Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-3882n Main Street Adoption Services, Inc., Petitioner V. David S. Mullins and Tracey L. Mullins, Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2008- 3 ?- f?' 1 cr,11 14erm PETITION TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD OF AN ARBITRATOR S UDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 1. Petitioner, Main Street Adoption Services, Inc., is a licensed adoption agency in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at 65 West Roseville Road, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601-3928 (hereinafter "Main Street"). 2. Respondents are David S. Mullins and Tracey L. Mullins, adult individuals, who reside at 5486 Devonshire Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112 (hereinafter "Mullins"). 3. Numerous events giving rise to this arbitration and dispute have occurred in Cumberland County, including, but not limited to all meetings with the home study adoption agency, Common Sense Adoptions. Mullins has invoked the jurisdiction of your Court in companion case, arising from the same facts captioned: David Scott Mullins and Tracey Lee Mullins v. Common Sense Adoption Services, Martha L. Jones, Erin R.J. Chick, Main Street Adoption Service, Robert J. McClenaghan, and Nina Vizitei a/k/a/ Nina Heller filed to No. 08-00062 4. On December 24, 2006 Main Street and Mullins entered into an agreement, the purpose of which was to set forth the obligations of Main Street and Mullins to facilitate all necessa y legal procedures in an international adoption (the "A reement"). 5. The Agr ement provided in an unnumbered paragraph as followsT f a claim regarding fees charged by us exceeds $5,000, it shall be resolved by arbitration in the City of Lancaster Pennsylv nia, administered by the American Arbitration Associat on in accordance with its Arbitration Rules for Adoption Agencies and Relates Services Disputes, such arbitrat on shall be binding and final, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. In agreeing to arbitration, we both acknow edge that, in the event of a dispute over fees charged by us, ea h party is giving up the right to have the dispute decided in a court of law before a judge or jury and instead we are accepting the use of arbitration for resolution of this matter.' In any such dispute, whether resolved by arbitration or lawsuit, the prevailing party will be entitled to attorney's fees and costs." SAWIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 6. On 20th day of May 2008, a hearing was held before Alan S. Burnstein in the Old Cumberland County Courthouse in Carlisle, Pa pursuant to the American Arbitration Association rules of Supplementary procedure for Consumer- Related Disputes. 7. On the '29th day of May, 2008 the Award of Arbitrators was entered in favor of the Mullins and against Main Street in the amount of Eleven Thousand Six-Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents($11,600.00)together with compensation and costs for a total of 13,225. A copy of the Arbitration Award is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit NNA„ 8. In part, the Award provides: "I reference, among other reasons for this Decision, joint stipulated fact number 43, as well as the egregious conduct of the Respondent, through its employees, as testified to at the hearing." 9. On the 27th day of April, 2008, John M. Kerr, Esquire (hereinafter "Kerr") forwarded a proposed Stipulation to counsellfor Main Street. A copy of which is attached hereto,jmade a part hereof and marked Exhibit "B". 10. James D'? Flower, Jr., Esq., (hereinafter "Flower") counsel for Main, Street drafted a response Stipulation of Facts to which he agreed. A copy of which is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit "C". 11. By reas n of a clerical error, Flower's paralegal inadver ently forwarded to Kerr by email, May 14, 2008 as an atta hment, Kerr's proposed Stipulation of Facts and not The Stipulation prepared by Flower. 12. A Stipu ation was not signed by counsel for the parties, nor was la signed Stipulation presented to the Arbitrator. 13. Flower vv{as not aware of the mistake in forwarding the incorredt Stipulation, either by notice from Kerr or W agreem nt at the time of the arbitration of particular exhibi s. 14. During the arbitration, Flower became aware of the mistake and made a request to disregard the Stipulation as it clearly was a matter of clerical error. 15. The Stipulation prepared by Kerr and accepted by the Arbitrator contained facts which: A. Were obtained by mutual mistake; B. were not entered into freely or fairly; C. Were the result of clerical error; D. Wore not signed by Counsel for the parties; and E. Was such that an experienced litigator would never stipulate. 16. The Kerr Stipulation contains, in part, certain stipulations, which are highlighted below and clearly indicate the mutual mistake and clerical error: 20. Relying on such assurances, the Mullins executed a contract with Main Street Adoption Services on December 22, 2006. This Agreement was written by and forwarded to the Mullins by Main Street Adoption Service. 22. Ne ertheless, Scott Mullins did not disclose prior to th signing of the Agreement the fact of his 1998 DUI in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to both Erin Chick of Common Sense and Robert McClenaghan of Main St eet. As the e-mail transmissions quoted above ev?nces, Nina Heller of Main Street Adoption Service wa also aware of this revelation. SAMIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATtOWVEYS-ANAW 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 24. In',the midst of informing Erin Chick about the 1998 DU arrest, Scott Mullins overlooked a prior DUI ar est which occurred in 1993 while living in the St to of Indiana and which he mistakenly thought had be n expunged from his record. Encouraged by Erin Ch ck's admonition that "if this becomes an issue, we 11 deal with it then," and believing that the 1993 In iana DUI had been expunged from his record; Mu lins mentally erased any remaining thoughts of it. Hi reasoned belief was that his only prior DUI was th 1998 Pennsylvania arrest, of which he clearly in ormed both adoption agencies. 26. De pite having actual knowledge of the 1998 Pe nsylvania DUI, on January 29, 2007, Main Street A'option Service forwarded a dossier on the Mullins t Guatemala, along with some of the same documents i cluded in the Home Study, together with documents r lating to income, medical history, and employment. 