HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-2152SHARON BRYAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY., 'PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 0k- a /J-Z y -
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND
KEITH D. JOHNSON
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY
1. The Plaintiff is Sharon Bryan, an adult individual, currently residing at 3 Johns
Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. The Defendant is Joe'I N. Bryan, an adult individual, currently residing at 1216
Creek Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17015.
3. The Defendant is Keith D. Johnson, an adult individual, currently residing at
1216 Creek Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17015.
4. Plaintiff is the grandparent and the Defendants are the natural parents of one
child, namely Jarrod Scott Johnson, born March 21, 2001.
5. The child is presently in the custody of the Defendants.
FLOWER &
LINDSAY
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA
6. During the past five years, or since the child's birth, the child has resided with
the following persons and at the following addresses:
Name Address Dates
Joe'I N. Bryan and 1216 Creek Road, Carlisle, PA December 23, 2007
Keith D. Johnson
Sharon Bryan, Tiffany
Blain, Tasha Blain and
Joe'I N. Bryan
Sharon Bryan, Tiffany
Blain, Tasha Blain and
Joe'I N. Bryan
Joe'I N. Bryan and
Keith D. Johnson
3 Johns Road, Enola, PA
3526 September Dr, Apt 6
Camp Hill, PA
4 Fairfield St, Newville, PA
to the present
August 1, 2005 to
December 23, 2007
December 2004 to
August 1, 2005
December 2003
December 2004
The mother of the child is Joe'I N. Bryan who lives as aforesaid.
She is single.
The father of the child is Keith D. Johnson who resides as aforesaid.
He is single.
7. The relationship of Plaintiff to the child is that of grandparent. The Plaintiff
currently resides with her two adult daughters, Tiffany Blain and Tasha Blain.
8. The relationship of Defendants to the child is that of natural parents.
9. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or witness, or in another capacity, in
other litigation concerning the custody of the child in this or another court.
10. Plaintiff has information of a custody proceeding concerning the child pending
in a court of this Commonwealth. Defendants have participated in custody proceedings,
docketed to number 2001-6923 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, and are subject to an Order of Court dated August 29, 2005. A copy of said
Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings Who has physical
custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child.
11. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting
the relief requested because Plaintiff can best provide for the children's spiritual, physical and
emotional welfare because:
a. For the past four years, the child has resided with Plaintiff (hereinafter
SAIDIS,
RFWNVIER
LINDSAY
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA
referred to as "Grandmother") who has been the primary caregiver.
b. The child began residing in Grandmother's home during the first year of
his life, and since that time, Grandmother has provided continuous ongoing care for
him for the majority of the time.
C. Grandmother has been the most stable caregiver the child has known
since his birth.
d. Grandmother is best able to provide a stable home environment for the
child.
e. Grandmother can best provide for the child's emotional, financial,
educational and medical wellbeing.
f. Grandmother has and can continue to provide for aill of the child's
educational needs, having been the parent who has attended all of the teacher
conferences, school functions and other educational exams.
g. Grandmother is the parent best able to meet the child's medical needs,
having been the parent who has attended to his doctor's exams and appointments in
the past.
h. Grandmother is the parent who best encourages and facilitates a
relationship between child and his biological parents.
i. Although Mother has resided in Grandmother's home for the majority of
the child's lifetime, Mother has not provided primary care for the child, instead relying
on Grandmother to provide for the child.
j. Father has only exercised custody on alternating weekends and not
FLOWER ?
LENDSAY
MWORPRA-W
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA
participated consistently in other aspects of the child's education or medical exams.
k. Father often makes disparaging remarks regarding Grandmother in front
of the child.
1. Since Mother has removed the child from Grandmother's home, she has
not permitted Grandmother to exercise any periods of custody with the ?hild.
M. Grandmother has concern for the child's welfare.
n. Grandmother desires to exercise primary custody of the child.
12. Although this is a new custody action and no prior judge has been assigned,
the prior Custody Order between the Defendants was assigned to The Honorable Edgar B.
Bayley. The prior conciliator for the Defendants was Dawn Sunday, Esquire.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to grant her primary physical
and shared legal custody of the child.
SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY
?V
Marylou as, Esquire
ID No.
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6222
Attorney for Plaintiff
FLO RR &
LINDSAY
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA
A
JOEL NICOLE BRYAN,
PLAINTIFF
V.
KEITH DAVID JOHNSON
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this q, day of August, 2005, following a hearing on
the merits; IT IS ORDERED:
(1) All prior custody orders are vacated and replaced with this order.
(2) Joel Nicole Bryan and Keith David Johnson shall have shared legal custody
of their son, Jarrod Johnson, born March 21, 2001.
(3) The mother shall have primary physical custody of Jarrod.
(4) The father shall have temporary physical custody of Jarrod:
(a) For as long as he is working on his current shift of 6:00 p.m. to 4 a.m.
Tuesday through Saturday, every other weekend from 7:00 p.m. on Friday until
7:00 p.m. on Monday.
(b) If his shift changes as anticipated to 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday
through Friday, every other weekend from 7:00 p.m. Friday until 7:00 p.m.
Sunday.
(5) The parents shall share the Thanksgiving Day holiday with the mother having
Jarrod until 3:00 p.m., and the father having him from 3:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m, or
through Friday at 6:00 p.m. if he does not work the next day, and through either Sunday
at 7:00 p.m. or Monday at 7:00 p.m. depending on his shift schedule, if it is his
scheduled weekend.
(6) The father and mother shall alternate the Christmas holiday in two segments.
One parent shall have Jarrod from Christmas Eve at noon until Christmas Day at noon,
and the other parent shall have him from noon on Christmas Day until December 26th at
noon. The segments shall alternate as per the schedule set in the prior custody order.
(7) The father may have Jarrod for a continuous two week period each summer,
Sunday to Sunday, and the mother may have him for a continuous two week period
each summer, Sunday to Sunday. Each parent shall give the other at least 30 days
notice if they intend to exercise these two week periods or any lesser such periods.
(8) The father shall arrange for all transfers. Transfers _shall-be at the mother's
home with the mother taki?o #nd br raging-.Jarrod to and from the vehicle used for the
transfers.
By the Court,,
f
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
Jessica Diamondstone, Esquire
For Joel Nicole Bryan
Ruby iNeeks, Esquire
For Keith David Johnson
:sal
TRUE COPY FROM r IECCv-41.r
to T966wW w1wed, I We unto set pry tt-°
,1W the uW al said CWIkI* N
r13, °-1"- Y
Prothonata
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are trued and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties lof 18 Pa. C.S.
§4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
- S"" , X, ",
Sharon Bryan
Date: q- a, _p 8
SAIDIS,
FLOWER &
LINDSAY
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA
MAR 2 2000
C-T
Vo
SHARON BRYAN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND KEITH D. JOHNSON
DEFENDANT
2008-2152 CIVIL ACTION LAW
. IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, Wednesday, April 09, 2008 , 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, May 09, 2008 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/ 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
A4V 17
A W
VINVAIASN N3d
01 •C Wd 6- 8dV BOOZ
ItWIONIC) HJ.OW 3H.i JO
9OWC U
?f
SHARON BRYAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. :2008-2152 CIVIL ACTION LAW
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND : IN CUSTODY
KEITH D. JOHNSON,
Defendants
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, Marylou Matas, Esquire, being duly sworn according to law, hereby
deposes and says that on April 23, 2008, 1 served a true and correct copy of
Order of Court and Complaint in Custody upon Keith D. Johnson, by mailing
those documents to the his address at 1216 Creek Road, Carlisle, PA 17015
by Certified U.S. Mail, Restricted Delivery, Return Receipt Requested, as
evidenced by the attached U.S. Postal Service Form 3811, Domestic Return
Receipt, the latter of which is signed by the recipient, Keith D. Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
SAIDIS,
FLOWER &
LINDSAY
uw
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA
Dated: April 29, 2008
SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY
p U?
Ma Matas, Esquire
ID No. 84919
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6222
Counsel for Sharon Bryan
ti
r '
¦ ConVh to Rams 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item $ tf !t'icted Delivery is desired.
¦ Prlryo4name and address on the reverse
so we can ttum the card to you.
¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front If space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
K6t+,K 0. U6 unsoG
la.r (o Cru k e%'
Cox i31zt, DU-rbT
r ?ro? 5
X
? Agent
? Addressee
C. Date of Del my
D. Is delivery address different from Item 1'1\ R-Y,
If YES, enter delivery address below: X No
f
T lfled Mail ? Express Mall
stered ? Return Receipt for Merchandise
? Insured mail ? C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? Yes
2. Article Number 7008 0150 0001 6187 5856
(riansfer hoar swvk a /sbeQ - - - -- - --
Form 3811, February 2ou Domestic Retum Receipt 102595.02-M-1 640
i
k
tp
I
SHARON BRYAN,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
JOE'L N. BRYAN and
KEITH D. JOHNSON,
Defendants
Prior Judge: Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: NO. 2008-2152
: IN CUSTODY
CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE
1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as
follows:
Jarrod Scott Johnson, born March 21, 2001
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on May 9, 2008, with the following individuals in
attendance:
The mother, Joe' l N. Bryan, and the father, Keith D. Johnon, who appeared
without counsel, and the Plaintiff, Sharon Bryan, with her counsel, Marylou
Matas.
