Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-0070
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CORY A. CORMANY CASE NO. Oy- 70 V. TINA D. ADAMS CIVIL ACTION - LAW JUDGMENT DEMANDED You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claim set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after the Complaint and Notice are served by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and by filing in writing with the Court your defense or objection to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Court Administraton Cumberland County Court House 1 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CORY A. CORMANY CASE NO. 0 q- '7v C, .v i V. TINA D. ADAMS PETITION CIVIL ACTION - LAW JUDGMENT DEMANDED AND NOW comes, Cory A. Cormany, Plaintiff, and sets forth causes of action against the above named Defendant, whereas the following is a statement: 1. Plaintiff is Cory Cormany, an adult individual residing in Pheasant Run Estates of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant is Tina Adams, an adult individual residing off Crossroads Road of Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. The subject matter is a United States District Court Summons petitioning parental rights of a minor child named Alexandria Christine Cormany Case No. 1:03-CV-2294. 4. Ms. Tina Adams is the said minor child's natural mother and has affirmed testimony in the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, substantial the Orphan's Court Division Case No. 64. (1) 5. Mr. Cory Cormany is the said minor child's natural father and has submitted petition in the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, responsible the Orphan's Court Divsion Case No. 64. 6. Mr. John Adams is the said minor child's adoptive father and has consented order in the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, liable the Orphan's Court Division Case No. 64. 7. Dr. Robert Cormany is the said minor child's natural grandfather and has consented visitation to the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, reliable the Orphan's Court Division Case No. 64. 8. Ms. Sharlene Connany is the said minor child's natural grandmother and has consented visitation to the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, reliable the Orphan's Court Division Case No. 64. 9. Mr. Hubert Gilroy is the said minor child's legal attorney and has proven conformity to the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, negotiable the Orphan's Court Division Case No. 64. 10. Alexandria Christine is said to attend the Big Spring Junior High School in Newville Pennsylvania. She is currently fifteen years of age and is of legal apposition regarding visitation right and custody standard. 11. The Plaintiff respectfully requests the Common Pleas Court to encompass counseling at the Stevens Mental Health Center to such time both parties are in agreement with visitation or living arrangements and acknowledge the said minor child forthright a professional service. The minor child shall (2) recommend consensual agreement purposeful a caring enviroment to such time she is legally abound. 12. The Defendant Tina Adams is said to possess custody arrangements concerning the said minor child Alexandria Christine, and is said to know the whereabouts of the foregoing, respectfully submitted exhibits A through E. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff; Cory A. Cormany, claims from the Defendant; Tina D. Adams, full visitation rights, considerate the minor child, at which time the orphan's court division shall quash adoption. (3) VERIFICATION I, Cory A. Cormany, Plaintiff in the above captioned action, hereby verify and state that the facts set forth in the Petition against Ms. Tina Adams are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn verification to authorities. Dated ( /7/o3 Cory A. Cormany Witness tj Notary NOTARIAL WAL 8NINLEY P. CLEVENM, NOTARY PUaM CWHIft SaPusk Cumbwknd County W OWWnWGIon bq*w UwM 5,=ft (4) EXHIBIT A (5) IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ADOPTION OF ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION ALEXANDRIA CHRISTINE CORMANY NO. 64 ADOPTION 1993 CONSFNT TO QUASH ADOPTION I, Tina Doreen Lightner (Adams), hereby certifies as follows: 1 I, Tina Doreen Lightner (Adams), currently reside at 145 Kerrs Road, Newville, Cumberland County Pennsylvania. 2 My current age is 38. 3 My current marital status is that I am married. 4 I am the mother of Alexandria Christine Cormany. 5 The natural father of Alexandria Christine Cormany is Cory Alister Cormany. 6 I hereby voluntarily and unconditionally consent to the abolishment of the Adoption of Alexandria Christine Cormany by John D. Adams Jr. 7 I understand that by signing this consent I indicate my intent to permanently take up all rights of Alexandria Christine Cormany. 8 I understand that Alexandria Christine Cormany will be eligible to visit with Cory Alister Cormany. 9 I understand that I may not revoke this consent after a Court has entered a decree confirming this consent or otherwise negotiated my parental rights to Alexandria Christine Cormany. Even if a decree is entered terminating the right of John D. Adams Jr. hereafter consenting the rights of Cory A. Cormany. 10 I have read and understand the above and I am signing it as a free and voluntary act. Date Tina Doreen Lightner (Adams) Place of signing We, the undersigned witnesses hereby certify that we are familiar with Tina Doreen Lightner (Adams), and that we witness Tina Doreen Lightner (Adams) sign her signature above at the place and date indicated. WITNESS Signature Address Relationship to Alexandria Christine Cormany WITNESS Signature Address Relationship to Alexandria Christine Cormany CONSENT AGREEMENT I, John D. Adams Jr., do hereby acknowledge and confirm an agreement to Quash and Abolish the Adoption of Alexandria Christine Cormany Orphans' Court Division Case No. 64 1993. Date-------------- By WITNESS NOTARY EXHIBIT 3 (6) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). It is an obligation to appeal from Judgment in Civil Cases disposed on Consent of the Parties 28 U.S.C. 636(c) that the underlined have consented conformity under subsection (d) to acknowledge a visitation statndard. 1. 1 am the natural grandfather of Alexandria Christine Cormany. 2 1 am the natural grandmother of Alexandria Christine Cormany. 3. We consent to a visitation standard pursuant an order of the court. 4. We hereby voluntarily and conditionally submit an affidavit to the abolishment of adoption of Alexandria Christine Cormany. 5. We understand an aboundment substantial the obligation of a grandchild. We the undersigned witnesses certij? that we are familiar with Alexandria Christine Cormany, and that we sign our signature in relation to an indication of law and order. Witness Signature Witness < ,44 Signature Relationship Relationship to Cory Alister Cormany to Cory Alister Cormany EXHIBIT C SERVICE 1, Cory A. Cormany, do hereby solemnly swear that 1 served the Petition titled Plaintiff; Cory Cormany Vs. Defendant; John Adams, Case No. 1:03-CV- 2294 United States District Court by depositing in the mail at Carlisle and by person a copy of same addressed to John Adams, 145 Kerrs Road, Newville, Pennsylvania 17241. Dated Dated /Yg9/ty, 4 p. M _ Wr""arw.ftwv^o..r.war.4 ?b oe.¦rrr qro rw? s, aa? &4?'wrec Resident 41t, otary Dated 4ea9lo 2„ B G A. Cormany EXHIBIT cgs IN Rat S IN 783 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF I CUM6NALAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ADOPTION OF t ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION ALEXANDRIA CRRISTINa CORMANY t NO. 61 ADOPTION 1993 CONSKMr TO rr%morzom I, Cory Abater Cormany, hereby certify as followst 1 I, Cory Abater Cormany, currently reside at 1883 Douglas Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2 My current age is 3 My current marital status is that I am single. I as the father of Alexandria Christine Cormany. 5 The natural mother of Alexandria Christine Cormany Is Tina D. Adams. 6 I hereby voluntarily and unconditionally consent to the adoption of Alexandria Christine Cormany by John D. Adams, Jr. 7 S understand that by signing this consent I indicate my Intent to permanently give up all rights to Alexandria Christine Cormany. 