35. T rescue Common Sense from this dilemma, Defendant M Clenaghan implored Scott Mullins to tell the USCIS t at he had failed to disclose the information. By d ing, so, McClenaghan said, the process would keep m ving and the adoption would get back on track. In f ct, the Mullins were relying on Common Sense to p epare an Amended Home Study and to submit it to the U CIS. 37. A ::r t of those documents, Scott Mullins authored a t page explanation of the two alcohol-related a rests, which concluded by covering for Erin Chick a d stating: "[m]y decision not to disclose these c arges were driven mainly by feelings of SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIOBIWWO-O W 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA e arrassment for my past behavior and were certainly n t meant to deceive anyone although in hindsight I did and I apologize." In truth, Mullins had informed E in Chick of the 1998 DUI; had asked her if it s ould be included in the Home Study; but, ne ertheless, had been informed by her not to worry ab ut it unless or until it showed up in a criminal re ords report. In other words, Chick's posture was "d not disclose unless you get caught." 17. Numerou averred facts in the Kerr proposed stipulation were un rue and misleading, including stipulation number 43 reli d upon by the Arbitrator, which states: "Two day later, Mullins did speak by telephone with Robert McClenag an and Nina Heller of Main Street. He inquired as to the possibility of getting another home study performed by a differen agency because of his concern that the Home Study would no be amended. They said they would look into it and suggeste that the Mullins release baby Liam. To encourage them to do, M Clenaghan and Heller promised to refund the balance of fees or ould refer another child to them when and if the Home Study wa completed and the visa for the child was issued." 18. The Trai 125 the Mr. iscript of the Arbitration states at pages following with regard to the Stipulations: Kerr: This is the one your secretary, your paralegal e-mailed. I think you'll find your paralegal may have sent the wrong o triple A, and you ended up stipulating t 124 and that ne to o the wrong one but you clearly stipulated. (emphasis added) Mr. Flower: 43, this is definitely not the right stipulation of facts. Mr',. Kerr: Well, but I mean, you've already told- Th Arbitrator: It's the only one I've got. Mr. Kerr: You've already told the arbitrator twice when he asked that you have agreed to this. Mr. Flower: What - I didn't have that one in front of me. I had the one that I sent. A copy of the applicable portions of the Transcript concer ing the Stipulation are attached hereto, made a part h reof and marked Exhibit Rule t 1. 2. 3.? ZE, Main Street prays Your Honorable Court enter a Show Cause why the Court shall not: Vacate the Order of the Arbitrator dated May 29, 2008; Declare the Stipulation and Award null and void to prevent a manifest injustice; Remand the matter back to the American Arbitration Association with instructions to proceed with arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules for Adoption Agencies and Related Services Disputes and to appoint a new Arbitrator. Such relief as your Honorable court deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, Dated: Saidis, FlgWver & Lindsay SAMIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY :?,iruw 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 4. *aterx c. saiais, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 21458 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Petitioner VERIFICATION I ve6fy that the statements made in the foregoing I SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA authorities.) instrument 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 DATED : (0 f f C3 , J mes D. Flower, Jr., Esq. CAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION Commercial Arbitration Tribunal In the Matter of the Arbitration between Re: 14170 E 00221 08 Scott and Tracey Mullins (Claimant) and Main Street Adoption; Service (Respondent) AWARD OF ARBITRATOR I, THE UNDERSIGNED ARBITRATOR, having been designated in accordance with the arbitration agreement entered into between the above-named parties and dated December 22, 2006, and having been duly sworn, and having duly heard the proofs and allegations of the Parties, do hereby, AWARD, as follows- I find in favor of the Claimants in the amount of Eleven Thousand Six-Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents ($11,600.00), and I reference, among other reasons for this Decision, joint stipulated fact number 43, as well as the egregious conduct of the Respondent, through its employees, as testified to at the hearing. The administrative fees of a American Arbitration Association totaling $991.08 shall be borne by Respondent, and the comp sation and expenses of the arbitrator totaling $1,008.93 shall be borne $375.00 by Claimants and 633.92 by Respondent. This Award is in full settlement of all claims submitted to this Arbitration. 1 aims not expressly granted herein are hereby, denied. X19-be Date Alan S. Burstein I, Alan S. Burstein, do hereby affirm upon my oath as Arbitrator that I am the individual described in and who executed this instrument which is my Award. S`?L9 -4i?' Date Q-Q-0'J' Alan S. Burstein ? N „STiP_ULAIIIP FACT I_ in the Fall of 2006, haying -exhausted their efforts to have their awn children, thi Mullins decided to pursue Opportunities to adopt a child. 2. Both Scott and Trace Mullins attended an urientation at Cummon Sense Adoption -%r Aces (hereinafter, "Common Sense") in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania In mid-OrWber, 2M, Where they met with thra intake person, lari Teeter, and determined that they would adopt IMST'nationafly.Common sense referred them to MairStroet Adoption "Main Street"), the'international piac4ment agenc:y, fucair,1i i, i dituj ter, Penr? ylvarr a tb WhDt't1 they often workrbct. Common rase was to prepare the home study. :3: On November 6, Z006, ie Muffins received :err Ee Fn?iJ fnf-,sage from Meta Hellovof Main Street #hereinafter, "Helier"), represt*ntinS that they had an e>;celleat reputation, an attorney who was fast and responsive, and the fact. that all farr,iiiF: whip st irted wii! tht?m in Guatemala actually adopted I he fee for the adoption of one chi!f, irl;-ir, r:,,att?rrtala L,raS quioted as 525, 100-M- . Helfer further represewttd -hat it child newly t c:rn it. r i uatarnala was available for their adoption. a. Accompanying this Novarrcbl.,r 6, 2006 a rnail mesa c from Helier was a three page list of services . Specifically, the Mullins found appealing the Ovmvitm, of the Adoption Service; the Home Study Services ; Post Placement Services; and Rrc:?ivhig Referral. Also acrornpanyi?g this listing of services was another d-ocument, entitled, "5ic?p by $tep C;.jatematan Adoption Process". Included in this latter dacvment was the representation that among the in- tiara Main Street would provide was a birth cprtific:ate and initial rrrrdiral exam for the child t be i adopted. These promotions by 'glair, Street were a material reason why the Mullins later entered into a contractual agreement with thollm. 