this Safety Plan, they are responsible for contacting the Cumberland County Children and Youth Services agency immediately at 1-888-697-0371. Note: The safety assessment, plan and determination n known at the time of the assessment and were made in good faith. Supervisor date will be based on essarily when the plan went into place. a 12/06 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire, hereby certify that I did, the 2 7 day of March, 2009, cause a copy of Petitioner's Petition for Special Relief Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5424 to be served upon Respondent by serving him by first-class mail, postage prepaid at the following addresses: DATE: 31.2 2/6 1 George M. Cornwall, III 10 Orange Street, Unit C Mt. Holly Springs, PA 17065 George M. Cornwall, III 1897 Boca Ratan Drive Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 He an-Snyder, Esquire orne or Plaintiff/Petitioner G IE & ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-5551 (800)347-5552 Iv ? Q l Q C rt°b r : a "n --V71 1 =R b MAR 2 720M cl STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 3o day of M (gyp, 2009, upon consideration and review of the attached Petition for Special Relief Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5424, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED that George M. Cornwall, III, shall have no contact with the child, Ge gg "Mackie" Cornwall, IV, until mm" ` i??c.tds? By the C , J. Cc: Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire - l:vf I P'M5C -)a t ly g I u TO Attorney for Petitioner l -"George Cornwall - Cof-3y rYtat Pro Se 3?3t?o? ,_,r ,-M -) kn '._irn L I I N CJ STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2009, by agreement of the parties, hearing in this matter is continued generally, to be rescheduled at the request of either party. Pending said hearing, our order of March 30, 2009, shall remain in full force and effect. By Edward E. Guido, J. Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire ??Attorney for Plaintiff XAorney rew H. Shaw, Esquire for Defendant srs I I .c Wd C- ddv 6001 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff, VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY AND NOW comes Respondent, George M. Cornwall, the above Defendant, appearing Pro-Se, and concerning the Plaintiffs petition, avers as follows: 1. Paragraph 1, Agreed: 2. Paragraph 2, Agreed: 3. Paragraph 3, Agreed: 4. Paragraph 4, Agreed: 5. Paragraph 5, Do not concur: The Wednesday parenting time extends until 8:15 AM the following Thursday. 6. 7. actually of sixty-five (65) hours duration. Paragraph 6, Agreed: The alternate weekends are Paragraph 7, Do Not Concur: Mother was notified by e-mail on Sunday February 15, 2009 that Father and Mackie were in Oregon and that a timely return had then become problematic. The reasons that the trip was not discussed in advance with the mother will be discussed at -1- hearing but are many and substantial. The mother has a long history of blocking or otherwise interfering with out of state travel during father's parenting time going back several years. Every trip attempted or taken has been so impacted, most with full knowledge of the child. 8. Paragraph 8, Agreed: 9. Paragraph 9 Do Not Concur: Father executed the "Planned Absence Form", just after a scheduled parent teacher conference. The conference was held at 11:20 AM on February 12, 2009. Father was advised by the school secretary that the school would be closed for the long MI.K Holiday weekend at 1 PM that same day; and, that the form had to be completed by that time. When father attempted to reach mother by telephone to discuss the matter, and have the form completed by the deadline; mother who was at work where she serves in administrative capacity in a skilled nursing facility, thrice refused to take my phone call. Since the deadline to complete the form and return it to the school had then passed, I elected to make the trip anyway, but without necessitating any absence from school; thus obviating the need for the form in the first place. Mother in the almost 7 years since our separation has been exceedingly difficult to communicate with despite the continuing adverse impact on our son, and this causes continued exacerbation of even the most minor of parenting problems. She similarly refuses, in clear violation of the order, to communicate adequately with the court appointed parenting -2- coordinator, Had she simply accepted any the calls to her cell phone or to her office phone in a reasonable time frame this needless controversy could once again have been avoided in its entirety. 10. Paragraph 10, Do Not Concur: NO Violations have been proven. Furthermore, Father believes it is the Mother and Plaintiff in this absurd action that has acted in violation of the order. The Mother, oddly enough on the perverse advice of her ill-informed counsel, apparently seeks to have this foreign order enforced against herself. The hearing referred to has been reset, but the custody conciliator has also been appointed guardian ad litem for another of mother's ill founded actions against the father; the sole objective of which seems to be, to by any means possible deprive father of court ordered parenting time, again regardless of the adverse impact on the minor child. 11. Paragraph 11, Do Not Concur: This matter needs to be heard when it can be heard in its entirety with adequate attention paid to the continuing duplicity of the mother in bringing these spurious and unwarranted actions, full of half-truths and selective limited disclosure to the Court of Oregon Statutes and related Family Law Procedures. Alternatively this matter should be referred back to the Court Appointed Parenting Coordinator, Dr. Stanley Schneider of Camp Hill Pennsylvania as provided by the Oregon order for resolution or remanded to Clackamas County, Oregon for further order of that Court. -3- 12. Paragraph 12, Agreed: 13. Paragraph 11, Agreed: WHEREFORE, Defendant hereby moves that this Honorable Court dismiss the Plaintiffs Petition with Prejudice, and provide such additional relief as the Court may deem appropriate. Respectfully Submitted, George M. Cornwall Dated this 74' day of April, 2009 The Plaintiff's PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF A FOREIGN DECREE is hereby dismissed with PREJUDICE and BOTH PARTIES ARE DIRECTED to seek any future modification thereof in the appropriate Court(s) in the State of Oregon. Dated this _ th day of April, 2009 Judge Cumberland County Commonwealth of Pennsylvania -4- 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. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsifications to authorities. Date: April 9, 2009 George M. Cornwall -5- tl47 +,'ry OF THE F?`,rrHCWTAPY 2693 APR -9 PH ti: 24 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff, VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 IN CUSTODY n cr r;.i1. , CIVIL TERM PIS2 cz? W w v PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAMPERIS PETITION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPE IS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly allow George M. Cornwall, Defendant, to proceed in forma pauperis. Defendant is acting PrOSe out of economic necessity in this matter but has prepared the attached petition for Leave to Proceed in this matter in fora pauperis in accordance with Rule 240 of the Pennsylvania Code. Required supporting affidavit is also attached. The name and address of the person seeking Leave to so proceed is George M. Cornwall, 1897 Boca Ratan Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, who has a secondary residence at 10 Orange St. Unit C, Mount Holly Springs, PA 17065, the natural father of the child in the custody matter before the Court. The only other party in interest is the mother, Stephanie Cornwall, RN, 4236 Carlisle Road, Gardners, PA 17324. Date: April 13, 2009 Respectfully Submitted, J'e?'e_ A& George M. Cornwall, Pro Se 0 c 1 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff, VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY Ql"(yl1, q*I V11 : *A'01: all Y3-P 1j !., !.: ! . ! ! ! . 1. I am the defendant in the above matter and because of my financial condition am unable to pay fees and costs of defending the various actions and proceedings against me. 2. I am unable to obtain funds from anyone, including my family and associates to pay the costs of litigation. Furthermore within the past week I have fully exhausted all retirement funds annuity contracts, and cash surrender values of all available insurance policies, and all savings accounts. 3. I represent that the information below relating to my ability to pay the fees and costs is true and correct: 4. Name: George Mackie Cornwall (III) 5. Address: Primary: 1897 Boca Ratan Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Secondary: 10 Orange St. Unit C, Mt. Holly Springs, PA 17065 6. SSAN:543-46-2754 7. Employment: Unemployed Since August 15, 2007 8. Other Income Past Twelve Months 2 a) Other Self Employment: Consulting - approximately $1,600 not all of which has been collected. b) Interest: Approximately $200 now zero as all savings liquidated. c) Dividends: Approximately $25 d) Pensions: US Navy $1,655 per month of which $726 per month is with held for child support and a further $175 is withheld for health and dental coverage, netting $ 754 per month. e) Social Security: None 0 Support Payments: None g) Disability Payments: None h) Unemployment Payments: $W per week from March 2008 to present expires May 30th, 2009, i) Workmen's Compensation: None D Public assistance : None Other: None 9. Other Contributions to household support: None 10. Contributions from children: None 11. Contributions from parents: None (deceased) 12. Other Contributions: None 13. Property Owned - Cash $47.16 14. Checking Accounts OD $400 Approx. 15. Savings Accounts $27 16. CD's None 17. Real Estate $300,000 (In foreclosure), PA property held in trust for children, pendente status. Mortgage $285K. 3 18. 1995 Chevy Tahoe $2500, 2003 Nissan, PA use; 2003 Ford Ranger OR use. None. Aggregate value all three about $11,000. Also have 2006 Mazda worth less than owned on it jointly owned with girl friend. 19. Stocks, Bonds $500. 20. Other: Furnishings & Library $4000 21. Debts and obligations a) Mortgage Primary House $285K. b) Rent: None c) Loans various credit cards $16,350 d) Other: real estate taxes PA, CA OR ID $!8,000 e) Legal Fees payable $21,500 22. Persons dependent on me for support: George Mackie Cornwall IV I understand that I have a continuing obligation to inform the court of improvement in my financial circumstances which would permit me to pay the costs incurred herein. I verify that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. April 13, 2009 T George M. Cornwall, Pro Se Petitioner 4 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff, VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY ANSWER AND FURTHER PETITION FOR EMERGENCY SPECIAL RELIEF PURSUANT TO 23 Pa C S.A SECTION 5424 AND NOW comes Respondent, George M. Cornwall, the above Defendant, appearing Pro-Se, and concerning the Plaintiff's petition, avers as follows: 1. Paragraph 1, Agreed: 2. Paragraph 2, Agreed: 3. Paragraph 3, Agreed: 4. Paragraph 4, Agreed: 5. Paragraph S. Do not concur: The Wednesday parenting time extends until 8:15 AM the following Thursday. The alternate weekends are actually of sixty-five (65) hours duration. 6. Paragraph 6, Do Not Concur: At no time did father enter the bathroom nor touch the child. The images in question were taken at a measured distance of 11 feet 8 inches outside the open bathroom door. The shower is enclosed by an opaque glass door which remained under -1- the control of the child and was closed throughout the shower. The location from which the camera was used is demarked by stair-step leading to a landing serving the household laundry area. It was not "a camera", it was a small digital camera given to the child about a half- hour previously at the child's request. The camera was in a small kit which included instructions, a book on digital photography, and a computer (USB) cable, and editing software. There were no "pictures" taken of the child or anything else, rather about six (6) digital images that were only retained in the SD card in the camera. The camera itself can not retain images since it is a very basic model. The first four images, two of the child, two of the dog were too faint because the very simple camera was using in "flash" function; in the all white and highly reflective bathroom, when it was not required. Father was unfamiliar with the camera and could not turn off the flash until the child informed him on how to do so. In any case, in the images "deleted" the child was fully wrapped in his towel and was in no sense of the word "nude". Furthermore, the pictures so "deleted" are still present on the SD card, only the index record has been deleted. They can easily be restored in a few moments at nominal cost, however they are as been repeatedly stated of very poor quality; however, none of these are "pictures" at all, they are "images". They only reason the two images that were retained were so retained was so that -2- they could be used by the child for training purposes with the software also given to him that same evening, specifically for cropping. 7. Paragraph 7, Do Not Concur: This is an absolute fabrication. AT NO TIME DID I TELL, DIRECT, OR SUGGEST that the child DROP, REMOVE, Take off or do any at all with the towel, NOR did I take any pictures except the 6 or eight described, half of Mackie half of the dog for the sole purpose of testing the camera and getting some images to edit. The dog was in the hallway outside the bathroom door; the boy was in the area outside the bathtub where one normally shaves or brushes teeth. After I learned how to properly control the flash, I took two more pictures; one of the child and one of the dog. When I looked through the view finder, a very basic one the picture looked fine, but in the preview screen I saw a problem, in that he had opened the towel and as a result his penis was albeit from a distance of almost 12 feet, partially revealed. The picture of the dog was adequate for editing but no better than that. I told Mackie that he could you the picture for editing but that he had to get ready for bed then and to brush his teeth and I would load the software and we could fix the picture before school in the morning. He wanted to edit the picture right then but I told him I had to load the software first and he needed to get to bed. He complied and I ticked him in after he climbed into his bunk bed. I tried to load the software but was unable to do so, because the CD Rom drive could not read the mini CD on which the -3- software had been delivered with the camera. By the time I discovered the problem, Mackie was asleep. 8. Paragraph 8, Do Not Concur: Mackie and Father discussed the situation on Thursday Morning. I suggested that Mackie simply leave the camera with me until the next visit when we would load the software and edit the picture or take new ones instead. Mackie was disappointed and asked to take the camera to his mother's house. I agreed provided he promised to show the camera and the images one of the dog one of himself only to his mother to ask her permission to work on them. I specifically told him, "Explain that they are just to practice editing, and this one in particular needs to be cropped". "IF Mom has a problem with it, delete it, you know how to do that?" He replied that he understood, and I said, "Be sure and tell her the camera itself doesn't save pictures, only the card, and we didn't upload any pictures or print them." He replied that he would. I said "Do not even show the camera to anyone but Mom". Again Mackie replied that he understood. A further Issue is that I do not concur that the Mount Holly Police Department is the proper agency to be investigating this matter. The mother resides in Gardners and apparently was shown the camera and the SD card there. The CYS report was apparently made in Carlisle. Mother has made repeated adverse reports to the Mt Holly Police and numerous legal actions involving alleged improper police conduct and failure to properly apply -4- The Pennsylvania Vehicle Code between the Mt. Holly Police department and Father. Mother has no way have any evidence that the single image in question was taken in the Borough of Mt. Holly Springs, or even in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; my description of the distance from which the image in question was taken not withstanding. Furthermore, I have additional litigation and claims pending against the Borough and relating to these and other matters; therefore pending resolution of the previously existing matters, I intend to pursue any and all remedies that may be available to me to challenge any investigation of these outrageous allegations by this highly biased and most un-professional police department. 9. Paragraph 9, Do Not Concur: Father is an Oregon resident and does not admit that there is any basis for this matter to fall under the jurisdiction of the police Department of the Borough of Mount Holly Springs and cites evidence of bias and prior litigation in progress involving both Chief Goodhart and Officer Weiser and respectfully requests that this matter be investigated by either the Pennsylvania State Police where Mrs. Cornwall resides, or by the Carlisle Police Department where the CYS report was made. 10. Paragraph 10, Do Not Concur: The so called "Safety Plan" was not officially issued until March 26th when both parents received notification that it had been issued. The fact that CYS apparently encouraged mother -5- to unilaterally implement the terms of the "Safety Plan" based on the single problematic image and the provably false additional allegations of the mother, without any consideration on the impact on the foreign order NOR on its impact on the parenting awarded under the foreign order. Specifically, the mother should have reported the matter IMMEDIATELY to the court appointed Parenting Coordinator. Instead, she was apparently told to unilaterally impose the terms of the so called "Safety Plan", remove the child from school, and refuse to communicate in any manner with the father. When the father attempted to inquire about the child, mother LIED to the father repeatedly, and eventually threatened, through a Complaint to the Mount Holly Police Department to have father arrested on charges of harassment, when in fact, Mother was in clear violation of the Oregon (Foreign Order, by her failure to simply communicate the status of affairs either directly to the father, or as directed in the order to the Court Appointed Parenting Coordinator. On or about March 2e, a uniformed office of the Mount Holly Police Department told father at his secondary residence which is in fact owned by a Trust being established for the benefit of the Child, that I was to be arrested and jailed for the alleged crime of trying to determine the reason I had not heard from the child in accordance with the Oregon order in almost a week. This entire tempest over a largely innocuous image on a small camera given the child so he could learn to edit digital images on the computer he owns. -6- 11. Paragraph 11, Do Not Concur: The mother has a long history of over reaching claims that have at their heart a desperate attempt to exclude father from parenting. Our court appointed parenting coordinator Dr. Stanley Schneider of Camp Hill has been working very closely with both parents under the terms of his appointment under the Oregon order and would be the best person to advise the Court as to the disposition of this case. For the information of the Court, we have for the last eighteen months been working with Dr. Schneider on an Agreement in Principle which was intended to allow us to draft a stipulated agreement to be filed with this Court requesting an Order as to Jurisdiction, Custody, and a revised Parenting Plan to better meet the best interests of our son. As Dr. Schneider may well confirm, when mother began to sense a loss of total control, she commenced this series of contempt actions which are currently pending before the Court. It is my opinion that this "Dirty Picture" allegation is nothing more nor less than a "bonus extension of this effort, dragging the CYS system into the battle as well. The Court would perhaps be interested to remember that mother was required to post a cash bond in the amount of $5,000 with this court in 2001 to assure her compliance with the terns of her custody order in her first dissolution. Mother does not willingly allow her ex-spouses to parent and has a history of taking extreme measures to minimize contact between the two of us former spouses and HER children. -7- 12. Paragraph 12, Do Not Concur: The single three count misdemeanor charge in municipal court was resolved with a no contest plea; I entered the pleas at mother's request, frankly hoping to foster a reconciliation, because she begged me to do so, to save her daughter the stress of a Trial where she would have been forced to admit that the relationship was fully consensual. In any case a single charge of even three counts hardly constitutes a "long history" 13. Paragraph 13, Do Not Concur: The woman was NOT about 17, she was as Ms. Snyder is fully aware, Nineteen (19). 14. Paragraph 14, Do Not Concur: No Idea what unsubstantiated allegations are being made here, except I once gave some neighborhood children brief low speed rides on a scooter, a distance of about 130 feet, at their request in broad day light when at least four children and numerous neighbors were present. I categorically deny ever offering any of them any "Walnettos". In any case, that would be a single warning, thus not plural warnings, again more malicious gossip from my ex-spouse and her confidants in the Holly Police. 15. Paragraph 13, Do Not Concur: The Honorable Judge Hoefer said from the bench that she had NOT proved her case for the PFA, but that since this his penultimate day or thereabouts on the bench, he was never the less going to give her the PFA which had been in effect for some months on an emergency basis anyway. On appeal, Sean Schultz Esquire -8- was unable to argue that the by then retired Judge had made a reversible error, though it was obvious to all concemed what had occurred. I have no knowledge of which hotel I am alleged to have been on March 241 or 25t'; however, I frequently because I am Diamond status with the Hilton chain and Platinum with the Marriott Chain, frequently use the computer services at the Hampton Inn, The Marriott Fairfield Inn, and the Marriott Residence Inn in Carlisle as well as the Comfort Suites on the Square. I also visit The Panera for the same reason, free WIFI. I have also stayed for various reasons at the Fairfield recently, but I do not know the exact dates. When Mackie and I were in Oregon recently, we also stayed at a Marriott Fairfield Inn. That is the newest hotel in Carlisle and among the nicest. Last I knew Stephanie like the Day's Inn for her Carlisle Hotel stays. In any case, Stephanie may well have seen me I didn't see her, and did not at that date know anything about the so called safety plan. At that time it was once again she, not I that was acting in Contempt of the Oregon order. 16. Paragraph 16, Do Not Concur: I filed all my documents in this case with the Prothonotary just as are all civil documents in the County of Cumberland. I have no way to direct where the Prothonotary sends, or chooses not to send, my or any other documents. After four successive petitions had been returned without action, I asked which Judge had seen them. I was told they had been to the Honorable Edgar Bayley. -9- Thereafter I wrote an informal letter to Judge Bayley seeking guidance; all of this transpired well prior to mother filing the first of the various filings for the Custody Conciliator Meeting and the ill advised CYA action. Since The Honorable Judge Guido approved the interim Safety Plan, and set over the initial petition for special relief, I assume that this document will be added to his docket. 17. Paragraph 17, Agreed: 18. This dissolution and custody case has been exceptionally long and costly but also painfully arduous and damaging to all the parties, especially to the minor child Mackie. The relationship between father and son has been assailed repeatedly by mother's seemingly relentless vendetta against the father's legitimate rights to parent his son in peace and tranquility. NOT a single parenting time has been free from onslaught over some matter or another. Police have been called to intervene on some pretext or another at least a dozen times. The child is well aware of the manifest unfairness of the mother's antagonism toward the father and will freely express it despite his firm love for his mother. Petitioner recognizes that the court has no choice but to allow CYA to complete its investigation but suggests that under the circumstances that the following be ordered. A. That CYS be directed to appoint replacement Counsel for Petitioner forthwith. The present counsel was unwilling to pursue this case with vigor and found it -10- entirely appropriate to wait 20 days between appointment with father to meet on and discuss the case. I did not find that at all adequate and said as much. B. To order that a Police agency other than the Borough of Mount Holly Springs Police Department investigate this matter since they do not appear to have jurisdiction. C. Petitioner is willing and desires to submit to a polygraph examination on any matters relating to this case. Petitioner requests that this be court ordered at an early date. D. Petitioner believes that the relationship between father and son will suffer irreparable harm given the current excessive and draconian "Safety Plan". The father and son have been communicating by phone for over 5 years since dissolution and Petitioner believes that the is no substantive danger to the child nor any real risk of compromising the CYS investigation if father is once again allowed to resume the thrice weekly 15 minute phone calls as provided for under the Oregon order. This is vital to the preservation of the badly damaged relationship between father and son, and is clearly in the best interests of the child. E. The Petitioner requests that the Court direct CYS to complete their investigation promptly and that the hearing in this matter be scheduled prior to April 17"'. For the information of the Court, the intake case worker took the initial report on March loth and directed the mother to begin unilaterally imposing the conditions of the Safety Plan. However as of March 25th, the -11- matter was not in the CYS data base, and I was not informed of the matter until late on the 2e of March. So much for "Emergency" conditions. This dedicated intake caseworker was also able to take a four day Holiday weekend over Easter even though he was not able to respond to any of the issues I mention here during the week prior to Good Friday, despite repeated oral and written requests to do so. F. Finally Petitioner requests that the Court order that CYS promptly conduct an internal review of the conduct of the Carlisle Office Personnel in the handling of this complaint and the spurious allegations contained therein, and render a report to this Court within fifteen (15) days. It appears obvious to me that that the mother's allegations were accepted at face value and further that no due diligence of any kind was performed on the complainant. Further that an unconscionable delay was allowed irrespective of the fact that an interstate custody and parenting order was not only in effect but also on behalf of the complainant MgIsUred for enforcement in Cumberland County. This caused the father to take perfectly reasonable action, from his uninformed point of view, which was initially confirmed by CYS in writing that could well have led to his arrest for simply inquiring as to the health and well being of the child. CYS was reckless and cavalier in its initial presumption that father was guilty if charged, and therefore entitled to no consideration or protection whatsoever. This is an absolute outrage and should be addressed with a -12- view to immediate corrective action for this case and the strongest possible prophylactic and corrective disciplinary action. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests your Honorable Court exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction and enter a revised order amending the CYS "Safety Plan" to permit thrice weekly telephone contact between father and the minor child, while still prohibiting physical contact pending the hearing. Further, it is requested that This Honorable Court Order CYS to process this case with all deliberate speed given the dubious nature of the allegations against the father and the severe impact of the "Safety Plan" on the minor child, and the adverse impact on the fragile relationship between father and son. Additionally, it is further requested that The Court direct that refer this matter to a Police agency other than the Mt. Holly Springs Police Department, should CYS in is wisdom, determine that a Police investigation is still warranted. Additionally it is requested that CYS be directed to provide Polygraph examination services to assess the credibility of the father and any other party willing to avail themselves of such services. Finally it is additionally requested that this Court appoint a replacement attorney for the father forthwith and Direct that the court appointed Parenting Coordinator, Dr. Schneider of Camp Hill be requested or ordered to make a submission to the Court regarding his work on this case to the Court within ten (10) days. An internal Investigation of the CYS conduct is also requested. -13- WHEREFORE, Defendant hereby moves that this Honorable Court provide the forms of special relief enumerated above, and provide such additional relief as the Court may deem appropriate. Respectfully Submitted, George M. Comwall Dated this 13th day of April, 2009 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.5. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsifications to authorities. Date: April 13, 2009 George M. Cornwall -14- 2009 APR 13 PM 3: 17 0?/ STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, ; Plaintiff, VS. GEORGE N. CORNWALL, Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 IN CUSTODY CIVIL TERM TO THE PROTHONOTARY: l(indly allow George M. Cornwall, Defendant, to proceed in forma pauperis. Defendant is acting ProSe out of economic necessity in this matter but has prepared the attached petition for Leave to Proceed in this matter in forma pauperis in accordance with Rule 240 of the Pennsylvania Code. Required supporting affidavit is also attached. The name and address of the person seeking Leave to so proceed is George M. Cornwall, 1897 Boca Ratan Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, who has a secondary residence at 10 Orange St. Unit C, Mount Holly Springs, PA 17065, the natural father of the child in the custody matter before the Court. The only other party in interest is the mother, Stephanie Cornwall, RN, 4236 Carlisle Road, Gardners, PA 17324. Date: April 13, 2009 Respectfully 7,.m i L George M. Cornwall, Pro Se 1 FILED-O --FICE OF THE P71 NNOT`ARY 2009 APR 14 PM 12: 0 0 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, No. 08-608 CIVIL TERM Defendant IN CUSTODY AND NOW comes Petitioner, George M. Cornwall, the above named Defendant, proceeding in forma pauperis, and appearing Pro-Se, and petitions the court as follows: 1. Petitioner, hereinafter "Father," is George M. Cornwall, the above named Defendant. 2. Respondent, hereinafter "Mother," is Stephanie L. Cornwall, the above named Plaintiff. 3. The parties are the natural parents of George Mackie Cornwall, IV, born November 11, 1998. 4. The Parties are subject to an Order of the Court dated April 24, 2007 from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Clackamas with said Order being registered in Pennsylvania on January 28, 2008, and filed under Prothonotary Docket 08-0608. Numerous copies of this lengthy document and its attachments have previously been provided to the Court, and they are incorporated by reference. -i- 5. Pursuant to the Order, and as properly modified by the Court Appointed Parenting Coordinator, Father exercises periods of custody every Wednesday afternoon and evening through the following Thursday morning at 8:30 AM, and alternate sixty-five ((65) hour weekends. 6. The Oregon Order appointed Dr. Stanley Schneider and his Organization Guidance Associates of PA, both of Camp Hill, PA to serve as Parenting Coordinator for such time as the parties needed such services. The order specifically directs the Parties to cooperate with the Parenting Coordinator in all respects, including allowing the Parenting Coordinator to arbitrate any matter of conflict relating to parenting. 7. Pursuant to the Oregon Order, the parties have been working under the guidance and direction of the parenting coordinator on the creation of an Agreement in Principle (AIP) regarding a proposed "Stipulated Order of Custody and Parenting" which was to have been entered with this Court upon completion, since late in Calendar 2007. Throughout the process, mother has been far less than diligent in this work, failing to complete agreed homework, and returning time after time to old alleged character defects in "father" instead of completing agreed upon tasks. 8. Collectively Mothers' tactics seemed intended to MR the nroa . She frequently canceled scheduled sessions at the last minute, at least once after Father had flown from ASIA to attend the session. At Hearing Dr. -2- Schneider, the Parenting Coordinator will be called to testify concerning the progress, or lack thereof, on the AIR 9. Mother's willful actions to disrupt the AT process constitute acts of Contempt under both Oregon and Pennsylvania Child Custody Law. 10. On March 20, 2009, on what will be shown at Hearing to be a spurious allegation concerning a single digital image on a digital camera given to our son for his use for photo editing training purposes. That report augmented by additional provably false allegations was filed with CYA and a "safety" plan was unilaterally implemented by Mother who refused to communicate in any way with father concerning the masons scheduled parenting times and telephonic contact was disrupted. Although CYA may well have directed or encouraged Mother to act in this manner in an excess of caution. Mother's failure to also report the matter to the Parenting Coordinator as required under the Oregon Osier so to do, constituted an Act of Contempt. 11. Finally, while continuing both this instant litigation to enforce the Oregon order in this Court, and the completely spurious CYA Complaint, mother through her Oregon Counsel filed to have the Oregon Order vacated and transferred to Pennsylvania. Father Vigorously opposes this action, largely because the excellent work performed by the Parenting Coordinator in protecting the best interests of our son will be at risk of being lost since Pennsylvania Child Custody Law does not currently provide for the -3- appointment of Parenting Coordinators. Such services are clearly warranted, indeed essential in this case given the long history of duplicitous conduct and statements by Mother in addressing this court. The child is also a SDCTH generation Oregonian, and Father intends to continue to reside in Oregon permanently, and would be there now save for this nightmare litigation. Father, though 65 next month, is in the final stages of employment negotiations in Oregon. 12. The Court is reminded that in her prior Custody Case involving her repeated inability to comply with the orders of this COURT; Mother was required to post Cash Surety Bond in the amount of $5,000 to assure the Court that its orders would be followed in the future. 13. For the information of the Court, a request for an investigation by the Pennsylvania Department of Welfare into the handling of the Complaint against me by the Cumberland County Office of CYA at Carlisle has been filed and is currently pending. My Court appointed CYA counsel resigned to allow her to be free to handle a criminal case and take vacation on April 6, 2009 and has not been replaced. 14. It is my Understanding that the Honorable Judge Guido has signed the temporary CYA order in this case, but that no prior Judge has been involved in the Custody case. A custody conciliator meeting has been set several times but that meeting has been reset repeatedly, and the -4- Conciliator has also been appointed Guardian Ad Utem for the Child in the CYSA complaint, thus endangering the Conciliator meeting. 15. Father continues to believe that resumption of work on the AT is the best and most expedient resolution of all of these matters, and that that is the Optimum Global Solution. Dr. Schneider has previously agreed to resume work provided Mother will agree to do so in diligent "good faith", without needless impediments to communication and "hidden agendae". WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court adjudge the Respondent in contempt of the Order registered in Pennsylvania on January 28, 2048, to impose such sanctions and penalties as the Court deems appropriate to assure the Respondent's future compliance the Court's Orders in this matter, the Petitioner be awarded compensatory custodial time from the time wrongfully deprived from him by Respondent, and that Respondent AGAIN be required to post CASH BOND which the Court deems sufficient to deter such irresponsible conduct to the detriment of the minor child in the future. Respectfully Submitted, George M. Comwall Dated this le day of April, 2009 -5- 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. Section 4904, relating to unworn falsifications to authorities. Date: April 14, 2009 Atsz?? p &=:tw-z George M. Cornwall -6- I HEIIis)3 c1.-t-, I'1FY THAT THE FOEEGOING Is A CODIPLR"1 E AND EXACT COPY OF THE G1IiIGIN L ' Efi1;pg, 1 U Aftora®yA for l?l 2 3 4 5 6 IN TfiE QRCLJIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 7 FOR THE COUNTY OF C LACKAMAS 8 In the Matter of the Marriage of ) Case No. DR03-03721 9 GEORGE MACKIE CORNWALL III, ) 10 ) MOTION AND ORDER Petitioner, ) FOR TRANSFER OF CASE 11 ) and ) 12 ) STEPHANIE LYNN CORNWALL, ) 13 ) 14 Respondent. ) 15 COMES NOW, Respondent, by and through her attorney, LarryJ. Blake, Jr. and moves this court for 16 an Order determining that Oregon is an Inconvenient Forum pursuant to ORS 109.761 and Transferring the 17 above matter to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. This Motion is supported 18 by the Affidavit of Stephanie Cornwall, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 19 20 Dated this __6_ day of April, 2009. 21 LarryT Blake, Jr., OSB#87172 22 Attorney for Respondent 23 24 25 26 Page 1 - MOTION AND ORDER TO TRANSFER CASE LARRY J. BLAKE, JR. ATrORNEY AT LAW 37W BARBL R BL VIDING 3718 SW CONDOR SUTE 110 PORTLAND, OR 97239 (503) 228.6200 2 ORDER 3 IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, Respondent's Motion to Transfer case to the Court of Common 4 Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania is hereby: 5 GRANTED. 6 DENIED. 7 OTHER: 8 9 DATED this - day of 12009. 10 Circuit Court Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 2 - MOTION AND ORDER TO TRANSFER CASE LARRY J. BLAKE, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 3700 BARBLR BUIDING 3718 SW OON DOK SUM 110 POKTLAtm, OR 97239 (503) 728.6200 FILED--O: -FiCE OF TNF F'" ?T ''Nr,)T N9Y 2009 APR 14 PH Q. 00 Pt NNSYLVAINIA STEPHANIE L CORI Plaintiff, VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALI Defendant : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 CIVIL "PERM IN CUSTODY AND NOW corms appearing Pro-Se, and c nt, George M. Cornwall, the above Defendant, the Plaintiffs petition, avers as follows: 1. Paragraph , Agreed: 2. Paragraph , Agreed: 3. Paragraph , Agreed: 4. Paragraph , Agreed: 5. Paragraph S. Do not concur: The Wednesday parenting time extends until 8:15 AM the following Thursday. The alternate weekends are actually of sixty-five (65) hours duration. 6. Paragraphi 6, Do Not Concur: At no time did father enter the bathroom or touch the child. The images in question were taken at a measured distance of 11 feet 8 inches outside the open bathroom door. The showe is enclosed by an opaque glass door which remained under the control of the child and was closed throughout the shower. The location fro which the camera was used is demarked by stair-step leading to landing serving the household laundry area. It was not "a camera", it was a small digital camera given to the child about a half- hour previo ly at the child's request. The camera was in a small kit which included in ions, a book on digital photography, and a computer (USB) cable and editing software. There were no "pictures" taken of the child or an ing else, rather about six (6) digital images that were only retained in a SD card in the camera. The camera itself can not retain images si it is a very basic model. The first four images, two of the child, two the dog were too faint because the very simple camera was using in "fl sh" function; in the all white and highly reflective bathroom, when it wa not required. Father was unfamiliar with the camera and could not m off the flash until the child informed him on how to do so. In any case, in the images "deleted" the child was fully wrapped in his towel and as in no sense of the word "nude". Furthermore, the pictures so -aeiete been delei cost, howw however, i reason thE are still present on the SD card, only the index record has They can easily be restored in a few moments at nominal they are as been repeatedly stated of very poor quality; of these are "pictures" at all, they are "images". They only images that were retained were so retained was so that -2- they could $e used by the child for training purposes with the software also given to him that same evening, specifically for cropping. 7. Paragraph TIME DID I Take off or except the E purpose of l was in the outside the learned hom the child ar very basic c 7, Do Not Concur: This is an absolute fabrication. AT NO TELL, DIRECT, OR SUGGEST that the child DROP, REMOVE, do any at all with the towel, NOR did I take any pictures i or eight described, half of Mackie half of the dog for the sole the camera and getting some images to edit. The dog outside the bathroom door; the boy was in the area where one normally shaves or brushes teeth. After I to properly control the flash, I took two more pictures; one of one of the dog. When I looked through the view finder, a the picture looked fine, but in the preview screen I saw a problem, inj that he had opened the towel and as a result his penis was albeit from 0 distance of almost 12 feet, partially revealed. The picture of the dog wa$ adequate for editing but no better than that. I tad Mackie that he could you the picture for editing but that he had to get ready for bed then ahd to brush his teeth and I would load the software and we could fix th0 picture before school in the morning. He wanted to edit the picture right then but I told him I had to load the software first and he needed to §et to bed. He complied and I ticked him in after he climbed into his book bed. I tried to load the software but was unable to do so, because the CD Rom drive could not read the mini CD on which the -3- software had been delivered with the camera. By the time I discovered the Drobleml Mackie was asleep. 8. Paragraph 8, Do Not Concur. Mackie and Father discussed the situation on Thursday Morning. I suggested that Mackie simply leave the camera wi me until the next visit when we would load the software and edit the picture or take new ones instead. Mackie was disappointed and asked to tae the camera to his mother's house. I agreed provided he promised t show the camera and the images one of the dog one of himself on to his mother to ask her permission to work on them. I specifically told him, "Explain that they are just to practice editing, and this one in rticular needs to be cropped". "IF Mom has a problem with it, delete it you know how to do that?" He replied that he understood, and I said, "Be sure and tell her the camera itself doesn't save pictures, only the rd, and we didn't upload any pictures or print them." He replied that would. I said "Do not even show the camera to anyone but Mom". Again Mackie replied that he understood. A further Issue is that I do not concur that the Mount Holly Police Department is the proper agency to investigating this matter. The mother resides in Gardners and aooaretlv was shown the camera and the SD card there. The CYS report i adverse involving apparently made in Carlisle. Mother has made repeated orts to the Mt Holly Police and numerous legal actions improper police conduct and failure to properly apply -4- The Pennsvlvania Vehicle Code between the Mt. Holly Police department and Father. Mother has no way have any evidence that the single image in question bras taken in the Borough of Mt. Holly Springs, or even in the of Pennsylvania; my description of the distance from 9. 10. which the image in question was taken not withstanding. Furthermore, I have additional litigation and claims pending against the Borough and relating to Oxkse and other matters; therefore pending resolution of the previously existing matters, I intend to pursue any and all remedies that may be available to me to challenge any investigation of these outrageous allegations by this highly biased and most un-professional police 9, Do Not Concur: Father is an Oregon resident and does not admit that there is any basis for this matter to fall under the jurisdiction of the police Department of the Borough of Mount Holly Springs ano cites evidence of bias and prior litigation in progress involving both Chief Oodhart and Officer Weiser and respectfully requests that this matter be investigated by either the Pennsylvania State Police where Mrs. Cornwall asides, or by the Carlisle Police Department where the CYS report was 10, Do Not Concur: The so called "Safety Plan" was not officially issued until March 26 h when both parents received notification that it had ¢een issued. The fact that CYS apparently encouraged mother -5- to unilatera ly implement the terns of the "Safety Plan" based on the single problematic image and the provably false additional allegations of the mother, without any consideration on the impact on the foreign order NOR on its impact on the parenting awarded under the foreign order. Specifically, the mother should have reported the matter IMMEDIATELY to the court appointed Parenting Coordinator. Instead, she was apparently told to unilaterally impose the terms of the so called "Safety Plan", remove the child frcm school, and refuse to communicate in any manner with the father. When the father attempted to inquire about the child, mother LIED to the father repeatedly, and eventually threatened, through a Complaint the Mount Holly Police Department to have fatther arrested on charges harassment, when in fact, Mother was in clear violation of the Oregon (Foreign Order, by her failure to simply communicate the status of affairs either directly to the father, or as directed in the order to the Court Appointed Parenting Coordinator. On or about March 2e, a uniformed office of the Mount Holly Police Department told father at his secondary idence which is in fact owned by a Trust being established for the ben fit of the Child, that I was to be arrested and jailed for the alleged crime of trying to determine the reason I had not heard from the child in a rdance with the Oregon order in almost a week. This entire tempest ov r a largely innocuous image on a small camera given the child so he could to edit digital images on the computer he owns. -6- 11. parents u the terms of his appointment under the Oregon order and would be best person to advise the Court as to the disposition of this Paragraph 11, Do Not Concur: The mother has a long history of over reaching claims that have at their heart a desperate attempt to exclude father from parenting. Our court appointed parenting coordinator Dr. Stanley Sch eider of Camp Hill has been working very closely with both case. For information of the Court, we have for the last eighteen months been working with Dr. Schneider on an Agreement in Principle which was i tended to allow us to draft a stipulated agreement to be filed with this C urt requesting an Order as to Jurisdiction, Custody, and a revised Par ntinq Plan to better meet the best interests of our son. As Dr. Schneider n control, shy currently pi Picture" alk this effort, would perh post a cast assure her dissolution. has a histo / well confirm, when mother began to sense a loss of total commenced this series of contempt actions which are before the Court. It is my opinion that this "Dirty is nothing more nor less than a "bonus extension of g the CYS system into the battle as well. The Court 3ps be interested to remember that mother was required to i bond in the amount of $5,000 with this court in 2001 to compliance with the terms of her custody order in her first Mother does not willingly allow her ex-spouses to parent and y of taking extreme measures to minimize contact between the two of Os former spouses and HER children. -7- i 12. Paragraph charge in the pleas a because sh Trial where fully consen 12, Do Not Concur: The single three count misdemeanor court was resolved with a no contest plea; I entered mother's request, frankly hoping to foster a reconciliation, begged me to do so, to save her daughter the stress of a ie would have been forced to admit that the relationship was jai. In any case a single charge of even three counts hardly constitutes "long history" 13. Paragraph 13, Do Not Concur. The woman was NOT about 17, she was as Ms. Snyder is fully aware, Nineteen (19). 14. Paragraph 14, Do Not Concur: No Idea what unsubstantiated allegations are being made here, except I once gave some neighborhood children brief low speed rides on a scooter, a distance of about 130 feet, at their request in broad day light when at least four children and numerous n 'ghbors were present. I categorically deny ever offering any of them an "Wainettos". In any case, that would be a single warning, thus not plural warnings, again more malicious gossip from my ex-spouse and her confidants in the Holly Police. 15. Paragraph 13, Do Not Concur: The Honorable Judge Hoefer said from the bench that she had NOT proved her case for the PFA, but that since this hi penultimate day or thereabouts on the bench, he was never the less goi to give her the PFA which had been in effect for some months on a i emergency basis anyway. On appeal, Sean Schultz Esquire -8- was unable -o argue that the by then retired Judge had made a reversible error, thong it was obvious to all concerned what had occurred. I have no know of which hotel I am alleged to have been on March 24th or 25''; however, I frequently because I am Diamond status with the Hilton chain and P atinum with the Marriott Chain, frequently use the computer services at #ie Hampton Inn, The Marriott Fairfield Inn, and the Marriott Residence I fin in Carlisle as well as the Comfort Suites on the Square. I also visit Panera for the same reason, free WIFI. I have also stayed for various ieasons at the Fairfield recently, but I do not know the exact dates. n Mackie and I were in Oregon recently, we also stayed at a Marriott Fairfield Inn. That is the newest hotel in Carlisle and among the nicest. Las, I knew Stephanie like the Day's Inn for her Carlisle Hotel stays. In any case, Stephanie may well have seen me I didnt see her, and did not t that date know anything about the so called safety plan. At that time it as once again she, not I that was acting in Contempt of the Oregon ordor. 16. Paragraph 16, Do Not Concur: I filed all my documents in this case with the P thonotary just as are all civil documents in the County of I have no way to direct where the Prothonotary sends, or chooses no to send, my or any other documents. After four successive petitions h been returned without action, I asked which Judge had seen them. I as told they had been to the Honorable Edgar Bayley. -9- Thereafter II of this for the wrote an informal letter to Judge Bayley seeking guidance; all )iced well prior to mother filing the first of the various filings xly Conciliator Meeting and the ill advised CYA action. Since The Honorable Judge Guido approved the interim Safety Plan, and set over the in' 'ai petition for special relief, I assume that this document will be added to his docket. 