3. This is a rather unusual case. The Plaintiff was married to the Defendant mother's father
and suggests that she achieved an in loco parentis status with the mother by virtue of the
mother living with the Plaintiff and the mother's father for a number of years. The
Plaintiff also suggests that the minor child resided at her household for at least over
twelve months when the minor child was living there with his mother. The Plaintiff is
seeking visitation consistent with the status of a grandparent.
4. The Defendants are at odds with the Plaintiff and are unwilling to agree to any visitation.
They also suggest the minor child does not desire to go to see the Plaintiff.
5. A hearing is necessary and the Custody Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as
attached.
Date: May, 2008
Hubert X. Gilroy squire
Custody Conc' ator
? ? ?
Cam. ? ?
?:
....
-? ?
?
?;? ? r?t?
_.
.? .:,,
,tv
?, =r" rr'
-
.?c?
z:: `--- c^j C:j ??
. ,
?.? :-?
MAY ] F?w A4
SHARON BRYAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JOE'L N. BRYAN and NO. 2008-2152KEITH D. JOHNSON, :
Defendants IN CUSTODY
COURT ORDER
AND NOW, this .0 11144 day of May, 2008, upon consideration of the attached Custody
Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows:
A hearing is scheduled in Courtroom No. 2 of the Cumberland County Courthouse on the
3o E? day of , 2008, at ? , -z?!j _P . M. At
this hearing, the Plaintiff Sharon Bryan, shall proceed initially with testimony. 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 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 also address the legal issues involved where a non-blood relative seeks
custody/visitation rights while claiming an in loco parentis grandparent status.
2. In light of the fact that the Defendants were not represented by legal counsel at the
conciliation, if the Defendants do retain legal counsel prior to the hearing scheduled above
and that attorney believes another custody conciliation may aid in the resolution of this case,
counsel for the parties may contact the Conciliator directly to schedule another custody
conciliation prior to the hearing scheduled above.
3. Pending resolution of the issues in this case at a hearing, the Court will make no directive
with respect to granting any custody rights to the Plaintiff.
cc: Marylou Matas, Esquire
?s. Joe'l N. Bryan
?Mr. Keith D. Johnson
1261 es rna`Z ILL
}
SHARON BRYAN,
Plaintiff
v
JOE'L N. BRYAN and
KEITH D. JOHNSON,
Defendants
Prior Judge: Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: NO. 2008-2152
IN CUSTODY
CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE
1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as
follows:
Jarrod Scott Johnson, born March 21, 2001
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on May 9, 2008, with the following individuals in
attendance:
The mother, Joe'1 N. Bryan, and the father, Keith D. Johnon, who appeared
without counsel, and the Plaintiff, Sharon Bryan, with her counsel, Marylou
Matas.
3. This is a rather unusual case. The Plaintiff was married to the Defendant mother's father
and suggests that she achieved an in loco parentis status with the mother by virtue of the
mother living with the Plaintiff and the mother's father for a number of years. The
Plaintiff also suggests that the minor child resided at her household for at least over
twelve months when the minor child was living there with his mother. The Plaintiff is
seeking visitation consistent with the status of a grandparent.
4. The Defendants are at odds with the Plaintiff and are unwilling to agree to any visitation.
They also suggest the minor child does not desire to go to see the Plaintiff.
5. A hearing is necessary and the Custody Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as
attached.
Date: May, 2008 N .4 Hubert X. Gilroy squire
Custody Conc' ator
Jr
IN.
SHARON BRYAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 2008-2152
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND : IN CUSTODY
KEITH D. JOHNSON : Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
Defendant
MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING
AND NOW come the Defendants, Joe'1 Bryan and Keith Johnson, by and through their
attorney Susan K. Pickford, Esquire and Scaringi & Scaringi Law Office and represents as
follows:
1. A Complaint for Custody was filed at the above captioned docket by Plaintiff on or about
April 3, 2008.
2. A Custody Conciliation was held on May 9, 2008 at which conciliation no agreement was
reached.
3. A Conciliation Conference Summary Report was filed on May 14, 2008.
4. On or about May 21, 2008 an Order issued setting hearing on the matter for June 30, 2008 at
1:.30 and further ordering a Memorandum setting forth the history of custody, legal issues before
the court, list of witnesses and summary of testimony as well as a legal analysis of in loco
parentis status.
5. Defendants retained the firm of Scaringi and Scaringi to represent them in this matter on June
24, 2008.
6. Counsel for Defendants is not able to adequately prepare the memoranda required as well as
prepare a fully litigated custody hearing in three days time and requests a continuance to allow
reasonable preparation of the case.
7, Counsel for Plaintiff was contacted and does not concur with this motion.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to continue the custody
hearing in the above captioned matter to a date at least two weeks from the filing of this Motion
and at the convenience of the court.
Respectfully submitted,
usan K. Pickford squir
Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C.
2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717)657-7770
Counsel for Defendants
ID# 43093
SHARON BRYAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 2008-2152
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND : IN CUSTODY
KITH D. JOHNSON : Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this Q y! day of June, 2008, I, Mary L. Snyder, Law Clerk for
Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C., do hereby state that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document upon the following individual in the manner indicated.
VIA FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL, POSTAGE PRE-PAID
Marylou Matas, Esquire
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
N
C
. -r1
Pr cx?
r^, i I
JUN 2 62008
SHARON BRYAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. '
NO. 2008-2152
JOEL N. BRYAN AND : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
KEITH D. JOHNSON : IN CUSTODY
Defendant Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
ORDER
AND NOW, on this -4V'sy of , 2008, upon consideration of the within
Motion to Continue Hearing, it is hereby Ordered and Directed that the Custody Hearin
scheduled for June 30, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. is continued until g
O , 2008 at
m.
BY
Edgar B Bayley, Judge
I
9! .. µ 3 .
mom,
cli
l o'er'
r . •
SHARON BRYAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 2008-2152
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND : IN CUSTODY
KEITH D. JOHNSON : Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
Defendant
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER
TO COMPLAINT IN CUSTODY
AND NOW, come Defendants Joe'l Bryan and Keith Johnson by and through their attorney
Susan K. Pickford, Esquire and Scaringi and Scaringi Law Office and answers Plaintiff's
Complaint as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiff is a Step Grandparent with no current blood or
marriage relationship to the minor child as child's Grandfather is deceased.
5. Admitted
6. Admitted.
7. Denied as to characterization of Plaintiff s relationship to the minor child, Admitted as to
remaining averments.
8. Admitted.
9. Admitted
10. Admitted
11. Denied. By way of further answer:
a. Defendant mother lived with Plaintiff and cared for her minor child during that time to
the extent that Plaintiff allowed. Plaintiff imposed herself into a role of parent to the exclusion
of the defendant mother and physically excluded defendant father from the child's life by
denying him access to the child.
b - f. Plaintiff has provided a home for the minor child and his mother during a period of
separation of the parents. Defe# dart mother continued to care for her child with interference by
Plaintiff.
I
g. Plaintiff is not the `parent' of the minor child as averred in Plaintiff s Complaint.
However, characterizing herself as such goes to the heart of defendants' averments that Plaintiff
is attempting to subvert the parental relationship of defendants with their child.
h. On the contrary, while minor child was living with Plaintiff, Plaintiff continuously
disparaged mother in front of and to the minor child, undermined mother's authority with the
child, denied access to the father by removing the child from the area immediately prior to
father's scheduled visitation periods, openly vowed to have father's parental rights terminated
and ultimately threw mother and child out of her home in a fit of anger.
i. On the contrary, during the time minor child and mother lived with Plaintiff, Defendant
mother was the only member of the household employed full time. While Plaintiff may have
provided child care during those hours, defendant mother provided parental care of the child to
the extent that Plaintiff's interference would allow.
j. Defendant father was prevented by Plaintiff's interference in exercising his rightful periods
of custody and involvement in the minor child's life.
k. Denied.
1. Admitted. By way of further answer, Defendants believe and therefore aver that Plaintiff's
influence on the minor child and the family is and has been so detrimental to the child and the
family unit that permitting access is not in the best interest of the child.
m. No response required, however, Plaintiff has failed to allege any acts of abuse or neglect
on the part of the parents that would warrant such an extreme result as removal of a child from
his biological parents and family unit to be placed in the custody of a non-related third party.
n. Does not require a respons
12. Does not require a response.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint with prejudice.
Scarin ' & Scaringi P.
X sr an K. Pickfo , Esq.
ID #43093
2000 Linglestown Road Suite 106
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717)657-7770
f . , ?
VERIFICATION
I, Joe'l N. Bryan, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are
true and correct. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
OE'L N. BRY/
VERIFICATION
ATE
I, Keith D. Johnson, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are
true and correct. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
. JOHNSON DATE
I . 1
rn
?-n r
..3
e
SHARON BRYAN,
Plaintiff
V.
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND
KEITH D. JOHNSON
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 2008-2152
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: IN CUSTODY
: Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
AND AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT
NOW COME, Defendants Joe'l Bryan and Keith Johnson by and through their attorney
Susan K. Pickford and Scaringi and Scaringi Law Office and raise the following objections to the
above captioned action under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(5) and offers the following statements in
support thereof:
1. On or about April 3, 2008, Plaintiff in the above captioned action filed a Complaint
in Custody in the courts of Cumberland County regarding the minor child Jarrod Scott Johnson
(DOB 3/21/2001). (Attached hereto as Exhibit "A")
2. In paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she is the "grandparent" of the
minor child when in truth she is an unrelated third party under the law as maternal grandfather is
deceased and Plaintiff bears no blood or marital relationship to the child.
