Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-7075Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Pa. Supreme Court ID No. 66266 Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown and Calhoon, P. C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Telephone (717) 540-9170 Fax (717) 540-5481 Attorney For Plaintiff JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff 7- DOCKET NO: 4 - "7 ° Sd V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA : CORNETT : CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY Defendant : CUSTODY COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: 1. The Plaintiff is James Estil Cornett, III, who currently resides at 542 Lucinda Lane Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 2. The Defendant is Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett, whose current whereabouts are unknown to Plaintiff. However her legal address is 542 Lucinda Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. Upon information and belief, Defendant and the children may be temporarily residing with her friend, Luda Druker at her home located at 301 Fried Drive, Dauphin, PA, or at a woman's shelter in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff has neither seen nor heard from his wife or his children since Sunday, November 30, 2008. 3. Plaintiff seeks primary physical custody and shared legal custody of the parties' two(2) minor child(ren), James ("Jay") Estil Cornett, IV, born May 21, 2005 and Yekaterina ("Katya") Victoria Cornett, born May 20, 2007. 4. The children were not born out of wedlock. 5. The children are currently in the custody of Defendant whose present whereabouts are not known to the Defendant. 6. During the past five years the children have resided with the following persons and at the following addresses: Persons Address Dates Child/ren Both Parties 9813 Three Degree Road 5/21/05 - 9/2005 Jay Allison Park, PA 15101 Both Parties 542 Lucinda Lane 9/2005 - present Both children Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 7. The father of the children is James E. Cornett, III, who currently resides at 542 Lucinda Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050 8. The relationship of Plaintiff, James E. Cornett, Jr., to the children is that of father. The Plaintiff resided with the subject minor children and the Defendant until November 30, 2008 when Defendant took the children without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent to an undisclosed location. 9. The relationship of Defendant to the children is that of mother. Until November 30, 2008 the Defendant resided with the Plaintiff and the children. 10. Plaintiff has not participated as a party, witness, or otherwise in litigation concerning the custody of the said children. 11. Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the children pending in a Court of this Commonwealth. 12. Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the children or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the children. 13. The best interests and permanent welfare of the children will be served by granting the relief requested because the Plaintiff, the father of the children, is better suited to foster a stable home environment and relationship with the children. Moreover, the best interests and permanent welfare of the children will be served by granting the relief requested for the following reasons: a. On November 28, 2008, the Defendant threatened to kill herself in front of the Parties' minor child, Jay. Specifically, the Defendant took a kitchen knife, held it to her stomach, kissed Jay on the head and said "say goodbye to mommy" while Plaintiff and Jay watched in horror and disbelief. Plaintiff was able to get the knife away from Defendant before she harmed herself but not before the child was traumatized by his mother's action. b. On November 28, 2008, the Defendant used extreme profanity in front of both the children and beat Plaintiff about the head, face, arms, neck and back in front of both the children. C. On November 30, 2008, the Defendant took the children out into the cold without any coat or proper attire, placed them in the Parties' Toyota Sienna Van and drove away without properly securing the children in their car seats and without closing the left rear sliding door to the van next to where the parties' youngest child was seated. Defendant did not tell Plaintiff where she was going, nor has Defendant returned any of Plaintiff's telephone calls. Further, Defendant has not made any attempt to contact Defendant or to let him know where the children are or if they are safe since disappearing with them on November 30, 2008. d. Defendant lately fails to properly supervise the children preferring instead to play on the computer or watch television shows broadcast from Russia on the Internet. Consequently, the children are left unattended and on more than one occasion the parties' one year old daughter Katie is allowed to climb a full set of stairs which exposes her to risk of potentially fatal falls. e. Defendant has routinely left prescription medication where the children can get into same. In the spring of 2008, while Plaintiff was at the office and while Defendant was at home supposedly taking care of the children, the parties' son, Jay, ingested prescription diabetes medication that was prescribed for Defendant's mother and that Defendant had left on the kitchen counter. Jay had to be rushed to the Harrisburg Hospital where he was admitted overnight. f. Defendant (who is not a U.S. Citizen) took the children (who are U.S. Citizens) to visit her family in Russia in June 2008 and then threatened Plaintiff that she would not return with the children. Plaintiff was not able to get Defendant and the children home until September 4, 2008. During their stay in the Ukraine, Defendant placed the Parties' son in a full day daycare program and left the Parties' daughter with her mother so that Defendant could "socialize" with her friends. g. Defendant continues to threaten to take the children to Russia and "never return." h. The Defendant has a history of depression and has been treating with a psychologist for the past several months. The Defendant has been taking an undisclosed prescription medication that she brought home with her from Russia in September 2008. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant's manic episodes are exacerbated when she takes this medication. Plaintiff fears for the safety of his children because Defendant has been taking this medication while she is supposed to be caring for the children. j. The Defendant has recently been indulging in alcohol while caring for the. parties' children to the point where she "loses track of the children." 14. Each parent whose parental rights to the children have not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the children have been named as parties to this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that Your Honorable Court award primary physical custody and shared legal custody of the children to the Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted, Paige acdonald-Matthes, Esquire SERRATELLI, SCHIFFMAN, BROWN & CALHOON, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)540-9170 Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I, James E. Cornett, III verify that the statements made in the foregoing Custody Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: IZ IZ-)OV -t om *es E. Cornett, III 4 Q -' Q .../- Q r :.t_i L ._ -o { Ll r v Cv Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 66266 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN & CALHOON 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone (717) 540-9170 Facsimile (717) 540-5481 Attorney for Plaintiff JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :DOCKET NO: 2008- 7075 V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY Defendant PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, James Estil Cornett, III, by and through his counsel, Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown & Calhoon, P. C. and Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, and avers as follows: 1. Petitioner is James Estil Cornett, III, the Plaintiff in the above captioned custody action. He is an adult individual who currently reside at 542 Lucinda Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 2. Respondent, Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett, the Defendant in the above captioned custody action, is an adult individual whose present whereabouts are unknown and have been unknown to Petition since November 30, 2008. Prior to November 30, 2008, Respondent resided with the Petition and the parties' two minor children at 542 Lucinda Lane, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. Upon information and belief, the Respondent and the children may be temporarily residing with her friend, Luda Druker at her home located at 301 Fried Drive, Dauphin, PA, or at a women's "shelter" in the Carlisle area. She is the biological mother of the subject minor children, Jay Cornett (age 3) and Katya Cornett (age 18 months). She is not represented by counsel at this time. 3. The Respondent has a history of depression and has been treating with a psychologist for the past several months. 