17. Paragraph 17, Agreed: 18. This dissolution and custody case has been exceptionally long and costly but also pa nfuliy arduous and damaging to all the parties, especially to the minor hild Mackie. The relationship between father and son has been assail against the tranquility. over some ed repeatedly by mother's seemingly relentless vendetta father's legitimate rights to parent his son in peace and NOT a single parenting time has been free from onslaught natter or another. Police have been called to intervene on some pret or another at least a dozen times. The child is well aware of the manif unfairness of the mother's antagonism toward the father and will freely express it despite his firm love for his mother. Petitioner recognizes at the court has no choice but to allow CYA to complete its investigatioifi but suggests that under the circumstances that the following be ordered. A. That CYS be The present to appoint replacement Counsel for Petitioner forthwith. was unwilling to pursue this case with vigor and found it -10- entirely approp ate to wait 20 days between appointment with father to meet on and discuss a case. I did not find that at all adequate and said as much. B. To order that a Police agency other than the Borough of Mount Holly Springs Police Department investigate this matter since they do not appear to have jurisdiction. C. Petitioner is wi ling and desires to submit to a polygraph examination on any matters relatin_ to this case. Petitioner requests that this be court ordered at an early date. D. Petitioner belied es that the relationship between father and son will suffer irreparable ha given the current excessive and draconian "Safety Plan". The father an son have been communicating by phone for over 5 years since dissolution and Petitioner believes that the is no substantive danger to the child nor any real risk of compromising the CYS investigation if father is once again all wed to resume the thrice weekly 15 minute phone calls as provided for urder the Oregon order. This is vital to the preservation of the badly damaged relationship between fader and son, and is clearly in the best interests of the child. E. The Petitions requests that the Court direct CYS to complete their investigation to April 17". the initial rex imposing the c omptly and that the hearing in this matter be scheduled prior ;or the information of the Court, the intake case worker took t on March 2oth and directed the mother to begin unilaterally Dnditions of the Safety Plan. However as of March 25th, the -11- matter was not in the CYS data base, and I was not informed of the matter until late on tho 26"' of March. So much for "Emergency" conditions. This dedicated int$e caseworker was also able to take a four day Holiday weekend over faster even though he was not able to respond to any of the issues I mention here during the week prior to Good Friday, despite repeated oral and written requests to do so. F. Finally Petitioner requests that the Court order that CYS promptly conduct an internal review Hof the conduct of the Carlisle Office Personnel in the handling of this complairM and the spurious allegations contained therein, and render a report to this ourt within fifteen (15) days. It appears obvious to me that that the mother's allegations were accepted at face value and further that no due diligence of any kind was performed on the complainant. Further that an unconscionable delay was allowed irrespective of the fact that an interstate custody and parenting order was not only in effect but also on behalf of the complainant f4ahftied for enforcement in Cumberland County. This caused the fathher to take perfectly reasonable action, from his uninformed point of view, *hich was initially confirmed by CYS in writing that could well have led to his arrest for simply inquiring as to the health and well being of the child. CYS was reckless and cavalier in its initial presumption that father was guilty if chorged, and therefore entitled to no consideration or protection whatsoever. T?his is an absolute outrage and should be addressed with a -12- View to immedi?te corrective action for this case and the strongest possible prophylactic an? corrective disciplinary action. WHEREFORE, ' 'oner requests your Honorable Court exercise temporary emergency jurisdi 'on and enter a revised order amending the CYS "Safety Plan" to permit thrice w kly telephone contact between father and the minor child, while still prohibiting physical contact pending the hearing. Further, it is requested that Th s Honorable Court Order CYS to process this case with all deliberate speed ven the dubious nature of the allegations against the father and the severe impact of the "Safety Plan" on the minor child, and the adverse impact on the fragile relationship between father and son. Additionally, it is further requested at The Court direct that refer this matter to a Police agency other than the Mt. Holly Springs Police Department, should CYS in is wisdom, determine that a Police investigation is still warranted. Additionally it is requested that C?S be directed to provide Polygraph examination services to assess the credibility of the father and any other party willing to avail themselves of such services. Finally it is additio ally requested that this Court appoint a replacement attorney for the father forthwith and Direct that the court appointed Parenting Coordinator, Dr. Schneider of Camp Hill be requested or ordered to make a submission to the Court regarding his work on this case to the Court within ten (10) days. An in rnal Investigation of the CYS conduct is also requested. -13- WHEREFORE, Defendant hereby moves that this Honorable Court provide the forms of special relief enumerated above, and provide such additional relief as the Court may deem appropriate. Respectfully Submi , George M. Cornwall Dated this 13th day f April, 2009 VERIFICATION I verify that the sta ents made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that NO statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relati g to unswom falsifications to authorities. Date: April 13, 2009 " George M. Cornwall -14- FIED-OFPCE OF THE PROT'HOW) ARY 1009 APR 13 AM 13: 30 i•u.,,'. tit i ?..i^.'?iS.Y1. PE t - ,c STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No.: 08-608 CIVIL, ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of Defendant, George M ornwall. f Date: Andrew H. haw, Esquire Attorney I.D. #87371 200 S. Spring Garden St., Suite 11 Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone: (717) 243-7135 I hereby consent to the withdrawal of Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire as my attorney. Date: g * d-t, ? George M. Cornwall, Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the following document, Praecipe To Withdraw Appearance, was served this date on the below named, by placing same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid thereon, addressed as follows: Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire Griffie and Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Date: ?- Andiew H. Shaw, Esquire BLED-y:FCE O THE ERA r H('NOTA?Y 200APR 15 PM 1: 45 - ?: ? , APR 14 20080 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, . VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, : No. 08-608 CIVIL TERM Defendant IN CUSTODY AND NOW this eday of 2009, upon consideration and review of the attached request for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED That George M. Comwall, shall be granted leave to proceed in Forma Pauperis on matters perta order of the Court. 08-0608 until further 1. CC: O&Wge M. Cornwall, Pro Se Hannah Snyder, Esq., for Petitioner ./? Gr?f?'?e, ?s 6 9 k6 WV 91 NJV 683Z oWiClN()HA-0,j'd 31-d JO r STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff vs. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-608 IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this , ?- day of May, 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The parties will meet with the custody conciliator again for a conciliation conference on Friday , June 5, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. at the fourth floor conference room in the Cumberland County Courthouse. 2. The Children's Advocacy Clinic of Penn State University Dickinson School of Law is appointed as Guardian ad litem for the minor child George "Mackie" Cornwall, IV, born November 11, 1998, As Guardian ad litem, the Children's Advocacy Clinic will represent the minor child's best interest. This Order authorizes the Guardian ad litem to have access to the child's education educational records, medical records, mental health/counseling records and any possible records from a County/Child Welfare Agency, if the agency has been involved with the child. The Children's Advocacy Clinic shall serve in this capacity at no charge to the parties or to Cumberland County. The parties and their attorneys shall cooperate with the Children's Advocacy Clinic in connection with any requests for information, requests for meeting/interviews with the parties and the minor child or any home visits. 's 3. In the event the Children's Services/criminal investigation relating to the father is concluded prior to June 5, the father may contact the conciliator via a letter with a copy going to the opposing and the guardian ad litem requesting an accelerated conference date. DV TLIV r1r_%Y TDT Judge Edward E. Guido cc: "nnah Herman-Snyder, Esquire M? George Cornwall 1te107 ViNVA'AGNN3d u?± 1 ` Mno s :g wv 9- AN 6HZ At vic iN,.j;-LLOW 3A ?O .5 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff vs. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant MAY 0 d 2008 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-608 IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The conciliator conducted a conciliation conference with the parties on Tuesday, April 21, 2009. There are a variety of issues in this case including a pending children's services investigation and, possibly, a criminal investigation. The parties generally agree to put this matter on hold pending these investigations moving forward. 2. For a variety of reasons, the conciliator believes a guardian ad litem should be appointed in this case. 3. The conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: May _, 2009 Hubert X. Gigoy, Esquire Custody Conciliator STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff, vs. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AND NOW COMES PETITIONER, GEORGE M. CORNWALL, THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT, PROCEEDING IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND APPEARING, PROSE, AND PETITIONS THE COURT AS FOLLOWS: 1. Petitioner, hereinafter "Father", is George M. Cornwall, the above named Defendant. 2. Respondent, hereinafter "Mother" is Stephanie L. Cornwall, the above named Plaintiff. 3. The parties are the natural parents of George Mackie Cornwall, IV, and born November 11, 1998. 4. The parties are subject to an order of the Court dated April 24, 2007 from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon of the county of Clackamas with said order being registered in Pennsylvania on January 28, 2008, and filed under Prothonotary Docket 08-0608. Numerous copies of this lengthy document and its attachments have previously been provided to the Court, and they are therefore incorporated herewith by reference. 5. The Order provides for both parents to cooperate with the Court appointed Parenting Coordinator. The duly appointed Parenting Coordinator, being Dr. Stanley Schneider of Guidance Associates of PA, of Camp Hill, PA. The order specifically directs that both parents cooperate fully with the Parenting Coordinator in all respects, including allowing the Parenting Coordinator to make binding arbitration decisions in the best interests of the minor child in the event the parents are unable to resolve any parenting issue. 6. Pursuant to the Order, as modified slightly to reflect changing best interests of the minor child by the parenting coordinator, the Father exercises periods of custody every Wednesday afternoon after school through the following Thursday morning's commencement of school. 7. Mother has repeated refused to cooperate with the Parenting Coordinator, in the following ways: a. Refusing to work in good faith on agreed up tasks in joint sessions concerning parenting matters. b. Canceling sessions on short notice and on dubious grounds. c. Commencing litigation in Pennsylvania seeking enforcement of the terms of the Oregon order, under facts and circumstances where it was clear that she, rather than the than the Parenting Coordinator or the father, was acting in violation of the very order she sought to have enforced. d. Refused to even discuss the order or the status of the case with the Parenting Coordinator on or about March 30, 2009. e. Refuses to discuss the Oregon Order or her intentions with Father under any circumstances, despite repeated requests to do so. f. While at the same time having multiple petitions before this Court to enforce the instant Order, has also Petitioned Oregon Circuit Court for Clackamas County to have the self same order dismissed. 8. The Court is reminded that Mother in her first divorce case some 5 years after the initial dissolution order had been issued was required to post a substantial cash balance ($5,000) with this Court for a period in excess of two years, in lieu of jail time to assure her compliance with then current parenting plans. Cumberland County Docket 95-1588, which runs well over 350 pages, is germane. 9. Mother has also initiated a CYS complaint on spurious grounds in an attempt to obfuscate the issues, all of which actions have had a severe negative impact on the minor child, and deprived father unjustly of parenting time for at least 60 days as well as caused severe emotional and financial trauma to father needlessly, with no thought to the short or longer term impact on the child - parent relationship. 10. It is further requested that the Court order the mother to resume contact with the parenting coordinator, to post a deposit in the amount of $10,000 with this court until November 12, 2016 at which time the child shall have attained the age of Eighteen years of age, and further to pay Treble Damages by cashier's check to father in the base amount of $10.00, and such additional relief as this honorable Court shall deem reasonable in the circumstances. Ideally Mother should be ordered to refrain from spurious calls to the Police and to undergo counseling for a period of at least Four years on parenting matters and communications with the other parent so as to mitigate the damage to the child that has already occurred. Dated this l Och day of May, 2009 By 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. Section 4904, relating to unswnrn falsifications M authnrities_ Date: May 11, 2009 APR 14 20M STEPHANIE L OORNWAl1, : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, Vs. GEORGE M. CORNINA11, No. 08-606 CI IL TERM Defendant IN CUSTODY AND NOW, this edaV of 2009, upon aonsideradon and review of the attached request for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED That George M. Cornwall, shall be granted leave to proceed in Forma Pauperis on rratfiers pertaining to Cu ket 08-0608 until further order of the Court. 1. CC: 6mge M. Cornwall, Pro Se Hannah Snyder, Esq., for Petitioner 4 3 600Z/ I IS I jo I aged OF THE 2009 MAY I I €',"I 4: 2 0 8=pigpWt,g998i=p!Zxdse'mz'ADOa/Oiignd xuilgom/lau•udoo•spioDot//:dllq jui'IgaM auz)!j.iasr., I STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff, vs. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AND NOW COMES PETITIONER, GEORGE M. CORNWALL, THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT, PROCEEDING IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND APPEARING, PRO-SE, AND PETITIONS THE COURT AS FOLLOWS: 1. Petitioner, hereinafter "Father", is George M. Cornwall, the above named Defendant. 2. Respondent, hereinafter "Mother" is Stephanie L. Cornwall, the above named Plaintiff. 3. The parties are the natural parents of George Mackie Cornwall, IV, and born November 11, 1998. 4. The parties are subject to an order of the Court dated April 24, 2007 from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon of the county of Clackamas with said order being registered in Pennsylvania on January 28, 2008, and filed under Prothonotary Docket 08-0608. Numerous copies of this lengthy document and its attachments have previously been provided to the Court, and they are therefore incorporated herewith by reference. 5. The Order provides for both parents to cooperate with the Court appointed Parenting Coordinator. The duly appointed Parenting Coordinator, being Dr. Stanley Schneider of Guidance Associates of PA, of Camp Hill, PA. The order specifically directs that both parents cooperate fully with the Parenting Coordinator in all respects, including allowing the Parenting Coordinator to make binding arbitration decisions in the best interests of the minor child in the event the parents are unable to resolve any parenting issue. 6. Pursuant to the Order, as modified slightly to reflect changing best interests of the minor child by the parenting coordinator, the Father exercises periods of custody every Wednesday afternoon after school through the following Thursday morning's commencement of school. 7. Mother repeatedly refused to communicate with father throughout the pendency of the Oregon Order in any meaningful way. 8. Specifically mother routinely: a. Refuses to answer telephone communications even if present when incoming calls are received, either to landline or mobile numbers. b. Mother does not promptly return calls placed on TAD's or voice mail systems. Most calls are simply not answered at all. c. Mother refuses calls or messages left at places of employment. d. Complains to Police agencies, relatives, school employees, churches, father's relatives and parents of the minor child's peers that calls are unwelcome. e. Attempts to miss characterize calls as being other than legitimate administrative or coordinating calls about parenting arrangements or concerns. f. Makes the minor child aware that calls from Father are unwelcome. g. Makes it difficult if not impossible to effect minor rescheduling of court ordered communication calls with the minor child. 9. Mother has on at least two occasions wrongfully deprived father of knowledge of the current address and telephone numbers where the child may be reached in the event of an urgent need or emergency situation. a. The availability of such information is mandated irrespective of whether or not there may also exist contemporaneously any restriction on use of that information by father for routine contact. Father is never the less entitled to have that information, and it is to be current and accurate at all times. b. Moreover in at least one case, the impediment on contact between father and child was the direct result of spurious allegations raised by mother for the sole purpose of hampering the relationship between father and child. 10. Mother apparently suffers from acute psychological defect(s) that have caused this behavior which is highly prejudicial to the best interests of the minor child. 11. Father earnestly requests that the Court direct that mother provide the correct contact information IMMEDIATELY, and further, that mother be directed to ensure that contact information be keep current at all time, including for each instance of interstate travel and all instances of overnight travel over forty-eight (48) hour's duration through November 15, 2016. 12. Mother agreed to apply for a passport for the minor child and began but did not complete that application. Father requests that the Court Direct that the Passport Application be completed and filed with the Passport Agency in Carlisle, PA not later than June 1, 2009. Father Also recommends to the Court the following additional points; a. I respectfully suggest that all fees be paid by the mother subject to fifty percent reimbursement when the passport document has been delivered to mother. b. As we originally agreed, the passport shall be retained by the primary custodial parent and the Parenting Coordinator shall resolve any issues surrounding its use by either parent for travel purposes. c. The Minor Child's Passport should not be used for other than travel purposes without the advance approval of the Parenting Coordinator. 13. Mother also may well elect to have the child forgo Swimming lessons, day camp and summer residential camp since Father is precluded from contacting the child to ensure that these matters are attended to. a. Mother refused to schedule swimming lessons for twp years despite various promises to the parenting coordinator to do so. Citing various reasons such as inability to read a calendar. b. Mother refused adequate summer day care or day camp opportunities until father arranged a scholarship at the YMCA camp at Opossum Lake. 14. The Court is reminded that Mother in her first divorce case some 5 years after the initial dissolution order had been issued was required to post a substantial cash balance ($5,000) with this Court for a period in excess of two years, in lieu of jail time to assure her compliance with then current parenting plans. Cumberland County Docket 95-1588, which runs well over 350 pages, is germane. 15. Mother has also initiated a CYS complaint on spurious grounds in an attempt to obfuscate the issues, all of which actions have had a severe negative impact on the minor child, and deprived father unjustly of parenting time for at least 60 days as well as caused severe emotional and financial trauma to father needlessly, with no thought to the short or longer term impact on the child - parent relationship. 16. It is further requested that the Court order the mother to resume contact with the parenting coordinator, to provide needed contact data through November 12, 2016 at which time the child shall have attained the age of Eighteen years of age, and further to pay for a passport, send the child to swimming and day camp, and such additional relief as this honorable Court shall deem reasonable in the circumstances. Ideally Mother should be ordered to refrain from spurious calls to the Police and to undergo counseling for a period of at least Four years on parenting matters and communications with the other parent so as to mitigate the damage to the child that has already occurred. Dated this 12th day of May, 2009 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. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Date: May 12, 2009 George M. FILED'- "'C`' i1.iF i , OF TH 4 2009 MAY 14 Fii I *. 55 CUi "''?' STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL DEFENDANT 2008-608 CIVIL ACTION LAW . IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Thursday, May 14, 2009 upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. , the conciliator, at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Friday, June 05, 2009 at 9:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: /s/ Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. 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 ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 1 is l.' } OF TH Y a STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL DEFENDANT 2008-608 CIVIL ACTION LAW . IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Friday, May 15, 2009 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. the conciliator, at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Friday, June 05, 2009 at 9:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: /s/ Hubert X. Gilroy, Es q. 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 ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 CEO' fly t c*f)'-, ?? 1 1. ,,1" ? I "I z5O 1 3 11 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW GEORGE M. CORNWALL, NO. 2008-608 Defendant IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this c9 day of , 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A hearing is scheduled in Court Room No3of the Cumberland County Courthouse on the 21" day of October, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.. Counsel for the parties, or the parties themselves if they do not have counsel , shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a memorandum setting forth the history of custody in this case, the issues currently before the Court, a summary of each parties position on these issues, a list of witnesses who will be called to testify on behalf of each party and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. This memorandum shall be filed at least five days prior to the mentioned hearing date. 2. Recognizing that there is an existing order prohibiting the father from any contact with the minor child, the focus of the custody hearing scheduled above shall be to address what type of visitation, if any, the father should have with the minor child and what type of arrangements need to be put in place in conjunction with that visitation with respect to any supervision or involvement of a professional counselor./facilitator. 3. There is a hearing scheduled at the same at the dependency docket no. CP-21-DP-76- 2009. The dependency proceedings involve the same parties. The custody hearing as set forth above shall only proceed in the event there is a dismissal of the dependency proceedings at the conclusion of the dependency hearing. In the event the child is determined to be dependant and an order with respect to custody is issued at the dependency docket number, there will be no need for a custody hearing and that hearing will be cancelled on that date. BY THE COURT, Judge Edward E. Guido cc: ? Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire ? Chase D. Collins, Certified Legal Intern, Dickinson School of Law Family Law Clinic ,?Mr. George M. Cornwall ,Timothy M. Barrouk, Esquire l?o?i£S' rn?.t g(zs'/? STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff Vs. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-608 IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The conciliator conducted a second conciliation conference in this case with the parties and their counsel on Thursday, August 20, 2009. After the conciliation, the conciliator had a conference with Judge Guido to discuss the options in this case and the interaction of the custody case with the dependency proceedings. Based upon those discussions and some follow-up, the conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: August c?/ , 2009 Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Custody Conciliator ;Oflb r .fvf Ins A13G 25 ,. ,, 1511 G STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO 2008-608 IN CUSTODY PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly allow George M. "Mackie" Cornwall, IV, minor child, to proceed in forma paupens. The Children's Advocacy Clinic, Guardian ad Litem for the minor child proceeding in forma pauperis, certifies that we believe that as the child is a minor, the child is unable to pay the costs and that the Clinic is providing free legal services. Respectfully submitted, 6"_2_6)9. (?V? Chase Collins Certified Legal Intern 4 1. X -1 vu?_, ??? CY STON-WALSH U Supervising Attorney Guardian Ad Litem for minor child aoocl DA CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-2968 FILED- OF 2009 SEP 15 Ph 4: 5 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO 2008-608 IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR UPDATED EVALUATION AND NOW, this 14th day of September, 2009, comes the Guardian Ad Litem, for the minor child, George M. "Mackie" Cornwall, IV, born November 11, 1998, seeking an updated evaluation in order to assist in the determination of the most appropriate custody arrangement to be in the best interests of the child. In support of the Petition for Updated Evaluation, Petitioner avers the following: 1. The petitioner is Guardian ad Litem for minor child, (hereinafter, "GAL"), the Children's Advocacy Clinic. The GAL was appointed by Order of Court, dated May 5, 2009. 2. The Plaintiff is the Mother of minor child, Stephanie L. Cornwall (hereinafter, "Mother"). 3. The Defendant is Father of minor child, George M. Cornwall, III (hereinafter, "Father"). 4. The child has resided primarily with Mother since April 24, 2007, pursuant to an Order of Court from the Circuit Court of the County of Clackamas in the State of Oregon. That Order of Court was registered in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on January 28, 2008. 5. Father has had no contact with the child since March 30, 2009, pursuant to an Order of Court under this docket number from the Court of Common Pleas in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as "Exhibit A." 6. Furthermore, an Order of Court issued on April 20, 2009 under the Juvenile Court docket number CP-21-DP-76-2009 has also directed there should be no contact between the Father and child. The no contact provision was continued through subsequent orders, including most recently an Order of Court dated August 5, 2009. 