5. After having been promised this child, the Mullins were abruptly told two days bar L Hel-lerthat-theydid ne tmove fast enough and the referral "had gone to another fami`1y. a result, the Mullins expressed reluctance to work further with Main Street, but i on Teeter of Common Sense encouraged them to stay put. Teeter explained that Heller's practice wa not to refer a child until it valid home study had been completed 6. On or about November 13, 2006, the Mullins entered into a written contract with Common Sense to prepare a Family Profile (hrimi- Study). They,paid $500.00 for the Agency Application and $3,000.00 for a home study and past placement 7. On lovember 13,2006, the Mullins made applicdtic ri for a visa, form I-soda, wi " the United Sfi tes Custorns and immigration-Service ("USC'?"' tc adupt a foreign child and to ring an adopted finfeign r Old into the country. Beforea ors.: Sara ,ss,led, an approved ban study and application must be submitted. More irnportant, witf:ou' "ov, visa, an interriational ad option cannot take place. R. On November 17 13, 201)6, Vina Heller refers, * arnthPr child which Main Street=had dubbed, "'Liam," to the Mullins, : rolwith,.tanding th,:. f;,rl thilt :1 home study and approval by the USCIS had not yet occurred rh.e Mullins were hesita nr to accept the referral at- this time because the home, study had not yet been.completer-i y_ On November 21, 2006. the Mullins met witli grin C rick., Executive Dirfactor of crYmmon Sense Adoption Services (hereinafter, "Chick"), at her Mechanicsburg office and on December 5, 2006, she conducted a home study visit at their residlen e nn Devonshire Drive at Dauphin County" This was followed by FBI finriPrprints being taken tie ner l?rrlber 7, 2.006. 10. During Chick's visit with the Mullins on December 5, 2006„ she met separately with 1 . Tn. coy and SCOT-Conever as"ki-d tiithef'Scatt or 7rarr:y Mullins whether an FBI criminal. background check would reveal any prior arrests or ronvictions. ' r 11. On Decem er 7, 2006, bath Scott and Tracey fVluf6tts were forzrrall)rr t h FBI criminal records background check. ?1.2. On December 13, 2006, Scott Mullins had a fiKe-to-lie meeting with Robert MicCtenaghan, Executive Director of Main Street (hereinafter, "McClenaghan")andL Heller at the office of Common Sense Adoption Services in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 13. One-day later, 5cott.Mulllm, informed Erin Chid about a DUI charge in 1998- Significantly, Erin Chick stated, '.this will not be a showstopper ' Mullins asked her if the orne. study should include this informaticn, to which Chic!c rp ;pot?ded, `if this hecgmt..S.an;iss we'll dea I "With --it then:" 14 On this same day, Stott Mullins also.spoke with Robv, McClengghan cif Main Street, about the 1998 GtU1: I??fcCfrnagltan' ,-c:amment. was `tl,i; r.?,` ratter in Guaherrrafa` ° 15, on or a:bo-titfDecember 21, Defendant Erin Chick from Common Sense Adoptiori Services issued her opprow-d Home Study. Dpspite i - ,ly knowir;t ihat Scott 'Willins hart seen arrested -for a DUI in 1998, Defendant Chick wrote n - r; „l., fit- Hur w Study: "Pennsylvania State Police Criminal buckgroun ' F-cks were camp' i r-c_ en ( cloberfi, 2006 [sic] no criminal record is indicated inthese repcrts.... When questioned, Sc i..: ncicated he ha, no prior criminal history and has never been arrested or convicted at ., :'rirrtr• " i 16. In fact, although the Repari was dated Dece,r:ber 11, 200b, it was not notarized Lntil December 21, 2006, at a tirne alter which Frin Chick had a dual knowledge that her statements quoted above were not true. Moreover, as started at par. gUwpir ID above, ChiGk.had nevrtr inquired as to whether either of the prospective adoptivci u.ererit : fins a prier t.riminal history or were ever arrested- 17. On December 19, 2006, Nina Heller of Main Street Adoption Service transmitted an e- mail message to Plairn?flf Scott Mullins, stating, in part, as follows: "I talked with Erin [Chick] ye rday, site told me.gbout yaur,?onc rn °? qt 1. we klt had o r ifnllies with ink past and it was not a problem in Guatemata, She told me that you warn to mt7vP f0rwi3 v+FIs9 adoption of Baby Liam 18. Later that day [December 191, Scott Mulling, responded in an e-mail message to Hellar, with the following words: 'That's good to hear, We were extremply worried It would teopardlxe What we were trying to do. We would tike to gn aheud with Liam although we are still warkirta on. our bank financing. Is it possible to hold him for us until we get the money? Our bank has it t f-med usthat it will probably go through in the ruoxt wf-f-.k orSo..." 19. within seven-minutes of thQ Scott Mullins r;u ssage quoted at paragraph J?< above, Defendant Mina HpNer i? m-ailed back, statirri,: "lilt is trot ., I:ral3lstm with Guaterrtala, so do not worry,,,ls it ptassioiefar you *.o depQSit $2,flU ,cr ,rig C117 fp* them know in G.uateAa"? We will [welt]for the rest of thr ti".t payment next week. t .,s. nie know if you have adoption agreement or would like Bob to email it to you .main. 20. Relying on such assurances,, the Mullins {axe =teci a nn*ract with Main Street Adoption Services on December 27, 200fr . Tlii% Agreement wa wntu --ii. by i?rufforvvarded to the Mullins by Main Street Adoption Service. 21. On page three of the Agreement is contained 1h<, follulaing provision: "The Ado?Ftive Family shall comply with the following:... Adoptive rarnj!y apree,. to disclose In Main Street Adoption Service prior to the signing of this agreement any of,hc d..llowing-. cr:'minal ch jrges (whether prosecuted or not),... Failure to disclose,joy ui tli-se events is terms for immediate termination of the agreement and loss of any paid fees." 22. Npverthelpss,, Scott Mullins did disclose prier t:: the signing of the Agreement 4 fact of his 1998 DUI in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to bath Erin Chick of Common Sens and . I i reasoned belief was that his only prior DUI was the 1998 N.-nnsylvania drr-6i of which h .Marty informed both adoption agencies. , 25-"On January lg 2007, Trac py Mullins fcrrwardrid an e-?ttaal rransmiSSiot3'ro NIr4d? flet', memorializing a conversation site had with Erin Chic.'( Mo d iv..' O<trl4!r..tn this e mail message, she indicated that Chick had stated ghat they ;Scott road T-ac 'Oullinsj should hear fron?,USCtS by the end of January and not V7 wc. rry. (:hick also told Z races Mullins that she [Chick[ would call USCI.S if no response was furthroming by that time. ;i? tlc?r'ti ir.ply was that Chick had a,good relationship with USCIS. 25. Despite having actual knowledge of the 199K portir!,ylvania DUI, on fanuary 29, 2 , 7, Main Street Adoption Service fcowarded a dossier r.;) the iWilins :c Cuater ala , along with some of the same documents irduded in the Home ,tudy, `ngrthei with doc ments rel Ring to income, medical history, arider-riployrnent. 