4. On November 30, 2008, the Respondent took the children out into the cold without any coats, proper attire, diapers or formula and placed them in the Parties' Toyota Sienna Van and drove away without properly securing the children in their car seats and without closing the left rear sliding door to the van next to where the parties' youngest child was seated. Respondent did not tell Petitioner where she was going, nor has Respondent returned any of Petitioner's telephone calls. Further, Respondent has not made any attempt to contact Petitioner or to let him know where the children are or if they are safe since disappearing with them on November 30, 2008. The only contact Petitioner has had is through Respondent's friend, Luda Druker, who has advised Petitioner that Respondent and the children are "on the move" going from one shelter to another. 5. On December 2, 2008, Petitioner contacted the Pennsylvania State Police to report that his children and wife were missing. During a meeting at Petitioner's home, Officer Massey of the Pennsylvania State Police, Carlisle Barracks attempted to telephone Respondent at the women's shelter that Respondent's friend had told Petitioner that Respondent was staying with the children. The woman who answered the phone at the "shelter" would not confirm to Officer Massey whether or not Respondent and the children were there. Officer Massey advised Petitioner to file the within Petition with the Court in order to locate his children and to insure their safety and proper care. 6. On November 28, 2008, the Respondent threatened to kill herself in front of the Parties' minor child, Jay. Specifically, the Respondent took a kitchen knife, held it to her stomach, kissed Jay on the head and said "say goodbye to mommy" while Petitioner and Jay watched in horror and disbelief. Petitioner was able to get the knife away from Respondent before she harmed herself but not before the child was traumatized by his mother's action. 7. The Respondent has been taking an undisclosed prescription medication that she brought home with her from Russia in September 2008. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that Respondent's manic episodes are exacerbated when she takes this medication. Petitioner fears for the safety of his children because Respondent has been taking this medication while she is supposed to be caring for the children. Moreover, the Respondent has recently been indulging in alcohol while caring for the parties' children to the point where she "loses track of the children." Petitioner is further concerned for the safety of his children since Respondent is an inexperienced driver and is apparently driving the children around in the parties' mini-van. Respondent has only had a driver's license for 3 years and during that time has never even driven to the East Shore. 9. Respondent (who is not a U.S. Citizen) took the children (who are U.S. Citizens) to visit her family in Russia in June 2008 and then threatened Petitioner that she would not return with the children. Petitioner was not able to get Respondent and the children home until September 4, 2008. During their stay in the Ukraine, Respondent placed the Parties' son in a full day daycare program and left the Parties' daughter with her mother so that Respondent could "socialize" with her friends. Respondent continues to threaten to take the children to Russia and "never return" and thus Petitioner reasonably fears for the safety of his children given Respondent's present mental state. 10. On December 3, 2008, this Honorable Court issued a Temporary Protection from Abuse Order in favor of Petitioner and the minor children. A Hearing on the Petitioner's PFA is currently scheduled for Friday, December 12, 2008. The undersigned counsel has been advised by the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office that they do not know whether they will be able to serve Respondent with the Temporary Order in the event that Respondent is in fact at a Women's Shelter as the Women's Shelter will not accept service due to the confidentiality of names. 11. Rule 1915.14 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, permit "at any time after commencement of the action, the court may on application or its own motion grant appropriate interim or special relief. The relief may include but is not limited to the award of temporary custody, partial custody or visitation; the issuance of appropriate process directing that a child or a party or person having physical custody of a child be brought before the court; and a direction that a person post security to appear with the child when directed by the court or to comply with any order of the court." 12. Petitioner seeks from this Honorable Court, an Order awarding him temporary legal and physical custody of the subject minor children, Jay Cornett and Katya Cornett, pending the Parties' participation in a custody conciliation conference in order to insure their safety and proper care. WHEREFORE, Petitioner, James E. Cornett, III, requests special relief from this Honorable Court, granting him temporary legal custody and primary physical custody over the minor children, James ("Jay") Estil Cornett, IV (DOB 5/21/05) and Yekaterina ("Katya") Victoria Cornett (DOB 5/20/07). Respectfully submitted, SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN & CALHOON e r ,ten ? - A a ,?oT_ Paige ?Ma donald-Matthes, Esquire Attorney No. 66266 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff N ERIFI _r 1,1011% ;t,t., t t'nt ,pit 111 .if ihol ,lie strucsrt.1de in lh f 1i,r Src Ups rs I[ i:or7x'ar, IE1 1 j1121 o -71 O 4 war. _ ? _ Iv JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT, ; DEFENDANT 08-7075 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of December, 2008, a hearing on the within petition for special relief shall be conducted at 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 12, 2008, in Courtroom Number 2, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. ?Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire For Plaintiff /ena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett sal CIEs #-^a ILL 12?/S?DS C N E.,) y f JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2008-7075 CIVIL ACTION LAW OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday, December 08, 2008 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before John J. Mangan, Jr., Esq. the conciliator, at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Friday, January 16, 2009 at 1:00 PM 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/ ohn . Man an r. Es . Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 I d b -'? zl-ujo ..•- W. JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT, DEFENDANT 08-7075 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5 day of December, 2008, following a hearing, the petition for special relief by James Cornett for temporary legal and physical custody of James Cornett, IV, born May 21, 2005, and Yekaterina Cornett, born May 20, 2007, pending an order following a conciliation conference on his petition for legal and primary physical custody, IS DENIED. However, pending an order following a conciliation conference, IT IS ORDERED that James Cornett III, has shared legal custody of James and Yekaterina, and shall have both children every Friday from 6:00 p.m. to every Monday at 6:00 p.m., and on Christmas, December 25, 2008, from 2:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m.' The father shall pick up and deliver the children from where the mother is currently residing or at another location if notified by the mother. Neither the mother nor the father may move James and Yekaterina from any location in either Dauphin or Cumberland County without prior agreement of the parties or further order of court. By the Edgar B-Bayley, J. ' Having heard the testimony of the mother concerning the incident on Friday, November 28, 2008, which incident she testified forms the basis for the current allegations against the father filed with Cumberland County Children and Youth, and notwithstanding the safety plan put in place by Cumberland County Children and Youth, this order shall supersede that safety plan. LU -A- i- ?Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire For James Cornett, III ace D'Alo, Esquire For Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett :sal g", 9cFw 2£i Copes Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Supreme Court I. D. No. 66266 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN & CALHOON 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone (717) 540-9170 Facsimile (717) 540-5481 Attorney for Plaintiff JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III : IN THE COU T OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLA D COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff :DOCKET NO 2008- 7075 V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT : CIVIL ACTI N -CUSTODY Defendant AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, James Estil Cornett, III, ?y and through his counsel, Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown & Calhoon, P. C. and Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, and avers as follows: 1. On December 15, 2008 this Honorable Court iskued an Order granting Plaintiff shared legal custody and partial physical custody of the Parties two rr?inor children, James Cornett, IV, born May 21, 2005 and Yekaterina Cornett, born May 20, 200', pending the Custody Conciliation Conference scheduled in this matter for January 16, 2009 purskant to the following interim schedule: IT IS ORDERED that James Cornett, III, has sha ed legal custody of James and Yekaterina, and shall have both children eve Friday from 6:00 p.m. to every Monday at 6:00 p.m., and on Christmas, De ember 25, 2008 from 2:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. 2. The December 15, 2008 Order further prev?nts either party from removing the children from their present location. Specifically, the Order Mates as follows: The father shall pick up and deliver the children (from where the mother is currently residing or at another location if notified mother nor the father may move James and Yekat either Dauphin or Cumberland County without pri or further order of court. 3. On Tuesday December 16, 2008, a mere one discovered that Defendant had left the residence, Dauphin, she was residing with the children during the Hearing on this during a telephone conversation with Defendant's residence in Dauphin, where Defendant had testified she 4. There was no reason for the Defendant to 5. Plaintiff asks this Court to take judicial notice warning issued by the National Weather Service for the December 16, 2008 beginning at 1:OOPM and ending at 1: Plaintiff would further ask the court to take judicial notice December 16, 2008 and midnight December 17, 2008, this was coated with a layer of ice. Finally, Plaintiff respectfully the testimony from the December 12, 2008 Hearing that ,y the mother. Neither the Tina from any location in r agreement of the parties after the Court's Order, Plaintiff County, PA, where she testified ber 12, 2008. Plaintiff discovered Luda Druker, the owner of the residing. her current residence. fact that there was a winter storm and Cumberland County areas on on Wednesday, December 17, 2008. the fact that between 11:OOAM on received 3.5 inches of snow which that this Honorable Court recall is an inexperienced driver, and is not the legal owner of the van in which she and/or her friends Ore currently transporting the children. 6. Plaintiff has been unable to confirm where his children are safe or being properly cared for by Defendant. 7. Plaintiff continues to have reasonable fears light of Defendant's recent actions and respectfully Plaintiff temporary shared legal custody and primary children pending the Custody Conciliation Conference are and is unsure whether his ing the safety of his children in that this Honorable Court award custody of the parties two minor in this matter. 9. Rule 1915.14 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civ 1 Procedure, permit "at any time after commencement of the action, the court may on application r its own motion grant appropriate interim or special relief. The relief may include but is not limi ed to the award of temporary custody, partial custody or visitation; the issuance of appropriate proc ss directing that a child or a party or person having physical custody of a child be brought before t e court; and a direction that a person post security to appear with the child when directed by the co rt or to comply with any order of the court." 10. This matter has been assigned the Honorable 11. Plaintiff has had to incur additional counsel fe result of filing this Petition. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this return of the children to Plaintiff, award Plaintiff temporal custody pending the conciliation conference in this matter, an relief as is proper and just. Respectfully st SERRATELLI Paige Macdonald-Matt Attorney No. 66266 2080 Linglestown Roa Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Attorneys for Plaintiff gar B. Bayley. and costs as a direct and proximate lonorable Court, order the immediate shared legal and primary physical further award Plaintiff all such other BROWN & CALHOON u-MU s, Esquire VERIFICATN I, James E. Cornett, M verify that the statements made i Contempt And Petition For Emergency Special Relief are true statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. falsification to authorities. Date: a + 1 E. the foregoing Motion For Order Of and correct. I understand that false ?. Section 4904, relating to unworn t, III I, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, counsel for the certify that on this 18th day of December, 2008, I served a Relief upon the person(s) indicated below by Facsimile and prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and addressed as Grace E. D'Alo, Esquir MidPenn Legal Service 401 E. Louther Street Suite 103 Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-8026 in the above captioned matter, of the foregoing Petition for Special ted States First Class Mail, postage -Matthes, Esquire ?'? ?` ?`°? r - c".? ?, ?.s ? ? .-L'7 `r7 ? j?Ot i ? t'?? ? = ;? ? ? T? .. ? 5 i ?, .. { ' X!\ ? \ ?...J ?? Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Supreme Court I. D. No. 66266 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN & CALHOON 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone (717) 540-9170 Facsimile (717) 540-5481 Attorney for Plaintiff JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff :DOCKET N : 2008- 7075 V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT : CIVIL ACTI N -CUSTODY Defendant TION FO AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, James Estil Cornett, III, py and through his counsel, Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown & Calhoon, P. C. and Paige Macdonald-Nlatthes, Esquire, and avers as follows: 1. On December 15, 2008 this Honorable Court is1ued an Order granting Plaintiff shared legal custody and partial physical custody of the Parties two minor children, James Cornett, IV, born May 21, 2005 and Yekaterina Cornett, born May 20, 200', pending the Custody Conciliation Conference scheduled in this matter for January 16, 2009 pursuant to the following interim schedule: IT IS ORDERED that James Cornett, III, has sh ed legal custody of James and Yekaterina, and shall have both children eve Friday from 6:00 p.m. to every Monday at 6:00 p.m., and on Christmas, December 25, 2008 from 2:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. A copy of the December 15, 2008 Order of Court is hereto and is incorporated herein as Exhibit "A". 2. The December 15, 2008 Order further children from their present location. Specifically, the Order either party from removing the as follows: The father shall pick up and deliver the children from where the mother is currently residing or at another location if notified by the mother. Neither the mother nor the father may move James and Yeka rina from any location in either Dauphin or Cumberland County without pri r agreement of the parties or further order of court. 3. On Tuesday December 16, 2008, a mere one discovered that Defendant had left the residence, Dauphin, she was residing with the children during the Hearing on this during a telephone conversation with Defendant's residence in Dauphin, where Defendant had testified she Plaintiff that Defendant "might have gone back to a "dissatisfied" with the Court's December 15, 2008 Order. was further corroborated by another friend of Defendant, 4. There was no reason for the Defendant to children to the "women's shelter" as the Plaintiff has not has not violated the modified Protection from Abuse Order. 