8 I understand that Alexandria Christine Cormany will be placed for adoption by John D. Adams, Jr. J i understand that I may not revoke this consent after a Court has entered a decree confirming this consent or otherwise terminated my parental rights to Alexandria Christine Cormany. Even if a decree has not been entered terminating my parental rights I may not revoke this consent after a decree of adoption of this child is entered. 10 I have read and understand the above and I am signing it as a free and voluntary act. Date Cory Alister Cormany place of signings We, the undersigned witnesses hereby certify that we are familiar with Cory Alister Cormany, and that we witness Cory Alister Cormany sign his signature above at the place and date indicated. WITNESS Signature Address Relationship to Cory Abater Cormany WITNESS Signature Address Relationship to Cory Abater Cormany EXHIBIT J c9> AC "0 Mow. IOM31 Sunman In a CM Actlon ?nitzb Atat.es Pistri,ct (Eaurt MIDDTF DISTRICT ()F PENNSYLVANIA CORY A. CQRMANY, Plaintiff Jam. ADAM, Defendant V. TO: (tarn* and addns co datandant) (SEE CCMPLT.) SUMMONS IN A CWM CASE CASE NUMBER: 1:03-CV-2294 Judge Caldwell YOU ARE HERESY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY (nuns and addno) Cory. A. Cormany 1883 Douglas Drive Carlisle, pa 17013 (717) 243-5287 ,an answer to the complaint which Is herewith served upon you, within (2 0 ) Twenty days after service of0 summons upon you, exclusive ottne day at service, If youfall to do so, Judgmentby detaultwiii be taken against youforthe t8i demanded in the complaint. You must also file your answer with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time W service. Marv E. D!Andrea, Clerk CLERK December 16, 2003 DATE (B'r) DEPUTY CLER George T. Gardner IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CORY A. CORMANY • cc*( . -O 3 ? a 2 2 9 4 V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN D. ADAMS JUDGMENT DEMANDED NAgR1 LSD P? aEc 16 2003 NOTICE poAAY A AEA, CLIi You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claim set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after the Complaint and Notice are served by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and by filing in writing with the Court your defense or objection to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator U.S. District Court 228 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CORY A. CORMANY V. JOHN D. ADAMS PETITION CASE NO. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JUDGMENT DEMANDED AND NOW comes, Cory A. Cormany, Plaintiff, and sets forth causes of action against the above named Defendant, whereas the following is a statement: 1. Plaintiff is Cory Cormany, an adult individual residing in Pheasant Run Estates of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant is John Adams, an adult individual residing off Crossroads Road of Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. The plaintiff is employed through Sears Corp., and an individual vendor, both of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. He is a confirmed member of the Otterbein United Methodist Church. 4. The defendant is disabled with Multiple Sclerosis, and claims disability, through S.S.I. of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. He is a professed christian with no claimed orthodoxy of religion. (1) 5. Plaintiff Cory Cormany is a high school graduate in attending Boiling Springs High School. He is also academically achieved through a Bachelor of Education Program at the Pennsylvania State University as of the year Nineteenhundred and Ninetythree, and is enrolled-partly in a Master of Economics Program through the Penn State Dickinson Campus of Carlisle as of the year Nineteenhundred and Ninetynine, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. The subject matter is a minor child named Alexandria Christine, whom is of legal age and consent regarding visitation right and custody obligations, she currently attends junior high school at the Big Spring School District, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 7. Ms. Tina Adams is the said minor child's natural mother and has affirmed testimony in the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, substantial the Orphan's Court Division Case No. 64. 8. Mr. Cory Cormany is the said minor child's natural father and has submitted petition in the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, responsible the Orphan's Court Division Case No. 64. 9. Proceeding hereto and therein; the plaintiff did file criminal complaints with the District Attorney's Office of Cumberland County, regarding the whereabouts of Alexandria Christine, and said probable child abuse and negligible issues involving the aforementioned, Pennsylvania. 10. Alexandria Christine is said to possess two cousins; Emily Ray, (2) whom is approximately fourteen (14) years of age and is a distinguished Honor Student, and; Lindsay Noel, whom is approximately eleven (11) years of age and is an exemplary Honor Student, both of Carlisle School District, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 11. Alexandria Christine is said to possess two grandparents whom are both Shippensburg University Scholars. The plaintiff resides relatively near his said parents, the minor children's grandfather is retired from the Pennsylvania State Department of Education with thirtyfive (35) years of service as of the year Nineteenhundred and Ninetythree, and pursues a teaching profession at Wilson College as of the year Nineteenhundred and Ninetyone. He is a Master of Psychology and is an Educational Doctrine. The minor children's grandmother is fully retired as of the year Nineteenhundred and Eightynine, and does suffer periodically from diabetes. 12. The Defendant John Adams is said to possess custody arrangements concerning the said minor child Alexandria Christine, and is said to know the whereabouts of the foregoing, respectfully submitted exhibits A through E. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff; Cory A. Cormany, claims from the Defendant; John D. Adams, full parental rights, considerate the minor child, at which time visitation and living arrangements shall be inapposite. (3) VFR FRCATInN I, Cory A. Cotrnany, Plaintiff in the above captioned action, hereby verify and state that the facts set forth in the Petition against Mr. John Adams are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief 1 understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unswom verification to authorities. Dated --4 z c ly-?-. Cory A. Cormany Witness By Notary IWORMLIM (4) EXHIBIT A (5) H 105.100 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH BIOLOGICAL PARENT REGISTRATION IDENTIFICATION FORM Each biological parent desiring to register must file a separate form with the Division of vital Records, P.O. Box 1528, New Castle, PA 18103. 1, NAME (Fire, MOW LafQ Y. SEX J. DATE OF 81RTH (Moro. Day. YFw) 4. HOSPITAL NAME (11M hne{ill, give WaOI a ro.l 46. CITY, Sono, OR 4c 0 LINTY OF (I1RTM CHILD'S YOWNSHIP OP OIR11 PERSONAL i DATA 5 MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME (FFa. Mirltlla, L*W) -Y-?? 6 IF KNOWN, LIST COURT, DOCKET NU48ER. COUNTY, STATE. AND DATE rF ADOPTIONS Pursuant to Act 1984-195123 Pa. C.S. 4 2905) and 28 Pa. Code f 1.49. a biological parent voluntarily completing and iiiing this form with the Department of Health requests the Department to release the identifying information to the adoptee, adoptive parents, or legal guardian upon request. Information on the Certificate of Live Birth will be released only it both biological parents have completed and have on file a valid consent form. It there is a change of address, a new form should be completed by the biological parent- At any time a biological parent(s) may revoke the release of identifying information by contacting the Department of Health and completing and filing the necessary forms. Being duty sworn or by solemn affirmation, I state that I am the biological parent of the above child and do hereby authorize the Department of Health to release the following information upon request of the adoptee if eighteen (18) years of age or older, or it less then eighteen (18) years of age, to the adoptive parent or legal guardian: AFFIDAVIT OF BIOLOGICAL PARENT SE AL Signature of Biological Parent Current Name of Biological Parent (Plate Prep Complete Address (Plate pmv) Sworn for affirmed) before me and subscribed in my presence tnis (jai of 19_ _ , by the person whose signature aprerars above and whose denutY I?, either personally known to me or satietactonly proven to me, 91GNAT LIRE O: Orr-r Al 4UM1N1$1 ,RING OAT ?. Prease use stamp or print name, municipsliry, county, and cumnus s,or: axpira!,on date below 1 ._.