3. In paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Plaintiff acknowledges that the minor child is living
with his natural parents and has been so living since December of 2007.
4. In paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Plaintiff also acknowledges that the mother and
child, together lived with Plaintiff during the period of the parent's separation.
6. Exhibit "A" of Plaintiff's Complaint produces an Order of this Court dated August of
2005 awarding custody and visitation between the parents and bestowing no status upon Plaintiff
as a primary caretaker or party in loco parentis. Said Order was granted during the period of
time mother and child lived with Plaintiff.
7. During the period of time mother and child resided with Plaintiff, mother worked full
time to provide for her child. Plaintiff acted in the capacity as child care provider only. Any
further assumption of parental duties by Plaintiff were forced upon mother against her wishes
and were an attempt by Plaintiff to interfere with the parental relationship.
8. Defendants mother and father did not willingly participate or acquiesce in Plaintiff's
attempt to assume and discharge parental duties. Plaintiff did so by forceful interference in the
parental relationship.
WHEREFORE, Defendant in the above captioned action respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to dismiss the Custody Complaint filed at 08-2152 as Plaintiff lacks standing
under any statute or sustainable theory of law and to award attorney's fees and costs to
Defendants.
Respectfully submitted,
usan K.Pickfor squi
SCARINGI & SCA , PC
Supreme Court ID # 43093
2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorney for Defendants
Dated: July 3, 2008
I verify that the statements made in these Preliminary Objections are true and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904,
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Joe' l Bryan
I verify that the statements made in these Preliminary Objections are true and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904,
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
son
SHARON BRYAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
(D
NO.
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND CIVIL ACTION - LAW L,
KEITH D. JOHNSON
Defendant IN CUSTODY
COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY' r?
1. The Plaintiff is Sharon Bryan, an adult individual, currently residing at 3 Johns
Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. The Defendant is Joe'I N. Bryan, an adult individual, currently residing at 1216
Creek Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17015,
3. The Defendant is Keith D. Johnson, an adult individual, currently residing at
1216 Creek Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17015.
4. Plaintiff is the grandparent and the Defendants are the natural parents of one
child, namely Jarrod Scott Johnson, born March 21, 2001.
5. The child is presently in the custody of the Defendants.
6. During the past five years, or since the child's birth, the child has resided with
SAIDIS,
FLOWER &
LINDSAY
,trro?•,?.u„.
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA
the following persons and at the following addresses:
Name Address
Joe'I N. Bryan and 1216 Creek Road, Carlisle, PA
Keith D. Johnson
Sharon Bryan, Tiffany
Blain, Tasha Blain and
Joe'I N. Bryan
3 Johns Road, Enola, PA
Sharon Bryan, Tiffany
Blain, Tasha Blain and
Joe'I N. Bryan
Joe'I N. Bryan and
Keith D. Johnson
3526 September Dr, Apt 6
Camp Hill, PA
4 Fairfield St, Newville, PA
Dates
December 23, 2007
to the present
August 1, 2005 to
December 23, 2007
December 2004 to
August 1, 2005
December 2003
December 2004
EXHIBIT "A"
The mother of the child is Joe'I N. Bryan who lives as aforesaid.
She is single.
The father of the child is Keith D. Johnson who resides as aforesaid.
1'
He is single.
H of Plaintiff to the child is that of grandparent. The Plaintiff
The relationship
currently resides with her two adult daughters, Tiny Blain and Tasha Blain.
g. The relationship of Defendants to the child is that of natural parents.
9. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or witness, or in another capacity, in
other litigation concerning the custody of the child in this or another court.
10. Plaintiff has information of a custody proceeding concerning the child pending
in a court of this Commonwealth. Defendants have participated in custody proceedings,
docketed to number 2001-6923 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, and are subject to an Order of Court dated August 29, 2005. A copy of said
Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical
custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child.
11. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting
the relief requested because Plaintiff can best provide for the children's spiritual, physical and
emotional welfare because:
SAIDIS,
FLOWER &
LINDSAY
A7M NM--AT -W
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA
a.
For the past four years, the child has resided with Plaintiff (hereinafter
referred to as "Grandmother") who has been the primary caregiver.
b. The child began residing in Grandmother's home during the first year of
his life, and since that time, Grandmother has provided continuous ongoing care for
him for the majority of the time.
C. Grandmother has been the most stable caregiver the child has known
since his birth.
d. Grandmother is best able to provide a stable home environment for the
child.
e. Grandmother can best provide for the child's emotional, financial,
educational and medical wellbeing.
f. Grandmother has and can continue to provide for all of the child's
educational needs, having been the parent who has attended all of the teacher
conferences, school functions and other educational exams.
g. Grandmother is the parent best able to meet the child's medical needs,
having been the parent who has attended to his doctor's exams and appointments in
the past.
h. Grandmother is the parent who best encourages and facilitates a
relationship between child and his biological parents.
i. Although Mother has resided in Grandmother's home for the majority of
the child's lifetime, Mother has not provided primary care for the child, instead relying
on Grandmother to provide for the child.
j. Father has only exercised custody on alternating weekends and not
participated consistently in other aspects of the child's education or medical exams.
k. Father often makes disparaging remarks regarding Grandmother in front
SAIDIS,
FWNWR&
LWDSAY
AMRN xs•,vuw
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA
of the child.
1. Since Mother has removed the child from Grandmother's home, she has
not permitted Grandmother to exercise any periods of custody with the child.
M. Grandmother has concern for the child's welfare.
n. Grandmother desires to exercise primary custody of the child.
12. Although this is a new custody action and no prior judge has been assigned,
the prior Custody Order between the Defendants was assigned to The Honorable Edgar B.
Bayley. The prior conciliator for the Defendants was Dawn Sunday, Esquire.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to grant her primary physical
and shared legal custody of the child.
SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Marylou as, Esquire
ID No. 8
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6222
Attorney for Plaintiff
SAIDIS,
FLOWER &
LINDSAY
arrowv?snruw
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA
JOEL NICOLE BRYAN,
PLAINTIFF
V.
KEITH DAVID JOHNSON
DEFENDANT
AND NOW, this
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
?`? day of August, 2005, following a hearing on
the merits; IT IS ORDERED:
(1) All prior custody orders are vacated and replaced with this order.
(2) Joel Nicole Bryan and Keith David Johnson shall have shared legal custody
of their son, Jarrod Johnson, born March 21, 2001.
(3) The mother shall have primary physical custody of Jarrod.
(4) The father shall have temporary physical custody of Jarrod:
(a) For as long as he is working on his current shift of 6:00 p.m. to 4 a.m.
Tuesday through Saturday, every other weekend from 7:00 p.m. on Friday until
7:00 p.m. on Monday.
(b) If his shift changes as anticipated to 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday
through Friday, every other weekend from 7:00 p.m. Friday until 7:00 p.m.
Sunday.
(5) The parents shall share the Thanksgiving Day holiday with the mother having
Jarrod until 3:00 p.m., and the father having him from 3:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. or
through Friday at 6:00 p.m. if he does not work the next day, and through either Sunday
at 7:00 p.m. or Monday at 7:00 p.m. depending on his shift schedule, if it is his
scheduled weekend.
EXHIBIT
? ?1
(6) The father and mother shall alternate the Christmas holiday in two segments
One parent shall have Jarrod from Christmas Eve at noon until Christmas Day at noon,
and the other parent shall have him from noon on Christmas Day until December 26th at
noon. The segments shall alternate as per the schedule set in the prior custody order.
(7) The father may have Jarrod for a continuous two week period each summer,
Sunday to Sunday, and the mother may have him for a continuous two week period
each summer, Sunday to Sunday. Each parent shall give the other at least 30 days
notice if they intend to exercise these two week periods or any lesser such periods
(8) The father shall arrange for all transfers. Transfers _shall-be at-the-mother's
home with the mother tak'i?g nd brirrging.aarrod to and from the vehicle used for the
transfers. r.
u By the Court,
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
Jessica Diamondstone, Esquire
For Joel Nicole Bryan
Ruby'Weeks, Esquire
For Keith David Johnson
sal
TRUE COrW FROM {R 3 owdrrony **real, I ltwt-e ur.fo s t jjy1 i ?-*f
•mnd too "ai at at carte, -1;~ :- - ;-'
r hi Proflhonot$
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.
§4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
Sharon Bryan
-Ji
Date: q- ? _p 8
SAIDIS,
FLOWER &
LINDSAY
ATNRNM-ATuw
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA
SHARON BRYAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 2008-2152
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND : IN CUSTODY
KEITH D. JOHNSON : Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
Defendant .
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, Mary Snyder., hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of the attached Preliminary
Objections in the above captioned matter upon the attorney for the Plaintiff and Attorney Hubert
X. Gilroy, the appointed Conciliator, by mailing same to the following locations:
Marylou Matas, Esq.
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq
Custody Conciliator
Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller
10 E High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
I hereby state that the above is a true and correct statement.
July 11, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Snyde .
r b 0
C-
-n
-n
-TJ ?--
CD
cn fb
CYJ
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next
Argument Court.)
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
Sharon Bryan
VS.