7. Pursuant to the September 8, 2009 Order of Court, a hearing has been scheduled for October 21, 2009 to address both dependency and custody. If dependency is dismissed, the focus of the hearing will be on what type of visitation, if any, should occur between Father and child and the type of arrangements that need to be in place. 8. In order to determine what type of visitation, if any, should occur between Father and child, the GAL believes it would be in the child's best interest to have a professional custody evaluator provide information to the court. Prior evaluations have been completed in both Oregon and Pennsylvania. However, an updated evaluation can give the court information about both the period of time that has passed with no visitation between Father and child and the child's current preferences for continued no contact. A professional evaluator could assess the most appropriate arrangement. 9. A custody evaluator typically meets with both parents separately and the child separately in order to determine the best arrangements. The custody evaluator could also review the prior evaluations. 10. Mother and Father have previously utilized the services of parenting coordinator services, Dr. Stanley E. Schneider of Guidance Associates of Pennsylvania, located at 412 Erford Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011. Dr. Schneider routinely performs custody evaluations, however, he has indicated he would not perform an evaluation in this case, see "Exhibit B". 11. GAL recommends that Dr. Kasey Shienvold, of Riegler, Shienvold and Associates of 2151 Linglestown Road-Suite 200, Harrisburg, PA 17110, should complete an updated evaluation in order to make recommendations on the future visitation between Father and child. 12. Dr. Shienvold has indicated that he would be willing to complete an updated evaluation, which would serve as update to the evaluations completed in Oregon on March 27, 2007 and Pennsylvania on October 27, 2008. 13. GAL recommends that Mother and Father equally share any and all costs of the updated custody evaluation. 14. The judge previously involved in this custody matter is the Honorable Edward E. Guido. 15. Pursuant to Cumberland County Rule of Civil Procedure 208.2(d), concurrence of Mother's counsel was sought. Mother's attorney of record, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esq., concurs with petition. Father does not have an attorney of record. WHEREFORE, the petitioner, Guardian ad Litem for the minor child, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court order that the parties submit to an updated custody evaluation by Dr. Kasey Shienvold, and the parents contact Dr. Shienvold's office by September 25th, 2009, to schedule initial appointments with Shienvold's office. Respectfully submitted, Chase D. Collins Certified Legal Intern Atv', wc,-x - LAJCY ?OOSTON-WALSH Supervi ing Attorney CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013-2899 (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-3639 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand making any false statement would subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Chase D. Collins, Petitioner Certified Legal Intern Guardian ad Litem for minor child CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013-2899 (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-3639 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO 2008-608 IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Chase D. Collins, Certified Legal Intern, Children's Advocacy Clinic, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Petition for Updated Evaluation on George M. Cornwall, III, residing at 10 Orange Street-Unit C, Mount Holly Springs, PA 17065. I likewise hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Petition for Updated Evaluation on Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esq., counsel for Stephanie L. Cornwall, with an office at 200 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013. I served a true and correct copy of the Petition for Updated Evaluation by depositing a copy of the same in United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, on the 15th day of September 2009. a ol W Chase D. Collins Certified Legal Intern I-,' y Vost?6-Walsh, Esq. e g Attorney CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-3639 b MAR 2 7 2009 C? STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant : IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 3o day of MWJ, 2009, upon consideration and review of the attached Petition for Special Relief Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5424, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED that George M. Cornwall, III, shall have no contact with the child, Georg; h.?A v+ t 7< C Z. ;; ^ tX.4W "Mackie" Cornwall, IV, until qd&-l „QJ? aoo? Ct 1?3 By the C , J. Cc: Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire , l:.v? P S"LSG?Z L??/ g E J ?V Attorney for Petitioner c ?George Cornwall - eo f'j m? L U Pro Se ! w ?- m L ahlbIA: t- ^ , 7177.25 o75 GUIDANCE ASSOCIATES PAGE 01/02 0911;''2005 07:10 . _, GUIDANCE ASSOCIATES OF PENNSYLVANIA 412 Er{ord Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 732-1917; FAX: (7.17) 732..5375 Stanley IL. Schneider, Ed.D, 70 Eriarerest Square, Suite 245, Hershey, FA 17033 (71.7) 533-4312 Director CONFIDENTML FAX MEMO DATE: FAX NO: "?_?=CJ I TO: FROM: .'? NO. OF PAGES (including cover sheet) TIME: AM CM ORIG. DOCUMENT WELL 4W?,L NOT BE FORWARDED BY M-411, MESSAGE/COMMENTS: NOTICE OF CONFIDENTL4.LITY: This menage is' intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (collect) and return the original message to nos at the address above via the U.S. Postal Service (postage will be reimbursed). Thank you. 13', ?1; Exhibit 05/14/2009 07:10 7177325375 GUIDANCE ASSOCIATES PAGE 62162 GUIDANCE ASSOCIATES OF PENNSYLVANIA 412 Erford Road, Camp Hill, PA 7.7011 (717) 732-2917, FAX: (717) 732.5375 Stanley E. Schneider, Ed,A, 20 Briarcrest Square, Snite 205, Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-4312 Director September 14, 2009 Lucy Johnston-Walsh Children's Advocacy Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Comwall V. Cornwall Dear Ms, Walsh, Please be advised that I cannot perform a Custody Evaluation on the Cornwall's. Respectfully Submitted, r Stanley E. Schneider, Ed.D Psycholgist t 'Isbit 2 0 42 CIF .1 P NB SEP 15 NI y 5 3 T?f r_° STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff, VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY AND NOW comes Petitioner, George M. Cornwall, the above named Defendant, proceeding in forma pauperis, and appearing Pro-Se, and petitions the court as follows: 1. Petitioner, hereinafter "Father," is George M. Cornwall, the above named Defendant. 2. Respondent, hereinafter "Mother," is Stephanie L. Cornwall, the above named Plaintiff. 3. The parties are the natural parents of George Mackie Cornwall, IV, born November 11, 1998. 4. The Parties are subject to an Order of the Court dated April 24, 2007 from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Clackamas with said Order being registered in Pennsylvania FOR ENFORCEMENT on January 28, 2008, and filed under Prothonotary Docket 08-0608. Numerous copies of this lengthy document and its attachments have -i- 4. previously been provided to the Court, and they are incorporated by reference. 5. Pursuant to the Order, and as properly modified by the Court Appointed Parenting Coordinator, Father is entitled to exercise periods of custody every Wednesday afternoon and evening through the following Thursday morning at 8:30 AM, and alternate sixty-five ((65) hour weekends. 6. The Oregon Order appointed Dr. Stanley Schneider and his Organization Guidance Associates of PA, both of Camp Hill, PA to serve as Parenting Coordinator for such time as the parties needed such services. The order specifically directs the Parties to cooperate with the Parenting Coordinator in all respects, including allowing the Parenting Coordinator to arbitrate any matter of conflict relating to parenting. 7. Pursuant to the Oregon Order, the parties had been working under the guidance and direction of the parenting coordinator on the creation of an Agreement in Principle (AIP) regarding a proposed "Stipulated Order of Custody and Parenting" which was to have been entered with this Court upon completion, since late in Calendar 2007. Throughout the process, mother had been far less than diligent in this work, failing to complete agreed homework, and returning time after time to old alleged character defects in "father" instead of completing agreed upon tasks. 8. Although "Father" has been bared from contact with the child since March 17, 2009 pursuant to a CYS complaint initiated by "Mother", this mater -2- remains unresolved and is currently set for hearing on October 21, 2009. The CYS allegations and the so called "safety plan" have never been adjudicated and each of the CYS actions are also pending appeal within the CYS process. 9. "Mother" has also twice initiated litigation in Oregon to have the Oregon Order vacated in an apparent attempt to disrupt the Pennsylvania Proceedings. The first of these was dismissed by Judge Van Dyk in Oregon some months ago. A hearing on the second apparent attempt to disrupt the Pennsylvania resolution of this matter is currently pending before Judge Stephen L. Maurer, Presiding Judge of the Fifth Judicial District of The Oregon Circuit Court in Oregon City. Oregon on September 23, 2009. 10. Mother's willful actions to disrupt the Pennsylvania process, which she initiated, appear to constitute acts of Contempt under both Oregon and Pennsylvania Child Custody Law. 11. Until such time as the CYS dependency case has been adjudicated, there can be no determination that there is any reason that the Pennsylvania Courts have any reason to assume jurisdiction in the Custody case beyond enforcing the Oregon Order. 12. Finally, while continuing both this instant litigation to enforce the Oregon order in this Court, and the completely spurious CYA Complaint, mother through her Oregon Counsel filed to have the Oregon Order vacated and -3- transferred to Pennsylvania. Father Vigorously opposes this action, largely because the excellent work performed by the Parenting Coordinator in protecting the best interests of our son will be at risk of being lost since Pennsylvania Child Custody Law does not currently provide for the appointment of Parenting Coordinators. Such services are clearly warranted, indeed essential in this case given the long history of duplicitous conduct and statements by Mother in addressing this court. The child is also a SDCTH generation Oregonian, and Father intends to continue to reside in Oregon permanently, and would be there now save for this nightmare litigation. Father, now 65 years of age, is continuing to seek employment in Oregon and elsewhere. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court adjudge the Petition For AN UPDATED EVALUATION Beyond the present jurisdiction of this Court and premature. The Petitioner Prays that the instant petition be therefore dismissed with prejudice, or in the alternative that this matter be dealt with at the GLOBAL HEARING presently scheduled for October 21, 2009. Respectfully Submitted, s George M. Cornwall Dated this 17" day of September, 2009 -4- 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. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Date: September 17, 2009 -,9? George M. Cornwall -5- OF THE r? ' . 'n"10TAPI? 2009 S E P 17 AH 8: 5 6 -tr STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant 2009 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA"; OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO 2008-608 IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of September, 2009, upon consideration of the attached Petition for Updated Evaluation, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. That the parties submit to an updated custody evaluation by Dr. Kasey Shienvold at Riegler, Shienvold and Associates of 2151 Linglestown Road- Suite 200, Harrisburg, PA 17110. 2. That the parties contact Dr. Shienvold's office by September 25th, 2009, to schedule initial appointments with Shienvold's office. 3. That the parties equally share any and all costs of the updated custody evaluation. CC. Llafinah Herman-Snyder, Esq.. for Plaintiff ,/G?rge M. Cornwall, III: pro se Chase D. Collins, Certified Legal Intern, Children's Advocacy Clinic-DSL (?Dl'es OF TH' 2009 SEP 17 is 8: 11 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM : The Honorable Edward E. Guido IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR CONTINUANCE AND NOW comes Petitioner, Stephanie L. Cornwall, by and through her attorney of record, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire, and petitions the Court as follows: 1. Petitioner is the above named Plaintiff, hereinafter "Mother," an adult individual currently residing at 4236 Carlisle Road, Gardners, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Respondent is the above named Defendant, hereinafter "Father," an adult individual currently residing at IOC Orange Street, Mt. Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. A hearing on what type of visitation, if any, Father should have with the minor child is scheduled for October 21, 2009 at 9:30 p.m., to be heard only if the dependency proceedings, docket no. CP-21-DP-76-2009, is dismissed. 4. The Order scheduling said hearing was entered on August 15, 2009, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as "Exhibit A." 5. After said Order was entered, a Petition for Updated Evaluation was filed by the Children's Advocacy Clinic, the child's Guardian ad Litem, hereinafter "GAL," in which it was averred that "[i]n order to determine what type of visitation, if any, should occur between Father and child, the GAL believes it would be in the child's best interest to have a professional custody evaluator provide information to the court." 6. Mother fully concurred with the GAL's request for professional input into the matter of what type of visitation, if any, should occur between Father and child. 7. The Order, directing the parties to participate in an updated custody evaluation with Dr. Kasey Shienvold, with the parties scheduling with Dr. Shienvold's office no later than September 25, 2009, was signed on September 16, 2009, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as "Exhibit B." 8. Mother scheduled her appointment with Dr. Shienvold immediately upon being apprised of said directive; however, Father has made no effort to schedule with Dr. Shienvold, as is evidenced by the correspondence from Dr. Shienvold's office, dated October 9, 2009, in which Dr. Shienvold's Administrative Assistant writes that no further appointments will be scheduled as Father has not initiated the evaluation process, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "C". 9. While Mother does not believe that the Father should go for an unlimited period of time with no contact with the child, she also does not want to emotionally damage the child and wants contact between Father and the child to be initiated in an appropriate manner, so is looking for professional guidance in regards to how and when and in what manner contact should occur between Father and the child. 10. A meaningful hearing can not be had on October 21, 2009 without the input of a professional and the professional, Dr. Kasey Shienvold, cannot provide meaningful input without the cooperation of Father. 11. The Children's Advocacy Clinic, as represented by Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire and the Certified Legal Intern, Chase Collins, concur with the request for relief and it is presumed that Mr. Cornwall, who is proceeding pro se, does not concur. 12. The Honorable Judge Edward E. Guido has been involved with this matter. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests your Honorable Court to continue the custody hearing scheduled for October 21, 2009 and compel Respondent to participate in the custody evaluation so that there is meaningful feedback from a professional in regards to what contact, if any, is appropriate as between Father and the child. Respectfully submitted, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquir Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-5551 (800)347-5552 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. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. r ' DATE: ?/ ?' S T E RANI r. CORNWALL, Petitioner /l) IU l_ `, 250" J STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW GEORGE M. CORNWALL, NO. 2008-608 Defendant IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this d 6 day of , 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A hearing is scheduled in Court Room No3of the Cumberland County Courthouse on the 21" day of October, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.. Counsel for the parties, or the parties themselves if they do not have counsel , shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a memorandum setting forth the history of custody in this case, the issues currently before the Court, a summary of each parties position on these issues, a list of witnesses who will be called to testify on behalf of each party and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. This memorandum shall be filed at least five days prior to the mentioned hearing date. 2. Recognizing that there is an existing order prohibiting the father from any contact with the minor child, the focus of the custody hearing scheduled above shall be to address what type of visitation, if any, the father should have with the minor child and what type of arrangements need to be put in place in conjunction with that visitation with respect to any supervision or involvement of a professional counselor./facilitator. 3. There is a hearing scheduled at the same at the dependency docket no. CP-21-DP-76- 2009. The dependency proceedings involve the same parties. The custody hearing as set forth above shall only proceed in the event there is a dismissal of the dependency proceedings at the conclusion of the dependency hearing. In the event the child is J Q W? J H FQ- J J Q determined to be dependant and an order with respect to custody is issued at the dependency docket number, there will be no need for a custody hearing and that hearing will be cancelled on that date. BY THE COURT, Judge Edward E. Guido cc: ? Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire ?Chase D. Collins, Certified Legal Intern, Dickinson School of Law Family Law Clinic .?Mr. George M. Cornwall ?Timothy M. Barrouk, Esquire V zuuq STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : CIVIL ACTION -LAW GEORGE M. -CORNWALL, NO 2008-608 Defendant IN CUSTODY r ORDER OF COURT 4 AND NOW, this day of September, 2009, upon consideration of the attached Petition for Updated Evaluation, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: That the parties submit to an updated custody evaluation by Dr. Kasey Shienvold at Riegler, Shienvold and Associates of 2151 Linglestown Road- Suite 200, Harrisburg, PA 17110. 2. That the parties contact Dr. Shienvold's office by September 25th, 2009, to schedule initial appointments with Shienvold's office. That the parties equally share any and all costs of the updated custody evaluation. CC: Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esq.: for Plaintiff George M. Cornwall, III: pro se Chase D. Collins, Certified Legal Intern, Children's Advocacy Clinic-DSL Q ' 4IC 3 Riegler - Shienvold & Associates October 9, 2009 Grifl"ie & Associates Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Mr. George M. Cornwall, III 10 Orange Street Unit C Mount Holly Springs, PA 17065 Mr. Chase D. Collins Certified Legal Intern Children's Advocacy Clinic The Dale F. Shughart Community Law Center 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013-2899 Re: Stephanie L. Comwall v. George M Cornwall Custody Action Docket No. 2008-608 Dear Attorney Herman-Snyder, Mr. Cornwall and Mr. Collins, Elliot Riegler, Ph.D. (190-1999) Arnold T. SHenvold. Ph.D. Melinda Eash. MS James Eash, LSW Bonnie Howard, Ph.D. Amy K. Keisling, ACSW, LCSW Tracy Richards, QCSW. LCSW aefirey Pincus. Ph.D. Anr. Vergales, ACSW, LCSW Kasey Shienvold, Psy.D. Shanen Turk-Geller, LCSW John Siv:ey, LCSW, CAC Janet Frankel Staub, LCS\kl, QCSW The purpose of my letter is to update you on the status of the updated custody evaluation that Dr. Kasey Shienvold has been appointed to conduct as directed in the Order of Court dated September 16, 2009. On September 29, 2009 Ms. Stephanie Cornwall was seen at our office for her initial interview with Dr. Shienvold. No further appointments have been scheduled for Ms. Cornwall as Mr. Cornwall has not contacted our office to schedule his initial appointment If you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me at (717) 540-1313 or via direct email at rsaparentinEiC Aol.com. Sincerely, Susan Smith Administrative Assistant Dr. Kasey Shienvold a J J Q 2151 Unglestown Road, Suite 200 - Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 • (717) 540-1313 Fax: (717) 540-1416 www.rieglershienvold.com STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM The Honorable Edward E. Guido IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire, hereby certify that I did, the VL\' ` day of October, 2009, cause a copy of Petitioner's Petition for Continuance to be served upon Respondent and the Children's Advocacy Clinic by serving them by first-class mail, postage prepaid at the following addresses: DATE: If,-,) - Xy - 03. George C. Cornwall, III 10C Orange Street Mt. Holly Springs, PA 17065 Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire Chase Collins Children's Advocacy Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 fl') t oat ,Q 1„_ Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquir Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-5551 FI??Cf?aat? Ti=E ; 2009 i1'T 14 Prh 13 OCT 5 X00 1/4 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, The Honorable Edward E. Guido Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW this l (D day of 2009, upon consideration of ,nth D IFAJ the within Petition, it-is cus1oAy_,Lieari reviously ednes aycT O-ccl"o-tier "22;°-21T0'9-is' ^coniinued---" 7l`ne--tCari1Tg is day of 2009, at -- nT, Cu5fgT-Nt--Cornwall; is -dirv4,-ted.to.-comply...with the directives ???rt's` 3t'C1e `?f ourf dated September 16, 2009 such that he is directed to contact-the office of a e1y-so t11?t^DrThierrvc?klanc?mplete an updatcd.. BY THE COURT, R Edward E. Guido J. c: ? Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire Guardian ad Litem George Cornwall Pro Se ,,Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire C (es- ? t?4cL ?f ?'? t=? , . -, ?,?.? ;? ?._ - „'l STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS CIVIL ACTION - LAW GEORGE M. CORNWALL, NO. 2008-608 Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 21st day of October, 2009, further proceedings in this matter are stayed pending the outcome of the dependency action. Iannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire ',,?hase D. Collins, Certified Legal Intern Dickinson School of Law Family Law Clinic Robert S. Mirin, Esquire /6CC&YS :mlc 1'ES m?tL4Gr lgat./cq a.? 26 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM : IN CUSTODY PRAECIPE Please register the Order of October 26, 2009 from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the county of Clackamus, No. DR03-03721, pursuant to 23 Pa. CSA§5445. The name and address of the person seeking registration is Stephanie Cornwall, 4236 Carlisle Road, Gardners, Pennsylvania, 17324. The natural father of the child and the only other party in interest is George M. Cornwall, III, of 10C Orange Street, Mt. Holly Springs, Pennsylvania, 17065. VERIFICATION I verify, to the best of my knowledge and belief that the Order of October 26, 2009 is the most current custody Order in existence from the state of Oregon for the county of Clackamus and that has not been modified. I verify that the statements made in this and the foregoing document are true and correct and I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 19 Pa. CSA§4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. to anie rnwall, PLAINTIFF STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire, hereby certify that I did, the Q K day of December, 2009, cause a copy of the attached Praecipe to be served upon Defendant's attorney, Robert S. Mirin, Esquire, by serving him by first-class mail, postage prepaid at the following address: Robert S. Mirin, Esquire 2515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 DATE: j- 1 i- O 9 ALIn. ..L OViflh _ w.. _ C9__.,. 11 Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esqufte Attorney for Plaintiff GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-5551 (800)347-5552 "))NIOTARY 2009 CEO; 28 FM 2: 'T w i COUNTY OF a ACKAMAS 7 In the Matter of the Marriage of- 8 GEORGE MACKIE CORNWALL III, 9 Petitioner, 10 and 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN TEE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON i Case No. DR03-03721 ORDER (RE: RESPONDENT'S MOTION & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: RENOUNCE JURISDICTION / INCONVENIENT FORD" 12 13 STEPHANIE LYNN CORNWALL, Respondent. 14 This matter came before the court on Respondent's Motion and Order to Show Cause (re: Renounce 15 Jurisdiction / Inconvenient Forum). This matter was heard on September 23, 2009 before the Honorable 16 Susie Norby. Petitioner was pro se and appeared telephonically. Respondent appeared telephonically and by 17 and through her attorney, Larry J. Blake, Jr. Based upon the pleadings, evidence presented and testimony of 18 the parties, the court ordered the following: 19 FINDINGS OF FACTS: 20 1. Pursuant to ORS 109.761(2), the court finds as follows: 21 a. ORS 109.761(2)(a) is not applicable to this matter. 22 b. ORS 109.761(2)(b) is in favor of finding that Pennsylvania is the more appropriate forum 23 c. ORS 109.761(2)(c) is in favor of finding that Pennsylvania is the more appropriate forum. 24 d. ORS 109.761(2) (d) is not applicable to this matter. 25 e. ORS 109.761(2)(e) is not applicable to this matter. 26 Page 1- ORDER (RE: RESPONDENT'S SHOW CAUSE RE: RENOUNCE AJRISDICTION / INCONVENIENT FORUM) LARRY I BLArA JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 3700 BARBUR BUQAING 3718 SW CONDOR, SUITE 110 PORTLAND, OR 97239 (303) 228-6200 I P 1 f. ORS 109.761(2) (f is heavily in favor of finding that Oregon is an inconvenient forum and 2 Pennsylvania is a more appropriate forum 3 g. ORS 109.761(2) W is heavily in favor of finding that Oregon is an inconvenient forum and 4 Pennsylvania is a more appropriate forum 5 h. ORS 109.761(2)(h) is heavily in favor of finding that Oregon is an inconvenient forum and 6 Pennsylvania is a more appropriate forum 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 8 1. Pursuant to ORS 109.744, the Court is declining jurisdiction over this matter in that Oregon is an 9 inconvenient forum under the circumstances and Pennsylvania is a more appropriate forum 10 2. Respondent may file a Rule 68 Request for Attorney Fees and Costs. 