27. in the meantjme, the Midlirs had purchasers airline iir:kett..fnd made hotel reservations I for a visit to Guatem la, which was to occur between the dates el rebrumy 22-27, 2007 This was done in conjunct on with and with the knowledg+. oNOW?rt Mr.Clenaghan. The purpose of the trip was to meet aby Liam consi nt With what had been represented from the bi?ginnin - that't "d was it1 rI Health. it was not discovered until much late rthat this was inaccurate and that, in fact, the tId was.aMen-deprived at birth; had been transferred to the rer;a -natal irtteMhm care unlit alt the major hospital in Guatemala City; was, as a result of the oxygen -deprivatitin, developme taffy delayed; and showed symptoms of cerebral pais;y: 29. On February 20, 20117, the MutHrs c'c?e,;v ? .a lettt;r:from the L cited Sta s Customs and tmmig*ior+ Service (tIS:C1S)';'siatirtg that ther: * s i,' .i discrepancy betw+eer?the 1 Home Study prepared by Enn Chick and the F81 fingwprint report As rioted by uSCIS, This office has sirice= rmeived d report from the Ffidrrai Bureau of Investigatian*r? which reveals that you were arrested on two ,ep ;Ai ? at:casions, on February 25, 1993, you were arrested, ct arged and com ,-,ed of OWL 0n. June 13, 1998, you were again arrested. charged and convicted of Dr°ving undo-n Iliv Influence. However, this information was not in0aded jinj:yqur homy study sepori. in fact, according to your home study prepares, you were sperifically asked if you were everarri.*sted and'you responded, "nn" _ You are hereby accorded a period of twelves wet?ks I o present original court dispositions resulting from all charges brought againsI you. You must also provide evidence that all terms of wjur arrest were ::c,mplied with. Furthermore, you must present complete a det.diled statement dear 6hing Of c:irctimstances surrounding, your criminal anest(s), +ind an explanation as to why your arrest information wa withheld from your home sl udy preparer aria withheld from Service attention. Lastly, you are requiredto provide a home.-audy addendurn containing an evdlu ti on of the suitability of your horn, for adaptive place in!,W cfr. d!! orphan in light of you prior criminal history Failure to comply or respond within the spw hied time, period will result in the denial of your form 1-600A. 30. The ocicurnent forwarded by USCI? :rude clear that a criminal backgrou d was not dispositive of th V600A appliczition, but that ar. explanation had to be provided where erroneous informati n had been utilized, and further that the Director was empowered to attempt to resoi7 suc issues by working with the prospeccivq pirrent the homes a a prepamr, and the agency 'caking recommendation. The underlying coocern Was the ppctlon of any orphan being brought into the United States. 31. After reviewing the contents of the USCIS communication, Scott Muffins l immediately telephoned Erin Chide at Common Sense Adoption Services, After reading ? her letter, Defendant Chick stated,"ji)t's okay. I will tell Immigration tb_It M? the contents of the an avars*t on rYty,part, " Scott Mullins thereupon asked if he should be worrw.d,: and Chick's response was, "no." 32_ Based upon the communication from USCiS, Robert PiA Clenaghan. instructed the MullinS.notto travel to Guatemala as previously planned died :.Icheduled for February17:2-27, 2007.'T his was.,done an the eve riing before they wpr;, iv tt?avt= frorr. Sattirnore. 33. On February 27,2001, Erin Chick authorPrl a letter to the Mullins, stating in, pertinent part; ... Additionally, U$05 is requtrin; an addendum tc v"r .:mPpnal home study to be completed by this office. In order for this agency to comply with this requirement, we are asking that you first provide this offic r, with c.+,apies of all of the documentation being required of you by 11S0S. Once this critic e mrehfps this documentation and can review the records, we will r.c:hedule a rneleting to di%c`uss the steps to he taken in completing the required addendum and evaluation. Your prompt response to this letter will insure that the required investigation can be completed within the 12 week timefrarne provided by i1SC.IS. Pending the outcome of this investigation, your currant approval foi acioptien has been, suspended. 34. At this point, the Mullins' ability to adopi irilei nat;onallywas not lost, and they anticipated that the required information would be provided through Common Sense an that the USCIS questions would be appropriately satisfied. However, to do would require an admission by Erin Click and Common Sense that they had c ornpleted a Home Study with material misstatern rits known to Chick in advance.. i I 35. To rescue common Sense from this dilerm- R fft?ber# :L?a;1171 red r. . Scott Mu.Mns tca to 1 the USCI51W he had failed to dis tlcx? this m€ornu ti et By #Wng, McClensgNin said, the process would keep moving and'the adoption Would set bank on ack. In pct, the Mullins were relying on Common Sense to prepare an Amended Ham(- Study an to submit It to the USCIS: 36. On Friday, Marrh 3, 2007, Tracey Mullins hand delivered the rectuested -- - documents to Common Sense Adoption Service at their office in Mechanicsburg, l ennsylvania. 37. As part of those MCuments, Scott Mullins authored a three page explanation of the two alcohol4elated arrests, which concluded by ;.avering for f rin Chick and Stating: " rn]y decision not to disc.tosP these charges were driven indirrly;tay fralirigs of embarrassment r stay Past behavior and were certainly not meant tti dec;eivc, iirynm ;rltturugh in hindsight ; di and 1 4 apologize." In truth, Mullins haci rnfOrmed Erin Chick of thr? ? 498 +: L)I; had asked. her if it should .be included in the Home Study; hut, nevertheless, had been informed by her not to worry about it unless or until it showed cfp jr. a criminal records rc-01^0othervlorcls, Chi(::;',. posture was "do not disclose unless you get --aught." 38. even if Scott Wilins. had not believed #tiis Indiana,irrPst hmi been expunged from his record, tie would tiave hraen guided by Clu,k' ,,drnonition not to take any action unless it [criminal arrest] shows up. 39. On March 15, 7on7, the Mullins met viit. Martha .!ones, the "/adoption Coordinator" at Common Sense .ind, as they were to learn later, the mother of Frin Chick )ones was hostile, defensive and unprofessional. She would ,tot believe that Erin Chick had file I a Home Study which made material misrepresentations. She told the Mullins, "we have a reputation to uphold; you have rrnbarrassed this agei V." She Aso added sarcastically. " hat are you going to do if i refuse to amend your home study" and "what are you going to do;with I i I all the baby things?" At the concluaiorr ¢f tha meeting' .Shp ,nforUtad them, "you can't,* and all of the Information you provided toltl7 agency is now in gLestitxrl." 40. From this point forward, Erin Chick wHS'moved to the background -and a subsequent dealings were with Martha Jones. 