-___ -__.. rOR DEPARTMENT_ OF HEALTH USE ONLY. EXHIBIT 3 (6) IN RE: ADOPTION OF ALEXANDRIA CHRISTINE CORNANY : IN THE COURT OF COMON PLEAS OF : CUNBXRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION : NO. 64 ADOPTION 1993 PERSO*?ar. INFORMATION COx9WwT Pursuant to Section 1905 of the Adoption Act, z hereby request to place on file with the Court, this consent form granting permission for the Court to disclose the information contained in my child's original certificate of birth, or any other identifying or nonidentifying information pertaining to as or the other natural parent, at any time after my child attains the age of 18 or, if less than 18, to my child's adoptive parent(s) or legal guardian. I understand that if both parents consent, the information on the birth certificate may be disclosed, If only one parent gives consent, only the identity of the consenting parent shall be disclosed. I also understand I may update these records, as necessary, to reflect the current address or any other information pertaining to the natural parents. The information may only be disclosed upon the request of my child, the adoptive parent(s) or the legal guardian. This consent may be withdrawn at any time by filing a withdrawal of consent with the Court. NOTX¢,j: The Department of Health is required to maintain a similar procedure. This Court does not provide a copy of this consent for the Department of Health. If you desire to place a similar consent with the Department, you must contact the Department of Health. witness Natural Parent Date EXHIBIT C ?7? H 10.x. i1p COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMIDIT OF HEALTH BIOLOGICAL PARENT REGISTRATION IDENTIFICATION FORM Each biological parent desiring to register must flies separate form with the Division of Vital Records, P.O. Box I S28. New Castle, PA 16103. 7. NAME tFoo. M WW, Lao CHILD'S PERSONAL DATA M. HOSMUL NAME(ero Aufylr L eM WON AM) 5 MOTNF.R'a MAIDEN NAME(1<Ia. MkWN. Lap t. 8£% J i. DATE SIXTH (MOrln. Oft ..rl ClTViaOr10. OR COUNT' OF erRTH T b rry, S OF OF, N 6 IF KNOWN. LIST COURT, DOCKET NUMaER. COMM 81M. AND DATE OF ADOPTION! Pursuant to Act 1964- t 95 (23 Pa. C.S. ! 29051 and 28 Pa. Code S 1.49, a biological parent voluntarily completing and filing this form with the Department of Health requests the Department to release the Identifying information to the adoptve, adoptive parents, or legal guardian upon request. Information on the Certificate of Live Birth will be released only if both biological parents have completed and have on file a valid consent form. It there is a change of address, a new form should be completed by the biological parent. At any time a biologieai parent(s) may revoke the release of identifying information by contacting the Department of Health anc completing and filing the necessary forms. AFFIDAVIT OF BIOLOGICAL PARENT SEAL Being duly sworn or by solemn affirmation. I state that I am the Diologrcal parent of the above Child and do hereby authorize the Department of Health to release the following information upon request of the adopt" it eighteen (18) yam of age or older, or it less than eighteen (18) years of age, to the adoptive parent or legal guardian: Signature of Biological Parent Current Name of Biological Parent (Pram P,,,x) Complete Address -_ --_------- rlay L'l Sworn (of affirmed) before me and subscribed in my presence In 's 19_ _ . by the person whose signature apoee; s aDove and whose :der.t:ty a either personally known to me or satratactorily proven to me Ii ?-.. ___.__"GNAIVNf p' Oct t ?. iOM:H,SIEN:NG OATn I i Please use stamp or print name, murncipahly. county, and cWraSi1c' dxPirar on date bel0A 1 rofi nLp RTMLNT OF HEALTH USE ONLY. EXHIBIT cg> IN RUt ADOPTION OF ALUXANDRIA CNRISTIM CORMANY i IN TAU COURT OF COMMON PLUAS OF t COMsUY*•'11M COUNTY, PUNKSYLVAKIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION z NO. 64 ADOPTION 1993 PasaA111t. TrPnwf?IOM CONS+NT Pursuant to Section 9903 of the ?_doption Act, I hereLy, request to place on file with the Court, this consent form granting permission for the Court to disclose the information contained in my child's original certificate of birth, or any other identifying or nouidentifying information pertaining to me or the other natural parent, at any time after my child attains the age of 1S or, if less than it, to my child's adoptive parent(s) or legal guardian. I understand that if both parents consent, the information on the birth certificate may be disclosed. If only one parent gives consent, only the identity of the consenting parent shall be disclosed. I also understand I may update there records, as necessary, to reflect the current address or any other information pertaining to the natural parents. The information may only be disclosed upon the request of my child, the adoptive parent(s) or the legal guardian. This consent may be withdrawn at any time by filing a withdrawal of consent with the Court. NMI i The Department of Health is required to maintain a similar procedure. This Court does not provide a copy of this consent for the Department of Health. If you desire to place a Similar consent with the Department, you must contact the Department of Health. Witness Natural Parent Date EXHIBIT (9) wr, l.cw,+w ?`o,?Oealth of V emirs, $#i GS 4? pepar,U_j 1bt tt, of Health VMkt. RECOMS P.O.60X 1686 NEW CASTLE. PA.1010y/Sn JKPORTANT NOTICE TO BIOLOGICAL PARENT(S) If you are seeking informatiou regarding the birth record of your biological child whom you placed for adoption, this informa- tion cannot be released to you without a court order from the court of adoption. It is possible, however, for you to register your current name and address with the Division of Vital Records. If the adoptee contacts us for pre-adoptive information, your name and address will be provided upon their request. In order to accomplish this, you most complete and file a Biological Parent Registration Identification Form. This form, after it has been signed 4n the presence of a notarizing official, must be mailed to: Division of Vital Records P.O. Box 1529 New Castle, PA 16103 Attention: Adoption Registry if you change your name or address, it will be necessary for you to complete another consent form. If you desire to withdraw your consent at any rime in the future, you may do so by complet- inga Withdrawal of Sinlogical Parenc Consenc Form. Sincerely. r//yr'iV Naj? Charles Hardester Director P1aa .;r !.c aovsSVa !h,ar rni> form musc b, completed in the pr< -s ern. nt a CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 4_2& day of 2003, I, Cory A. Cormany, foregoing the aforesaid matter knowledgeable a legal pretext and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, hereby certify that I have served a copy of same in person and by the United States Mail at Carlisle Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Mr. John Adams 384 Crossroads Rd. Newville, PA 17241 (ZO G Cory A. Corman 1883 Douglas Dr. Carlisle, PA 17013 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE. AND NOW, this day of Jam emu, 2004, I, Cory A. Cormany, foregoing the aforesaid matter knowledgeable a legal pretext and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, hereby certify that I have served a copy of same in person and by the United States Mail at Carlisle Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Mr. Tina Adams 145 Kerrs Road Newville, PA 17241 Cory A. Cormany 1883 Douglas Dr. Carlisle, PA 17013 ?J ^'V O c? C3 G 1 TN -n c-_ -1 1 -rt %Tf ? J I ? .J PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) CORY A. CORMANY (Plaintiff) VS. TINA D. ADAMS (Defendant) No.,04 - 70 Civil Im 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT TINA D. ADAMS 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) for plaintiff: Cory A. Cormany Address: 1883 Douglas Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (b) for defendant: Hubert X. Gilroy Address: 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: c?Q Dated: Hubert X. Gilroy Attorney ?or ina D. Adams L Rl T W O i m ZZ, CORY A. CORMANY, Plaintiff TINA D. ADAMS, Defendant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 0470 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT TINA D ADAMS Defendant, Tina D. Adams, by her attorneys, Broujos & Gilroy, P.C., sets forth the following in the nature of preliminary objections: 1. The "Petition" filed by the plaintiff in this case appears at best to be a request for visitation with Alexandria Adams. 