11 „ l 12 DATED thiab day of , 2009. 13 14 15 Mnomtl? Susle Nor by 16 Clackamas County Circuit Court judge 17 T I T IS SO ORDERED. DawdM01 18 ; TTW CGVA O&Y of W,?? 19 20 21 Respectfully Submitted by. 22 23 Larry J. Blake, Jr., OSB# 87172 24 Attorney for Respondent 25 26 Page 2 _ ORDER (RE: RESPONDENTS SHOW CAUSE RE: RENOUNCE JURISDICTION / INCONVENIENT FORUM) LARRY J. BLAKE, JR ATTORNEY AT LAW 3700 BARBUR BUILDING 3718 SW CONDOR SUITE 110 PORTLAND, OR 97239 (503) 22&6200 I 2 3 4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR TEE STATE OF OREGON 5 COUN'T'Y OF C'LACKAMAS 6 7 In the Matter of the Marriage of- 8 GEORGF MACKIE CORNWALL III, 9 Petitioner, 10 and 11 STEPHANIE LYNN CORNWALL, 12 Respondent. 13 Case No. DR03-03721 ORDER (RE: RESPONDENT'S MOTION & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: RENOUNCE JURISDICTION / INCONVENIENT FORUM) 14 This matter came before the court on Respondent's Motion and Order to Show Cause (re: Renounce 15 Jurisdiction / Inconvenient Forum). This matter was heard on September 23, 2009 before the Honorable 16 Susie Norby. Petitioner was pro se and appeared telephonically. Respondent appeared telephonically and by 17 and through her attorney, LartyJ. Blake, Jr. Based upon the pleadings, evidence presented and testimony of 18 the parties, the court ordered the following: 19 FINDINGS OF FACTS: 20 1. Pursuant to ORS 109.761(2), the court finds as follows: 21 a. ORS 109.761(2)(a) is not applicable to this matter. 22 b. ORS 109.761(2)(b) is in favor of finding that Pennsylvania is the more appropriate forum 23 c. ORS 109.761(2) (c) is in favor of finding that Pennsylvania is the more appropriate forum. 24 d. ORS 109.761(2) (d) is not applicable to this matter. 25 e. ORS 109.761(2)(e) is not applicable to this matter. 26 /// Page 1- ORDER (RE: RESPONDENT'S SHOW CAUSE RE: RENOUNCE JURISDICTION / INCONVENIENT FORUM) LARRY J. BLAKE, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 3700 BARBUR BUILDING 3718 SW CONDOR, SUITE 110 PORTLAND, OR 97239 (503) 228-6200 I f. ORS 109.761(2)(f) is heavily in favor of finding that Oregon is an inconvenient forum and 2 Pennsylvania is a more appropriate forum 3 g. ORS 109.761(2)(8) is heavily in favor of finding that Oregon is an inconvenient forum and 4 Pennsylvania is a more appropriate forum 5 h. ORS 109.761(2) (h) is heavily in favor of finding that Oregon is an inconvenient forum and 6 Pennsylvania is a more appropriate forum 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 8 1. Pursuant to ORS 109.744, the Court is declining jurisdiction over this matter in that Oregon is an 9 inconvenient forum under the circumstances and Pennsylvania is a more appropriate forum. 10 2. Respondent may file a Rule 68 Request for Attorney Fees and Costs. 11 `fw'd 12 DATED thit;/1 day of , 2009. 13 14 - e- ', Norb(l 15 The Honorable Susie Nor by 16 Clackamas County Circuit Court Judge 17 y T Cwy orlu O? IT IS SO ORDERED. J17"Do pated 18 Taal COW ? BY 19 20 21 Respectfully Submitted by. 22 23 Larry J. B , Jr., OSB#i 87-172- 24 Attorney for Respondent 25 26 Page 2 - ORDER (RE: RESPONDENT'S SHOW CAUSE RE: RENOUNCE JURISDICTION / INCONVENIENT FORUM) LARRY J. BLAKE. JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 3700 BARBUR BUILDING 3718 SW CONDOR SUITE 110 PORTLAND. OR 97239 (503) 228-6200 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of January, 2010, we enter the following Temporary Order with regard to custody, which shall in no way prejudice the rights of either party after a full and fair hearing on the merits: 1. Mother shall have primary physical and legal custody of the child. 2. Father may have contact with the child via e-mail addressed to the child at mother's e-mail address. Mother may screen the e-mail for appropriateness, censor it, and have Mackie respond. Father may e-mail the child on a daily basis. No more than one e-mail per day. 3. Father may also have contact with Mackie in a therapeutic setting. We direct that mother and son cooperate with father in arranging joint counseling to help repair the relationship between father and son. If Mr. Sowders is no longer willing to continue said counseling, mother shall provide father with the name of a counselor recommended by Mr. Fringer. 4. Father is to have no contact with son except as provided in this order. 5. Father shall have no contact with mother except by e-mail and except as it is related to the welfare of their child. We will have a full hearing on the custody matter on April 6, 2010, commencing at 9:15 a.m. Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire For the Plaintiff _,George M. Cornwall, Pro se 10 Orange Street Unit C Mt. Holly Springs, PA 17065 ./Lacy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire Children's Advocacy Clinic Sheriff srs 1 E S o')'tc3 l LL 16 n C o „ 1 -- ? ? ? ra zr- '-=rq By the Court, FILED-4CFRCE F THE PrROTH,(,1 'NI 1py 2010 MAR -8 PM 3: 11 IN rry STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY THE HONORABLE EDWARD E. GUIDO PETITION FOR SCHEDULING A PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND NOW, comes Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire, and the law firm of Griffie & Associates, legal counsel for the above-named Plaintiff, Stephanie L. Cornwall, and petitions the Court as follows: 1. Petitioner is the undersigned attorney, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire, counsel for the Plaintiff, Stephanie L. Cornwall. 2. The parties are the parents of George "Mackie" Cornwall, born November 11, 1998. 4. The parties are subject to a temporary Order entered on January 20, 2010, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A". 5. Pursuant to the Order of January 20, 2010, a "full" custody hearing is scheduled for April 6, 2010. 6. The hearing of January 20, 2010 started as a dependency proceeding and resulted in an Order scheduling a "full" hearing on custody 7. The undersigned was not present at the hearing of January 20, 2010 and is requesting a Pre-Trial Conference for, primarily, clarification in regards to the Order of January 20, 2010. 8. The undersigned is requesting clarification on what issues the Court wishes the parties to address as the Order states that this is a "full" custody hearing while Plaintiff relayed to the undersigned that at the time of the hearing, her understanding was that the upcoming hearing was scheduled to address the status of Defendant's contact with the child. 9. In regards to further clarification, the undersigned is requesting clarification on whether the child should be present for the January 20, 2010 hearing and the status of the custody evaluation previously ordered, which has not been completed. 10. The undersigned is further requesting a Pre-Trial Conference to discuss and update the Court on the status of the counseling as ordered in the Order of January 20, 2010 as it relates to the hearing of April 6, 2010. 11. Even with the assistance of the Guardian Ad Litem, it was very difficult to find a counselor willing to work with this situation, primarily because there is court involvement, and the current counselor indicated to the undersigned on March 4, 2010 that she could not say if there would be any contact as between Defendant and the child prior to the hearing of April 6, 2010, and she indicated that while she is happy to provide a written report to the Court, she does not believe it is appropriate that she testify regarding her counseling of the child and Defendant. 12. The Honorable Edward E. Guido is currently involved in these custody proceedings. 13. Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire, the Guardian Ad Litem for the child, concurs in the request for a Pre-Trial Conference and Robert Mirin, Esquire, counsel for the above named Defendant, does not oppose the request for a Pre-Trial Conference. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that a Pre-Trial Conference be scheduled in the above captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, - - 10 a '?l.o nn, n - ?QIL? Date Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquile Attorney for Plaintiff GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5551 (800) 347-5552 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. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. DATE:_,t - $ - l0 NaAtftk V4IIM,A`- d:IMA N HANNAH HERMAN-SNYDER ESQUIRE STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of January, 2010, we enter the following Temporary Order with regard to custody, which shall in no way prejudice the rights of either party after a full and fair hearing,on the merits: 1. Mother shall have primary physical and legal custody of the child. 2. Father may have contact with the child via e-mail addressed to the child at mothers e-mail address. Mother may screen the e-mail for appropriateness, censor it, and have Mackie respond. Father may e-mail the child on a daily basis. No more than one e-mail per day. 3. Father may also have contact with Mackie in a therapeutic setting. We direct that mother and son cooperate with father in arranging joint counseling to help repair the relationship between father and son. If Mr. Sowders is no longer willing to continue said counseling, mother shall provide father with the name of a counselor recommended by Mr. Fringer. 4. Father is to have no contact with son except as provided in this Order. 5. Father shall have no contact with mother except by e-mail and except as it is related to the welfare of their child. IN .THE CO URT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA We will have a full hearing on the custody matter on April 6, 2010, commencing at 9:15 a.m. Ha ah Herman-Snyder, Esquire r the Plaintiff George M. Cornwall, Pro se 10 Orange Street Unit C Mt. Holly Springs, PA 17065 Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire Children's Advocacy Clinic; Sheriff srs tam en"m MY he* ;44 vie sww- '111A Y i?AN1 By the Court, STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY THE HONORABLE EDWARD E. GUIDO CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire, hereby certify that I did, the "`day of March, 2010, cause a copy of Plaintiff's Petition for Scheduling a Pre-Trial Conference to be served upon Defendant's attorney of record and the Guardian Ad Litem by first class mail, postage prepaid at the following addresses: DATE: 3 -g - 1p Robert S. Mirin, Esquire 2515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire Children's Advocacy Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Chase Collins, Certified Legal Intern Children's Advocacy Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 .. n D n Ar.? -a Pnla,i9 L7 Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esqui Attorney for Plaintiff GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-5551 (800)347-5552 MAR 0 9 2010 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY THE HONORABLE EDWARD E. GUIDO ORDER OF COURT FOR PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE ?v AND NOW, this 11 day of M , 2010, upon consideration of the within Petition, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that a Pre-Trial Conference in the above-captioned custody d matter is hereby scheduled for , the day of 2010, at •+DU o'clock P.m., in the Chambers of the Honorable Cumberland County Courthouse, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. Cc: tX nmah Herman-Snyder, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff obert Mirin, Esquire Attorney for Defendant cy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire Guardian ad liter 1 By the Court, J. 0 C K` CO N O O s-A- cn cn _Py Jr-fi -G STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2008-608 IN CUSTODY IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of March, 2010, following a pretrial conference with counsel, it was agreed as follows: 1. We will talk with the child on the record in chambers without the presence of counsel at the upcoming custody hearing. 2. A letter from the new reunification counselor, Ms. Wewer, will be admitted as an exhibit without objection at the hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to determine when it would be appropriate to have Father reinstitute regular periods of partial custody with the child. We note that it has been quite some time since the Father and son have had any contact outside of a therapeutic setting. We understand Father's growing impatience. By the" Cour , Edward E. Guido, J. ,,-?Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff /bert S. Mirin, Esquire Attorney for Defendant ,,---Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire G.A.L. for the Child srs Co P l? cN.? CJ Hi M sv ? 4: J Na t C IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff NO. 08-0608 V. CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, In Custody Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Robert S. Mirin, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff in the above referenced matter, hereby certify that on this ; "J day of April, 2010 I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Contempt on the following individual/s. Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Chase Collins, Certified Legal Intern Dickinson School of Law Family Law Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Robert S. Mirin, Esg6ire 2515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel: (717) 909-9900 Fax: (717) 561-1616 Susquehanna@comcast.net STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-608 CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of January, 2010, we enter the following Temporary Order with regard to custody, which shall in no way prejudice the rights of either party after a full and fair hearing on the merits: 1. Mother shall have primary physical and legal custody of the child. 2. Father may have contact with the child via e-mail addressed to the child at mother's e-mail address. Mother may screen the e-mail for appropriateness, censor it, and have Mackie respond. Father may e-mail the child on a daily basis. No more than one e-mail per day. 3. Father may also have contact with Mackie in a therapeutic setting. We direct that mother and son cooperate with father in arranging joint counseling to help repair the relationship between father and son. If Mr. Sowders is no longer willing to continue said counseling, mother shall provide father with the name of a counselor recommended by Mr. Fringer. 4. Father is to have no contact with son except as provided in this Order. 5. Father shall have no contact with mother except by e-mail and except as it is related to the welfare of their child. We will have a full hearing on the custody matter on April 6, 2010, commencing at 9:15 a.m. Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire For the Plaintiff ,/ George M. Cornwall, Pro se 10 Orange Street Unit C Mt. Holly Springs, PA 17065 c7 Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire ' T C= " s Advocacy Clinic Children Sheriff l .N T C l srs ` ^_ ? l w DES (LL IAT t/AZ.1 rd By the Court, STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 2008-608 GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN CUSTODY IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of March, 2010, following a pretrial conference with counsel, it was agreed as follows: 1. We will talk with the child on the record in chambers without the presence of counsel at the upcoming custody hearing. 2. A letter from the new reunification counselor, Ms. Wewer, will be admitted as an exhibit without objection at the hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to determine when it would be appropriate to have Father reinstitute regular periods of partial custody with the child. We note that it has been quite some time since the Father and son have had any contact outside of a therapeutic setting. We understand Father's growing impatience. By Cour , Edward E. Guido, J. nnah Herman-Snyder, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff /bent S. Mirin, Esquire Attorney for Defendant '1--LLucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire G.A.L. for the Child srs CoPles m.-u ' t?A M l } .+ cn c:? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff NO. 08-0608 V. CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, In Custody Defendant MOTION FOR DISPOSITION OF PENDING MOTIONS AND PETITIONS AND NOW comes George M. Cornwall, the above mentioned Plaintiff, appearing by and through his counsel Robert S. Mirin, Esquire, and concerning the above captioned matter avers as follows: 1. At various times since October 2008, through April 2009, Defendant has filed various motions and responses in this custody case. Most of these have been reviewed by Custody Conciliator Francis X. Gilroy, Esquire. They relate to the parenting plans and custody arrangements between and concerning the parties and their minor child George Mackie Cornwall, IV; born November 11, 1998. 2. The papers relate to and respond to the allegations of two contempt citations brought by the mother, which according to Mr. Gilroy are both without merit. Additionally, one motion asks that the mother be cited for contempt for failure to maintain contact with the Parenting Coordinator, Dr. Stanley Schneider of Camp Hill, for repeated failure to provide child status information to the father as agreed; for failure to provide school information after having caused George M. Cornwall to be barred from access to the child and disrupted his ability to obtain child related information and for other acts of interference with Father's parenting time. 3. All of these pending motions request the same relief: a. Resumption of the Parenting Conferences with Dr. Schneider, the Court appointed Parenting Coordinator; which are expected to lead to a new stipulated custody order and parenting plan; b. Providing the information currently being denied, along with a sanction in the event the information is denied in the future; C. Mandating counseling for the mother; d. A damage award to the father from the mother; e. And immediate resumption of the status quo ante with respect to custodial time. 4. In the alternative father seeks a period of restorative primary custody of not less than fifteen (15) months. 5. G.C. also requests that the Court confirm that the father shall have full custody of the minor child in the event that the mother is unavailable. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby prays that this Honorable Court find mother in contempt of court and impose appropriate sanctions and penalties giving recognition to the fact that this is at least a second offense of this in this very court. Dated: 1-1?111IC12 Robert S. Mirin, Esgl Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff NO. 08-0608 V. CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, In Custody Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Robert S. Mirin, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff in the above referenced matter, hereby certify that on this day of April, 20101 served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Disposition of Pending Motions and Petitions on the following individual/s. Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Chase Collins, Certified Legal Intern Dickinson School of Law Family Law Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Respectfully S itted, Robert S. Mirin, Esquire 2515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel: (717) 909-9900 Fax: (717) 561-1616 Susquehanna@comcast.net I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff NO. 08-0608 Q V. CIVIL TERM -" ° 2"' T: n 1 GEORGE M. CORNWALL, In Custody f (7% , -, Defendant i _ D MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND NOW, comes George M. Cornwall, the above mentioned Defendant, appearing by and through his counsel Robert S. Mirin, Esquire, and concerning the above captioned matter avers as follows: 1. On or about January 20, 2010, the court issued an order pertaining to custody issues concerning the parties and their minor child, George Mackie Cornwall, W born on November 11, 1998. 2. The order, at Paragraph 3, specifically provided that father was to have contact with the minor child in a therapeutic setting in the offices of Philip Sowders of Franklin Family Services of Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The order further provided some alternatives in the event Mr. Sowders was unwilling or unable to resume his services as a therapist in this matter as had been previously directed by the court in October of 2009. 3. a) Philip Sowders was willing and able to serve in the court ordered capacity of reconciliation therapist and communicated that information to the mother both telephonically and on at least two occasion in written form. b) The mother never responded to Mr. Sowders or to his office. 4. a) As a proximate result of this and other artifices and forms of active and passive interference, no face to face therapeutic sessions between father and son have occurred to date. b) The mother, ex parte, has arranged for yet another therapist in violation of the terms of the court order, as Mr. Sowders was unavailable, and never informed the father as directed by the January 20, 2010 Order of the Court. 5. Mother throughout the duration of this case has persistently and willfully refused to communicate with the father. 6. The mother has knowingly and willfully frustrated the intent of the Court's Order attempting to effectuate a reconciliation between father and child: a. That mother continues to ignore the orders of this Court; b. That the mother's objective in the custody matter remains to dispute and minimize the father's parenting time at each and every opportunity; and c. That the fallacious allegations that gave rise to the recently dismissed dependency petition in this matter were, from the outset and remain nothing more nor less than a serious effort to affect the custody case. 7. Father believes that the child has been unduly influenced throughout this thirteen (13) month period over a single digital image over which the child has sole dominion and control, from the onset. Mother has made similar unfounded allegations against her first husband during the course of the dissolution of that marriage which subsequently proved to be unfounded. 9. The Court is further advised that through the entire pendency of this arduous dissolution and subsequent multiple custody evaluations and two plus years of work with the Court-appointed custody conciliator, the mother has refused to participate in any form of marital, individual or family counseling. 10. Legal fees and related costs in this matter incurred to present a defense to the CYS case and pursue responses to the custody complaints may be in excess of $30,000. Father is nearly age sixty-six (66) and prevented from obtaining employment due to the actions of CYS arising from the fallacious allegations of child abuse. WHEREFORE, Defendant hereby prays that this Honorable Court find mother in contempt of court and impose appropriate sanctions and penalties giving due recognition to the fact that this is at least the second offense of this nature in this very court. Dated: Respectfully tted, Robert S. Mirin, Esquire 2515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel: (717) 909-9900 Fax: (717) 561-1616 Susquehanna@comcast.net on IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff NO. 08-0608 V. CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, In Custody Defendant . PROPOSED ORDER 'APR 05 2010 AND NOW, this eday of April 2010, upon consideration of the foregoing Motion 4-4- for Disposition of Pending Motions and Petitions, s l? i £S rr%.b 14• {?glirna.-? - ?u?/L. RL 11Z. n2?:2t!J JoLmlao -Cc lsl? P44.,c 41 . ?.. L,? dy/Ar /rd 3 APR 0:5 2010 fi ?1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff NO. 08-0608 V. CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, In Custody Defendant . PROPOSED ORDER AND NOW, this +*day of April 2010, upon consideration of the foregoing Motion DENit-d for Contempt of Court, said Motion is J. (g.S i'Yte`t t l?C? ?n't+-hy ?f Tl Q2rr?S.?.1 - J? 17t?yllll ? . 1?1?1ZJ? n N ` Cl '` CP 6 j STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENN,;YLWIA VS CIVIL ACTION - LAW K -0t x ITT; e ; r FRi -r; GEORGE M. CORNWALL, NO. 2008-608 Fn Defendant IN CUSTODY IN RE: CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT f AND NOW, this 6th day of April, 2010, after hearing, we enter the following order with regard to the custody of George Cornwall, IV: 1. Mother shall have primary physical and legal custody of the child. 2. Father may have contact with the child via e-mail addressed to the child at Mother's e-mail address. Mother may screen the e-mail for appropriateness, censor it, and have Mackie respond. Both parties may keep copies of all e-mails to present at the next hearing in this matter. Father may e-mail the child on a daily basis no more than one e-mail per day. 3. Father may also have contact with Mackie in a therapeutic session. If Father can arrange for this to be done with Mr. Sowders, Mother shall cooperate. If Mr. Sowders is not willing to reinstitute the counselling, the parties through counsel shall agree upon another counsellor to be used. If they cannot agree, this Court will appoint one. 4. The parties are directed to contact Dr. Shienvold's office within two weeks of today's date to schedule an appointment to make arrangements for an updated custody evaluation. 5. The parties shall share any and all costs of the updated custody evaluation provided however, that if there is an additional charge because of Father's failure to follow through in connection with our order of September 16, 2009, that additional charge shall be born by Father. 6. This Court shall maintain jurisdiction of this matter. Plaintiff's Exhibit G, the picture of Mackie, shall be placed in a sealed envelope and shall not be opened without permission of this court. We will review this matter on July 19, 2010, at 1:00 p.m. We will review it sooner if the counsellor recommends a resumption of visitation in a nontherapeutic setting and the parties cannot agree. By Edward E. Guido, J. /nnah Herman-Snyder, Esquire For the Plaintiff ,--1R"obert Mirin, Esquire For the Father i<hase D. Collins, Certified Legal Intern Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire, Children's Advocacy Clinic Guardian Ad Litem : ml c Cod cw !;,LL ?f7f rv STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff, Respondent VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant, Petitioner COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 CIVIL TERM 4 .? Judge Guido IN CUSTODY Petition TO PROVIDE emergency relief IN CUSTODY MATTERS AND NOW, comes Defendant, George M. Cornwall, by and through his attorney, Robert F. Mirin, Esquire and files this Petition in Support of a Motion for emergency relief in the Custody case based upon irreparable harm being done to the child and the relationship between father and son under current restrictions imposed by the court. 1. Petitioner, hereinafter "Father," is George M. Cornwall, the above named Defendant. 2. Respondent, hereinafter "Mother," is Stephanie L. Cornwall, the above named Plaintiff. 