41. The Mullins furnished all inf*rmationreque,,tefj t,y Martha l ones, inci ?T - -- -- -- ---- -- -- ?efomocae tars concerning how Scott Mullins had°turtpd hi% life around. Defendantlcat es -- failed to contact any of these references, even failing to take telephone callsfrawr those refemces who atternpt+ed to contact her 42• On March. .27, 2001, Scott Mullins e-, naffed lVlarn Street-Adoption Senrioa to express his concern regardinS the delay in the case heing Corr ai inned.by any lack of activity 06 the part of Common Sense and Martha Jones. lie rec;c,estk?c:. ?, s;?pc?rruniry to speak with them. 43. Two days !,Ater, Mullins did speak by Robert McClenaphaand _ Nina Heller of Main Street He irquired as to the os,?it,ilit ;f t' p y ga ting another !some study performed bya different agenrV hecause of his cotict-rri that :he Home Study would not'pe amended.. They said they would lock into-it and supggesEr c' hai Ise Mullins reiNase babyjLiam. To encourage thern to do, McC:lenu han and HOlet pmwisrc f, refund the balance offees or would refer another child to thorn when and :f the ;lone `.'t ,cs± w-vi rompleted and the visa for the child was issued. 44. Consequently, on April.1, 2001, the '%Aullins forwarded a letter releasing their reservation of right of adoption as to baby Liam. 45. On April 11, 2007, ccmcemed that the twelve week window to respond tp USCIS was evaporating, Scott and Tracey Mullins wrote a lengthy !etter to Martha Jones at Co, Sense, which they sent by certified mail 4& In thi? letter, the Mullins stated in pertinent part, . . x; ?. . , Fly'- ?.: ? .. ._ I fcml it is important that I document .he Icl grtsr >h ?e!?' r 14, , t misdemeanor that { Mceived 10 19 ahi?pst alr? Ctrs ate; t 1?18i . this might be an ism. This wwas before tt a hcri re attitlyr ,mod " ¢:t " was told at the time that, 'it wouldn't be shanwgtul?r t asked 1r? -s ily whether we should change the home study to fvf ecrt as ? cle 1»'I Wss, `' % not to worry th8t -if this beeornes an issue, we'll deal with it then." I did >t go ,Jta?i aiz?•i1ss>?e:i?'?,,t-1?? s trl?ji?,??ir?a,r . to deceive her, but because she didn't sas?m interested: 1 know nwv that - --- - - -shauld full detail, but we trusted your agency'ro guide us. 47 At the conclusion of this {titter, the MuH'ms tiernanded a written diacision1within five days* as to whether-Common Sense was,going to sc omit 3n amended hgiirti: study toh e USCIS.so tha t they might find another agency if thf_t unswv; ill the negative: 48. Can April. 19, 2007, the Mullins contacted Adopt_ior: Services (hereinafter, "AS") in Camp.Hill, Pennsylvania lo.di-ler,;,ine if they wouit? pr?`F•d ?. a home study. sheir response was that they would inve,tigatt• *he circumstancf1% at ;,??, Carrtric;r? Sense hump study if and when it was eventually denied. ? 49. On April 25, 20r,7, t.=re Mullins ri-cewee., 3 IPitr: from Martha Jones requesting additional information concerning frvo new isswf:; g. •.g:, .; t:1airn :hat Scot Mullins possessed a medical co,;ditio>n affecting his ability ti: 10.- nolizr. alcohia and an accident involving Tracey Mullins' rnrrtlrr,, Nnc?r h;rd 17e+r irtvr,' ; :,? ., ;)d rind run accid nt with Tracey's vehicle while living with the Mu;!ins j 50. On April 30, 2007, the Mullins wrote :: "Briar" three page letter to Martha Jones, in which they included all infonnatirrn regarding tht- TVW0 additional issues requested by Jones and demanding that she amend the home study- This was a mere right (R) days before the expiration of the allotted twelve week period by thc- l1SCIS. 51. On May 2, 2007, Martha Jones of Common Sense responde6to the Mull ns. Prefacing the letter with her claim of the Mullins' "unwillingness o provisie the informat on we i. rec tiested'in order to complete a favr?rdb{e fi t7dfr forypur adnptiy hoar study"',SM6 denied approval to them as an adaptive applicant. She cone uded with thus paragraph: "(w}e -willibe sending a copy of your hone study amendment to USCIS drid to Main Street Adoptions t ey. We are also registering you with.tho Pennsylvania Adoption Exchange's Resource indicating that you have not been approved. Should you chouse at some point in the future to work wit another adoption agency you will need to disclosel tjo t heir t tint yuu Were the-subjeict v? an unfisvorable Morn' study and provide th+ii m with into matior as to your assaclatinn with his agency so that they can see the information cnntairwif in yortr fill With Cotnmort Sense;.,; 52. On May 7, 2007, attorney Samuel t Andr % write to Maroia Eikeretrkoetter, the reviewer assigned to the Mullin. c -v at USCIS, enclosine th ? information which the Mullins had furnished to Common Sense respovriive to the requests rnatle• by the USCIS in their February 20, 20X17 correspondence to the M Alin and adding sot'le ii iii tE; i'i3rTlrn(?nt 5 13x1 t }i(' Sf:f3nc?flU Of events leading tri the pivdicam prat Loving the Mullins. It is vital for your office to ttnderrttand that &..olt'4t(?iic,?. reported the Dui arrest Iand prosecution to Frin RJ. Chick, the Common Sense repre%entative who performed the adoptive family profile for 'hem. When he di', he way- advised that thuse irwirferjts had not appeared on the criminal background chew k that Common Sense did and tha , as a result, he should not worry about that unless , .•:t.; +ffi::e ra :,ed at-, inquiry about It. Ms. Chick acknowledged that to Scott Mullins and other members of the farnily.after the inquiry from your office in February. Mr Mvl!rr', h^ I riwetr"denied thw,e incidents in his background and has never made any attempt to ronroal them. In fact, he voluntarily disclosed them to Rob(•r t n7'cC.lenaghan of Main Str.,. i Adoption ervicv% ... It is obvious, from comments made by Marttr.a Jr3rie . and the inaction of Common Sense up to now, that Common Sense is not going to Submit to your office the information it. has requested, and which has been supplied ;,y my aient, or take any other actions to amend or supplement As adoptive family profile. (Quite honestly, I believe that is because Common Sense is more concerned about its reputation and its standing with your office than in seeking out and reportinf; the acx:urate facts in the case. .53. The Andes-' letter offered to engage another adoption agency to prepar whatever supplementary information the USCIS might desire and requested additional time i V • since the twelve week window originally provided was about to expire due tv Corrrrrtttn Sense _ ». '.. < "sandbagging' the Mullins. 54. The following day, attorney Andes wrote a nother letter, this time to Martha Jones of Common Sense Adoption Services - in this letter, Andes set the record straight concerning Scott Mullins revelation tD rrin Chick concerning the 1998 DUI, as well as in ponce to W ditional lssues cones had raised, r4lati -to the alleged medical condition of Scott ullins and the accident involving Tracey Mullins' autornobile while being; driven by her mother.?Andes put the actions of Common Sense in perspective: :.. You<have{taken small bits of inaccurate information ond.distorted and exaggerated them in an effort to put Mr. and Mrs. Mullins, i» a false and bad fight. Your offrce•has failed to acknowledge that it>Was'aPWWF of thN 001 problem before itsfirst home study was submitted to USCIS. Now you have compounded 411 of those error, by submitting incomplete, inaccurate, dnd perhaps downright false, reports to USCfss, to Main Street Adoptions, and the Pennsylvania Adoption t x: hI jog;:. auite honesthi; i believe tftrl behavior of your office is nutrageous. 