Joe'1 Bryan and Keith D. Johnson
No. 08-2152 , civil Term
1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to
complaint, etc.):
Preliminary Objections
2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases:
(a) for plaintiffs:
Marylou Matas- 26 West High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013
(Name and Address)
(b) for defendants:
Susan K. Pickford 2000 Linglestown Rd, Ste. 106, Harrisburg, PA
(Name and Address) 17110
3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for
argument.
4. Argument Court Date:
Date: 7-1 1-2008
Susan K. Pickford
Print your name
Defendants
Attorney for
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR
(not the Prothonotary) before argument.
2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 12 days prior to argument.
3. The responding party shall file their brief 5 days prior to argument.
4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT
ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case Is relisted.
C ° C
L7jJ:
k ?
r C-M
C-
a FT I
rt?'r. C7 R.35
?_..
Mom
°-71? -71
i€
7
Cn
t1a ^"G
SHARON BRYAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
JOEL BRYAN AND
KEITH D. JOHNSON,
DEFENDANTS 08-2152 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this I L `1' - day of July, 2008, the preliminary objections of
defendants to plaintiffs complaint which were listed by defendants for argument court,
ARE STRICKEN FROM THE ARGUMENT COURT LIST. At the hearing now
scheduled for July 30, 2008, testimony will be taken to first establish that plaintiff has
standing. If plaintiff has standing the custody hearing will continue on the merits;
otherwise, it will be dismissed.
By the C
? Marylou Matas Esquire
For Plaintiff
Z`S'Usan K. Pickford, Esquire
For Defendants
Court Administrator
:sal
CoP?a M.-a laL
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
cv
L
J L j
4
U V
C-j
SHARON BRYAN,
PLAINTIFF
V.
JOE'L BRYAN AND
KEITH D. JOHNSON,
DEFENDANTS
AND NOW, this
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
08-2152 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
J:jt-- day of August, 2008, following a hearing on
the merits, the claim of Sharon Bryan for partial physical custody of Jarrod Scott
Johnson, born March 21, 2001, IS DENIED.'
By the
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
Vdarylou Matas, Esquire
For Plaintiff
?usan K. Pickford, Esquire t
For Defendants V
:sal
' Unfortunately, there is considerable estrangement between Joe'I Bryan and
Keith Johnson with Sharon Bryan. While we find that some limited partial
custody by Sharon Bryan with Jarred Bryan would be in the best interest of
Jarred; nevertheless, we conclude that it will interfere with the parent-child
relationship. Hopefully, this estrangement will dissipate and the parents will
voluntarily allow some limited periods for Sharon Bryan to have Jarred.
x
c-? C:)
] ?w
?.? Laml- ??
SHARON BRYAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
JOE'L BRYAN AND
KEITH D. JOHNSON,
DEFENDANTS 08-2152 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS/CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ? day of August, 2008, the preliminary objection of
defendants to plaintiff's claim for partial custody of Jarrod
rylou Matas, Esquire
For Plaintiff
j?.a`n K. Pickford, Esquire
For Defendants
:sal
A
By
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
y
DISMISSED.
CD
LL_
Lf
c M `,-4 t
SHARON BRYAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
JOE'L BRYAN AND
KEITH D. JOHNSON,
DEFENDANTS 08-2152 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS/CUSTODY
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Bayley, J., August 5, 2008:--
After a hearing on July 30, 2008, we find the following facts. Joe'I N. Bryan, age
30, and Keith D. Johnson, age 41, are the parents of Jarrod Scott Johnson, age 7, born
March 21, 2001. Joe'I is the daughter of Scott Bryan. Scott Bryan married Sharon
Bryan on December 26, 1987. Joe'I lived with them until August 23, 1996, when her
father died. Joe'I, who was then 17, continued to live with Sharon Bryan for
approximately one year before she obtained her majority. Thereafter, she continued to
live with Sharon until she was twenty-one years old. In December, 2004, Joe'I
separated from Keith Johnson and, with Jarrod, moved into the home of Sharon Bryan.
On August 29, 2005, an order was entered granting Keith Johnson shared legal custody
of Jarrod and periods of partial physical custody.' The father consistently had Jarrod
every other weekend from Friday evening to Sunday evening. The mother and Jarrod
continued to live with Sharon until the latter part of December, 2007, when the mother
left with Jarrod to live with Keith Johnson with whom they continue to reside.
' Joe'I Nicole Bryan v. Keith David Johnson, 01-6923 Civil Term.
08-2152 CIVIL TERM
On April 3, 2008, Sharon Bryan filed a complaint seeking primary physical
custody of Jarrod. She has since amended her claim to seek only partial custody. The
parents filed preliminary objections challenging the standing of Sharon Bryan. Citing
Hill v. Divecchio, 425 Pa. Super. 355 (1993), the parents maintain that Sharon Bryan
is a step-grandmother of Jarrod who does not have a cause of action for partial
custody. Sharon Bryan, citing Peters v. Costello, 891 A.2d 705 (Pa. 2005), maintains
that she stood in loco parentis to Joe'l; therefore, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. Section 5313,
she has standing to seek partial custody of Jarrod who resided with her for three years.
Section 5313 provides:
When grandparents may petition
(a) Partial custody and visitation.-If an unmarried child has
resided with his grandparents or great-grandparents for a period of
12 months or more and is subsequently removed from the home by
his parents, the grandparents or great-grandparents may petition the
court for an order granting them reasonable partial custody or
visitation rights, or both, to the child. The court shall grant the petition
if it finds that visitation rights would be in the best interest of the child and
would not interfere with the parent-child relationship.
(Emphasis added.)
In Peters, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated that in loco parentis literally
means "in the place of a parent." Stating that the rights and liabilities arising out of an
in loco parentis relationship are identical to those between a parent and a child, the
Court concluded that "non-biological grandparents" who stand in loco parentis to one of
the parents of a child with respect to whom they seek grandparental visitation rights,
and who otherwise qualify to seek partial custody/visitation, have standing to seek
-2-
08-2152 CIVIL TERM
partial custody/visitation under the Grandparent Visitation Act? In the present case,
Sharon Bryan, following the death of her husband, stood in loco parentis to Joe'I Bryan
for approximately one year during JoeTs remaining minority. Jarrod and Joe'I lived with
Sharon Bryan for three years between December, 2004, and December, 2007. Peters
is authority for the standing of Sharon Bryan to seek partial custody of Jarrod.
AND NOW, this
?O,?RDER OF COURT
1`? ?'`' day of August, 2008, the preliminary objection of
defendants to plaintiffs claim for partial custody of Jarrod Scott Johnsoln ,S,DISMISSED.
By the
Marylou Matas, Esquire
For Plaintiff
Susan K. Pickford, Esquire
For Defendants
:sal
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
2 Those orther qualifications fall under either 23 Pa.C.S. Section 5311, Section 5312 or
Section 5313(a). See Moody v. Sheaffer, 55 Cumberland L.J. 57 (2006).
-3-
e 1'y A.
SHARON BRYAN,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 2008-2152
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND : IN CUSTODY
KEITH D. JOHNSON : Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
Defendant
PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please withdraw my appearance as attorney in the above-captioned action for the defendant,
Joel Bryan and Keith Johnson, per their request.
Respectfu submitted,
Date. $- , 2008 ?-
si n K. Pickford
Attorney ID #430 3
PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please enter my appearance as attorney in the above-captioned action for the Defendants, Joe'l
Bryan and Keith Johnson, per their request.
submitted,
Date: ?;_- t ` , 2008
i & Scaringi, P.C.
Orney ID #90951
00 Linglestown Road, Suite 106
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
(717) 657-7770
?, `"' r
r +•
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mary L. Snyder, law clerk for Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C., do hereby certify that the
Praecipe to Withdraw Appearance/Praecipe to Enter Appearance has been duly served upon
Plaintiff's counsel, Marylou Matas, Esq.via United States, First Class Mail, addressed as follows:
Marylou Matas, Esq.
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
L
Date: August 11, 2008 L,
Mary L. Sn der
P. it
0
C NO
0
c,
Clo
! { rn
.ia r'.
4
N -.?
f
SHARON BRYAN,
Plaintiff
V.
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND
KEITH D. JOHNSON
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 2008-2152
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: IN CUSTODY
: Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
PRAECIPE TO REMOVE FROM ARGUMENT COURT
To THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please remove the above-captioned custody action from Argument Court on September 3,
2008 as the Preliminary Objections were dismisscd by Court Order on August 5, 2008.
"?66
Date
submitted,
7cari a R. Mel faffie, Esquire V
ney I.D. No. 90951
ngi & Scaringi, P.C.
2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 657-7770
Attorney for Defendants
SHARON BRYAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 2008-2152
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND : IN CUSTODY
KEITH D. JOHNSON : Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mary L. Snyder, law clerk for Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C., do hereby certify that the
Praecipe to Remove From Argument Court has been duly served upon Plaintiff s counsel, Marylou
Matas, Esq.via United States, First Class Mail, addressed as follows:
Marylou Matas, Esq.
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: August 20, 2008 C
Mary L. SnydP?
C"".
C=
C-fl
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq.
Prothonotary
James D. McCullough, Esq.
Deputy Prothonotary
W.-
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Middle District
September 9, 2008
of - .2/1 :;?