3. The parties are the natural parents of George Mackie Cornwall, IV, born November 11, 1998. The Minor Child is now eleven years seven months of age. 4. The dependency action has been dismissed by this court. 5. The father has been deprived of contact with the child for 15 months save for daily e-mails. 6. Now having been excluded from nearly 25% of the child's elementary school career, under the present order, the father will be excluded 1 2008-0608 Defendant's Emergency Relief Petition from attending the elementary school graduation/commencement activities. 7. In the normal course of events, Father would attend the following events at Mount Holly Springs Elementary School; a. June 8 - Awards Assembly b. June 9 - Talent Show 8. Mackie is an outstanding student and will undoubtedly receive one or more awards. The father does not know if the child is participating in the talent show or not, and the commencement is obviously the keystone event. Attending at least the Awards Assembly on June 8th and the Talent Show on June 9th would provide substantial step toward normal relations with the child. 9. Father respectfully petitions the Court for permission to attend the Graduation related events on the 8th and 9th of June, 2010 and to allow incidental contact with the minor child to offer brief congratulations at the Awards Assembly. 10. Failure to allow this participation in these milestone, memorable events simply would serve to perpetuate the notion that has been nurtured in the child's mind that the father is somehow dangerous or untrustworthy, and is manifestly unfair, both to the father and more importantly to the long term best interests of the child. 2 2008-0608 Defendant's Emergency Relief Petition Respectfully submitted, Robert S. Mid Esq. 2515 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pa 17110 (717)909-9900 (717)561-1616 (f) Susquehanna@comcast.net Attorneys for Defendant, George M. Cornwall, 2008-0608 Defendant's Emergency Relief Petition STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff, Respondent VS. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 CIVIL TERM Judge Guido GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant, Petitioner : IN CUSTODY Certificate Of Service I, Dayasha Pina, Paralegal and Office Manager for the Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin, hereby certify that on this 7t' day of June 2010. I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document via facsimile and pre-paid mail to the following individual(s): Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esq. Griffie & Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, Pa 17013 June 7, 2010 , Paralegal and Office Manager 4 Calendar Print Page 1 of 2 SCHOOLS: BES: Bellaire Elementary, CES: Crestview Elementary, CHS: Carlisle High School, HES: Hamilton Elementary, LMS: Lamberton Middle, LES: LeTort Elementary, MES: Mooreland Elementary, MtES: Mt. Holly Elementary, LADES: N. Dickinson Elementary, WMS: Wilson Middle CYCLE DAYS: E: Elementary, M: Middle Example: E1/M2 Elementary is Day 1 and Middle School is Day 2 « May 3une - 2010 - Mt. Holly Springs Elementary School July w Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday J Saturday 1 E4/M2 2 E5/M3 3 E1/M4 4 E2/M5 5 Student Act. Student Act. Student Act. MtES Grade 3 MtES Fifth Grade MtES First Class Picnic Class Picnic Grade Class Picnic School Board Mtg Aux Services Corn MtES Rain 7pm date: Field Day Bud/Fin Corn 7pm Connnn/Interc Corn 7pm Education Corn 7pm Property Corn 7pm Special Bd Mtg 8pm 6 7 E3/M6 8 E4/M1 9 E5/M2 10 M6 11 12 Student Act. Student Act. Student Act. Student Act. MtES Second MtES - Awards MtES Grade 4 4th Marking Period Grade Class Assembly Class Picnic Ends Picnics 9:15 PM - 11:15 PM MtES Talent Show Last Day of 1:45 PM Classes/Graduation MtES Kindergarten Class Picnics 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Student Act. Report Cards Student Act Report Cards Jun 15-17 K-5 Mailed . 6-12 Mailed Summer Tun 15 17 School: Registration Summer Student Act. School: Registration 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM Jun 15-17 Summer School: Registration 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Student Act. School Board Mtg Summer Req. Board Mtg. School:Classes 7:30 pm Begin 27 28 29 T30 ~~ 3 ,JUL 1 ~ 2010 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plainti , vs. I v~ORGE M. AND NOW THIS foregoing Motion to for courtroom 3 ALL, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 CIVIL TER1V! Judge Guide IN CUSTODY PROPOSED ORDER day of 2010 upon consideration of the inue, Motion is hereby GRAN~TE* D a~~njjd~~ hearing is rescheduled ~ ~~ 2010, at (`' ~7L/ a.m./~ in Judge Guido '~ C'1,' Id.-~H s J~dvoc~ ~F r CS {14-a . ~P~ cn ~ -; c ~, <~ _~ _:..._ {_. - .yd~~Ts~ - ~.~ ,: ~ ~-~,~i .~ 1'i~.{'~. ... .. ,y.. ~ . ~ ~ .. ! _Y. Robert S. Muir, Esgeire Supreme Court LD. No. 2530 The Law Offices of RobeR S. Mirin 2515 NorH~ Fzonf Stc+eet Harrisburg, Pa 17110 Tel: 717-909-9900 Fax:717-561-1616 L~~t~ r9v7 ~ ~ i t e::' .:: ~U4 - `. :f _ ,i. ~ ,_ ~ .. Susauehanna(a~comcast. net STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS flF Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION- LAW N0.2008-608 IN CUSTODY Judge Guido MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PHONE CONFERENCE AND NOW COMES, George M. Cornwall, Defendant, by and through his attorney Robert S. Mirin and the Law Offices of Robert S. Minn, in the above referenced matter and respectfully requests that the Court schedule a phone conference with all necessary parties of record, in order to discuss the mechanics of the Court's Order of Apri16, 2010, on counseling of George M. Cornwall III and George M. Cornwall IV (Mackie). ROBERT S. MIlZIN, E5Q. 1 { STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. :CIVIL ACTION- LAW GEORGE M. CORNWALL, : N0.2008-608 Defendant : IN CUSTODY :Judge Guido CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dayasha Pina, Paralegal for the Law Office of Robert S. Mirin hereby certify that I served the forgoing motion upon the following person(s), by way of regular mail. Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire Griffie& Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Chase D. Collins, Certified Legal Intern Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire Children's Advocacy Clinic Penn State, The Dickinson School of Law Community Law Center 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, Pa 17013-2899 --U-LCD Date IN 'THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff N0.48-0608 v. CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, In Custody Defendant MOTION TO SCHEDULE CONFERENCE c~ r= -r~ ,_ ;~- r..,c~, moo.. coo` Ti ~.~-~ ~:, ~ ; :~ ~ a~ _ _ _. ;. ~ ...-' _ l/~ -. AND NOW comes, Robert S. Mirin, Esquire, counsel for George M. Cornwall III in the above referenced matter and respectfully requests that the Court schedule a telephone conference with all necessary parties in order to discuss the mechanics of the Court Ordered counseling between George M. Cornwall, III and George M. Cornwall, IV (Mackie). Dated: ~ ~~ l~ Itespectfiilly Submitted, v~~ R rt S. Mirin, Esc} ' Attorney for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANL~ STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff N0.08-0608 v. CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, In Custody Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Coralee Fitzkee, Paralegal for Robert S. Mirin, Esquire and the Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin, Attorney for Defendant in the above referenced matter, hereby certify that on this j 3 `'~' day of August, 2010, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Schedule Conference on the following individual(s). Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire 200 North Hanover Street Cazlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire Dickinson School of Law Children's Advocacy Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Cazlisle, PA 17013 Kristen Flory, Certified Legal Intern Dickinson School of Law Children's Advocacy Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Cazlisle, PA 17013 ~~ oralee Fitzkee, P egal for The Law Offices o~ obert S. Mirin k. AUG 17 2010 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION- LAW GEORGE M. CORNWALL, : NO.2008-608 Defendant : IN CUSTODY Judge Guido PROPOSED ORDER AND NOW THIS day of , 2010 upon consideration of the foregoing Motion to schedule a phone conference. Motion is hereby GRANTED. Said telephone conference is set for _+n 3o A4e r .1e Ate./p.m. Defendant shall ioi 144 Dj ribution List: ,.,,'Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire, Griffie& Associates, 200 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Chase D. Collins, Certified Legal Intern, Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire, Children's Advocacy Clinic, Penn State, The Dickinson School of Law, Community Law Center, 45 North Pitt Street, Carlisle, Pa 17013-2899 ,,rt S. Mirin, Esquire, The Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin, 2515 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pa 17110 ?-o G ?S rrt? [ Q a z??? : o ti 3 01 N w Judge Guido IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff NO. 08-0608 V. CIVIL TERM GEORGE M. CORNWALL, In Custody Defendant AUG 19 2010 3 PROPOSED ORDER AND NOW, this day of August, 2010, upon consideration of the foregoing Motion to Schedule Conference, said Motion is GRANTED. J. ccz 6 -F-S r7la1 L;-:?L I " u • ?t- ANY K y 0 ?o STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V GEORGE M. CORNWALL, NO. 2008 - 0608 CIVIL Defendant ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 30TH day of AUGUST, 2010, the reconciliation counselor shall add up to two individual sessions before commencing joint sessions between the child and father. The need for the additional individual sessions shall be determined by the child's counselor Eric Fringer. The custody hearing scheduled for Friday, September 10, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. is continued to MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2010, at 1:00 p.m. / Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire Robert S. Mirin, Esquire _,-'T?ucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire :sld Co 4 F-s ma L Lam, g 3 l11v ,may the Court, Edward E. Guido, J. C <. TI r_ uJ ?? uS STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff vs. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO 2008-608 1N CUSTODY ~ ~ ~, ~~ ~ ~a ~ o -{ ~~ ~a ~~ ,, ~ rn ~, ca ~ ~ :. c, ~ ~ ~w .~ ~ ~ .n~q ~Jw. 't ~.~.. \... ~ ~ \ J ~~ ~ ._, _ .;~ .~ Y0 ~ Y „N w~ MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND NOW, this 18th day of October, 2010, comes the Children's Advocacy Clinic as Guardian Ad Litem for the minor child in the above captioned matter to request the following: 1. A hearing in this matter is scheduled for October 25, 2010 before the Honorable Edward Guido, by Order of Court dated August 30, 2010. 2. The Honorable Edward Guido appointed the Children's Advocacy Clinic as Guardian Ad Litem to represent the minor child, George "Mackie" Cornwall, subject to these custody proceedings by Order of Court dated May 5, 2009. 3. On Apri16, 2010, the Honorable Edward Guido ordered that Father may have contact with Mackie in a therapeutic session. It was also ordered that the parties contact Dr. Shienvold's office within two weeks to schedule an appointment to make arrangements for an updated custody evaluation. 4. While the parties experienced initial difficulty in finding a reunification therapist who would work with this family, one was identified in June of 2010. The reunification therapist is Mr. Richard Sieber of Sieber & Associates in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 5. Since June of 2010, the parties have worked out a fee agreement and Mr. Sieber began sessions with the parties. Mother had one individual session. Father had individual sessions. Mackie had four individual sessions. 6. As of this date, Father has not complied with the August 6, 2010 Order that directs the parties to participate in a custody evaluation. It is the Guardian Ad Litem's position that it would be in the child's best interest if the custody evaluation were completed prior to another custody hearing. 6. The Guardian Ad Litem is seeking a continuance because as of this time there has only been one therapeutic reunification session between Father and Mackie. The first session took place on October 7, 2010. The next session has not yet been scheduled. 7. It is the Guardian Ad Litem's position that it is not in the child's best interests to proceed with the custody hearing until there are additional therapeutic reunification sessions, so that the reunification therapist can report on progress. 5. The Guardian Ad Litem requests that this Honorable Court continue the hearing until additional reunification sessions between Father and Mackie take place. 6. Pursuant to C.C.R.P. 208.2(d), the Guardian Ad Litem has sought the concurrence of counsel for Plaintiff, Hannah Herman-Snyder, and counsel for Defendant, Robert Mirin. The Guardian Ad Litem has received the concurrence of counsel for Plaintif£ Counsel for Defendant did not concur. WHEREFORE, the Guardian Ad Litem for the minor child, George "Mackie" Cornwall, requests that the custody hearing currently scheduled for Monday, October 25, 2010 be continued and rescheduled upon motion from any party. Respectfully Submitted, Date: October 1$, 2010 Kristin Flory Certified Legal Intern ~' ~. G~. `"I;~JCY JOHNSTON-WALSH KATE CRAMER LAWRENCE Supervising Attorneys CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CLINIC Guardian ad litem for minor children 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 P: (717)243-2968 F: (717) 243-3639 CC: fIannah Herman-Snyder, Esq.- Counsel for Plaintiff Robert Mirin, Esq.- Counsel for Defendant , STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. :CIVIL ACTION -LAW GEORGE M. CORNWALL, NO 2008-608 Defendant IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 18`x' day of October, 2010, I, Kristin Flory, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Continuance on the following parties via facsimile: Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esq. Griffie and Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Robert Mirin, Esq. Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin 2515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Kristin Flory Certified Legal Intern r pCT 19 2010 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. :CIVIL ACTION -LAW GEORGE M. CORNWALL, NO 2008-608 Defendant 1N CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT ~~ 2010 u on consideration of the AN) NSW, this ~' day •f r attached Motion for Continuance, the motion is l~diPED. ~ lJ 1 E ~' ~~ p'~-r-~ ~, ~D I ~ v Dat BY TH tribution: ~annah Herman-Snyder- Counsel for Plaintiff 200 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Robert Mirin- Counsel for Defendant 2515 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 ~cy Johnston-Walsh, Esq.- Guardian Ad Litem Children's Advocacy Clinic, 45 N. Pitt Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 ~1 `o ~ Es .-rta. l ~- .~ Ida, r ~ ~a J. STEPHArTIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff vs. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW N0.2008-608 IN CUSTODY e~ c ~~ rT- :x: v~ ~ .:> C ~ ~ p RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE ~~~ -~ N r~ ~a -~ N N d~: N -~ 0 -~ ~~ rn~ ~° rn :z~ q ~, ^4 p ~~ O -t7 ~~ d~ -~ It being the 21~` of October, 2010, Defendant George M. Cornwall by counsel herewith responds to the Motion for the Children's Advocacy Clinic Guardian Ad Litem with regard to its' Motion for Continuance filed on or about October 1$, 2010, and in response to that Motion responds as follows: Admitted. 2. Admitted. By way of further response it is respectfully suggested that the need for a guardian ad litem has evaporated in this case, given the resolved status of the dependency matter before the Court. It is further respectfully submitted that the minor child is appropriately and fully represented by the attorneys for Stephanie L. Cornwall and George M. Cornwall, parents of said minor child. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. By way of further response, it is noted that the extended and convoluted process (more than a year) involved in arranging for the limited number of counseling sessions to this point in time have been the product of a number of factors and delays such as that most recent occasion by the refusal of the custodial mother to produce the child for a session at 3p.m. on October 21, 2010 (see attached correspondence -Exhibit A). It is respectfully submitted that the parties have experienced ongoing difficulties based upon the obstructive attitude of the mother, Stephanie L. Cornwall, to the reunification counseling. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. By way of further response, it is the father's position that the custody processes that were in place involving Stanley Schneider of Guidance Associates Court appointed Parenting Coordinator under the original (Oregon) Order, are sufficient to address and to conclude any outstanding or ongoing custody issues. Plaintiff had suggested Sheinvold & Reigler, but abase upon the designated counselor's use of an outdated MMPI report and the apparent prejudgment precipitated; Defendant objected. It is respectfully submitted that the child's best interest would not be served by a third custody evaluation involving George M. Cornwall and the child, but further that the reunification counseling ordered by this Court is the more appropriate vehicle to proceed under. 6. (sic) Denied as stated. While there has been only one successfully scheduled therapeutic reunification session between father and Mackie on October 7, 2010, another session was unsuccessfully scheduled by Mr. Cornwall for October 21, 2010, and further the child has had numerous sessions with the counselor in question, Richard Sieber. 7. The averments of paragraph 7 of the Motion are speculative and it is believed that Mr. Sieber could report to the Court at this time concerning the status of the reunification counseling. i ~ (Parenthetically it should be noted that the numbering of the Motion supplied by Certified Legal Intern Kristen Flory contains two paragraphs 5 and three paragraphs 6 in the Motion. This response has proceeded sequentially by paragraph not withstanding the duplicative numbering of the Motion.) 5. (sic) Paragraph 5 is an unsupported assertion, no documentation or supporting material is supplied. The averment is speculative with regard to the status and impact of the Court ordered reunification sessions. 6. (sic) The third paragraph 6 in the Motion is a conclusion to which responsive pleading is not required. However, it correctly notes that counsel for Defendant does not concur in a request for a continuance and, in fact, strenuously objects. It has been 587 days since George Cornwall saw his son in a normal fashion. NEW MATTER a. This would be the third request for a Custody Evaluation in this case, b. There is no substantive or procedural need for a third Custody Evaluation. c. The Court ordered reconciliation counseling should resolve any and all issues as to custody between the father, George Cornwall and the minor child, George Mackie Cornwall and the mother, Stephanie Cornwall. d. In the event that a further refinement of the second Custody Evaluation is necessary, it is respectfully requested that the Court direct, given the prior history of bias and predisposition demonstrated to the Court concerning the status of George Cornwall by the counseling firm, - Adler and Riegler -previously suggested for the third evaluation process; it is requested that in the interest of fairness, economy and expedition that the matter proceed under the aegis of the reconciliation counseling through the offices of Sleber & Associates (Richard Sleber). e. The origins of the currently ordered Child Custody Evaluation emanate from the prior guardian ad litem and, it is believed, are not supported or necessary on the record, given the resolution of the dependency proceeding. f. While it is true there has been a substantial hiatus in the custodial interaction between George Cornwall and George Mackie Cornwall the Court, being fully advised in the premises of and the underlying issues, the reconciliation counseling should be able to facilitate moving forward with the custodial relationship between the father and child based upon the reconciliation counseling. g. At most, in addition to the reconciliation counseling the Court should order that Guidance Associates (Stanley Schneider) -Guidance Associates should be designated to complete any aspects of the Custody Evaluation as he is familiaz and has worked with the parties. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully submitted that the Court should conduct the scheduled hearing and modify its' existing Order and delete the economically burdensome requirement of a further (third) Child Custody Evaluation and discontinue the child's guardian ad litem. Respectfully S witted, Dated: l0 v~ Robert S. Minn, Esquire Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin 2515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tele: (717) 909-9900 Fax: (717) 561-1616 Susquehanna(a~comcast.net STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff' vs. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW N0.2008-608 IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Coralee Fitzkee, Legal Secretary for Robert S. Mirin, Esquire and the Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to Motion for Continuance via U.S. First class mail on the following individual(s): Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire Crriffie & Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Kristen Flory, Certified Legal Intern Children's Advocacy Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, Y ~ .17013 Dated: v a ~ ~ U oralee Fitzkee, L Secretary ~,~W C3FF~CES Q-F ROBERT S. MI]~ COUNSELORS AND ATTORNEYS AT LAW Robert S. Minn, Esquire 2515 N. Front Street Lindsey Bierzonski, Esquire Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel: (7171909-990 Fax: (717) 561-1616 October 8, 2010 Hannah Herman-Snyder Griffie & Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: G.C. In re: Ge.C. Dear Ms Herman-Snyder: This will advise that the "reunification" counseling involving George and his son has commenced and to provide notice that Dr. Sleeber has suggested the possibility of session on the morning of October 18, 2010, the date of our afternoon hearing involving the status of this matter before Judge Guido. Accordingly, I am advising you of my understanding per George that Dr. Sleeber wishes to schedule an additional session at that time. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions concerning this correspondence, Sincerel , Robert S. Minn, Esquir Enclosures: C: Dr. Richard Sleeber client y~.~.~~E ~.~SO~I.~.~s Attorneys and Counselors at Law 200 Nortfi Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Bradley L. Grime, Esquire (717) 243-5551 Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire 100 Lincoln Way East, Suite D Robin J. Bassett Chambersburg, PA 17201 Office Manager (717) 267-1350 Kelly L. Perez (800) 347-5552 Fax (717) 243-5063 Legal Assistant Reply to: Carlisle October 15, 2010 Via facsimile (561-1616) and U.S. Mail Robert S. Mirin, Esquire 2515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 RE: Cornwall vs. Cornwall Dear Attorney Mirin: I am writing in response to your request that a counseling session between George and Mackie be set up for the morning of October 1$, 2010. Please note that my client does not believe that is appropriate for Mackie to miss school for this purpose so I am asking that you provide us with some other dates, that are not during school hours, for the next counseling appointment. Your attention is appreciated. Very Truly Yours, Hannah Herman-Snyder 1-IHS/klp Cc: Stephanie Cornwall LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT',, S. ~ COUNSELORS AND ATTORNEYS AT LAW Robert S. Mirin, Esquire 1251 ~ N. Front Street Lindsey A. Bierzonski, Esquire Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel: (717) 909-9900 Fax: (717) 561-1616 VIA FACSIMILE to 717-243-5063 and U.S. Mail October 19, 2010 Hanna. Herman Snyder, Esquire 200. North Hanover Street Cazlisle, PA 17013 Re: Cornwall vs. Cornwall Dear Ms. HermanSnyder: This is acknowledged receipt of your letEer concerning the proposed session for Mackie Cornwall on Monday, October 18~'. Unfortunately, in contnuati ~n of the pattern of obstructions with regazd to that process. Your facsimile was not~eceived unti14:54 p.m. on October 15, 2010, 5 hours after the office closed on Friday and obviously transmission at that time and in that manner was calculated to obstruct and further interfere with counseling process and to interfere with the successful accomplis}ument of its objectives. I believe that given that it is appropriate that the counseling should participate based upon available scheduling through the Sieber office and with some consideration of George's schedule and Mackie's. But, not to the extent that the process is dbstructed. Mackie has been indicated to be an excellent studentand a mature young man Missing a little school, given this important counseling, is an appropriate "sa:crifi~e" to use your terminologyson occasion. Thus, I believe that your client continues to be inappropriately and admittedly opposed to my client's having successful parental relationship with his son. The Sieber office has tried to arrange for scheduling consistent with George's presence in the area, as he continues to do a substantial amount of work in Oregon consistent with his schedule and taking other schedules 'into account. I believe this is; a correct approach. Please do not hesitate to call and speak with me, as the telephones in my office operate and I am more than glad to attempt to resolve these matters in an~expeditious and timely fashion. Should you have any other questions or concerns, please; contact this office at the number listed above. Sincere Robert S. Minn RSM: arw C: Client EAW OFFICES OF ROBERT S. MIRIN CC~I~SELOR AND ATTORNEY AT LAW Robert S. Mirin, Esquire Lindsey Bierzonski, Esquire October 19, 2010 via facsimile 717-234-5063 Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire 200 North Hanover Stmt Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Cornwall vs. Coruwau Dear Ms. Herman-Snyder: 2515 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA i 711 ti E717) 949-A90~ Fax: (717) 561-Ibib I am writing to you to inform you that George has arranged an appointment for Mackie and himself to see Richard Sleber on Thursday, October 21, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. If you have any other questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office at the number listed above. Sincere ", r` Robert S. Mirin RSM: arw C: Client .._., ~.._ _...., r.~ ~R.r~~rE & .