5. Plaintiff asks this Court to take judicial notice warning issued by the National Weather Service for the December 16, 2008 beginning at 1:OOPM and ending at 1 Plaintiff would further ask the court to take judicial notice December 16, 2008 and midnight December 17, 2008, this after the Court's Order, Plaintiff County, PA, where she testified 12, 2008. Plaintiff discovered Luda Druker, the owner of the residing. Ms. Druker suggested to 's shelter" because Defendant was information provided by Ms. Druker Wilcox. her current residence and take the stalked, harassed the Defendant and fact that there was a winter storm and Cumberland County areas on on Wednesday, December 17, 2008. the fact that between 11:OOAM on received 3.5 inches of snow which was coated with a layer of ice. Finally, Plaintiff respectfully r4quests that this Honorable Court recall the testimony from the December 12, 2008 Hearing that Defe not the legal owner of the van in which she and/or her friends is an inexperienced driver, and is currently transporting the children. 6. Plaintiff has been unable to confirm where hi? children are. 7. Plaintiff has attempted to contact Defendant t the "women's shelter" in Carlisle" where Ms. Druker suggested that Defendant and the children might be. Due to their "policy" the women's shelter in Carlisle will not confirm that Defendant d/or the children are currently there and thus Plaintiff has no way of knowing whether his Defendant's deliberate and willful refusal to follow the unreasonable placed the children in harm's way. 8. Defendant's removal of the children from ren are safe or where they are. s December 15, 2008 Order has Dauphin County, Pennsylvania without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, and further without1prior approval of the court, constitutes a contempt of the December 15, 2008 Order. 9. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that of this Court based on the following: a. Recent information received from Wilcox; b. Information continued in defense counsel's has indeed left Dauphin, Dauphin County, Pe and/or seeking approval from this Honorable C. Based on Defendant's history of taking off will continue to violate the Order is friends Luda Druker and April letter that suggests that Defendant vania, without advising Plaintiff t; and the children without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent. 10. On December 16, 2008 Defendant's 1 Grace D'Alo, sent a letter to the undersigned counsel stating the custody exchange on Decerr. ber 19, 2008 would take place at the Carlisle Borough Police Department and that if Plaintiff was of there by 6:15PM her client "would leave with the children". 11. The December 15, 2008 Order does not state at if the Plaintiff is not at the Police Department by 6:15PM that he forfeits his partial physical cu tody. Accordingly, the fait accompli set forth in defense counsel's December 16, 2008 letter is w# out support in law or in fact. 12. Plaintiff continues to have reasonable fears concerning the safety of his children in light of Defendant's recent actions and respectfully requests at this Honorable Court not only cite Defendant for contempt, but further award Plaintiff sole phys cal and legal custody of the parties two minor children pending the Custody Conciliation Conferenc scheduled in this matter. 13. Plaintiff has had to incur additional counsel fees and costs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's willful failure to comply with the Dec mber 15, 2008 Order of Court and a request for additional sanctions in the form of an award o attorneys' fees to Plaintiff is hereby requested. 14. Based on the representations set forth in defe. dated December 16, 2008, coupled with the undersigned cour the written motion would be filed, it is presumed that defense 15. This matter has been assigned the Honorable WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that h contempt of the December 15, 2008 Order, order the immed award Plaintiff shared legal and primary physical custody per counsel's letter to the undersigned 's statements to defense counsel that does not concur in this motion. B. Bayley. Honorable Court find Defendant in return of the children to Plaintiff, the conciliation conference in this matter, and further award Plaintiff all such other relief as is and just. Respectfully submitted SERRATELLI SCHIF MAN BROWN & CALHOON Paige Macdonald-Matt es, Esquire Attorney No. 66266 2080 Linglestown Roa Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Attorneys for Plaintiff VERIFICAT ON I, James E. Cornett, M verify that the statements made the foregoing Motion For Order Of Contempt And Petition For Emergency Special Relief are tru and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C S. Section 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: E III F I, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, counsel for the certify that on this 18th day of December, 2008, I served a Contempt upon the person(s) indicated below by Fac postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and addressed Grace E. D'Alo, Esquir MidPenn Legal Service 401 E. Louther Street Suite 103 Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-8026 Paige intiff in the above captioned matter, of the foregoing Motion for Order of and United States First Class Mail, follows: uA IW"" H Matthes, Esquire JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT, DEFENDANT 08-7075 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this .S day of the petition for special relief by James Cornett for of James Cornett, IV, born May 21, 2005, and Ye pending an order following a conciliation conference r, 2008, following a hearing, rary legal and physical custody Cornett, born May 20, 2007, his petition for legal and primary physical custody, IS DENIED. However, pending an o?der following a conciliation conference, IT IS ORDERED that James Cornett III, h and Yekaterina, and shall have both children every Fri Monday at 6:00 p.m., and on Christmas, December 2; p.m.' The father shall pick up and deliver the children currently residing or at another location if notified by tt the father may move James and Yekaterina from any Cumberland County without prior agreement of the pe By the shared legal custody of James y from 6:00 p.m. to every 2008, from 2:00 p.m. until 7:00 m where the mother is mother. Neither the mother nor on in either Dauphin or or further order of court. Edgar JB. Bayley, J. ' Having heard the testimony of the mother concerninc November 28, 2008, which incident she testified form; allegations against the father filed with Cumberland C and notwithstanding the safety plan put in place by Ct and Youth, this order shall supersede that safety plan the incident on Friday, the basis for the current unty Children and Youth, nberland County Children Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire For James Cornett, III Grace D'Alo, Esquire For Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett :sal to ,: srt ?e ,?f nrk JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT, DEFENDANT 08-7075 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this q day of December, 2008, the within petition for special relief IS DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING. By the Edgar B. Bayley, J. ,jv*a"ige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire For James Cornett, I I I `race D'Alo, Esquire For Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett :sal a- i.. Sit:.... LL. z'S L j tt d ° L""? JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT, ; DEFENDANT 08-7075 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this .--? day of December, 2008, the within petition of plaintiff to hold defendant in contempt, IS DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING.' By the C /Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire For James Cornett, III Edgar B. Bayley, J. Grace D'Alo, Esquire For Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett i sal `? j ?£S' /rtZ I La l212 3168 'Plaintiff misconstrues the court order of December 15, 2008. The order does not, as represented by plaintiff, prevent a party from moving the children from their present location. The order prevents either party from moving the children from outside of either Dauphin or Cumberland County without prior agreement of the parties or further order of the court. LLJ t _ L- C, :s ? Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Supreme Court I. D. No. 66266 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN & CALHOON 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone (717) 540-9170 Facsimile (717) 540-5481 Attorney for Plaintiff JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff :DOCKET NO: 2008- 7075 V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT : CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY Defendant PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER OF CONTEMPT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff/Movant, James Estil Cornett, III (hereinafter "Plaintiff'), by and through his counsel, Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown & Calhoon, P. C. and Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, and avers as follows: 1. Procedural History 1. Plaintiff filed his Complaint for Custody in the above captioned matter on December 2, 2008. 2. On December 5, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Special Relief in regard to the above captioned matter. 3. Defendant was served with both a copy of the Complaint for Custody and the Petition for Special Relief on December 9, 2008 via process server. A true and correct copy of the Affidavit of Service is attached hereto and is marked as Exhibit "A."1 4. By Order of Court dated December 8, 2008, a conciliation conference was scheduled in this matter before John Mangin, Esquire for January 16, 2009. Copies of the Conciliation Conference Order were served by Court on all Parties. 5. A hearing was held before this Honorable Court on December 12, 2008 concerning inter alia, Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief. Defendant appeared for this hearing and was represented at this hearing by Grace D'Alo who specifically entered her appearance on the record on behalf of Defendant in the above captioned custody proceeding. 6. On December 15, 2008 this Honorable Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff shared legal custody and partial physical custody of the Parties' two minor children, James Cornett, IV, born May 21, 2005 and Yekaterina Cornett, born May 20, 2007, pending the Custody Conciliation Conference scheduled in this matter for January 16, 2009 pursuant to the following interim schedule: IT IS ORDERED that James Cornett, III, has shared legal custody of James and Yekaterina, and shall have both children every Friday from 6:00 p.m. to every Monday at 6:00 p.m., and on Christmas, December 25, 2008 from 2:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. A copy of the December 15, 2008 Order of Court is attached hereto and is incorporated herein as Exhibit "B". (Emphasis added). As indicated by Exhibit "B" attached hereto, copies of the Court's December 15, 2008 Order were issued to both Plaintiff's and Defendant's Counsel. 7. The December 15, 2008 Order further prevents either party from removing the children from their present location. Specifically, the Order states as follows: 1 Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court also take judicial notice of the fact that the process server who served Defendant, Mike Vishnesky, testified at the December 12, 2008 hearing concerning his service of the Complaint and Petition on Defendant. The father shall pick up and deliver the children from where the mother is currently residing or at another location if notified by the mother. Neither the mother nor the father may move James and Yekaterina from any location in either Dauphin or Cumberland County without prior agreement of the parties or further order of court. II. Facts Supporting Motion for Order of Contempt By Order of Court dated December 8, 2008, a conciliation conference was held on January 16, 2009. Defendant failed to appear at the Conciliation Conference, as did her counsel, despite the fact that they both had actual notice of the same. 9. On Friday, January 16, 2009, Plaintiff returned home from Court where he was accosted by Defendant and Defendant's mother who demanded to know where Plaintiff had been. When Plaintiff advised Defendant that he had been at court attending the conciliation conference pursuant to the Court Order and further reminded Defendant that he had specifically told her of her need to be in Court during their conversation on January 15, 2009, Defendant became enraged and threatened to kill Plaintiff. Defendant's mother, Varvara Ledentsova, took Defendant's threat one step farther and picked up a shovel and swung the shovel at Plaintiff. These events took place in front of the minor children. 10. On Friday, January 16, 2009, Plaintiff contacted the State Police to advise them of the situation in his home. When the police arrived, Plaintiff showed the police copies of all relevant documents, including but not limited to this Honorable Court's Orders of December 15, 2008, a copy of his Deed to his residence, a copy of the Parties' Pre-Nuptial Agreement, and a copy of Plaintiff's recently filed Motion for Exclusive Possession. The police left the residence shortly thereafter and told both parties to "cool off'. 11. Following the departure of the police, Plaintiff discovered that Plaintiff had severed all the wires and cables connecting his computer to the internet. Plaintiff also discovered that Plaintiff had taken some hand guns from the safe in the residence. Plaintiff again contacted the State Police and the State Police were able to recover the hand guns. 12. On Saturday, January 17, 2009, Defendant contacted a "friend" and surreptiously took the Parties' minor children, to an undisclosed location despite the fact that the present Order for Custody clearly states that Plaintiff has custody of the children from Friday through Monday. Plaintiff has not heard from his children or Defendant since that date. 13. Apparently, before leaving with the children on January 17, 2009, Defendant and/or mother took with them two gallon containers of vodka and rum from Plaintiff's residence. 14. When Plaintiff contacted the State Police on Saturday, January 17, 2009 to tell them what had happened and to seek their assistance in the enforcement of the Order, the police advised Plaintiff that they were "tired of responding to Parties" and that Plaintiff "would have to contact the Court to get the Court to enforce its Custody Order" and further that "it was not their job to enforce custody orders." 15. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the children are in grave danger of being taken out of the country by Defendant who is currently in possession of the children's passports. 16. Upon information and belief, Defendant's mother (who is only in this country on a temporary visa and who does not speak a word of English) is with Defendant. This is the same woman who carelessly left her diabetes medication out in the open such that the Parties' minor son, Jay, was able to get his hands on the same and accidently ingested the same in May of 2008. Plaintiff asks this Court to take judicial notice of the testimony that was given at the December 12, 2008 concerning this particular individual and incident. 17, Plaintiff has been unable to confirm where his children are despite his repeated and numerous requests to find Defendant and/or contact her by cell phone. 18. Defendant's removal of the children from their home during Plaintiff's period of custody constitutes a contempt of the December 15, 2008 Order. 19. Defendant's removal of the children from Cumberland County, Pennsylvania without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, and further without prior approval of the court, constitutes a contempt of the December 15, 2008 Order. 20. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant will continue to violate the Order of this Court based on the following: a. Recent information received from Defendant's friends Luda Druker and April Wilcox; and b. Based on Defendant's history of taking off with the children without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent. 21. Plaintiff continues to have reasonable fears concerning the safety of his children in light of Defendant's recent actions and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court not only cite Defendant for contempt, but further award Plaintiff sole physical and shared legal custody of the parties two minor children, with Defendant to have supervised visitation with the children pending the Custody Trial to be scheduled in this matter. 