2. Alexandria Adams is the natural daughter of defendant Tina D. Adams and has been adopted by Tina Adams' husband, John Adams. 3. Plaintiff is the natural father of the mentioned minor child and, apparently, is seeking visitation by this petition. 4. The adoption proceedings involving Alexandria Adams was finalized in 1995 and no appeals were taken from that adoption. 5. Plaintiff now appears to be requesting visitation. LACK OF JURISDICTION 6. Plaintiff has not served Defendant Tina D. Adams as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and this court has no jurisdiction over Mrs. Adams as a result of failure of adequate service. Defendant Adams requests this matter be dismissed on that basis. DEMURRER 7. Defendant Tina Adams demurrers to the complaint and alleges that the Plaintiff has failed to set forth a cause of action against Defendant Adams. WHEREFORE, Defendant Tina Adams requests your Honorable Court to dismiss the complaint filed against her in the above matter. Respectfully submitted, _4-a--al Hubert X. Gilr , Esquire Attorney for efendant Tina Adams Broujos & ilroy, P.C. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-4574 ?) N C? t c... ? T_ _?. (Tl , _ . n(t't 7 ? mo W ? I . L?li -fSi i=' ( S- .. ^.a ?:) ? -? IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CORY A. CORMANY CASE NO. 04-70 V. TINA D. ADAMS MOTION CIVIL ACTION - LAW JUDGMENT DEMANDED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1034 AND 1035, AND PURSUANT LOCAL FEDERAL RULES OF COURT TITLE 28 U.S.C. 2254 AND 2255, AND FEDERAL RULES OF COURT 201. 1 THROUGH 21, AND RULES 39.1 THROUGH 51, AND 301 THROUGH 312 TITLE 16 P.S. 9960.6. Respectfully Submitted, Cory Alister Cormany IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CORY A. CORMANY CASE NO. 04-70 V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW TINA D. ADAMS JUDGMENT DEMANDED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY/FACTUAL STATEMENT On December 16th, of the year 2003, the plaintiff filed a Petition in the Middle District Court. Pursuant such filing the plaintiff serviced the order of the United States District Court to the defendant. The plaintiff pursued a Petition in the Commonwealth Court of Cumberland County on January 7th, of the year 2004, contained within is the servicing definition pursuant to the Middle District. The plaintiff is seeking to quash an adoption already proceeded in the Common Pleas Court of Cumberland County and to reestablish visitation with his natural biological daughter. (1) II. QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether there are consensual matters that should be addressed before judgment. 2. Whether there are negligible or abusive matters that should be addressed before judgment. 3. Whether there has been an infraction or breach in legal proceeding that should be addressed before judgment. 4. Whether there are mental or physical health issues that should be addressed before judgment. 5. Whether there are appealant or appeal factors that should be addressed before judgment. (2) III. ARGUMENT AND Now, comes Cory Alister Cormany, Plaintiff, who respectfully requests the Honorable Commonwealth Court to acknowledge judgment on the pleadings pursuant to local and consolidated rule. {[In]] order to accomplish "order" the plaintiff `must' assert the civil issues, `and address any (interpersonal) dilemmas, that may' arise. The concurring issue[s] presented in the procedural history and factual statement [are] relevant parallelisms selected to accomplish the same task upon consensual agreement. Any extenuating situation or circumstance pursuant Rules 1653 or 1701 R.C.P. 42 P.S.C.A. or Rules 1576 and 1602 R.C.P. 42 P.S.C.A. [is] here within declared inapposite to the commencement of appeal for the purpose of new matter. Arguments contended should be (filed) within a timely manner. Any order denying a motion for relief from judgment is a judgment for purpose of this rule governing motions to alter or amend judgments. Bank of California, N.A. V. Arthur Anderson & Co., C.A. Ill. 1983, 709 F. 2d. 1174. In assault and battery action brought against casino and two of its curi guards arising from incident in which customer was arrested for trespass, issue of fact was raised as to legality of arrest, thereby precluding summary judgment. Roth V. Golden Nugget Casino/Hotel, Inc. D.C. N.J. 1983, 576 F. Supp. 262. Rules 1034 and 1035 R.C.P. 42 P.S.C.A. moves for (a judgment on the pleadings) setting the opposition for a preliminary objection. Preliminary Objections in the nature of a motion for a more specific pleading raises "the sole question of whether the pleading" [is] sufficiently clear to enable the defendant to prepare a defense. Paz V. Dept. of Corrections. 135 Pa. Commw. 162, 580 A.2d 452. appeal den. 61.5 A.2d 341 (1991). Conclusive objects {litigated pursue the relativity of demurer constituent the object of false swearing. Perjury is corrupt assertion of falsehood) under oath or affirmation, and by legal authority for purpose of influencing course of law. Com. (3) V. McCann, 25 Del. 287, 1935. Orphan's Court Division Case No. 64 Adoption of Alexandria Christine Cormany prepares the Commonwealth for such applications involved any restraining order or protection order of any type negotiated a resjudicata. Rule 1028 (a)(4) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure permits the filing of preliminary objections for "legal insufficiency of a pleading (demurer)." 1963 Amendment Subdivsion (e) notes: It is hoped that the amendment will contribute to the more effective utilization of the salutary device of summary judgment. The amendment is not [intended] to derogate from the solemnity of the pleadings. Rather it recognizes that, despite the best efforts of counsel to make his/her pleadings accurate they may be over [whelmingly] contradicted by proof available to his/her adversary. Visitation arguments {[are] a well defined element in any custody situation), however over rules hedonisms factuated a continual first amendment disposition and [may] merely balance the subject matte r in the instant case, see attached: Joan B. Kelly, Ph.D., Patricia MCBrOOm, Public Affairs, and Siller's Rules; along with Servicing Receipts and Consensual Agreements; Cory A. Cormany V. John D. Adams, Case No. 1:CV- 03-2294 Respectfully Submitted, Cory Alister Cormaiiy`-, (4) CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE AND NOW, this I( ? day of 2004, I, Cory A. Cormany, foregoing the aforesaid matter knowledgeable a legal pretext and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, hereby certify that I have served upon the following a true and correct copy of the Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings by the United States Mail at Carlisle Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Ms. Tina Adams 145 Kerrs Road Newville, PA 17241 Cory A. Corm any 1883 Douglas Dr. Carlisle, PA 17013 (clock) AU/It EEMENTS SERVICE 1, Cory A. Cormany, do hereby solemnly swear that I served the Petition titled Plaintiff; Cory Cormany Vs. Defendant; Tina Adams, Case No. 04-70 In The Commonwealth Court Of Pennsylvania Common Pleas Of Cumberland County by depositing in the mail at Carlisle and by person a copy of same addressed to Tina Adams, 145 Kerrs Road, Newville, Pennsylvania 17241. Dated 1? U`f fJoi ?40Mt Resident Dated /???05! -` °- _ Notary ?IAl11JV M. 0{/y?pN, MO?MY ?YNJC ?' Oaawh? ?MM YAM ?, f001 Dated__ I ? ? ?v y By??C Cory A. Cormany radromi, m ru b HEWILLE PA IM ?