~tssocra~~s Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire Haaaah Herman-Snyder, Esgnirc Robin J. Bassett Office titanager Kelly L. Perez Legal Assistant Reply to: Carlisle Yia facsimile 1561-1616) and U.S. Mail Robert S. Mirin, Esquire 251 S North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 RE: Cornwall vs. Cornwall Deaz Attorney Mirin: October 20, 2010 106 Liacola Way Eab-t. Snitc D Chambarshurg, PA 17201 (717) 26T-1356 (800)347-5552 Pax (T[7) 243-5063 I am writing in response to both of your correspondences of October 19, 2414. First, let me please note that by the time I had written to you on October 15, 2010, it had already been my understanding that no appointment had been confirmed or even scheduled with Mr. Sieber on October 18, 2010 as it was my understanding that Mr. Sieber stated that no appointment would be made during school hours without the agreement of .the parties. Furthermore, Ms. Cornwall was told at the end of the first appointment between Mackie and Mr. Cornv~~all that Mr. Sleber's office would be contacting her to schedule the next appointment. As of this date, the only information ~,ve have received in regards to scheduling is from you. In regards to the appointment of October 21, 2010 at 3:00 p.m., that will not work with Mackie's schedule as Mackie is in school at that time and he has a sixth grade social that is scheduled unti14:00 p.m. I am sending the enclosed correspondence to Mr. Sieber because if the appointment can be rescheduled to October 21, 2414 at x:00 p.m., then Mackie will be able to attend. If it can, then it will work for that day, and, if not, it will need to be rescheduled for another day. As stated above, Ms. Cornwall was given the impression that Mr. Sleber's office would be in contact to coordinate the next counseling date so as to take all parties schedules into consideration, as well as, most importantly Mackie's schedule. It is not appropriate for you to schedule the tunes and .then demand that Mackie be present, asserting Ms: Cornwall is not being cooperative when it does not. work with her work schedule or, again, more importantly Mackie's schedule. I see no reason why either counsel need to be involved in the scheduling and why it cannot be done with Mr. Sleber's office. Ms. Cornwall's position is clear and Mr. Sieber has worked with it in regards to all of Mackie's individual counseling sessions. There is nothing unreasonable about her position that Mackie's schedule and her schedule Anorneys and Counselors at Law 2011 North Hano~•er StrCet Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-5331 a~ucr M, J Page 2 Robert S. Mirin, Esquire October 20, 2010 need to be considered. It is simply common courtesy to consider all parties when scheduling an appointment for three different persons. Furthermore, both Ms. Cornwall and I respectfully disagree v~dth your position that it is not a big deal for Mackie to miss some school.. If these counseling sessions are going to take place on a regular basis, weekly, bi-weekly, etc, it is not appropriate, for numerous reasons, for Mackie to miss school on any kind of consistent basis. As one issue, I ask that you keep in mind that these appointments are in Harrisburg and if appointments were scheduled during school hours, that would necessitate Mackie missing approximately three (3) hours of school. As a secondary issue, Ms. Cornwall does work a full time job during day time hours and it is not fair to have her miss work on a regular basis either. Ms. Cornwall has been and continues to be more than cooperative in moving the reunification efforts forward. She understands that Mr. Cornwall's schedule is a relevant factor in establishing counseling; however, she believes Mackie's schedule should be paramount and that her schedule should be considered as well. Again, I am asking, pursuant to the enclosed correspondence to Mr. Sleber, that his office take care of scheduling appointments from this time forward. Your attention is appreciated. Very Truly Yours, Hannah Herman-Snyder HHS/klp Enclosure Cc: Stephanie Cornwall Kristin Flory (via facsimile) -' - .., t I i! J L O 1- L T U O P• Y GR.r.~.~rE & .~Issocr.~~s Anorneys and Counselors at Law 200 north Hapwcr Street Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire: Carlisle, PA 17013 (7x7)243-SSSI Hannah Hermatt-Snyder, Esquire - . "- 100 Lincoln Way Faisl, Suite D Robin J. Bsssett - Chaanbersburg, PA 17201 Office Manager • • - (717) 267.1350 Kelly L Peres - - • • (1100) 347-5552 Legal Assistant "' Fa> (717) 243-50b3 Rory co: cartisre Via facsimile (236-66331_ and U.S Mail Richard L. Sieber, M.A. Sieber Associates, P.C. 2626 North Third Street, Suite 3B Harrisburg, PA 17110 RE: ~: George and Mackie Cornwall Dear Mr. Sieber: October 20, 2010 As yo>:1 may recall, I am the attorney for Stephanie Cornwall and am writing to you in regards to the counseling that is taking place between George and Mackie Cornwall. It was Ms. Cornwall's understanding, after the first appointment that was held between George and Mackie, that your office would be contacting her to coordinate the next counseling appointment. Instead of hearing from you, I have heard from Attorney Minn on several occasions, with the Iast letter from him simply stating a time and date of a counseling appointment. The time and date is October 21, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. I am not sure how this date and time was arrived at as Ms. ComwaIi was not involved in obtaining the same and I have advised Attorney Mirin that I do not believe it is appropriate for him to unilaterally obtain a date and expect that Mackie will be presem, without any consideration for, most importantly, Hackie's schedule, but Ms. Conlwall's schedule as well. The appointment for October 2i, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. does not work, most importantly, for Hackie's schedule due to school and the fact that he has a sixth grade social after school that is scheduled until 4:00 p.m. He is able to attend an appaintment at 5:00 p.m. on Xhat day, if you are able to accommodate that, otherwise, the appointment needs to be rescheduled. I am asking if you can assist in the scheduling of appointments by having your office coordinate the same so that all three persons schedules aze considered. I do not see any reason for counsel to be involved in the scheduling of these appointments as it is clearly making what could be a relatively easy task of coordinating schedules more difficult as two more people are now involved in the chain of coordinating. a r a r ~ Lt)1 -1TU0 per, Page 2 Richard L. Sleber, M.A. October 20, 2010 Although I believe this matter has already been addressed between you and Ms. CornwaA, because Attorney Mirin and I are clearly not of the same mindset in regards to the issue of Mackie missing school for these appointments, I am writing to clazify that Ms. Cornwall does not agree to have any appointments scheduled during Ma,ckie's school hours. As I : stated, I believe this matter has been addressed between you and Ms. Cornwall because you have scheduled all of Mackie's individual appointments a8er school hours. Your attention is appreciated. Very Truly Yours, ~ ~~~ ~, Hannah Herman-Snyder HHS/k)p Cc: Suphan~e Cornwall Kristin Fiory, GAL (via facsimile) Robert S. Mirin, Esquire (via facsimile) t -~a~t- rtos~nl/ 100101 t' -~L9 Cumberland Valley Counselirs Associates 1200 Walnut Bottom Rd. Suites 311 Carlisle, PA 17015 717-243-1611 B'A1C: 717-243-1530 Wrnr.¢umbarlaadvalleyaounseliag.ao+m s Qatober 20, 2010 To: Robert Minn, Esq. From: Pau! Hardick, LCSW RE: George Camwall Dof3: 11/05!1944 FAX: T1T-561-16'i6 I first saw and evaluated Mr. Cormvatt on August 11, 2009 and have treated him a total of thirty- fourtimes to this date. Mr. Cornwall has seldom missed an appointment and calls in advance when he cannot attend. He is willing and cooperative at examining his behaviors and making changes when necessary. He often reported that he uses information between sessions. Currently, he is lear»ing healthy communication skills to be used with a ten year old son. He continues to be frustration with the lengthy prods of sexing his son which is his primary objective. However, even with this frustration, he continues to comply will all requirements of the court in a straight forward and open manner. He reported that he is working more steadily and beginning to make payments on outstanding debts and ~ pleased with this. It is my professional opinion that Mr. Cornwall should have visitation rights for his son and that the implementation of these right wilt result in a positive snd healthy rolstbnship between him and his son. If t can be of additional assistance, please contact me. Sincerely yours, ~~%~~ Paul Hardick, LCSW Voice: 717-243-1511 X 103 FAX: 717.243-1530 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT S. M]RI~T COUNSELORS AND ATTORNEYS AT LAW Robert S. Minn, Esquire 2315 N. Front Street Lindsey Bierzonski, Esquire Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel: (7171904-9900 Fax: (717) 561-1616 October 21, 2010 ilia facsimile (717) 243-5063 and U.S. Mail Hannah Herman Snyder, Esquire Griffie & Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Cornwall v. Cornwall Dear Attorney Herman-Snyder: I was out of the office until 4:15 p.m. yesterday afternoon, the 20'~ of October. Upon my return, I received your correspondence to myself and to Mr. Sleber. I have the following observations: 1. I understand that Mackie's school ends at about 2:45 in the afternoon, so at most he would be missing about a half an hour school tune if he met that 3 o'clock appointment that is scheduled. Ms. Cornwall, a Director of Nursing, ordinarily works from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 2. I was advised that Mr. Sleber preferred that counsel coordinate the schedule. However, I agree with your sentiment that it would be better if it were done directly. 3. His counseling was ordered by Judge Guido in October of last year and has essentially been fivsh~ated by a number of events which I consider tactics and ploys which have delayed and fiNStrated the counseling process. 4. While I believe that Mackie's schedule is important, I believe that this counseling is crucial and I believe it is of a higher order of magnitude than an after school social which is an event which presumably will repeat itself during the school year. 5. I believe that the importance of this court ordered scheduling is such that the parties have to make a substantial effort to accommodate the process and the limitations of the professional office involved. Accordingly, I believe that the impact upon Ms. Cornwall in terms of transporting Mackie to the counseling and the routinelordinary kinds of events that occur in connection with school are such that they should not interfere with the counseling process. Mr. Cornwall arranged this appointment from Oregon and returned from Oregon to participate in the counseling in question and has made a substantial accommodation to facilitate this counseling. I strongly suggest that a routine social event scheduled at the end of the school day should not interfere with the counseling in question and that Ms. Cornwall should make herself more available to the process for purposes of transporting Mackie. (Of course, George could transport Mackie to the session.) Frankly, the disrupted relationship between George Cornwall and his son to their relationship is far more important that the ostensible routine post-school social event. Had Mr. Sowders been accepted as a counselor without obstruction and frustration on his counseling, this counseling would be conducted in a location more proximate to Maclcie's school and Ms. Cornwall's employment. Not withstanding the above, I believe that it is appropriate for the Sleber office to do the scheduling directly and accordingly I am so advising Mr. Sleber's office that I would be also be agreeable to direct scheduling (as I have always been). Enclosed is a copy of Hackie's school calendar. The school also maintains a website at carlisleschools.or calendar. If you have any questions and/or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my office at the telephone number listed above. Sincerely , r~'r'_'' Robert S. Mirin, Esq cc:: client R Sleber 1 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2008-608 CIVIL TERM t'~ ~ ~ -v~ c ,,,.,~ GEORGE M. CORNWALL, CIVIL ACTION - LAW ~~ ~ ~ ?1 Defendant IN CUSTODY ~~~' ' ~' - ~" cn ~ r°,~ ~~ ~- ...~, .x ~~ C3ti ,.' ~ s A } ~' ~° ^ ; 4~ ~ ORDER OF COURT ~ ~ ~= ~' ---j ~` AND NOW, this 25th day of October, 2010;.:;w~.?w i~l review this matter yet again on December 20, 2010, at 1:00 p .m. Pending said further he aring, our Order of April 6, 2010, sh all remain in full force and effect with the following additions : 1. The parties shall continue their reunification counseling with Mr. Sleber on a weekly basis, abiding by the following schedule: November 2 at 8:00 a.m., November ll at 6:00 p.m., November 18 at 4:00 p.m., December 2 at 4:00 p.m., December 9 at 4:00 p.m., and December 16 at 4:00 p.m. 2. Mackey's individual counselor, Mr. Fringer, and the reunification counselor, Mr. Sleber, shall contact each other to share their mutual concerns and/or apprise each other of the parties' progress. The parties shall execute any releases the counselors may request. 3. Father may resume telephone contact with the child one time per week at a time to be scheduled at the reunification counseling session. Mr. Sleber has the authority to cancel the weekly telephone call if he or Mr. Fringer deems it to be inappropriate. By the Court, Edward E. Guido, J. /Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire / For the Plaintiff obert S. Mirin, Esquire For the Defendant ristin M. Flory, Certified Legal Intern Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire G.A.L. for the Child c J. Fringer, L.C.S.W. Franco Psychological Associates, P.C. 26 State Avenue Carlisle, PA 17015 Richard L. 2626 North Suite 3B Harrisburg, srs Sleber, M.A. Third Street PA 17110 ~iES' ~I(£d~ ~0~~7~ r~ ~~ r , STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW c-a c Q GEORGE M. CORNWALL, NO 2088-608 -c33 mca "rn c' ° --? -Om Defendant cn+" - tv :23p IN CUSTODY rte- = ? ? <c' .? _ Q-. = C? o REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION N AND AND NOW, this 19'h day of November, 2010, comes George M. Cornwall, by and through his counsel, Robert S. Mirin and the Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin and respectfully requests that the Court reconsider an Order which it entered pursuant to a Petition from the Children's Advocacy Clinic on or about September 15, 2009. In support of the Request for Reconsideration, Defendant George M. Cornwall, through counsel avers as follows: 1. The Petition for a Updated Evaluation was filed with the Court on or about September 15, 2009. At the time it was indicated that the Petition had been served upon Defendant by First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid on September 15, 2009. (Attachment A). 2. The Court entered its Order on the 100 of September 2009, granting a Request for Updated Custody Evaluation. 3. George M. Cornwall was not in actual physical receipt of the Petition until September 17, 2009, the day following the Court's Order. 4. Defendant Cornwall filed a response to the petition pro se (Attachment B) on September 17, 2009. 5. At the present time, given the procedural course of events surrounding this case and those filings and the Court's response prior to receipt of Defendant's responsive pleading; it is respectfully requested that the Court reconsider its' Order of September 16, 2009, especially in the context of subsequent developments in the case wherein the Dependency Petition has been dismissed. Defendant Cornwall has appealed the Children & Youth determination and that is pendant before the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals and further the procedural history of the case involving its' transfer from Oregon, the involvement of Dr. Stanley E. Schneider of Guidance Associates of Pennsylvania and the overall posture of the case including Defendants present economic circumstances are the predicate for this request that the Court withdraw its Order for yet another custody evaluation. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully suggested that, at most, the process which was ongoing before Dr. Stanley Schneider should be concluded in lieu of a full blown updated custody evaluation. Robert S. Mirin, EsquW Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin 2515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tele: (717) 909-9900 Fax: (717) 561-1616 Susquehanna(a,comcast.net STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW GEORGE M. CORNWALL, NO 2008-608 Defendant IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Coralee Fitzkee, Legal Secretary for the Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin, hereby certify that on November 19th, 2010,1 served a true and correct copy of the Request for Reconsideration on Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire, counsel for Stephanie L. Cornwall, via United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid at 200 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. I likewise hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Request for Reconsideration on Kristin Flory, Certified Legal Intern for Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Guardian Ad Litem, via United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid at Children's Advocacy Clinic, 45 North Pitt Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. NA &It 1 oralee Fitzkee, gal Secretary Attachment A .r I STEPRAN E L CORNWALL, Plaintiff VS. GEORGE K CORNWALL, Defaxlant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL. ACTION -LAW : NO 2008-(08 : IN CUSTODY PETPfION FOR UPDATED EVALUATION AND NOW, this 14th day of September, 2009, comes the Guardian Ad Litem, for the minor child, George M. "Mackie" Cornwall, IV, born November 11, 1999, seeking an updated evaluation in order to assist in the determination of the most appropriate custody arrangement to be in the best interests of the child. In support of the Petition for Updated Evaluation, Petitioner avers the following: 1. The petitioner is Guardian ad Litem for minor child, (hereinafter, "GAL'), the ChildreWs Advocacy Clinic. The GAL was appointed by Order of Court, dated May 5, 2009. 2. The PWntiffis the Mother ofminw drill, Stephanie L. Cornwall {hereinafter, "Mother"). 3. The Defendant is Father of minor child, George M. Cornwall, III (hereinafter, "Father"). 4. The child has resided pr prily with Mother since April 24, 2007, puraw t to an Order of Court from the Circuit Court of the County of Clackamas in the State of Oregon That Order of Covet was registered in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania an January 28, 2008. ----• -• - •- r.? 5. Father has had no contact with the child since March 30, 2009, pursuant to an Order of Court under this docket number from the Court of Common Pleas in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as "E,xbibit A." 6. Furthermore, an Order of Court issued on April 20, 2009 under the Juvenile Court docket number CP-21-DP-76-2009 has also directed there should be no contact between the Father and child. The no contact provision was continued through subsequent orders, including most recently an Order of Court dated August 5, 2009. 7. Pursuant to the September 9, 2009 Order of Court, a hearing has been scheduled for October 21, 2009 to address both dependency and custody. If dcpmlency is dismissed, the focus of the hearing will be on what type of visitation, if any, should occur between Father and. child and the type of arrangements that need to be in place. 8. In order to determine what type of visitation, if any, should occur between Father and child, the GAL believes it would be in the child's best interest to have a professional custody evaluator provide information to the court. Prior evaluations have been completed in both Oregon and Pennsylvania. However, an updated evaluation can give the court information about both the period of time that has passed with no visitation between Father and child and the child's current preferences for continued no contact. A professional evaluator could assess the most appropriate arrangement. 9. A custody evaluator typically meets with both parents separately and the child separately in order to determine the best arrangements. The custody evaluator could also review the prior evaluations. 10. Mother and Father have previously utilized the services of parenting coordinator services, Dr. Stanley B. Schneider of Guidance Associates of pennsylvan* located at 412 ErfordRoad, Camp Hill, PA 17011. Dr. Schneider routinely performs custody evaluations, however, he has indicated he would not perform an evaluation in this case, see "Exhibit B". 11. GAL recommends that Dr. Kasey Shienvold, of Riegle r, Shienvold and Associates of 2151 Linglestown Road-Suite 200, Harrisburg, PA 17110, should complete an updated evaluation in order to melee recommendations on the future visitation between Father and child 12. Dr. Shiemrold has indicated that he would be willing to complete an updated evaluation, which would save as update to the evaluations completed in Oregon on March 27, 2007 and Pennsylvania on October 27, 2008. 13. GAL recommends that Mother and Father equally share any and all costs of the updated custody evaluation. 14. The judge previously involved in this custody matter is the Honorable Edward E. Guido. 15. Pursuant to Cumberland Couaty Rule of Civil Procedure 208.2(d), concurrence of Mother's counsel was sought Mother's attorney of record, Hannah Herman Snyder, Esq., concurs with petition. Father does not have an attorney of record. WHEREFORE, the petitioner. Guardian ad Litem for the minor child, respwdimy requests that this Honorable Court order that the parties submit to an updated custody evaluation by Dr. Kasey Shienvold, and the parents contact Dr. Shienvold's office by September 25th; 2009, to schedule initial appointments with Shienvold's office. M•' Re gmctfally submitted, awl a- V ? 6?1 Chase D. Collins Cadfied Legal Intcsn xk? 'CY IOKRSTON-WALSH SUPM..:...g.A!#ome-y CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle; PA 17013-2899 (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-3639 'S A VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foRegoing are true and eonwt, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand malting any false statement would subject me to the penalties of I&.Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. P??i ems, Chase D. Collins, Petitioner Certified Legal Intern Chwdian ad Litem for minor child CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street. Carlisle PA 17013-2899 (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-3639 r•? . ! . STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUNUMEKLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : CIM ACTION -LAW GEORGE M. CORNWALL, : NO 200&608 Defendant : IN CUSTODY I, Cbase D. Collms, Certified Legal Intem, CbildmWs Advocacy Clime, hereby cxrtify that I served a true and correct copy of the Petition for Updated Evaluation on George M. Coimwall, III, residing at 10 Orange Street-Unit C, Mount Holly Spaiug% PA 17065. I likewise hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Petition for Updated Evaluation on Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esq., counsel for Stephanie L. Comwall, with an office at 200 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013. I served a true and correct copy of the Petition for Updated Evaluation by depositing a copy of the same in United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, on the 15* day of September 2009. Chase D. Collins Certified Legal Intern e" 66-Walsh, B4 AAffomey CHILDREN'S' ADVOCACY CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-3639 ,tt,,j,meut'B ? `.ter.... • 511 H4011W •N ? (?` • •ai , VS. 411101M W . CUMBERLAND OUN •, PENPMVANIA • No. C `ice.IM IN CUSTODY AND NOW comes Petltloner, George M. C omwail, the above named Ddernd®rrk, MceWft in form pauperis, and appearing Pro-Se, and Petitions the court as fbftn. 1. Peddoner, hereinafter "father," is George M. Cornwall, the above named 2. Respondent, h oar -M* W,- Is Stephanie L Cornwall, the above named Plaintiff 3. The parties are the natural parents of George Madde Con i al, IV, bom Novi 11, 1996. 4. The Partles are Subject to an Order of the Gourt dated Apr# 24, 2007 from the CWaA Court of the State of Oregon For the County of C3actcamas with said Order bent regisWred In Pennsovardaa on January 28, 2006, and teed under PrcOxxno" Docket 080608. Ncmeyous copies of this lengthy document and ks atlactnno is have Ed Z WL9L9£09 L -1- }4o1Mwed pjeydeyg uo6el0 dt?£:£0 0 L t, L ^oN previc K* been proved to the Coat, and they are It K=porat9ed by 5. Pursuant to the Order, and as properly nwilfled by the Goat Appoknted Parenting Coordinator, Fcdm is entitled to era dse periods of custody every rvoed Wi s mi: afternoon and evening through the following Thursday morning at 8:30 AM, and alternate sixty-five ((W hour weekends. 6. The Oregon Order appointed Dr. Stanley Schneider and his Organization Guidance Associates of PA, both of Camp HHi, PA to serve as Parenting Coordirnator for such time as the parties needed such services. The order specifically drrec s the Parties to cooperate with the Parenting CowdWg ftr in at respects, ir>cluding allowing the Parenting Coordinator to arbitrate any matter of conflict relating to par+ ro g. 7. Pursuant to the Oregon Order, the parties had been working under the guidance and direction of the parenting coordinator on the creation of an Agreement in Principle (AIP) regarding a proposed '"90ted Order of Custody and Parenting" which was to have been entered with this Court upon completion, since late in Calendar 2007. Throughout the process, rr? .m had been far less than diligent In this work, %Nft to complete agreed homework, and returning time after time do old alleged character defects in "father" Instead of completing agreed upon t 3d& 8. Although Tattier" has been bared from contact with the dit since March 17, 2009 pursuant to a CY5 complaint initiated by "Mother"', this mater z- g,d ZLOLS M9L 401ewJed pjeydeyg uo6ejo db£:£00L til ^oN remains unresoked and is currently sat for hearing on October 21, 2009. The CYS allegations and the so coed "safety plan" have never been add and each of the CYS actions are also pending appeal within the CYS process. 9. "Modw- has also twice imbed iibigatlon in Oregon to have the Oregon Order vacWAd in an apparent attempt to disrupt the Pennsylvania Proce?ecRngs. The fkst of these was dismissed by Judge Van Dyk in Oregon some mordw ago. A hearing on the second apper+ent attempt tD disrupt the Penrw*ania resolution of this matter is cunently pending before Judge Stephen L Maurer, Presiding Judge of ft FM ]udkw District of The Oregon Circuit Court in Oregon City. Oregon on September 23, 2009. 10. Mothees wINfW actions to disrupt the Pennsylvania process, which she initiated, appear to constNxbe acts of Contempt under tooth Oregon and Pennsylvania Child Custody Law. 11. Until such time as the CYS duy case has been ecljtKllCebed. blare can be no determination that then= is any reason that the Pennsylvania Courts have any reason to assume jurudktion in the Custody case beyond enforcing U* Oregon Order. 