22. Plaintiff has had to incur additional counsel fees and costs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's willful failure to comply with the December 15, 2008 Order of Court and a request for additional sanctions in the form of an award of attorneys' fees to Plaintiff is hereby requested. 23. Defendant's counsel has been contacted regarding the present Motion for Order of Contempt and defense counsel has advised the undersigned counsel that she does not concur in this Motion. 24. This matter has been assigned the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that his Honorable Court find Defendant in contempt of the December 15, 2008 Order, order the immediate return of the children to Plaintiff and award Plaintiff primary physical custody of the Parties' minor children pending the custody trial in this matter, directing that Defendant only have supervised visitation with the children pending further Order of Court, directing that Defendant immediately surrender the children's passports to the Cumberland County Prothonotary and further award Plaintiff all such other relief as is proper and just including counsel fees and costs associated with the filing and litigation of this Motion in an amount not less than $1,500. Respectfully submitted, SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN & CALHOON Date: January 22, 2009 -?k,fV" Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Attorney No. 66266 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Attorneys for Plaintiff VIER FICATION I, James T. Cornett, III verify tbat the statements made in the foregoing Motion For Order Of Contempt are true and correct I mWerstand. that false statements bherein.are made subjeet.to the... . p 18 Pa C.5_ Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities- penalties of ate: o? 9 arz?es E. Cornett, III CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, counsel for the Plaintiff in the above captioned matter, certify that on this 22"d day of January, 2009, I served a copy of the foregoing Motion for Order of Contempt upon the person(s) indicated below by Facsimile and hand delivery at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and addressed as follows: Grace E. D'Alo, Esquire MidPenn Legal Services 401 E. Louther Street Suite 103 Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-8026 '<7--t - Paige acdonald-Matthes, Esquire JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff :DOCKET NO: 2008-7075 V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT : CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY Defendant AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Mike Vishnesky, of API Investigations, being duly sworn according to law, do hereby certify that I served the Custody Complaint and Petition for Special Relief addressed to Defendant, Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett on December 9, 2009. Sworn and Subscribed to before me this u day of 2009. NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: S- -7 - Z d 2- COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVAMA NOTARIAL SEAL Debra A. Evangelisti, Notary Public Susquehanna Township, Dauphin County My commission expires May 07, 2012 P O Box 129 Marysville, PA 17053 JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, lll,l PLAINTIFF V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA CORNETT, DEFENDANT AND NOW, this the petition for special relief of James Cornett, IV, born pending an order following a IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA kOVSKA : 08-7075 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT day of December, 2008, following a hearing, James Cornett for temporary legal and physical custody 21, 2005, and Yekaterina Cornett, born May 20, 2007, nciliation conference on his petition for legal and primary physical custody, IS DENIED] However, pending an order following a conciliation conference, IT IS ORDERED Ithat James Cornett 111, has shared legal custody of James and Yekaterina, and shall ha?e both children every Friday from 6:00 p.m. to every Monday at 6:00 p.m., and on Christmas, December 25, 2008, from 2:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m.' The father shall pick u and deliver the children from where the mother is currently residirig or at anoth r location if notified by the mother. Neither the mother nor the father may move James ?nd Yekaterina from any location in either Dauphin or Cumberland County without rior agreement of the parties or further order of court. By the Cou WtZ( Edgar : ay ley, J. Having heard the testimony of the mother concerning the incident on Friday, November 28, 2008, which incident she testified forms the basis for the current allegations against the father filed with Cumberland County Children and Youth, and notwithstanding the.safe y plan put in place by Cumberland County Children and Youth, this order shall supersede that safety plan. Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire For James Comett, III Grace D'Alo, Esquire For Olen'a Vladimirovna.Narovska Cornett :sal Ni 0 "IN o o ? r p tig•ta f -? ?- JAN 2 F 2009c, JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : No. 08-7075 Civil Term OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAVOVSKA CORNETT Defendant : ACTION IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: Edgar B. Bayley, P.J. COURT ORDER AND NOW, this 90' day of January 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that: 1. All prior Orders of Court entered in regard the above-captioned custody matter are hereby VACATED and replaced with this Order. 2. This Order is entered pursuant to a Custody Conciliation Conference. A Custody Hearing is hereby scheduled on the 19* day of IAAA !,4- , 2009 at %q6 am/pm in Courtroom number A in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, Carlisle, PA 17013 at which time testimony will be taken in regard to the physical custody for the subject Children. For purposes of this hearing, the Father shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for each party shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a Memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list of witnesses who will be expected to testify at the hearing and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. These Memoranda shall be filed at least five days prior to the hearing date. 3. Legal custody: The Mother, Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett, and the Father, James Estil Cornett, III, Sr., shall have shared legal custody of James Estil Cornett, IV, born 05/21/2005 and Yekaterina Victoria Cornett, born 05/20/2007. The parties shall have an equal right to make all major non-emergency decisions affecting the Children's general well-being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion. Pursuant to the terms of 23 Pa.C.S. §5309, each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the Children including, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious or school records, the residence address of the Children and of the other parent. To the extent one parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent. 4. Physical Custody: Mother and Father shall share physical custody of the Children as follows: a. Father shall have physical custody of the Children Thursday 1/22/09 at 6:00 pm until Friday 1/30/09 at 6:00 pm. Father shall pick up and drop off the Children where Mother is residing. b. On Thursday 1/29/09, Mother shall provide written documentation to Father, or his counsel, that she has procured an appropriate residence for the Children to stay in by 3:00 pm on 1/29/09. C. Provided that sub-paragraph 4(b) has been complied with, commencing 01/30/09, Mother shall have physical custody of the Children from Friday 1/30/09 at 6:00 pm until Tuesday 02/03/09 at 6:00 pm. d. Father shall then have physical custody of the Children from Tuesday 02/03/09 at 6:00 pm until Friday 02/06/09 at 6:00 pm. e. Mother shall then have physical custody of the Children from Friday 02/06/09 at 6:00 pm until Monday 02/09/09 at 6:00 pm. f. Father shall then have physical custody of the Children Monday 02/09/09 at 6:00 pm until Friday 02/13/09 at 6:00 pm. g. Sub-paragraphs 4(c) through 4 (f) shall be repeated in subsequent weeks absent mutual agreement or further Order of Court. (This is a 4/3/3/4 shared physical custody arrangement) h. Absent agreement otherwise, Father shall provide transportation of the Children. 5. The non-custodial parent shall have liberal telephone contact with the Children on a reasonable basis. Said telephone contact shall not be used to harass/annoy the other parent and is specifically intended for the non-custodial parent to say goodnight/talk to the Children. 