55. On May 'i0, 2007, Martha Jones of G rnrno+, ';urns" Adoption Servicps responded to Attorney Andes, <tanrfing by herversinri of thi, S6. On June .21, 2001, tiie USCI.S issued -Wtii.e Of Denial," citing the fact at on May 8, 2008, Common Sense sr.,bm: tted an Addendw t 1xhir h denied:approval of the Mullins as r adoptive parents. The USCIS le' It r characterized the :Adlden i;m suhmitted by :Common Sense, in part, with the following lang.:agc. "f tlhe addendum :rnd;c-c •: s that you failed to fully disclose , all elements of your history o:.r+cohol abuse and yf),,: -.6minal history. CSAS concluded that you and your spouse exhihited a palter of deception di+ring this r•ntAr. home study process that challenged your veracity". 57. rhejUSCIS denial letter informed the Mullins of their appeal rights, which had to be exercised with thrrty (30) days of service of the denial IPttor. i I i DAVID SCOTT ?LILLINS and TRACEY LYNN MULLINS, Claimants, V. MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICE, Respondent. AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION RE: 14 170 E 00221 08 JOINT STIPULATION OF FACTS 1. In the fall of 2006, Claimants decided to pursue opportunities to adopt a child. 2. Scott and Tracey Mullins attended an orientation at Common Sense Adoption Services to discuss international adoptions and were referred to Respondent Main Street Adoption Service, an international placement agency, located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Common Sense Adoption Services was to prepare the Home Study. 3. On November 6, 2006, the Mullins received an email message from Nina Heller' of Main Street Adoption Service (hereinafter "Heller') representing that they had an )excellent reputation, an attorney who was fast and responsive, and the fact that all %miiies who started with them in Guatemala had actually adopted. The fee for the adoption of one child from Guatemala was quoted as $25,100.00. 4. Respondent Main Street provided a list of services and information, inclu ing a "Step by Step Guatemalan Adoption Process", frequently 7'7-2143-6426 I SA I D I S SHUFF FLOWER 4'JJ F'02/ etJ JUN 1U kjo YJb . GO asked questions and Main Street Adoption Service Guatemala Program Fee Schedule. 5, Claimant Mullins entered into a written contract with Common Sense Adoptiorhs to prepare a Family Profile (Home Study). 6. Claimant Mullins made application for a Visa, Form 1-600A, with the United States Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) to adopt a foreign child and to bring an ;adopted foreign child into the Country. 7. Before a Visa could be issued, an approved Home Study would have to be subr6tted to the USCIS. 8. Main Street Adoption Services referred a child, which Main Street referred to as "yam" to Claimant Mullins. 9. Scott and Tracey Mullins were fingerprinted for an FBI Criminal Records backgr6und check in connection with the application to USCIS. 10 Claimant Scott Mullins advised Main Street that he had one very old DUI charge, Which had been expunged from his criminal records by Court Order. 11. Nina Heller of Main Street Adoption emailed Scott Mullins that Main Street has had other families with a DUI in the past and "it was not a problem in Guatemala". (Cl imant's Exhibit No. 5) 12. Common Sense Adoption Services issued an approved Adoptive Family Profile, d ted December 21, 2006, which provided in part on page 6 that 2 i 717-243-6456, SAIDIS SHUFF FLOWER 499 P03/08 JUN 16 '08 06:28 "Pennsylvania I State Police Criminal background checks were completed for each applicant on October 6, 2006, no criminal record is indicated in these reports"n ChildLine Reports were completed for each applicant on October 22, 2006, and show no record for Either applicant -When questioned, Scott indicated he has no prior criminal history and has never been arrested or convicted of a crime. He further indicated that he has no history of substance abuse, sexual abuse, child abuse or dorrlestic violence. 13. On or about December 19, 2006, Scott Mullins responded in an email message to Heller with the following words: "That's good to hear. We were extremely womled that it would jeopardize what we were trying to do. We would like to go ahead with Liam, although we are still working on our bank financing. Is it possible to hold him for us until we get the money? Our bank has informed us that it will probably go through in the next week or so... " 14. On the same day Nina Heller emailed back, stating "(i)t is not a problem with Giatemala, so do not worry! ..is it possible to deposit $2, 000 so we can let them know in Guatemala? We will (wait) for the rest of the first payment next week. Let me know if you have the adoption agreement or would like Bob to email it to you again. " 15 Claimant Mullins subsequently executed a contract with Main Street Adoption as the placing Agency on December 22, 2006_ The Agreement had been prepared b Main Street Adoption Service. (Claimant Exhibit 7). 3 717-243-6486, SA I D I S SHUFF FLOWER 4 ?y f '0410H JUN it) eiti YJb . ?7 i 1 On page 3 of the Agreement, is contained the following provision: "The Adoptive Family shall comply with the following: Adoptive Family agroes to disclose to Main Street Adoption Service prior to the signing of this agreement any of the following: adminal charges (whether prosecuted or not) ... Failure to disclose any of these events is terns for immediate termination of the agreement and loss of any paid fees. " 17. Claimant Scott Mullins disclosed to Respondent Main Street that he had one old' DUI, which he told them had been expunged from the criminal record by an Order of Court. 18. Main Street Adoption Service has never formally terminated the Agreement. 19. Although Respondent Main Street Adoption Services believe that Claimants inforrined Erin Chick about one old DUI, which he represented had been expunged from 'his criminal record by Court Order, he did not disclose that he had a second DUI, nor that he had been incarcerated for 90 days (with work release). 20 On January 18, 2007, Tracey Mullins forwarded an email transmission to Nina Heller (Claimant's Exhibit #9) memorializing a conversation she had with Erin Chick two days earlier. 21. Main Street Adoption Service forwarded information on the Mullins to Guatemala, long with some of the documents included in the Home Study and information relati g to income, medical history and employment. 4 i 717-243-6486' SAIDIS SHUFF FLOWER 499 P05/OH JUN 16 108 06:29 2?. On February 12, 2007, Main Street forwarded a medical report on baby Liam (Claimant's Exhibit #11). 