12. Finally, while continuing both this itkftrt Migation to enforce the Oregon order in this Court, and the compieteiy spurious CYA Gompinint, mother though her Oregon Counsel filed to have the Oregon Order vacated and Td UMLM9 401eu.ued pjeydeyg uo6eao dtr£:£00L tiL ^oN v ? t ansfer,?ed to Pennsylvania. Faifier Vigorously Opposes this action, largely because the +exceNent work pe ftvM d by the Parenting Coordir *Wr in protecting the best Interests of our son wS be at risk of being lost since Pennsylvania Chitd Custody Law does not currently provide for the appoirntRtetnt of Parting Coordinators. Such services are dearly warranted, Indeed essential in this case given the " hi tory of dok toes conduct and statgmms by Mdtw In addr SWV this Court. The driid is also a SD(M generation Oregordan, and Fadver Inds to continue to reside in Oregon perrrranently, and would be there now same for this nighbnare Ntlgati)n. father, now 55 years of age, is continuing to seek empbyment in Oregon and elsev imm WHEREFORE, Petrdoner prays this Honorable Court adjudge the Petition For AN L AIW EMLIATION Beyond the present jurisdiction of tt is G rt and premaftm The PeMwer Prays ttrat the Instant petltion be t wWbre dismissed with prejudice, or in the akarnatlve that this rnatber be dealt vdM at the GLOBAL. HEARM presently scheduled for October 21, 2009. Respectfuity Submimed. Geode M. Cornwall! OL'd Da W Oft Ir day of September. 2009 -4- Z OLSL9£09l 4016twed pieydeyg uoftjo dti£:£0 O l 17 l AON 1 ? I verify that the sbtmwft made in the fo o oirg doaxnw* are true and coffwt. I under.ftrW V* No dabwmft herein are made subject to the pa oldps of 18 Pa.C & Secdon 4904, raloUng ID u.wm- feldfiaMM tD wftwttles. De e: Sepbwdw 17, 2009 George M. Corr vml -5- L 'd Z LOL8L9£OS l 401ewJed pseydeyg uoBejo dti£:£O O t Pt AON OF THE ', ? TARP 2W9 5EP 17 AM 8= 56 PFI,.cl3y:.vnf f:N Z L'd Z LOLUK0S L u01euued pjeydeyg uoBejp db£:CO 0 L 17l ^oN S.P 6 ry r v7 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALI.., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUM 3ERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : CIVIL ACTION -LAW GEORGE M.-CORNWALL, : NO 2008-608 Dot : IN CUSTODY ORDER O 92M AND NOW, this day of September, 2009, upon consideration of the attached Petition for Updated Evaluation, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. That the parties submit to an updated custody evaluation by Dr. Kasey Shienvold at Riegler, Sbienvold and Associates of 2151 Linglestown Road- Suite 200, Harrisburg, PA 17110. 2. That the parties contact Dr. ShicnvoWs office by September 25th, 2009, to schedule initial appointau?a?ts with Shienvold's office. 3. That the parties equally share any and all costs of the updated custody evaluation. CC. fah Herrna?Snyder, Esq.: for Plaintiff ??Be M. Cornwall, III: Pro, se v-Chase D. Collins, Certified Legal Intern, Children's Advocacy Clinic-DSL t>? r7 OF THE Flllj'7, K)\!n_ARV 209 SEP 17 AM 8-- 11 ?i HP OfficeJet Pro 8500 A909g A11-in-One series Fax Log for Robert S. Mirin Esq. 717-561-1616 Nov 14 2010 6:44PM NOTE: Blocked calls are not displayed on this report. For more information, see Junk Fax Report and the Caller 1D Report. Last Transac5on Date Time Type Station ID Duration Pages Result Caller ID Digital Fax Nov 14 6:40PM Received 150-36787012 3:43 14 OK N/A Note: Image on Fax Send Report is set to On An image of page 1 will appear here for faxes t tat are sent as Scan and Fax. STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS:-;OF,., Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLZO'IAF i rncz) r? V. NO. 2008-608 CIVIL TERM - C> N :7? GEORGE M. CORNWALL, CIVIL ACTION - LAW r? Defendant IN CUSTODY -v : . c rv C-j ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 2010, our Order of October 25, 2010, is vacated. Pending further hearing in this matter, our Order of April 6, 201.0, shall remain in full force and effect with the following additions: 1. Father may have supervised visitation with the child at the YWCA or ABC twice per month on a Friday or Monday after school. Said arrangement for visitation shall be made and paid for by Father. 2. The parties shall continue their reunification counseling with Mr. Sleber. The counseling shall occur on Monday following Father's supervised visitation with the child. If the supervised visitation is on a Monday, it should be scheduled for that evening. 3. Mackie's individual counselor, Mr. Fringer, and the reunification counselor, Mr. Sleber, shall contact each other to share their mutual concerns and/or apprise each other of the parties' progress. The parties shall execute any releases the counselors may request. 4. Father may resume telephone contact with the child one time per week at a time to be scheduled at the reunification counseling session. Mr. Sleber and/or Mr. Fringer have the authority to cancel. the weekly telephone call and/or visitation if either deems it to be in the best interests of the child or Mr. Cornwall's conduct to be . . 0 . inappropriate. In the event that the visitation or telephone call is cancelled, we will schedule a hearing at the request of any party. 5. The custody evaluation will be put on hold until such time as further progress is made in the reunification counseling. We will review this matter on March 11, 2011, at 1:00 P.M. We will review it sooner if Mr. Fringer and/or Mr. Sleber feel that sufficient progress has been made that unsupervised visitation may occur and the parties are unable to agree. H h H anna erman-SnYderi Esquire For the Plaintiff ,,,Robert S. Mirin, Esquire ?? te _. For the Defendant r - a i i -<> N _.. S r st n M. Flory, Certified Legal Intern o Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire G.A.L. for the Child ==o? -- .?QD C") c.-, r a srs I izs n-= i to;L By the Court, a IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Stephanie Cornwall Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION V. No. 2008-0608 n o c George M. Cornwall IN CUSTODY 1, Defendant 2_1 r-70 ;= c17 MOTION TO INCORPORATE DATES AND NOW COMES, Defendant, George M. Cornwall, by and through his attorney Robert S. Mirin and the Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin and herewith file this motion o incorporate dates and hereby avers as follows: 1. On December 20, 2010 the honorable court ordered that reunification counseling remain with Mr. Sleber and that the counseling shall occur on the Monday following the Fathers supervised visits with the child. 2. The arranged dates available according to Mr. Sleber are: Jan 10, 2011 9 AM, Jan 17, 2011 8 AM, Jan 24, 2011 8 AM, Feb 7, 2011 8 AM, Feb 21, 2011 8 AM, Mar 7, 2011 8 AM 3. To the extent possible supervised visitation should be coordinated with and follow the reunification process, WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests that these dates be incorporated into the Courts order of December 20, 2010. Date: 4 7 77 Res Robert S. Mirin, Esq 0 -n r=nr ?rn =v C7 O =-n o-n o r' --err' D Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin 2515 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pa 17110 717-909-9900 717-561-1616 (f) Susquehanna@comcast.net IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Stephanie Cornwall CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff . V. George M. Cornwall Defendant No. 2008-0608 IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dayasha Pina, Paralegal and Office Manager for the Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin, herby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of this foregoing document by first class pre-paid mail to the following person(s): Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esquire Griffie & Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Lucy Johnston walsh, Esquire Penn State; The Dickinson School of Law Children's Advocacy Clinic 43 North Pitt Street Carlisle, Pa 17013-2899 DATE: J y s, aY Pina, aralegal and Office Manager Law ces of obert S. Mirin STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO 2008-608 IN CUSTODY RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INCORPORATE DATES 70 Cn ='c 'Z)-n rv AND NOW, this JL day of January, 2011, comes the Children's Advocacy Clinic as Guardian Ad Litem for the minor child, Mackie Cornwall, to respond to the Motion to incorporate Dates filed by Defendant on January 7, 2011. The Clinic has the following response: 1. The arranged days and times of the counseling session listed in the Motion to Incorporate Dates conflict with the child's school schedule. The reunification sessions take place in Harrisburg and the child attends school in Carlisle. Therefore the arranged appointments would require that the child miss several hours of his school day. As school attendance is very important to the child, the Guardian Ad Litem holds the position that it would not be in the child's best interests to miss school to attend all of the appointments and avers that it would be preferable for the majority of the appointments to occur during afternoon hours. Sessions between the child, Mr. Cornwall and Mr. Sleber have previously been scheduled for afternoon and evening hours. 2. Asper the Order of Court dated December 20, 2010, the reunification counseling shall follow the supervised visitation periods between Father and child. To the Clinic's knowledge, there have been no supervised visits scheduled as of this time. WHEREFORE, the Guardian Ad Litem for the child recommends that the majority of the reunification counseling sessions occur after school hours. Respectfully Submitted, Date: January _.LL, 2011 n Kristin Flory Certified Legal Intern c UC JMER STON-WALSH KATE LAWRENCE Supervising Attorneys CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CLINIC Guardian ad litem for minor children 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 P: (717)243-2968 F: (717) 243-3639 CC: Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esq.- Counsel for Plaintiff Robert Mirin, Esq.- Counsel for Defendant STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW GEORGE M. CORNWALL, NO 2008-608 Defendant IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this -U- day of January, 2011, I, Eunice Yang, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to Motion to Incorporate Dates on the following parties via facsimile: Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esq. Griffie and Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Robert Mirin, Esq. Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin 2515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 r: Eunice Certified Legal Uern STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAN AN 12 PM 2 02 GEORGE M. CORNWALL, NO 2008-608 Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT .ra AND NOW THIS $ day of January, 2011, upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion to Incorporate Dates and the Guardian Ad Litem's Response to the Motion to Incorporate Dates, the Defendant is directed to schedule the majority of reunification counseling sessions during non-school hours, after the Defendant has sche supervis d visitation appointments. J. Distribution: 'Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esq.- Counsel for Plaintiff 200 N. Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 a 1 's Robert Mirin, Esq.- Counsel for Defendant 1 DDS 2515 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17112 Children's Advocacy Clinic, Guardian Ad Litem for Minor Child ?- mco C_ :?c -n -<> 3 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 Civil Term VS. JUDGE GUIDO rn In Custody GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant s 2T MOTION TO LODGE' ? AND NOW COMES, Defendant, George M. Cornwall, by and through his counsel Robert S. Mirin and the Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin and herewith file this Motion to Lodge and avers as follows: It is respectfully requested that the attached adjudication and recommendation on Order of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals be lodged in the record. In the interest of privacy, especially given the nature of the unfounded allegations involved I am supplying only the recommendation and order. Respectfully Submitted, Date: 1-ad-H LaAMirin, By: Ro 2515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-909-9900/ fax-717-561-1616 S usg uehannakcomcast. net Attorney for Defendant Robert S. Mirin 2515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-909-9900 717-561-1616 fax susquehanna@comcast.net Attorney for Defendant STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff, VS. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 Civil Term JUDGE GUIDO In Custody CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dayasha Pina, Paralegal and Office Manager for the Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin, herby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of this foregoing document by first class pre-paid mail to the following person(s): Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire Children's Advocacy Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, Pal 7013 Hannah Herman Snyder Griffie & Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, Pa 17013 DATE: January 0X2011 Dayasa Pina, alegal and Office Manager Law Offices o obert S. Mirin Jan. 1 ZC11 iY M No. 6640 N. 1/3 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE APPEAL OF: G.C. III In re: G.C. IV Child Abuse Expunction ID No. 9999 Docket No. 021-09-1035 CL# 210007798 ORDER AND NOW, this 291' day of December 2010, after careful review 'and consideration, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that the Recommendation be adopted iri.its entirety. Either party to this proceeding has fifteen (15) calendar days from' the date of this decision 'to * request reconsideration by the Secretary of the Department. To 'seek. reconsideration, you must fully complete the enclosed application/petition for reconsideration. The application/petition shall be addressed to the Secretary, but delivered to the Director, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, P.O. Box 2675, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17105-2675, an must be received in the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals within fifteen (15) calendar•davs from the date of this Order. This action does not stop the time within which an appeal must be fled to Commonwealth Court. The Applicant/Petitioner shall.serve.a copy of the application/petition for reconsideration on the opposing party(ies). The appropriate. party(les), where pemutted, may take issue with this Adjudication, and Order, and may appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. This appeal must be filed with the Clerk of Commonwealth- Court of Pennsylvania, 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 2100, PO Box 69185, Harrisburg, PA 17106- 9185. If you file an appeal with the Commonwealth Court, a copy of the appeal must be served on the government unit which made the determination in accordance with Pa. R.A.P. 1514. In this case, service must be made to: In this case, service must be made to: Department of Public Welfare, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, 2330 Vartan Way, 2'd Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17110- 9721, AND Department of Public Welfare, Office of General Counsel, and Fbor West, Health & Welfare Building; Harrisburg, PA 17120. December 29, 2010 - Final'Administr Live Action Matt J. McF n And Mailing Date R ional Ma er, Bureau of Hearings & Appeals cc: Appellant McNnerTanpusy. Esquire (Ournberlend County M) Robert Mm, Esquire, forAWaard Wendy Hoverter, Direclor (CurYberrand County CY5) Terry L. Clark (OCYF) Foe r f Jan. l6. 20'', ?:20PM APPEAL OF No. 6640 N. 3/3 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE G.C. III In re: G.C. IV. Child Abuse Expunction ID No. 9999 Docket No. 021-09-1035 CL# 210007798 RECOMMENDATION . It is hereby (Recommended that Appellant's appeal be Sustained: The c .Department. of Publi Welfare is directed to-expunge the indicated report aced above from the ChildLine Registry. December 21, 2010 Date STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant No. 08-608 Civil Term JUDGE GUIDO In Custody rn03 ern cr7 ? v cz ? o N ?c -._t rn r=. -sa ?rn '-4 C) ? -r1 o -? C) v? PETITION FOR RESUMPTION OF PARTICIPATION BY THE CUSTODY CONCILIATOR AND NOW, comes George M. Cornwall, Defendant, by and through his counsel Robert S. Mirin, Esquire and the Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin, and respectfully requests that the Court reactivate the participation of the Custody Conciliator in this matter and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. The Custody Conciliator, Hubert Gilroy, has worked with the parties prior to the events of March of 2009. 2. Since that time, the Department of Public Welfare, Office of Hearings and Appeals has rejected the previous adverse determination of Children & Youth as not indicated and the subsequent dependency action has been discontinued. 3. Contemporaneously, the Court has through a variety of devices including reconciliation counseling has attempted to foster the custodial relationship between Defendant and his twelve (12) year old son. 4. At the time this matter commenced, the child was ten (10) years of age. 5. Since the inception of the events emanating from March of 2009, Mr. Cornwall has had virtually no contact with his son apart from sporadic e-mail contact and very limited contact in a counseling setting. : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA "kW 6. The record discloses that the mother has made the child unavailable for the counseling process, reconciliation and contact through a variety of pretexts. 7. (a) The record further discloses that the process in front of Counselor Sowders and Counselor Sleeber have both been unsuccessful due largely to mother's scheduling issues. (b) Efforts at e-mail contact have resulted in irregular and sporadic responses from the child. (c) Recent attempts at telephone contact have been largely unsuccessful. Most recently, not withstanding the Court's Order and the fact that the sessions, prior to the point of the Court's most recent Order, had been scheduled for the evening and not withstanding the fact that on a scheduled (non-school day) January 17th ° 2011 a session was scheduled unsuccessfully due to Mackie's non-attendance. This was reported on February 10, 2011. The next session scheduled for February 21th, 2011 is also a non school day and it appears will not be conducted due to the son's failure to confirm his intent to attend. Plaintiff Stephanie Cornwall has insisted that she would not produce the child for counseling sessions. Plaintiff Cornwall is under the erroneous impression that the scheduling of the supervised visitation and the reconciliation counseling are linked. Further, Plaintiff Cornwall appears to erroneously believe that she does not have to produce the child for counseling unless the session is scheduled for after school/evenings. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Court reactivate the intervention of Custody Counselor Hubert Gilroy who has met previously with the parties in a custody counseling milieu. The basis for this request as set forth above is that a variety of factors principally involving the unavailability of the child for the counseling or contact and related processes remain unsuccessful. The re-intervention of a custody counselor should be able to effectuate the objectives of the Court vis a vis the restoration of a relationship between father and child. As noted above, the record before the Court discloses that the Dependency Hearing has been dismissed. Thus, the safety plan put in place was not supported by the facts and circumstances of the case and as a consequence Defendant Cornwall has been deprived throughout the time (about 2 years) of any meaningful custodial access to the child and by failure of the Plaintiff mother to cooperate in terms of providing any Court ordered meaningful contact with his son. nuuviL 0- lviuiii, L- 04uuc, 2515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 909-9900 (717) 561-1616 fax Susquehannagcomcast.net STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant C : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 Civil Term JUDGE GUIDO In Custody ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Coralee Fitzkee, Legal Secretary for Robert S. Mirin, Esquire, and the Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin, hereby certify that on this ;? 1 day of February, 2011,1 have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition for Resumption of Custody Conciliator by first class postage prepaid mail upon the following individual(s): Dated: Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire Children's Advocacy Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Hannah Herman Snyder, Esquire Griffie & Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 IP mn D Coralee Fitzkee, Le ecretary Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin STEPHANIE L. CORNWAL , Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2008 - 0608 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT i AND NOW, this 8TH 4ay of MARCH, 2011, the hearing scheduled for Friday, March 11, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. ?n Courtroom # 3 is continued to WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23 2011 at 1:00 P.6. in Courtroom # 3. By the Court Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esg0re i Robert S. Mirin, Esquire Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire :sld Edward E. Guido, J. Copes Maj?d -314111 PO :7t r Q0 Ca'fW.. w e;.r ti 3 STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE M. CORNWALL, AND NOW, this A- c (01WW 001j 4* rres, " c,?w s. 4& A- Nanno-h Werwan Snyc 'Lucy Jo .i-n-WaJsh r/%bert M i ri r%, : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 08-608 Civil Term JUDGE GUIDO In Custody ORDER s? Imo'-' 't'om iy offebrmwy/March, 2011, ,i"&oPd*re& r 0 ,,G mSA .; Y J. rnw rn t;;::u ?er led 8-54L , M C ey opl =? ESR. 3)101 c r., aC-) ?M v p ? ? U n *A Rule is issued upon all parties to how Cause why Plaintiff's request to resume "custodial counseling" with HUBERT GILROY, ESQUIRE, sho Id not be granted. Rule returnable MONDAY. MARCH 21, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom # 3. STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION -LAW ,71 GEORGE M. CORNWALL, NO 2008-608 ; FD I Defendant IN CUSTODY i= ro TT 5? • T* ` I GUARDIAN AD LITEM'S RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER WHY ITN TO RESUME CUSTODY CONCILIATION SHOULD BE DENIED AND NOW, this ? day of March, 2011, comes the Children's Advocacy Clinic as Guardian ad Litem for the minor child, Mackie Cornwall, to respond to the show cause order issued on March 10, 2011 why the Petition for Resumption of Participation by the Custody Conciliator which was filed by the Defendant on March 7, 2011 should be denied. The Clinic has the following response: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part. The Court has indicated that Defendant George Cornwall (hereinafter "Father") may have supervised visitation through ABC or the YWCA, which Mr. Cornwall has not arranged. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part. According to the minor child, Mackie Cornwall (hereinafter "Child"), Father has had frequent phone conversations on a weekly basis, in addition to the e-mail contact and several counseling sessions. 6. Denied. The record does not reveal that the Plaintiff Stephanie Cornwall (hereinafter "Mother") has made the Child unavailable for the counseling process. As per the Guardian ad Litem's (hereinafter "GAL") knowledge, Mother has complied with all court orders, and has requested that counseling not occur during the Child's school hours. 7. (a) Denied. Transcripts of court testimony would reveal that the counseling sessions with Mr. Sleber were deferred at Mr. Sleber's request with the goal of continuing reunification counseling after the supervised visits commenced. Furthermore, the counseling sessions with Mr. Sowders were discontinued due to Father's threatening behavior witnessed by the staff of Franklin Family Services, the office of Mr. Sowders. (b) Neither Admitted nor Denied. The GAL does not have knowledge about specific email responses from the Child to the Father. (c) Denied. Child has indicated to the GAL that he has had recent phone conversations with Father. Furthermore, the few occasions Child has been unavailable were related to Father calling past Child's bed-time. 8. Denied. On December 20, 2010, the Court ordered Father to resume reunification therapy only after supervised visitation has occurred. NEW MATTER 1. Father did not properly serve his Petition for Resumption of Participation by the Custody Conciliator upon the GAL. GAL only became aware of the Petition as a result of receiving the Court's Show Cause order. 2. Father has not presented any legal reason for the parties to return to custody conciliation with Hubert Gilroy at this time, given the pendency of legal action and the Court's knowledge of recent events through court proceedings. 3. The GAL recognizes that although the Child has indicated that he does not wish to have regular visitation with his father at this time, the Child is willing to continue telephone conversations and email communications, at least until the time when supervised visitation has been established. 4. It is in the Child's best interest for the Court to maintain authority over this case, given the Court's history with the parties and knowledge of recent events. WHEREFORE, Guardian ad Litem for the child recommends that the petition to resume custody conciliation should be denied. Date: March 21, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, Eunice Y Certified Legal Intern LUCY TON-WALSH Supervising Attorney CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 P: (717) 243-2968 F: (717) 243-3639 CC: Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esq.- Counsel for Plaintiff Robert Mirin, Esq.- Counsel for Defendant STEPHANIE L. CORNWALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : CIVIL ACTION -LAW GEORGE M. CORNWALL, NO 2008-608 Defendant IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ? day of Marchy, 2011, I, Eunice Yang, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to Motion to Incorporate Dates on the following parties via facsimile: Hannah Herman-Snyder, Esq. Griffie and Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Robert Mirin, Esq. Law Offices of Robert S. Mirin 2515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Eunice Yang ' Certified Legal Intern 4 3 STEPHANIE CORNWALL, Plaintiff V. GEORGE CORNWALL, III, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2008 - 0608 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY PROPOSED ORDER AND NOW, this 0 day of June, 2011, upon review and consideration of the foregoing motion the Court hereby ACKNOWLEDGES and GRANTS the Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel to Defendant. J. ?Toberf S. M iri in , Hannah H- rma.n-SnLoer, '? ?Uh(ee ?, thiurer , ? Clink ('/ George Comux,.ll b jglll C= .- -X):x . ._. q r,a) <--- _ -- z < a? o C) -? s =c-a c N -aM