6. The Children shall be transported in a vehicle with appropriate child car seats/restraints at all times by either parent. 7. Holidays: The parents shall arrange a holiday schedule as mutually agreed. 8. Neither party may say or do anything nor permit a third party to do or say anything that may estrange the Children from the other party, or injure the opinion of the Children as to the other party, or may hamper the free and natural development of the Children's love or affection for the other party. To the extent possible, both parties shall not allow third parties to disparage the other parent in the presence of the Children. 9. In the event of a medical emergency, the custodial party shall notify the other party as soon as possible after the emergency is handled. 10. The Children's passports have been submitted to the Court for retention. Said passports shall not be removed from the Court's possession absent appropriate application and Order of Court approving release of the Children's passports. 11. The parties may modify this Order by mutual agreement in writing. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. 12. In the event the parties ascertain that the scheduled court hearing may not be appropriate or necessary, the parties may cancel said court hearing and contact the assigned conciliator to schedule a status conference to resolve any issues that are outstanding. Distribution: ,Race D'Alo, Esq. ^ge MacDonald-Matthes, Esq., 2080 Linglestown Rd., Ste 201, Harrisburg, PA 17110- 9670 ?6hn J. Mangan, Esq. a i C17) i.4e C - C-4 JAN ? R 20096 JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : No. 08-7075 Civil Term OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAVOVSKA CORNETT Defendant Prior Judge: Edgar B. Bayley, P.J. : ACTION 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 children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Name Date of Birth Currently in the Custody of James Estil Cornett, IV 05/21/2005 Mother and Father Yekaterina Victoria Cornett 05/20/2007 Mother and Father 2. A hearing was held on December 15, 2008 regarding Father's filing of a Petition for Special Relief whereby an Order was issued denying Father temporary legal and physical custody of the Children but granting Father physical custody every weekend from Friday 6:00 pm until Monday 6:00 pm. However, subsequent to the December 15, 2008 hearing, Mother moved back into Father's residence with the Children. A Conciliation conference was scheduled and held on January 16, 2009. Father and his counsel did attend but Mother and her counsel did not attend. There is a dispute regarding notification of the scheduled conference. Father's counsel maintains that Mother's counsel was properly notified and Mother's counsel had entered her appearance thereby requiring Mother's counsel to attend said conference on January 16, 2009. Mother's counsel maintains that she was not notified of said conference and that she and her client would have attended if they had known. Regardless, on January 16, 2009 after the conference, a dispute/ altercation occurred between Father and Mother. Law enforcement became involved and Mother left Father's residence with the Children. Father became very concerned because Mother left with the Children's passports and was concerned Mother intended on returning to the Ukraine with the Children. Father allegedly had no knowledge of where Mother and the Children had gone. The undersigned had multiple conversations with Father's and Mother's counsel over the next several days and it was established that another conciliation was necessary as soon as possible. Mother's counsel represented that Mother's whereabouts were known and that Mother and the Children's passports would be produced on Thursday January 22, 2009. 3. A Conciliation Conference was held on January 22, 2009 with the following individuals participating: The Mother, Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett, with her counsel Grace D'Alo, Esq. The Father, James Cornett, III, with his counsel, Paige MacDonald-Matthes, Esq. 4. Mother's position on custody is as follows: Mother requests primary custody of the Children. Mother maintains that her relationship with Father has been contentious and that she has had to temporarily reside at the Domestic Violence Shelter for Women with the Children for a period of time. Mother also maintains that Father uses inappropriate physical discipline on the Children. Mother asserts that she is in the process of securing appropriate housing for the Children the weekend of January 24, 2009. Furthermore, Mother asserts that she is actively seeking employment and anticipates being employed the week of January 26th, 2009. Mother asserts that she is fully capable of properly caring for the Children and that maternal grandmother is here in the United States from the Ukraine for an extended period of time to assist in caring for the Children. Mother also maintains that she has additional support from community friends to help her transport and care for the Children. Mother contends that Father is very controlling and Mother's counsel requests a mental health evaluation for Father. Mother asserts that she has been the Children's primary care-giver and that Father has not been very involved with the Children's upbringing due to his work obligations. Mother's position is that she is more appropriate to primarily care for the Children. 5. Father's position on custody is as follows: Father requests primary custody of the Children. Father has concerns regarding Mother's metal stability at present. Father requests that Mother undergo a mental health evaluation (psychiatric). Father has agreed to pay for the costs of said evaluation of Mother. Father notes that Mother has consistently displayed a lack of interest in being a mother to the Children. Father alleges that Mother is more interested in her social lifestyle than in properly caring for the Children. Father feels that Mother is also alienating him from the Children by not speaking any English to the Children. Father has serious concerns that Mother will remove the Children from the United States, or even this jurisdiction, without his consent. Father notes that Mother remained in Ukraine with the Children for several months and had difficulty having the Children return last year. Father maintains that Mother is currently a flight risk. Father asserts that Mother does not have appropriate housing for the Children and no viable way to support the Children. Father asserts that Mother does not have transportation for the Children. Father asserts that Mother does not properly supervise the Children, and specifically notes that maternal grandmother takes diabetes medication that is left unattended and resulted in one of the Children ingesting the medication last year. Father asserts that maternal grandmother does not speak any English and does not have a license to drive. Father asserts that maternal grandmother is not appropriate to care for the Children. Father asserts that Mother does not have appropriate car seats/restraints in order to transport the Children. Father asserts that he has the ability to do the majority of his work from home and that he has been very involved in the care of his Children. Father has also taken the step to hire a full-time nanny to assist him in the care of the Children when he is not able to do so. Father believes that he is in a better position to primarily care for the Children. 6. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached scheduling a Hearing and entering an Order of Court regarding custody as outlined. It is specifically noted that Mother has turned over the Children's passports to the undersigned on January 22, 2009. Said passports shall be deposited with Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office until further order of Court. Furthermore, by agreement of the parties and counsel, the undersigned has contacted Cumberland County Children and Youth Services caseworker Shelly Barrick in regard to her knowledge of the situation. Ms. Barrick has been in contact with Mother's family doctor to ascertain Mother's mental health current status. Mother's family physician indicated to the caseworker that Mother had been prescribed some medication in the past, but is not longer taking said medication. The physician does not at present recommend Mother to be on any medication and that the physician is fully aware that Mother is not taking any medication. The physician indicated that any issues that Mother may have had have been resolved. Ms. Barrick does not have any concerns for the Children's safety in either Mother's nor Father's care. Ms. Barrick does not have any objections to the undersigned's recommendation that Father and Mother share physical custody of the Children. It is the Conciliator's belief that the recommended Order is in the Children's best interest. It is the Conciliator's belief that the Children are safe in both Mother's and Father's care. It is expected that the Hearing will require one half day. 7. The proposed recommended Order may contain a requirement that the parties file a pre-trial memorandum with the Judge to whom the matter has been assigned. Date: Z-? y ?