23_ In February of 2007, Claimant Mullins received a response from the U_ S. Deportment of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Services, reporting that the FBI check had revealed two separate DUI's, one in 1993 and one in 1998, noting that this was not reported by Claimant Mullins in his application, and requesting court records on both charges within 12 weeks, along with a detailed explanation (Claimant's Exhibit #12 and Respondent's Exhibit #3). The parties stipulate to the admissibility of this report. 24. The document forwarded by USCIS made clear that a criminal background was not dispositive of the 1-600A application, but that an explanation had to be provided where erroneous information had been utilized, and that the Director was empowered to attempt to resolve such issues by working with the prospective parents, the Hdme Study preparer, and the Agency making the recommendation. The underlying concern was the protection of any orphan being brought to the United States. 26. Based upon the unresolved issues with USCIS, Robert McClenaghan advised the Mullins not to travel to Guatemala 2 On February 27, 2007, Erin Chick wrote a letter to the Mullins (Claimant's Exhibit #13) requesting documentation concerning Scott Mullin's criminal record and a meeting. The parties stipulate to the admissibility of this letter. 5 717-243-6486 I SA I D I S SHUFF FLOWER 4y9 10b/0H JUN I b ' etj eb : Z7 2?. Robert McClenaghan advised Scott Mullins to disclose his full criminal record to the USC1S. 28. Scott Mullins offered a three page explanation of the incomplete disclosure of his criminal record (Claimant's Exhibit #15. Respondent's Exhibit #4) acknowledging that "My decision not to disclose these charges was driven mainly by feelings of embarrassment for my past behavior and were certainly not meant to deceive anyone, although in hindsight, I did, and I apologize. " 29. Claimant Mullins did speak by telephone with representatives of Respondent Malin Street Adoption and raised the possibility of getting another Home Study performed by a different Agency. Main Street suggested Claimant release baby Liam since the criminal record issues were not at that time resolved. Main Street assured Claimant's that if they obtained USCIS approval, they would continue to work with them in an attempt to complete a Guatemalan Adoption. 30. Claimant Mullins did forward a letter dated April 3, 2007, (Claimant's Exhibit #17) acknowledging that "we agree and understand that the best course of action is to place Liam with another family." 31. On or about April 10, 2007, Claimants transmitted a letter to Martha Jones at Common Sense Adoption Services (Claimant's Exhibit #16). 32. On May 2, 2007, Martha L. Jones of Common Sense Adoption Services sent a 1 tter to Claimant (Claimant's Exhibit No. 19) referencing the Mullins "unwillingness t provide the information we requested in order to complete a 6 717-243-6486 SAIDIS SHUFF FLOWER 499 P07/0-C' JUN 16 '00 0b: JIJ favorable findi?'g for your Adoption Home Study" and denying Claimant's a favorable Home Study. the parties stipulate the admissibility of this Exhibit. 33. On June 21, 2007, the USCIS issued a "Notice of Denial" (Claimant's Exhibit #22) citing the fact that on May 8, 2007, Common Sense submitted an addendum which denied the approval of the Mullins as adoptive parents- The USCiS letter characterized the addendum submitted by Common Sense, in part, with the following language: "(t)he addendum indicates that you failed to fully disclose an elements of history of alcohol abuse and your criminal history. CSAS concluded that you and your spouse exhibited a pattern of deception during the entire Home Study process that challenged your veracity." The notice of denial advised Claimants that they had the right to appeal within thirty days. 341. On July 25, 2007, Claimant's sent a certified letter to Robert G. McClenanghan, c/o Main Street Adoption Service (Claimant's Exhibit #24) advising him of the USC18 notice of denial. 35. On July 27, 2007, Main Street Adoption Service wrote to Claimant Mullins (Claimaint Exhibit #25) advising them that some information they were requesting was hot in Main Street's possession and acknowledging being advised of Claimant's retenltion of an immigration attorney and attempts to work through Senator Spector's office- 36. By letter of September 5, 2007, (Claimant's Exhibit #28) Main Street wrote to Claimants declining a refund of fees paid on the grounds of breach of the agreement, for failing to fully disclose criminal history, and for breach of the 7 717-243-5496 SAIDIS SHUFF FLOWER 499 POH/LIH JUN I b '0B bb :.5b agreement to provide all necessary documents to conduct legal procedures in a foreign country, specifically the failure to successfully process the Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition (1-600x) with USCIS. John Kerr, Counsel for Claimants James D. Flower, Jr., Counsel for Respondents i 'a r . ^ ^ 7 1 demand far arbitration, and we have in the file a prehearing 2 memorandum by the claimant submitted by Mr. Kerr dated May 3 18th, 2008. And respondents submitted an arbitration 4 memorandum dated, no, not dated. But there is .a 5 respondent's arbitration memorandum. There is also a joint 6 stipulation of facts. Is that agreed upon jointly? 7 MR. KERR: Yes. 8 THE ARBITRATOR: Both parties? 9 MR. FLOWER: Yes. 10 THE ARBITRATOR: And I have been provided by 11 cover letter of May 8th a list of Claimant's Exhibits 1 12 through 28, not marked but submitted, which I presume will 13 he marked. 14 MR. KERR: They are marked -- 15 THE ARBITRATOR: Okay. 16 MR. KERR: -- Claimant's 1 through 28. 17 THE ARBITRATOR: Okay. Now, because this is 18 an arbitration and not a formal court proceeding, I. want the 19 attorneys and the parties to understand that, while we do it 20 here and use the rules of evidence, we will not be utilizing 21 as strict a courtroom procedure as one might expect in a 22 formal court proceeding. 23 I do expect that the attorneys and the 24 claimants ill try not to talk over each other and the ?_,? 25 respondent 3. If we can simply utilize ordinary rules of 46 1 a draft c? the home study, and that's where I raised the 2 concern. 3 MR. KERR: I believe this may be addressed in 4 the joint stipulation of facts. 5 THE ARBITRATOR: Right, it is. You both 6 signed the joint stipulation of facts. 7 MR. KERR: Correct. B MR. FLOWER: Yes. 9 THE ARBITRATOR: Okay. Go ahead. 10 BY MR. KERR: 11 Q. So on December 22nd, you and your wife signed 12 this agreement. With all these red flags that you've talked j 13 about, what led you to sign this agreement? 14 A. Within this agreement and documents that they 15 gave us, specifically the list of services, it states that 16 Main Street. will supervise our home study. It states that 17 they will make sure that the home study is completed by a 18 clinical social -- a licensed clinical social worker. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. There were several things in that list of 21 services that attracted us, in addition to seeing the baby. 22 Q. Let me just stop you there a for a minute -- 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. -- because we haven't introduced that exhibit _? 