100 Pine Street. Suite 400
Harrisbure. PA 17101
717-772-1294
www.superior.court.state.pa.us
Mr. Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Re: 1596 MDA 2008
Sharon Bryan, Appellant
V.
Joe'I N. Bryan and Keith D. Johnson
Dear Mr. Long:
Enclosed please find a copy of the docket for the above appeal that was recently filed in the
Superior Court. Kindly review the information on this docket and notify this office in writing if
you believe any corrections are required.
Appellant's counsel is also being sent a Docketing Statement, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 3517,
for completion and filing. Please note that Superior Court Dockets are available on the Internet
at the Web site address printed at the top of this page. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq.
Prothonotary
KRC
9:47 A.M.
Appeal Docket Sheet
Docket Number: 1596 MDA 2008
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Page 1 of 2
September 9, 2008
Sharon Bryan, Appellant
V.
Joe'I N. Bryan and Keith D. Johnson
Initiating Document: Notice of Appeal
Case Status: Active
Case Processing Status
Journal Number:
September 8, 2008
Awaiting Original Record
Case Category: Domestic Relations CaseType: CustodyNisitation
Consolidated Docket Nos.: Related Docket Nos.:
SCHEDULED EVENT
Next Event Type: Receive Docketing Statement Next Event Due Date: September 23, 2008
Next Event Type: Original Record Received Next Event Due Date: November 3, 2008
COUNSEL INFORMATION
Appellant Bryan, Sharon
Pro Se: Appoint Counsel Status:
IFP Status: No
Appellant Attorney Information:
Attorney: Matas, Marylou
Bar No.: 84919
Address: 26 W High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone No.: (717)243-6222
Receive Mail: Yes
Law Firm: Saidis, Flower & Lindsay
Fax No.: (717)243-6486
E-Mail Address: mmatas@sfl-law.com
Receive E-Mail: No
Appellee Joe'I N. Bryan and Keith D. Johnson
Pro Se: Appoint Counsel Status:
IFP Status:
Appellee Attorney Information:
Attorney: Mehaffie, Debra Rae
Bar No.: 90951 Law Firm: Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C.
Address: 2000 Linglestown Rd Ste 106
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Phone No.: (717)657-7770 Fax No.: (717)657-7797
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address: debra@scaringilaw.com
Receive E-Mail: No
9/9/2008 3023
9:47 A.M.
Appeal Docket Sheet
Docket Number:
Page 2 of 2
September 9, 2008
1596 MDA 2008
FEE INFORMATION
Paid
Fee Date Fee Name Fee Amt Amount Receipt Number
9/4/08 Notice of Appeal 60.00 60.00 2008SPRMD000783
TRIAL COURT/AGENCY INFORMATION
Court Below: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas
County: Cumberland Division: Civil
Date of Order Appealed From: August 5, 2008 Judicial District: 9
Date Documents Received: September 8, 2008 Date Notice of Appeal Filed: September 4, 2008
Order Type: Order Entered OTN:
Judge: Bayley, Edgar B.
President Judge
Original Record Item
Date of Remand of Record:
Lower Court Docket No.: 2008 - 2152
ORIGINAL RECORD CONTENTS
Filed Date
Content/Description
BRIEFS
DOCKET ENTRIES
Filed Date Docket Entry/Document Name Party Type Filed By
September 8, 2008 Notice of Appeal Filed
Appellant Bryan, Sharon
September 9, 2008 Docketing Statement Exited (Domestic Relations)
Middle District Filing Office
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
9/9/2008 3023
r-?
? ? ;it
>? ? ? ?.
i, "s k ?t
..a°' )
`
4r-
CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER
PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C)
To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed:
Superior Court of PA
The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and
correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required
by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the
proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter:
Sharon Bryan
VS.
Joe'1 Bryan and Keith D. Johnson
2008-2152 Civil
1596 MDA 2008
The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.1 to 159, and
attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and
identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the
number of pages comprising the document.
The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 10/J4, /2008 .
2k-'t:&L--MWzW
Cu is R. Lo , r hon ary
Regina Lebo
An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy, thereby
acknowledging receipt of this record.
Date
Signature & Title
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland ss:
I, Curtis R. Long Prothonotary
of the Court of Common Pleas in and for said
County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
full, true and correct copy of the whole record of the
case therein stated, wherein
Sharon BiZon
Plaintiff, and ,Tr>P 1 1 N_ Rr VAn and
Ki-i th 1)_ Tr)hngpn
Defendant , as the same remains of record
before the said Court at No. ?nnR_?i?? of
r-.Ti a Term, A.D. 19 .
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court
this 16th day of on Or+nber, w A. D., I*x2QU
Prothonotary
1, Edgar B- ayley President Judge of the N.-in t- -h-
Judicial District, composed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that
Qi is 1 Ong , by whom the annexed record, certificate and
attestation were made and given, and who, in his own proper handwriting, thereunto subscribed his name
and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said County, was, at the time of so doing, and now is
Prothonotary in and for said County of Ct>Fflberlan in
f whose acts as such full faith
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, duly commissioned and qualif I-5 -a
and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of judica a as elsew , an said record,
certificate and attestation are in due form of law and made a pr p office
President Judg
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland ss:
1, Curtis R. Long Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in
and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
by whom the foregoing attestation was made, and who has thereunto subscribed his name, was, at the time
of making thereof, and still is President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Orphan' Court and Court of
Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for said County, duly Commissioned and qualified; to all whose acts
as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given, as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto
set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this
16th y of A. D. 2008.
ProthonotarN
Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the
county of 55 CLrrbc-r1 anc3 in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
to No. 20N29j ` r200T Term, 19 is contained the following:
COPY OF AppearanCP DOCKET ENTRY
Sharon Bryan
VS.
Joell N. Bryan and Keith D. Johnson
** SEE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCKET ENTRIES**
0
T
0
o o o
CD
Q.
? X
?
a
69 ?..j r
O
a ?
n
O
v
?
C4
0
Er
N
8
"t
z z
0 0
OLJI
aorn
i3
N
0
•o
co
tt co
PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 1
Civil Case Print
2008-02152 BRYAN SHARON (vs) BRYAN JOEL N ET AL
Reference No..: Filed........: 4/03/2008
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT -
d CUSTODY Time........ 3:52
Ju
gment.,... 00 Execution Date 0/00/0000
Judge Assigned: BAYLEY EDGAR B Jury Trial....
Disposed Desc.:
m
------------ C
C
t
-
----- Disposed Date.
i 0/00/0000
ase
o
men
s H
gher Crt 1.: 1596 MDA2008
Higher Crt 2.:
***************************** ****************** *********************************
General Index Attorney Info
BRYAN SHARON PLAINTIFF MATAS MARYLOU
3 JOHNS DRIVE
ENOLA PA
BRYAN JOEL DEFENDANT MEHAFFIE DEBRA R
1216 CREEK ROAD
CARLISLE PA 17015
JOHNSON KEITH D DEFENDANT MEHAFFIE DEBRA R
1216 CREEK ROAD
CARLISLE PA 17015
********************************************************************************
* Date Entries
********************************************************************************
FIRST ENTRY
9 4/03/2008 COMPLAINT - CUSTODY FILED BY MARYLOU MATAS ESQ FOR PLFF
/ 4/09/2008 ORDER OF COURT - 4/9/08 IN R • CUSTODY - PREHEARING CUSTODY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 5/9 08 AT 8:30 AM 4TH FLOOR CUMBERLAND
COUNTY COURTHOUSE - BY HUBER X GILROY ESQ CUSTODY CONCILIATOR -
COPIES MAILED 4/9/08
-------------------------------------------------------------------
?l? 4/29/2008 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE - ORDER OF COURT AND COMPLAINT IN CUSTODY
UPON KEITH D JOHNSON - BY MARYLOU MATAS ATTY FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
/.3 5/14/2008 CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT - BY HUBERT X GILROY ESQ
CUSTODY CONCILIATOR
/?2 5/21/2008 COURT ORDER - 5/21/08 IN RE: CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT - A HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR 6/30/08 AT 1:30 PM CR2
CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE - BY EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPIES MAILED
5/21/08
-----------------------------------
-------------------------
6/26/2008 MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING - BY SUSAN K PICKFORD ATTY FOR DEFTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
J y 6/27/2008 ORDER - 6/26/08 IN RE: MOTIjON TO CONTINUE HEARING - CUSTODY
PMAIINNCR2C- BYLEDGARRB6BAYLEY JS-CCCOPIESEMAILEDL6/27/088 AT 1:30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
/?„7/11/2008 DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLIANT IN CUSTODY - BY SUSAN K
PICKFORD ATTY FOR DEFTS
--------------------------------------------------------
-----------
7/11/2008 PRELIMINAATTYBJECTIONS AND AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT - BY SUSAN K
------------------------------------------------------------------
3?J 7/11/2008 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS -
BY SUSAN K PICKFORD ATTY FOR DEFTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
7/16/2008 ORDER OF COURT - 7/16/08 - THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFTS TO
PLFFS COMPLAINT WHICH WERE LISTED BY DEFTS FOR ARGUMENT COURT ARE
STRICKEN FROM THE ARGUMENT COURT LIST - AT THE HEARING NO
SCHEDULED FOR 7/30/08 TESTIMONY WILL BE TAKEN TO FIRST ESTABLISH
THAT PLFF HAS ST ING - IF PLFF HAS STANDING THE CUSTODY HEARING
WILL CONTINUE ON THE MERITS OTHERWISE IT WILL BE DISMISSED - BY
EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPIES MAILED 7/16/08
-------------------------------------------------------------------
8/05/2008 ORDER OF COURT - 8/05/08 - IN RE: CLAIM OF PLFF FOR PARTIAL
PHYS CAL CUSTODY IS DENIED - BY EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPIES MAILED
8/05 08
-------------------------------------------------------------------
,33.34, 8/05/2008 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT - 8/05/08 - IN RE: PRELIMINARY
PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 2
Civil Case Print
2008-02152 BRYAN SHARON (vs) BRYAN JOEL N ET AL
Reference No..: Filed........: 4/03/2008
Case Type.... COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time.........: 3:52
Judgment......: 00 Execution Date 0/00/0000
Judge Assigned: BAYLEY EDGAR B Jury Trial....
Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000
------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: 1596 MDA2008
Higher Crt 2.:
OBJECTION OF DEFTS IS DISMISSED - BY EDGAR 19 BAYLEY J - COPIES
MAILED 8/05/08
------------------------------------------------------
-------------
37-_38/11/2008 PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE FOR DEFTS - BY SUSAN K
PICKFORD ESQ
-----------------------------------------------
------------------
2-35 8/11/2008 ERQAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR DEFTS - BY DEBRA R MEHAFFIE
-----------------------------------------------------------
,3 -W 8/25/2008 PRAECIPE TO REMOVE FROM ARGUMENT LIST - BY DEBRA R MEHAFFIE ATTY
FOR DEFTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
,41/-y19/04/2008 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT - MARYLOU MATAS ATTY FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
y7_y? 9/10/2008 SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 1596 MDA 2008
-----------------------------------------
---------------
56_./010/07/2008 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - BY EDGAR B BAYLEY J
-------------------------------------------------------------------
10/16/2008 NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRIES MAILED TO MARYLOU MATAS ESQ AND DEBRA R
MEHAFFIE ESQ
- - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Escrow Information
* Fees & Debits Beg Bal P*ymts/Adj End Bal
******************************** ******** ****** *******************************
CUSTODY AGMT 135.00 135.00 .00
TAX ON AGMT .50 .50 .00
SETTLEMENT 8.00 8.00 .00
AUTOMATION FEE 5.00 5.00 .00
JCP FEE 10.00 10.00 .00
CUSTODY FEE 5.60 5.60 .00
CUSTODY FEE-CO 1.40 1.40 .00
APPEAL HIGH CT 48.00 48.00 .00
------------------------ ------------
213.50 213.50 .00
********************************************************************************
* End of Case Information
********************************************************************************
TRUE COPY ?Rz? ?,? RECORD
In Testimony wher r: , set my wend
and the seal of Pa.
This ..... ??...... day of. .......,
............. .... ... ....:fi.5?4.
Prothonotary
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq. Middle District
Prothonotary
March 20, 2009
Certificate of Remittal/Remand of Record
TO: Mr. Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
RE: Bryan, S. v. Bryan, J., et al
No. 1596 MDA 2008
Trial Court/Agency Dkt. Number: 2008 - 2152
Trial Court/Agency Name: Cumberland County Court of Common
Pleas
Intermediate Appellate Court Number:
100 Pine Street. Suite 400
Harrisburg, PA 17101
717-771-1194
www..r"Hor.=r%.state pans
Annexed hereto pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 2571 and 2572
is the entire record for the above matter.
Contents of Original Record:
Original Record Item
Part
Filed Date Description
October 20, 2008 1
Date of Remand of Record: APR 2 7 2009
ORIGINAL RECIPIENT ONLY - Please acknowledge receipt by signing, dating, and
returning the enclosed copy of this certificate to our office. Copy recipients (noted below) need
not acknowledge receipt.
Signature
Printed Name
Date
/alv
THE PRD ,,r,Y7"TARY
2009 APR 28 A 1 I : 52
L?,..
P rsy Y 77 -
t L. S
J. S14044/09
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P.65.37
S.B., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
V.
J.N.B. and K.D.J.,
Appellees No. 1596 MDA 2008
Appeal from the Order entered on August 5, 2008,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Civil Division, No. 08-2152
BEFORE: LALLY-GREEN, BENDER, JJ., and McEWEN, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM:
FILED: March 20, 2009
S.B. ("grandmother") appeals the order denying her complaint against
J.N.B. ("mother") and K.D.J. ("father") for partial physical custody of J.S.J.
(""child"),1 pursuant to the Custody and Grandparents Visitation Act ("GVA"),
23 Pa.C.S. § 5301 et seq. We affirm.
The record reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history.
Grandmother is mother's stepmother, having married mother's father when
mother was nine years old. During her childhood, mother primarily resided
with her father and his wife, grandmother. In April of 1996, when mother
was seventeen years old, her father died. Mother continued to reside with
grandmother until she was twenty-one years old. Thereafter, mother
1 We have redacted the parties' names to protect the identity of child.
J. S14044/09
became pregnant with child, and child was born on March 21, 2001. Mother
and father never married, but they lived together with child until child was
approximately three years old. Mother and child then resided with
grandmother in her home from December of 2004 to December of 2007,2 at
which time mother and father reconciled and began living together again
with child.
On April 3, 2008, grandmother filed a complaint seeking primary
physical custody of child. She subsequently amended her claim to seek
partial custody. Mother and father filed preliminary objections challenging
grandmother's standing. A hearing was held on July 30, 2008, with regard
to both the standing issue and the merits of grandmother's claim for partial
custody. The trial court, on August 5, 2008, entered an order that (1)
dismissed the preliminary objections of mother and father, and (2)
concluded that grandmother had standing to seek partial custody of child
pursuant to § 5313(a) of the GVA, since she stood in loco parentis to
mother.3 See: Peters v. Costello, 586 Pa. 102, 891 A.2d 705 (2005)
2 Grandmother's two adult daughters from a previous relationship, mother's
stepsisters, also lived in the house.
3 23 Pa.C.S. § 5313(a) of the Custody and Grandparents Visitation Act
provides:
If an unmarried child has resided with his grandparents or
great-grandparents for a period of 12 months or more
and is subsequently removed from the home by his
parents, the grandparents or great-grandparents may
petition the court for an order granting them reasonable
-2-
I S14044/09
(holding that non-biological grandparents, who stood in loco parentis to the
mother of the child retained the same rights as biological grandparents
under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5313(a)). By separate order entered that same day, the
trial court denied grandmother's claim for partial custody. Specifically, the
court concluded:
Unfortunately, there is considerable estrangement
between [mother] and [father] with [grandmother].
While we find that some limited partial custody by
[grandmother] with [child] would be in the best interest
of [child]; nevertheless, we conclude that it will interfere
with the parent-child relationship. Hopefully, this
estrangement will dissipate and the parents will
voluntarily allow some limited periods for [grandmother]
to have [child].
Trial Court Order, August 5, 2008, n.1. Grandmother filed this timely
appeal.4
Grandmother, in the brief submitted for this appeal, raises the
following questions:
Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or an abuse
of discretion when it found that grandmother's exercise of
partial custody would be in the best interest of child but
denied her request for partial custody?
Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or an abuse
of discretion when it found that partial custody would
partial custody or visitation rights, or both, to the child.
The court shall grant the petition if it finds that visitation
rights would be in the best interest of the child and would
not interfere with the parent-child relationship.
Id.
4 The trial court did not direct grandmother to file a statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
-3-
3. S14044/09
interfere with the parent[-]child relationship when there
was insufficient evidence in the record to support that
finding?
Brief of Grandmother, p. 4. Since these issues are interrelated, we will
consider them together.
When reviewing a custody order on appeal, this Court adheres to the
following standard:
[W]e are not bound by the findings of fact made by the
trial court which are unsupported in the record, nor are
we bound by the court's inferences drawn from the facts.
However, on issues of credibility and weight of the
evidence, we defer to the findings of the trial judge, who
has had the opportunity to observe the proceedings and
the demeanor of the witnesses. Only where we find that
the custody order is "manifestly unreasonable as shown
by the evidence of record ..." will an appellate court
interfere with the trial court's determination.
Norris v. Tearney, 619 A.2d 339, 340 (Pa.Super. 1993) (citations omitted).
Moreover, in any case involving the custody of a child, including, as
here, whether a grandparent should be awarded visitation rights, the
paramount concern is the best interest of the child. Rigler v. Treen, 660
A.2d 111, 115 (Pa.Super. 1995). "In a grandparent visitation case, the
grandparent has the burden to prove that it is in the child's best interest to
have 'some time' with the grandparent." Norris, supra, 619 A.2d at 340,
quoting Bishop v. Piller, 581 A.2d 670, 672 (Pa.Super. 1990), afff'd, 536
Pa. 41, 637 A.2d 976 (1994).
Grandmother essentially argues the trial court gave greater
consideration to the parent-child relationship than to child's best interest.
-4-
3. S14044/09
Moreover, she contends the record lacked sufficient evidence to support the
trial court's conclusion that granting partial custody to grandmother would
interfere with the parent-child relationship.
We have recognized that the rights given to grandparents pursuant to
the GVA are not absolute. See: Rigler v. Treen, supra, 660 A.2d at 114.