_. s .d 4 .i q G C2 M1 .O A 0 tl C7 M1 1 vonYq ?i r• Cw KWU Fw P? FN:opl FN 41 . , "1 ? :flroon+?l Rpuv?C ? ,..? ? NMx . RMtr mw iKlray FN $U.I,IQ IE/Wms?+r•q AMLLrav mw?e.w.?rw. $ ih.t? ail/12i3UU4 ?t T. y sv.tt..Tb? ;Na'_D No, 0.vuiw m I NO wvi't-1 0, Pq 1 -7 ? y J I r? Custody Rules "Siller's Rules" How Men Can Win Custody 1/10/04 5:25 PM LI 1 Be absolutely certain that you want to be the custodial parent. 2. Be absolutely certain your children want to live with you. 3. Be absolutely certain you are at the very least a nurturing parent. 4. Do not represent yourself unless you have no economic alternative choice 5. Retain a skilled honest lawyer. Interview two or three experienced lawyers. Men must consider careful women lawyers. 6. When committing to the custody case be. certain that you commit to underwriting Ihe: capital la. the cs emotional aggravation; and can relate to a judicial system that is often insensitive, and procrastinatinc 7. With your attorney, develop a game plan that will be the theory of your custody case. 8. B. Decide if your state permits you to select which court to initiate your custody case. The venue you 9. Be certain that you are emotionally prepared for damaging testimony about your intimate personal life extended family; especially if false. 10. Be able to reveal the most lurid intimacies of the mother of your children, especially drugs, alcohol, se smoking, child abuse; and false accusations or arrests of your conduct to the authorities; kidnapping interference with your potential rights. 11. Keep a custody diary' documents, records and witness address lists to support your game plan for cu 12. Where your child's mother initiates false accusations that results in police and/or civil/criminal penalties certain that you institute where possible a civil suit apart from the custody proceeding for any domesti abuse of process, or filing a false claim that results in damage. 13. Develop a parenting plan that spells out who will care for your children while you are away from home 14. Produce the extended family and friends that will assist your parenting. 15. Request court appointed forensic expert, and obtain court permission to hire your own experts for psy psychological evaluations. 16. Request home inspections. 17. Do not compromise/settle your custody proceeding before knowing the full nature of the legal terms tt documents. 18. Do not call your child as a witness. Rather request the court to interview the "child in camera" and on 19. Before taping conversations, discuss eavesdropping laws with your lawyer. 20. Where helpful, ask for a Law Guardian to represent your child. http://www.tnom.com/html/custody_ruies.htm Page 1 of 2 Child 'Custody in the USA (Page 1 of 5) 1/10/04 5:01 PIA ' 0..•? •Aryf1 +.• r. MJ:.€'.N# # •'o;'f;'.w5. F f e +r yq eR EI f TV , i rtl ?r4¢ f': ' J %5{ _ ........ ___?..___........ _,. _ :..:.::......_.,, ,+sy'° i rga• DzziorArv _.agai Res Escape Now. Du Lo( eetum to ftt:3 USA Law Of kcc 6. Contents 0IntrodUctior) ..................................... OC usIt,ody Decision Mak<n9.in Hlstoricai Cont,eXt. *Type ind _Incidence of Custody Arrangements ®' i-lo,ov Are Custody Arrange€iie€ is Decided? Private_ agreements Mediation Adversarial processes 'Influen€::es_on Decision- Maki na OFa{:tors Considered in Custody Determinations The "Best interests" Standard The "primary caretaker". preferenc e The child's wishes The Emergence of_Access _as a Primary Factor to be Determined OSPe(*€q ity_ and Modifiability of Custody and Access Orders P?Iic;y Rec. 1 T1fT"E'flL c 3{ {?s.. inCustody Determinations Parent I'duca.tion Programs Mandatory Mediation http://wwlia.org/us-cus.htm Page 1 of 5 Child 'Custody in the USA (Page 1 of 5) 1/10/04 5:01 PM Nlec?iati?€? of Financial t?isoutes Arbitration O Judicial Education ..................... --................................. Conclusions Introduction The determination of which parent should have custody of the children in a divorce F increasingly problematic in the past several decades. As clear legal rules have been well-defined standards for making such decisions, and as societal norms have de-en differences in the workplace and within the family, uncertainty about the appropriate the child's life after divorce has increased. Without clear legal rules, the consideratio been forced to the forefront in the decision-making process, and the determination c divorce has become an unpredictable and highly charged emotional issue for parents This article reviews the history of child custody decision-making, and describes currei arrangements in the United States. The manner in which parents and courts make d and access, and changes in visiting patterns in recent decades are examined. The im law, and the implementation of newer dispute resolution and educational interventic recommendations for policy and practice suggested. Custody Decision Making in Historical Context In Roman, and later in English common law, children were viewed as the property of legal obligation to protect, support and educate his children. Fathers had the right as children, and to enter them into enforced labor. In divorce, until the mid-nineteenth near absolute right to custody, regardless of circumstances. Several major historical weaken this paternal presumption in the late 1800's, including society's increasing fc welfare, and the effects of the industrial revolution. As fathers increasingly sought w village, mothers remained at home as primary caretakers. The resultant division of fa wage earner and child nurturer influenced subsequent custody decisions. The paterr gradually replaced by a maternal preference, based on the "tender years" presumpti doctrine (intended to apply to children under age 6) was originally invoked to detern arrangements in English law, giving mothers custody of infants only until they were i the father. But by the 1920's, the maternal preference for custody in English and Am the child's age, became as firmly fixed as the earlier paternal preference, and was er 48 states. The assumption that mothers were better suited to nurture and raise chili intellectual underpinning in the 1930's from Freudian psychoanalytic theory, which fo mother-child relationship, and ignored the role of the father in the child's developmei idealization of motherhood was often reflected in custody decision-making, as in this opinion: "There is but a twilight zone between a mother's love and the atmosphere The maternal presumption for custody remained firm for many decades in the United after the divorce rate began its dramatic rise in the 1960's. Spurred on by fathers' cli discrimination in custody decisions, constitutional concerns for equal protection, the f the entry of large numbers of women into the workforce, most states had substitute "best interests of the child" for the tender years presumption by the mid 1970's. For custody decision-making was to be rooted in a consideration of the child's needs anc http://wwlia.org/us-cus.htm Page 2 of 5 Child 'Custody in the USA (Page 1 of 5) based simply on the gender of the parent. 