25 yet. 97 MR. KERR: No other witnesses. Do I need to 2 move the exhibits since they're not objected to? 3 MR. FLOWER: They're not objected to. 4 THE ARBITRATOR: We'll consider in evidence 5 Claimant's Exhibits 1 through 28. Without objection? 6 MR. FLOWER: No objection. 7 (Claimant's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 28 were 8 received in evidence.) 9 THE ARBITRATOR: Then the joint stipulation of 10 facts is agreed to by both sides? 11 MR. FLOWER: It is. 12 THE ARBITRATOR: It consists of 59 stipulated y 13 facts, as I understand it. 14 MR. KERR: Yes, sir. 15 (Mr. Flower nods his head.) 16 THE ARBITRATOR: It's your case. 17 MR. FLOWER: I would call Mr. McClenaghan. 18 THE ARBITRATOR: Off the record for just a 19 second. 20 (Off the record discussion.) 21 22 ROBERT MCCLENAGHAN, a witness in the 23 above-entit ed action, called as a witness by the 24 Respondents]hole and having been first duly sworn to testify the _) 25 truth,, the truth, and nothing but the truth in answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 i 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 124 THE ARBITRATOR: And is there anything in the i stipulation of facts as to refund? MR. FLOWER: I don't believe so. MR. KERR: Hold on one second. MR. FLOWER: Maybe that he requested a refund. MR. KERR: Nope. Hold on. THE ARBITRATOR: Request for an accounting of their funds and refund is in 59. MR. KERR: Yes. If you go to 43, respondents specifically stipulated that McClenaghan and Heller promise to refund the balance of fees. That is joint stipulation of facts 43. And 44 says consequently on April 3rd, the Mullins forwarded a letter releasing their reservational right. Sd I would argue they're estopped from even arguing this here today, because they've already stipulated that the opposite of what they're saying is true. MR. FLOWER: If 43 says that, that's my mistake. MR. KERR: Well, you had two weeks at least after I sOnt it to you and you agreed to it. MR. FLOWER: I had two weeks at least and then I sent you my revised. May I see the one-that's been sent? MR. KERR: This is one that your secretary, your pares egal e-mailed. I think you'll find that your paralegal may have sent the wrong one to triple A, and you 125 1 ended up stipulating to the wrong one but you clearly 2 stipulated',. 3 MR. FLOWER: 43, this is definitely not the 4 right stipulation of facts. 5 MR. KERR: Well, but, I mean, you've 6 already told -- 7 THE ARBITRATOR: It's the only one I've got. B MR. KERR: You've already told the arbitrator 9 twice when he asked that you have agreed to this. 10 MR. FLOWER: What -- I didn't have that one in 11 front of me. I had the one that I sent. 12 MR. KERR: Well, I never received from counsel 13 his. 14 THE ARBITRATOR: The only one -- 15' MR. KERR: He sent back my original one, and 16 he said that he agreed to it. 17 THE ARBITRATOR: The only one that I have is 16 the one that in 43 says to encourage them to do, comma, 19 McClenaghan and Heller promise to refund the balance of fees 20 or would refer another child to them when and if a home 21 study was completed and the Visa for the child was issued. 22 MR. KERR: That's the one actually filed in 23 Rhode Islan at the triple A office. 24 MR. FLOWER: My secretary sent the wrong one f_? 25 obviously to triple A. 126 1 , THE ARBITRATOR: Okay. All right. Cross. 2 CROSS -EXAMIN.A.TION 3 BY MR. KERR: 1 4 Q. Mr. McClenaghan, as you sit here today, can 5 you tell me here Liam is? 6 A. with his mother, as far as I know. 7 Q. Are you still paying foster fees? 8 A. No. 9 Q. When did that end? Because you just testified 10 during direct , that you're in arrears because you're still 11 paying foster ees? 12 A. don't know the exact date or month. 13 Q. B t you will agree, in your direct testimony, 14 you said you we e still paying foster fees? 15 A. C you clarify the question? 16 Q. i My,'question is, where is Liam? And, secondly, 17 when did you stop paying foster fees? 18 A. I don't know the answer to the second 19 question. 20 Q. How much in foster fees have you paid? ,21 A. I ddn't have that answer. 22 Q. well'„ you testified that you're in arrears on 23 the Mullins' account, so I assume you must have checked that 24 out before you camel to this hearing? 25 A. You assumed wrong. Y"? ?' j i..... c? ..?_.? e? .? ?' °(' ? -, G c. r,, _-t ` y S`}? ? ?? .__.t +,1? -_- ?3 ? ?- %?? .? ?,?1 JUN 3 0 2008 ie L Main Street Adoption IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE Services, Inc., CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioner : V. NO. 2008- 3 $'$1 c1ti-. ?cn?, David S. Mullins and Tracey L. Mullins, : Respondent RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW this day of 2008, upon consideration of the Petition to Set Aside the Award of an Arbitrator, it is hereby directed that a Rule is issued on the Respondent to show cause, if any it has, why this Court shall not: 1. Vacate the Award of the Arbitrator dated May 29, 2008; 2. Declare the Stipulation and Award null and void to prevent a manifest injustice; 3. Remand the matter back to the American Arbitration Association with instructions to proceed with arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules for Adoption Agencies and Related Services Disputes and to appoint a new Arbitrator. FLOWER ? LV DS" 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 4. Such relief as your Honorable court deems just and equitable. Rule returnable 20 days after service. Service to be made on , Esq. by certified mail, return receipt requested. /? R v th 7,, MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICES,: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF INC., : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFF V. DAVID S. MULLINS AND TRACEY L. MULLINS, DEFENDANTS 08-3882 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this G day of August, 2008, a hearing and argument shall be conducted on the petition to set aside the award of an arbitrator at 3:00 p.m., Wednesday, September 3, 2008, in Courtroom Number 2, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By they,00rt, B. Bayley, J. bert C. Saidis, Esquire For Plaintiff ,.,df8hn M. Kerr, Esquire For Defendants sal J? `•'. 00 ?? MAIN STREET ADOPTION SERVICES, INC., PLAINTIFF V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAVID S. MULLINS AND TRACEY L. MULLINS, DEFENDANTS 08-3882 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of August, 2008, upon agreement of counsel, the hearing and argument currently scheduled for September 3, 2008, is cancelled and rescheduled to commence at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, October 9, 2008, in Courtroom Number 2, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. J'obert C. Saidis, Esquire For Plaintiff ,dohn M. Kerr, Esquire For Defendants sal -ZOO J >- , "D . cr. _zr C\j ILL ._..i Co 1 ? Z C t .,,y ..?