Section 5313(a) permits a grandparent to petition for partial custody or
visitation rights when "visitation rights would be in the best interest of the
child and would not interfere with the parent-child relationship." 23
Pa.C.S. § 5313(a), supra (emphasis supplied). The statute requires the
trial court to consider both the best interest of the child and the impact of
visitation on the parent-child relationship before granting partial custody to a
grandparent. Thus, it follows that if court-ordered visitation with the
grandparent would interfere with the parent-child relationship, then the
custody cannot be in the child's best interest. See: Rigler, supra, 660 A.2d
at 116 (the potential benefits of visitation were outweighed by the potential
harm to the child resulting from tension surrounding visits with
grandparents). Moreover, the parent-child relationship is of primary
importance and must be protected by the state. See: Ken R. v. Arthur Z.,
651 A.2d 1119, 1120 (Pa. Super. 1994), aff'd, 546 Pa. 49, 682 A.2d 1267
(1996) (the right of parents to raise their children as they see fit is a
fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment).
-5-
J. S14044/09
Therefore, the trial court was required, under the GVA, to consider
both the best interest of the child and the parent-child relationship when it
reviewed grandmother's petition for partial custody. Our review of the
record in this case reveals ample support for the trial court's conclusion.
While it is undisputed that grandmother has been intimately involved
in child's life since he was born, 5 the relationship between grandmother,
mother, and father has deteriorated over the years. Mother testified that
grandmother, along with her two daughters (mother's stepsisters)
essentially "took over" her role in parenting child against her will.6 N.T., July
30, 2008, pp. 10-11. Mother testified that "[a]fter awhile I was not allowed
[by grandmother] to participate in anything that [child] was involved in."
Id., p. 25. She testified that grandmother prohibited her from taking child
on vacation to visit his maternal biological grandmother in Missouri. Id., p.
12. When mother finally did take child to visit his maternal grandmother
over Christmas of 2007, she testified that grandmother "kicked us out ...
5 During the years that mother and child resided with her, grandmother
served as child's primary caretaker. N.T., July 30, 2008, pp. 10, 59-63, 66,
70. She baby-sat for child while mother worked twelve hour shifts, she was
involved in child's extracurricular activities, enrolling him in sports and
attending his games, and she hosted birthday parties for him. Id., pp. 8,
57-58, 70-71. Grandmother's two biological daughters, who lived with her,
also assisted with child's care. Thus, the record reveals grandmother has
played a significant role in child's life.
6 Mother testified that she had been willing to temporarily grant primary
physical custody to grandmother during a time when she considered serving
in the United States Navy. N.T., July 30, 2008, pp. 15-16. However,
mother eventually decided not to join the Navy. Id., p. 15.
-6-
J . S14044/09
everyone blew up, starting yelling and eventually said don't come back."
Id., pp. 16-17. When mother and child returned from Missouri, they moved
into father's home, where they continue to reside. Id., p. 17.
Mother further testified that, during the years she resided with her,
grandmother sought to control other areas of her life as well. Grandmother
would withdraw money from mother's bank account, and "spent it whichever
which way she wanted to." Id., p. 13. In addition, mother stated that
grandmother interfered in her relationship with father. Mother alleged that,
before she had a cell phone, grandmother made it difficult for mother and
father to speak by telephone. Id. Grandmother discouraged mother from
being in father's company when he came to the house to pick up child. Id.,
p. 14. She stated, "the deal was for custody that I had to walk [child] out to
the car.... I was only supposed to take him out and get right back in." Id.
Mother also testified that grandmother attempted to interfere with
father's right to visitation. Id., pp. 19, 29. One time, on July 4, 2007,
grandmother took child away when father was due to pick him up. Id., p.
19. Mother stated that grandmother made disparaging comments about her
and father on several occasions in the presence of child. Id., pp. 20-21.
Finally, mother testified that child has told her he does not want to see
grandmother. Id., p. 33. Mother stated that she does not want
grandmother to have visitation with child because "it won't stop at just
-7-
J. S14044/09
visitation.... [S]he'll just get her foot in the door, and then she'll go the rest
of the way and try to take [child]." Id., p. 18.
Father believes that grandmother interfered in his relationship with
mother. He testified that mother's previous break-up with him was due in
large part to grandmother "filling [mother's] head [with] untruthful things."
id., p. 35. When mother and child resided with grandmother, father had
difficulty communicating with mother. He stated, "It's kind of hard to
communicate [with] somebody when we have a third party in the middle....
I would call [grandmother's] cell phone. Everything had to go through
[grandmother].... I would ask to speak to [mother] or [child], and each time
it was always they're not here." Id., pp. 37-38. Moreover, father stated
that there was "not one time in three years that I would call there that
[grandmother] would let me talk to [child]." Id., p. 39. Further, once
mother and child moved into grandmother's home, father testified that
grandmother kept him from visiting with child. Id., pp. 36-37. As a result,
he petitioned the court for a custody order, which was granted in August of
2005. Id.
Father testified that he is not welcome in grandmother's home. Id., p.
47. He described an occasion when he would not allow grandmother into his
home. She broke a window pane trying to open his front door. Id., pp. 43-
44. At the same time, grandmother hollered to father that "she was going
to terminate [his] parental rights." Id., p. 44. On another occasion, father
-8-
J. S14044/09
and mother were at a doctor's office for care for child. Grandmother and her
two daughters showed up, and father requested that they stay in the waiting
room. Father stated, "[grandmother] got loud [when he told her to stay in
the waiting room], and the doctor told her to go wait in the waiting room."
Id., p. 40. Finally, father testified that he was not present when mother and
child left grandmother's home in December of 2007. However, he stated, "I
have no idea what happened, but it must have been really ugly because
[child] don't want to have nothing to do or see [grandmother]." Id., p. 41.
Finally, father testified that he doesn't want to have "nothing to do with
[grandmother) or [grandmother's two daughters] at all." Id., p. 42.
Grandmother denied interfering in mother's and father's relationship,
as well as with father's visitation rights. Id., pp. 58, 74. On cross-
examination, grandmother also denied that mother had considered giving
her primary physical custody of child for only a temporary period. Rather,
grandmother testified that mother had wanted to give up her parental rights
whether or not she was in the U.S. Navy. Id. pp. 79-80. Grandmother
testified that mother "wanted me to take custody of [child] before [but n]ow
she's mad at me so she doesn't want me to have it. Id., p. 79.
Additionally, grandmother testified that father told people she had AIDS.
Id., p. 78.
The trial court interviewed child in the presence of counsel. Child, who
was seven years old at the time of the hearing, testified that he does not get
-9-
J. S14044/09
along with grandmother, and implied that he is happier living with mother
and father than at grandmother's house. Id., pp. 106-107. Child also
stated that he is looking forward to the birth of his baby sister.' Id., pp.
107-108. He gave no indication that he missed grandmother.
The foregoing testimony reveals that the relationship between the
parties is clearly estranged. Mother fears grandmother intends to seek
primary physical custody of child, and animosity exists between father and
grandmother. Moreover, child appears well-adjusted to the family unit in
which he is currently living.
Grandmother, however, relies upon Rigler v. Treen, supra, and
Norris v. Tearney, supra, to support her contention that the evidence is
insufficient to show that partial custody would interfere with the parent-child
relationship. In both of those cases, the mothers testified that visitations
with the petitioning grandparents caused them to experience emotional
disturbance and severe anxiety. See: Rigler, supra, 660 A.2d at 115-116
(expert witness testified regarding extreme anxiety mother experienced
concerning even limited visits with grandmother); Norris, supra, 619 A.2d
at 341 (mother testified that she "*simply could not cope" with grandparents'
visits, which exacerbated her severe depression). While the testimony in the
case sub judice does not reveal that mother suffers from the same type of
Mother testified that she is pregnant with father's second child, and that
they are engaged to be married. N.T., July 30, 2008, pp. 17-18.
-10-
J. S14044/09
debilitating emotional distress as that implicated in Rigier and Norris, it is
clear that, here, there is significant animosity between the parties and
continued estrangement. Moreover, based on the parties' history, mother
appears to have difficulty asserting herself as a parent when grandmother is
involved, and has a not unjustified fear that grandmother wishes to gain full
custody of child. Indeed, in her proposed custody order, grandmother
requested, inter alia, "visitation" three weekends per month during the
school year, four weeks of uninterrupted partial custody during the summer,
and alternating holidays. The trial judge, who had the opportunity to see
the witnesses and hear their testimony, obviously found mother's version of
the parties' history more credible than grandmother's version. Accordingly,
we detect no basis upon which to disturb the trial court's finding that an
award of partial custody to grandmother would interfere with the parent-
child relationship.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Prothonotary
Date: MAR 2 0 2009
_11_
1E t_r1a ._„-..?
OF TH'E ; AR`s
2309 AP `8 Ai"i ii i : 52
r.
,?1,; _ y
0
Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C.
Debra R. Mehaffie, Esquire
I.D. No. 90951
2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106
Harrisburg, Pa 17110
(717) 657-7770
SHARON BRYAN,
Plaintiff
V.
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND
KEITH D. JOHNSON
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 2008-2152
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: IN CUSTODY
: Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. 1012
AND NOW COMES, Petitioner Debra R. Mehaffie, Esquire and Scaringi & Scaringi,
P.C. who respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant her permission to withdraw as
counsel and in support thereof avers as follows:
1. Your Petitioner is presently counsel of record for Defendants Joe'l N. Bryan and
Keith D. Johnson in the above-captioned matter.
2. Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b) provides in pertinent part:
a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be
accomplished without material adverse effect on the interest of the client, or if:
(6) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
3. Your Petitioner seeks to withdraw as counsel for Defendant in this matter because it
is believed that grounds exist pursuant to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b) (6).
4. Ms. Bryan and Mr. Johnson have both executed authorization for Petitioner's
withdraw. The Defendant's authorizations are attached hereto and marked
collectively as Exhibit "A".
5. The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley has previously entered a custody order in this matter.
6. Petitioner sought concurrence from Plaintiff's counsel Attorney Marylou Matas to
this Petition. Attorney Matas does not object to Petitioner's withdraw.
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue a
Rule to Show Cause upon all parties to show cause, if any, why Petitioner's request to withdraw
as counsel should not be granted. Thereafter, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable
Court grant Petitioner's request to withdraw as counsel on behalf of the Defendants Joe'l N.
Bryan and Keith D. Johnson in the above-captioned matter.
submitted:
Date:
Vebra R. MelTiaffiie, Esgl
000 Linglestown Road,
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 657-7770
106
SHARON BRYAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 2008-2152
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND : IN CUSTODY
KEITH D. JOHNSON : Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Amanda L. Emerson, Paralegal for Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C. do hereby certify that a
copy of the foregoing Petition For Leave to Withdraw as Counsel in the above-captioned case
has been duly served upon the following individual(s) by depositing same in the United States
Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid, addressed as follows:
Marylou Matas, Esquire
26 West High Street
Carlisle, Pa 17013
Joe' l N. Bryan
319 Center Road
Newville, Pa 17241
Keith Johnson
319 Center Road
Newville, Pa 17241
Date: 0q 1
Amanda L. Emerson, Paralegal
SHARON BRYAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 2008-2152
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND : IN CUSTODY
KEITH D. JOHNSON : Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
Defendant
AUTHORIZATION
I Keith Johnson hereby authorize my attorney Debra R. Mehaffie, Esquire to withdraw her
entry of appearance on behalf of me in the above-captioned matter.
Date
Keith D. Johnson
SHARON BRYAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 2008-2152
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND : IN CUSTODY
KEITH D. JOHNSON : Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
Defendant
AUTHORIZATION
I Joe'l N. Bryan hereby authorize my attorney Debra R. Mehaffie, Esquire to withdraw her
entry of appearance on behalf of me in the above-captioned matter.
d?
Date:
Joe'] N. Bry
D?
OFTHE
2009 SEP 10 PM 1: 23
11 1.11, - Ux
Cum 8, f ITY
[' EI Ire > fZYA NIA
a,
SEP 1 12009
r
SHARON BRYAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 2008-2152
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND : IN CUSTODY
KEITH D. JOHNSON : Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
Defendant
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
AND NOW THIS jn, day of September 2009, upon consideration of the foregoing
Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel, it is hereby ORDERED that a RULE is issued upon
Plaintiff and Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.
Rule returnable within L O days of service.
1)
Dom. stribution:
/Debra R. Mehaffie, Esquire, Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C. 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106,
Harrisburg, PA 17110
/1Qarylou Matas, Esquire, 26 West High Street, Carlisle, Pa 17013
N. Bryan, 319 Center Road, Newville, Pa 17241
?Keith Johnson, 319 Center Road, Newville, Pa 17241
Co1 ies
/I /I
tz?y)
ryx?j%-Lj?'
II G-Ct= ;u?
OF THE TARY
1009 SEP 14 AM l i : 4 6
CUM;; # Y
PEN I!9 S i L,AINiA..
Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C.
Debra R. Mehaffie, Esquire
I.D. No. 90951
2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106
Harrisburg, Pa 17110
(717) 657-7770
SHARON BRYAN,
Plaintiff
V.
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND
KEITH D. JOHNSON
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 2008-2152
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: IN CUSTODY
: Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE
AND NOW COMES, Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C. and Debra R. Mehaffie, Esquire who
files the following Motion for Rule Absolute:
1. Scaringi & Scaringi filed a Petition to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendants Joe'l N.
Bryan and Keith D. Johnson in this matter pursuant to Rule 1.16(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Conduct.
2. On September 14, 2009, the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley issued a Rule to
Show Cause upon both parties to show cause why the Petition to Withdraw as Counsel should
not be granted. The Rule was returnable 10 days from service. (A copy of the Order is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference).
3. The Order was served upon Counsel for Plaintiff and the Defendants, individually, at
their last known address. Counsel for Plaintiff did not oppose Scaringi & Scaringi's request to
withdraw as counsel.
4. Ms. Bryan and Mr. Johnson's responses to the Petition were due on October 2, 2009.
5. Ms Bryan and Mr. Johnsor did not file response to the Court's Order to Show Cause.
WHEREFORE, Scaringi & Scaringi and Debra R. Mehaffie, Esquire, respectfully request
that this Court issue an Order authorizing Scaringi & Scaringi and Debra R. Mehaffie, Esquire to
withdraw as counsel for Defendants Joe'1 N. Bryan and Keith D. Johnson in above-captioned
matter.
Respectfully submitted:
GI & SCARINGI, P.C.
c? ff
Date: y
stown Road, Suite
/ e(7171) eha ie, Esquire
PA 17110
770
SHARON BRYAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 2008-2152
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND : IN CUSTODY
KEITH D. JOHNSON : Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Amanda L. Emerson, Paralegal for Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C. do hereby certify that a
copy of the foregoing Motion to Make Rule Absolute and proposed Rule Absolute in the above-
captioned case has been duly served upon the following individual(s) by depositing same in the
United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid, addressed as follows:
Marylou Matas, Esquire
26 West High Street
Carlisle, Pa 17013
Joe'l N. Bryan
319 Center Road
Newville, Pa 17241
Keith Johnson
319 Center Road
Newville, Pa 17241
Date: (01
jc
L. Emerson, Paralegal
Exhibit "A"
SEP 1 1 2009 tt
SHARON BRYAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 2008-2152
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND : IN CUSTODY
KEITH D. JOHNSON : Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
Defendant
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
AND NOW THIS _jq _ day of September 2009, upon consideration of the foregoing
Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel, it is hereby ORDERED that a RULE is issued upon
Plaintiff and Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.
Rule returnable within 6 days of service.
BY THE COURT:
Distribution:
Debra R. Mehaffie, Esquire, Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C. 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106,
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Marylou Matas, Esquire, 26 West High Street, Carlisle, Pa 17013
Joe'1 N. Bryan, 319 Center Road, Newville, Pa 17241
Keith Johnson, 319 Center Road, Newville, Pa 17241
::t T 0VOMISPV :1i tv Y herG Un*-O 56t WN haM
y . , ,! ' .
i
OF TFIF PPU il nN1,)TAAY
2409 OCT -S PM 12: 39
C!UBF..FINI) CQUNTY
PDR VANiA
Dy
SHARON BRYAN,
Plaintiff
V.
JOE'L N. BRYAN AND
KEITH D. JOHNSON
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 2008-2152
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: IN CUSTODY
: Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
RULE ABSOLUTE
AND NOW THIS _(L day of October, 2009, upon consideration of the Petition to
Withdraw as Counsel, Rule to Show Cause and Motion to Make Rule Absolute filed on behalf of
Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C. and Debra R. Mehaffie, Esquire, it is hereby ORDERED that said
Petition is GRANTED. Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C. and Debra R. Mehaffie, Esquire, are
withdrawn as counsel for Defendants Joe'l N. Bryan and Keith D. Johnson in this matter.
i
0CF
Distribution:
bra R. Mehaffie, Esquire, Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C. 2000 Ling
H??sburg, PA 17110
,,.-<4arylou Matas, Esquire, 26 West High Street, Carlisle, Pa 17013
V4091 N. Bryan, 319 Center Road, Newville, Pa 17241
eith Johnson, 319 Center Road, Newville, Pa 17241
m? t ,
'Es
FILH)--a:FiCE
OF THE FF1?HONOTARY
2004 OCT -6 PM 4: 10
PEAJ?' SYL`MIA
r
CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER
is PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C)
To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed:
Superior Court of PA
The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and
correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required
by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the
proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter:
Sharon Bryan
VS.
Joe'l Bryan and Keith D. Johnson
2008-2152 Civil
1596 MDA 2008
go The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.1 to 159, and
attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and
identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the
number of pages comprising the document.
The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 10//& /2008 .
-d?2 C is R. Lon of ono ry
1
Regina Lebo
An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed Please sign and date copy, thereby
acknowledging receipt of this record.
Date
• J. McCullough
'VIc
Signature & Title
Received in Superior Court
OCT 1 7 2008
MIDDLE
CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER
PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C)
To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed:
Superior Court of PA
The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and
correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required
by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the
proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter:
Sharon Bryan
VS.
Joe'l Bryan and Keith D. Johnson
2008-2152 Civil
1596 MDA 2008
• The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.l to 159, and
attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and
identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the
number of pages comprising the document.
The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 10//& /2008 .
is R. L g, rotho otary
Regina Lebo
An additional copy of this certificate is enclosdt ? pF e? dak thereby
acknowledging receipt of this record.
Date
OCT 2 0 2008
Signature & Title
MIDDLL
C7