1/10/04 5:01 PM This historic shift to the best interest standard prepared the path for the next trend, after divorce. Rather than awarding sole custody to one parent and limited visiting ri custody was intended to preserve the parental role and status of both parents after continued parental involvement after divorce. The concept of joint custody emerged c groundswell of voices of fathers in the early 1970's who objected to being disenfran( parental roles and rights, simply because divorce had occurred. The growing interest enhanced by several parallel developments. After focusing almost exclusively on mot decades, the child development field began, in the early 1970's, to study the father'! development of the child. Second, gender roles within families began to shift, as larg participated more fully in child-rearing responsibilities, particularly in dual-career fami At divorce, many such fathers insisted on a greater role in their children's lives after divorce engaged the attention of the nation, numerous research and clinical studies of loss and alienation experienced by fathers and children in traditional custody arra These converging trends, amplified by the fact that more than one million children we each year, resulted in pressure to pass new laws permitting joint custody as a viabl( custodial status. In 1979, the first joint custody statute was enacted in California, fo Oregon. By 1991, more than 40 states had shared parenting statutes in which joint option or preference, and most other states had recognized the concept of joint Gust effect of such legislation has been to create gradual change in the attitudes of parer health professionals, and judges regarding parental involvement after divorce. Amon gender differences found in satisfaction with joint custody in the early 80's, appear ti mothers indicate more acceptance of shared residential arrangements a decade late however, regarding the appropriateness of joint custody for some parents, and whet or positive effect on the economic and psychological well-being of children. Type and Incidence of Custody Arrangements Nearly all states have distinguished in their legislation, either explicitly or implicitly, t physical custody. Legal custody refers to the parental right to make major decisions health, education, and welfare. Physical custody refers to the living arrangements of day basis. There are two basic custody arrangements in the United States, sole custi and joint custody. Sole custody assigns to one parent all legal rights, duties, and po including the right to make all decisions. In sole custody, the child resides with the c noncustodial parent is given the right to visit the child. The limited rights and privilec parent have been expanded in most states over the past decade to provide equal le child-related information of an educational and medical nature, and to make medical emergencies when the child is in the noncustodial parent's care. In joint custody arrangements, each parent retains certain rights and responsibilities post-divorce parenting of the children. Considerable variation exists between states i custody, and under what circumstances it will be permitted and denied. With joint lei parents retain power to make decisions about their children, although in many state! decisions to be jointly made must be specified in order to preserve the authority. Joh statutes are intended to indicate that the child lives with both parents on some shat assuming day to day parental responsibilities. http://wwlia.org/us-cus.htm Page 3 of 5 Child Custody in the USA (Page 1 of 5) 1/10/04 5:01 PM Joint physical custody statutes do not define how much time the child resides with e interpreted as dictating a 50/50 residential time sharing. Thus, parents may elect joie the child may spend anywhere from 25% to 50% of his time with one of his parents, the other. The intent, for many fathers seeking joint physical custody language, is to "visitor" in the child's life, and to have the child "live" in that parent's home more tha visitation time. The legal trend over the past decade has been to favor shared parental legal author residential custody. While in most states, parents can agree to both or just one of ti arrangements, the most common arrangement remains that of joint legal custody an physical custody to one of the parents, most often the mother. In very unusual circus of extreme conflict over educational, medical, or religious values, parents may have j but one parent is assigned sole legal custody. Other legal custody arrangements that can be ordered at divorce include split custod children live with one parent while the remaining live with the other parent, and divi referred to as alternating custody. This form of custody allows each parent to have tl blocks of time, often every year or two years, with reciprocal visiting rights. Such leg much less common. Judges are reluctant to order split custody, in particular, because siblings should not be separated, but research indicates that such arrangements evc parents in the years after divorce, particularly with older children. Despite changes in the law and social custom, custody arrangements remained remE past three decades. National estimates in the 1970's and 80's indicated that women children approximately 85% of the time, and men retained sole custody 10% of the t 5% spread over a variety of custody arrangements, including grandparent, split or jc data sets indicate that father custody figures may be closer to 15%. All these data are based on census and survey data, rather than court records, and living arrangements. In states permitting or encouraging joint legal and physical custody arrangements, it what percentage of parents have joint legal or physical custody, as this data must b individual divorce decrees. There is evidence that the incidence of joint legal custody rises dramatically when sti arrangement. By the late 1980's, joint legal custody had become normative in Califor to 90% of decrees. The incidence of joint physical custody in divorce decrees also in legislation is passed, but at a lesser rate. In three California studies that obtained d custody from final decrees, joint physical custody language appeared in 20%, 37%, i respectively. Variations can be attributed to the educational level of the sample, the local judicial practice or preference. In other states utilizing different statutory criteriz custody, or where the social and judicial climate is less accepting of shared parenting orders with joint physical custody language may be quite low. Regardless of setting, language in the court order is independent of actual residential arrangements. Because joint physical custody is often not in reality a strict 50/50 time sharing, the i shared parenting arrangements is difficult to determine. Most researchers have defin custody (or dual residence) as between 30 and 50 percent of time spent with one of framework, between 17 and 34 percent of families shared some form of physical cust a jurisdiction (California) encouraging joint custody. http://wwlia.org/us-cus.htm Page 4 of 5 Child Custody in the USA (Page 1 of 5) 1/10/04 5:01 PM However, since these are not random sampling studies, the actual rates may be low California may not be reflective of other more judicially conservative states. Regardless of location, there is a higher incidence of shared residence among more Extrapolations from several studies of visitation in other states indicate that from 12 be visiting their fathers frequently enough to be considered in shared residence arra maternal custody studies of visitation, which have shown a drop off in visit frequency appears to be less change in contact in shared residential families in the first severa particularly when the arrangement is close to 50/50. (Continued....) This completes page 1 of 5 of The Determination of Child USA. The article continues on page, 2 or you may skip to pp For more information, we recommend How to Handle Your Child_ Custody Case _: A G€, Psychologists, and Attorneys which you can order from our book store by clicking he O The 1.15A Law Offices The LJSA Legal Info rma bon, Center © Dr. Joan Kelly. The information provided in this and all WWLIA documents does no If and when you face a specific legal situation, you should conduct independent inqui professionals to determine what your legal rights may be. URL: http://wwlia.org/us-cus.htm Legal Dictionary: A• 8• F• •i(•L•M•M•0-P- Q• •S•T-U-V-W-X- Legal Resources: Family Law • Tart & Personal Injury • Civii Litigation & Small Claims (BC) • Co Consumer & Company Lawn • Employment D Labour Law • Elder Law, Wills, Trusts Estates • C & Residential Tenancy Law • Bankruptcy Law • Canadian Legal History • Law Museum • Law Fur .. .. Affordable Justice Duhai€?ae Company • Lloyd Duhaim0 • Websitc I f 'E it otYl #?1 raga • Home Page • Contact Information • Terms of Service fie. Poiic. spry iUwt ly7dae sig a.coav# www.legal-de http://wwlia.org/us-cus.htm Page 5 of 5 01.28.99 - Modern custody disputes favor father's rights over child.. 1/10/04 5:18 PM Vol 1 V ii {.r { 4111, x Mt' ?Y,.J ,.nor^.a?..??w. ..}.. i,i.? ? x?.. • NEWS RELEASE, 1/28/99 Modern custody disputes favor father's rights over child's welfare, according to UC Berkeley study e ..................... ,.. . - ,..,..,.. 1.11713"$„ `,lfai s, ?10 Il42.w4 By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs Berkeley -- The modern drive to expand fathers' rights in custody cases has resulted in a significant decline in decisions made in the best interest of the child, according to new research by a University of California, Berkeley, professor of family law. States now give higher priority to blood ties than to parenting and children can be ordered to live with biological fathers they have never known, said Mary Ann Mason, a lawyer and professor of family law at the UC Berkeley's School of Social Welfare. "An unwed father who has never seen his child will be given custody in most states in preference to unrelated individuals who have done the actual parenting," said Mason. "Unwed fathers now have the same rights as married fathers - a major historical change of the past two decades." She added that such disregard for children's needs also occurs in divorce cases where courts "have rushed to'dividethe child,' by insisting on joint custody and ignoring what we know aboutearly child development. " Children are not being represented in court or given a voice of any kind, Mason says in a wide-ranging analysis of custody law published this month (February) as a book. In "The Custody Wars: Why Children Are Losing the Legal Battle and What We Can Do About It" ( Basic Books, N.Y.),Mason evaluates the contemporary and historical status of custody decisions, demonstrating that modern-day courts have regressed in their concern for childwelfare. This has happened, in part, because states - now wanting to encourage unwed fathers to pay more child support - offer unprecedented rights to them as parents based purely on biology, not actual parenting, said Mason. In another arena, she added, parental rights have been expanded via joint custody decisions - unwise in the case of very young children who need stability in theirlives. "Young children's best interests are largely ignored in joint custody decisions," said Mason. "If very small children could speak, they would not choose to divide their lives in half. It is just not developmentall}appropriate. " Courts have known this about small children, ages six and under, since the turn of the century when the "tender years doctrine" became law. Today, nearly 100 years later, the doctrine - which favors a primary parent - is being ignored in a "politically correct" move to joint custody, chP caid http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/I-28-1999a.html Page 1 of 3 01.28.99 - Modern custody disputes favor father's rights over child... 1/10/04 5:18 PM But it is in the case of new rights for unwed fathers that Mason finds the most egregious examples of a legal system that disregards the welfare of the child. Until a Supreme Court decision in 1971, unwed fathers had no rights to child custody based on the genetic relationship. Now, most states have given unwed fathers all the ri ghts of a married father. "In the case of unwed fathers," said Mason, "states have abandoned the child-centered 'best interests' test. Today, it must be shown only that it would be harmful to the child to live with the biological parent, not merely in that child's best interest." She said this means that a young child can be taken from an adoptive parent with whom he or she has a strong attachment, as in the celebrated case of Baby Jessica, because the biological rights of the father have become paramount. In Michigan, four-year-old Baby Jessica was raised by adoptive parents only to be given in a custody dispute to her biological father. The father was not married to Jessica's biological mother and the child had never seen him. "If our first concern was truly the best interests of children, we would look at unwed fathers in a different light," said Mason. "We would look, first of all, to whom is performing the actual parenting." In a current California case, an unwed father was allowed to make a paternity claim for a child being raised by his former girlfriend and her husband. In the past, such a claim would not have been tolerated by courts because their primary intent was to preserve family stability. This time-honored tradition, in which the married father was always the legal father, also protected the child. But no more, said Mason By allowing this paternity claim, the California court "paid little attention to the rights of Brian, now age four, or even to his needs. His best interests were not considered at all," she said. If paternity tests bear him out, said Mason, the unwed father may sue for custody and sink that family intodispute, with serious psychological risks for Brian. "Countless studies, focusing both on married and divorced families, indicate that conflict produces serious negative results in children who need the stability of a primary parent," she said. "We should not be making the rights of parents, whether the mother or the father, paramount in custody cases." Mason argues strongly that children need advocates in court and that most custody disputes should be settled on the basis of the needs and wishes of the child involved, with changes depending on age. Until they are adolescents, children should be represented not only by attorneys, but by child advocates, Mason recommends. Currently, psychological evaluations in custody cases test only the personality fitness of the parents, through tests that detect psychotic tendencies. They give little weight to who is doing the parenting, and the evaluators rarely listen to what the children want. As a result, it is common for children to be forced to divide their lives or spend time with parents they don't want to see, said Mason. "This is not a child-centered policy. The equal rights of the parents, not the best interests of the http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/1-28-1999a.html Page 2 of 3 01.:8.99 - Modern custody disputes favor father's rights over child... 1/10/04 5:18 PM! child, are the guiding principle,"said Mason. She recommends that the United States follow the example of English courts which have provided all children in custody disputes with two advocates -- a legal and a personal representative -- since passage of the Children Act of 1989. "The philosophy of the Children Act is that children are usually the least powerful party in any dispute and need the greatest protection," said Mason, pointing out that children get far better representation in U.S. criminal courts than in familycourts. Mason believes the wishes of mature children over the age of 13 should prevail in a custody dispute, unless they are at risk of being harmed by their choices. In addition, she calls for regular reviews of custody arrangements to adapt to the changing needs of children as they grow. And, she urgently endorses a return to the policy of favoring a pri mary parent, during the tender years. "The fundamental concept of attachment, introduced after World War 11 by John Bowlby has withstood a new generation of researchers," said Mason. "For children under six, it can be very destructive to disrupt their bond with a primary parent." "There must be a place where children are heard and their changing needs are addressed," she said, "a place wherejudges are educated in child development; a place where the rule of law, while flexible, truly promotes the best interests of the child rather than catering to gender politics." Added Mason, "Children are not property to be exchanged." This server has been established by the University of California at Berkeley Public Information Office. Copyright for all items on this server held by The Regents of the University of California. Thanks for your interest in UC Berkeley. „ .. .... .... ,.._, More Press Releases I More Campus News and Events I UC Berkeley Home Page Send comments to: cnnnnerusikuyxt.urel.berkeley.edu htto://www.berkelev.edu/news/medle/releases/99loaaev/1 -28-1999a.htmi Paqe 3 of 3 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CORY A. CORMANY V. TINA D. ADAMS MOTION CASE NO. 04-70 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JUDGMENT DEMANDED MOTION TO QUASH ADOPTION CASE NO. 64 PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1034 AND 1035, AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56, AND PURSUANT FEDERAL RULES OF COURT 301 THROUGH 312 TITLE 16 P.S. 9960.6 AND TITLE 28 U.S.C. 2254 AND 2255. Respectfully Submitted, Cory Alister Cormany _ "' i C- n t,. ?,? _?. ; ._ ' ` ?-?? ' -rr__ L ", ; ?. _ r .> c:•. CORY A. CORMANY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. 04-0070 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW TINA D. ADAMS, Defendant ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this Z'S I day of June, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion To Quash Adoption Case No. 64, and neither the "motion" nor a "Brief in Support of Motion To Quash Adoption" (attached hereto) setting forth any intelligible basis for the relief requested, the motion is denied. Cory A. Cormany 1883 Douglas Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Plaintiff, pro se Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire 4 N. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant f?p,cca /Yvut..,EuC G .19. v y Am BY THE COURT, f_ I :II I!'? 5Z 0.Jir,f hB19? CORY A. CORMANY, Plaintiff vs. TINA D. ADAMS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 04-0070 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIIVQNARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S PETITION BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OILER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this Z,, J day of July, 2004, upon consideration of Defendant's preliminary objections to Plaintiff's petition, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, service upon Defendant is set aside, without prejudice to Defendant's right to timely pursue other appropriate preliminary objections in the event that Plaintiff causes Defendant to be subjected to personal jurisdiction of the court. Cory A. Cormany 1883 Douglas Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Plaintiff, pro Se Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant BY THE COURT, } .? i??J Li? 'iJ1? S1`''? Z- ???i 'r ??I?UL i (,'.... ? ? ai.'y 'w u ,?4 ? 1:?,?; . r'?„ ?. CORY A. CORMANY, Plaintiff vs. TINA D. ADAMS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. CIVIL ACTION •- LAW NO. 04-0070 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S PETITION BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., July L , 2004. In this civil case, a pro se Plaintiff has sued the mother of his fifteen-year- old daughter, previously adopted by the mother's present husband, seeking a quashal of the adoption and institution of visitation rights.' For disposition at this time are preliminary objections filed by Defendant to Plaintiff's petition.2 The preliminary objections include an objection based upon improper service.3 Defendant's preliminary objections were argued before the above court en banc on February 4, 2004.4 For the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendant's preliminary objection based upon improper service of the petition will be sustained, and the service will be set aside. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff is identified in his petition as "an adult individual residing in Pheasant Run Estates of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania"5 and as the ' See Plaintiff's Petition, claim for relief, at 3, filed January 7, 2004. ' See Preliminary Objections of Defendant Tina D. Adams, filed) January 13, 2004; Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(1). 3 Preliminary Objections of Defendant Tina D. Adams, para. 6 4 Plaintiff neither filed a brief nor appeared for the argument. 5 Plaintiffs Petition, para. 1. natural father of "a minor child named [A.C.C.],"' said to be fifteen years old.' Defendant is identified as "an adult individual residing off Crossroads Road of Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvanias8 and as the natural mother of A.C.C.' Plaintiff's petition consists of various paragraphs of no apparent legal significance, typical of which are the following: 3. The subject matter is a United States District Court Summons petitioning parental rights of a minor child named [A.C.C.] Case No. 1:03-CV-2294. 7. Dr. Robert Cormany is the said minor child's natural grandfather and has consented visitation to the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, reliable the Orphan's Court Division Case [wherein A.C.C. was adopted by the mother's present husband]. 8. Ms. Sharlene Cormany is the said minor child's natural grandmother and has consented visitation to the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, reliable the Orphan's Court Division Case [wherein A.C.C. was adopted by the mother's present husband]. 9. Mr. Hubert Gilroy is the said minor child's legal attorney and has proven conformity to the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, negotiable the Orphan's court Division Case [wherein A.C.C. was adopted by the mother's present husband]. 11. The Plaintiff respectfully requests the Common Pleas Court to encompass counseling at the Stevens Mental Health Center to such time both parties are in agreement with visitation or living arrangements and acknowledge parties are in agreement with visitation or living arrangements and e Plaintiff's Petition, para. 3. Plaintiffs Petition, para. 10. 8 Plaintiff s Petition, para. 2. ' Plaintiffs Petition, para. 4. acknowledge the said minor child forthright a professional service. The minor child shall recommend consensual agreement purposeful a caring environment to such time she is legally abound. Defendant indicates that Plaintiff's petition was served by mail.10 No sheriff's return or other proof of service appears in the (record. DISCUSSION Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 400(a), as a general rule "original process shall be served within the Commonwealth only by the sheriff." As has been stated by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, "[r]egardless of whether the action is commenced by writ of summons or where ... the action is commenced by a complaint,n service of process is essential to commencing the action. Proper service is a prerequisite to a court acquiring personal jurisdiction over a defendant." Ramsay v. Pierre, 2003 PA Super. 148, 110, 822 A.2d 85, 89 (Pa. Super. 2003). Where service is improper, it may be set aside. Collins v. Park, 423 Pa. Super. 601, 621 A.2d 996 (1993). Accordingly, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this Li d day of July, 2004, upon consideration of Defendant's preliminary objections to Plaintiff's petition, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, service upon Defendant is set aside, without prejudice to Defendant's right to timely pursue other appropriate preliminary 10 Brief of Defendant Tina D. Adams on Preliminary Objections, at 1. In the present case, Plaintiff has improperly attempted to commence the action by petition. See Hartmann v. Peterson, 438 Pa. 291, 265 A.2d 127 (1970); West Pennsboro Township v. Wilson, No. 03-2768 Equity (June 20, 2003); DeSanto v. Smith, 38 Cumberland L.J. 161 (1987) (Bayley, J.). objections in the event that Plaintiff causes Defendant to be subjected to personal jurisdiction of the court. BY THE COURT, /s/,y a u), S L o C J- I J. Wesley Oler, r., J. Cory A. Cormany 1883 Douglas Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Plaintiff, pro Se Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant Curtis R. Long Prothonotary office of the Protbonotarp Cumberlanb Countp Renee K. Simpson Deputy Prothonotary John E. Slike Solicitor e'4 - V) CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007 AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE - THE ABOVE CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R C P 230.2. BY THE COURT, CURTIS R. LONG PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square • Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 • (717) 240-6195 • Fax (717) 240-6573