- Jo gan, quire sto y Concil' for JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT, DEFENDANT 08-7075 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of January, 2009, a hearing on the within petition for contempt shall be conducted in Courtroom Number 2, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania at 8:45 a.m., Thursday, March 19 2009.' By Bayley, J. ?ge Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire For James Cornett, III ,,race D'Alo, Esquire For Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett :sal ' The petition seeks an order of contempt for several reasons. We note, however, that plaintiff misinterprets the order of December 15, 2008. The order does not prevent either party from removing the children from their present location. It prevents either party from moving the children from anywhere outside of either Dauphin or Cumberland County. Ft7 t° c°> Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Supreme Court 1. D. No. 66266 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN & CALHOON 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone (717) 540-9170 Facsimile (717) 540-5481 Attorney for Plaintiff JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff :DOCKET NO: 2008- 7075 V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT : CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY Defendant PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR MENTAL HEALTH EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO Pa. R.Civ. P. 1915.8 AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, James Estil Cornett, III, by and through his counsel, Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown & Calhoon, P.C. and Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, and files Plaintiff's Petition for Mental Health Examination of Defendant Pursuant to Pa. R.Civ. P. 1915.8 and avers as follows: 1. Procedural History 1. Petitioner is James E. Cornett. III, the Plaintiff in the above custody action, who resides at 542 Lucinda Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 2. Respondent is Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett, the Defendant in the custody action. Upon information and belief, the Respondent is now residing at 6721 Evelyn Street, Apartment #3, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17111. 3. Petitioner and Respondent were married on June 18, 2004 in Allison Park, Pennsylvania. 4. The Parties are the parents of two minor child, minor children, James Cornett, IV, born May 21, 2005 and Yekaterina Cornett, born May 20, 2007. 5. The Parties separated on November 30, 2008. 6. Petitioner filed for divorce on December 22, 2008. 7. Plaintiff filed his Complaint for Custody in the above captioned matter on December 2, 2008. 8. On December 15, 2008 this Honorable Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff shared legal custody and partial physical custody of the Parties' two minor children, pending a Custody Conciliation Conference. 9. On January 16, 2009 and January 22, 2009, Custody Conciliation Conferences were held. 10. On January 26, 2009, this Honorable Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff shared legal custody and shared physical custody of the Parties' two minor children pending a hearing scheduled in this matter for March 19, 2009. II. Facts SuRyorting Petition 11. The Respondent has a history of depression and had been treating with a psychologist, Dr. Klein for several months prior to the Parties' separation and specifically in response to Respondent's repeated threats of suicide. 12. The Respondent also has recently developed problems with alcohol, as evidenced by the fact that during a recent visit to Petitioner's residence, she left with one gallon of vodka and one gallon of rum, yet failed to secure child car seats for the children. 13. During the Custody Conciliation Conference on January 22, 2009, custody conciliator John Mangin informed counsel for both parties that he had determined that no custody evaluation would be necessary, based on a conversation he had with Shelly Barrick of Children and Youth, whom had informed him that Respondent "had no mental health issues" based on a brief telephone conversation she had with Jeanne N. Larson, MD, of Bowmansdale Family Practice, the physician who treated Respondent's mental health issues and prescribed her anti- depressants. Specifically, Respondent was prescribed "Lexapro." Upon information and belief, neither Shelly Barrick nor John Mangin had ggy conversation with Respondent's recently treating psychologist, Dr. Klein to determine the current status of Respondent's mental health. 14. Given Respondent's (a) history of mental health issues; (b) recently demonstrated problems with alcohol; and (c) demonstrated erratic and irresponsible behavior when it comes to safety issues involving the children, Petitioner believes and therefore avers that it was an error for the Conciliator to summarily conclude that "no custody evaluation" was necessary was based on what was reported to the Conciliator by a third party who had spoken to the wrong doctor. 15. Petitioner is requesting that the Court require Respondent to submit to a mental health examination as well as a custody evaluation forthwith. 16. A hearing date on the Custody Complaint is presently scheduled for March 19, 2009. However, Petitioner believes that it will not be possible to complete the necessary mental health evaluation and custody evaluation prior to that date and that the hearing should therefore be continued until a proper mental health examination of Respondent is completed, as well as a full custody evaluation. 17. Petitioner's requested relief is proper pursuant to Pa. R.Civ. P. 1915.8. WHEREFORE, Petitioner James Estil Cornett, III respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an Order directing Respondent to submit to and fully participate in an evaluation by a mental health expert, participate and cooperate fully in a complete custody evaluation, and that the hearing on the Petitioner's Custody Complaint presently scheduled for March 19, 2009 be continued until Respondent's mental health evaluation and custody evaluation is successfully completed, and further award Plaintiff all such other relief as is proper and just. Respectfully submitted, SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN & CALHOON Date: February 3, 2009 Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Attorney No. 66266 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Attorneys for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I, James E. Cornett, Ill verify that the statements made in the foregoing petition for Mental Health Evaluation and Custody Evaluation are true and correct. 1 understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: es E. Cornett, III a CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, counsel for the Plaintiff in the above captioned matter, certify that on this 3`d day of February, 2009, I served a copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Petition for Mental Health Examination of Defendant Pursuant to Pa. R.Civ. P. 1915.8 upon the person(s) indicated below by United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and addressed as follows: Grace E. D'Alo, Esquire MidPenn Legal Services 401 E. Louther Street Suite 103 Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-8026 Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire ?t ? r"?r ?- , u .,? ..,;, -' ? .,.. }? ?- JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : :DOCKET NO: 2008-7075 V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA : CORNETT : CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY Defendant RULE AND NOW, thi*?)_ day of February, 2009, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Petition for Mental Health Examination of Defendant Pursuant to Pa. R.Civ. P. 1915.8, a Rule is issued to Defendant to show cause, if she has, why the relief requested in Plaintiff's Petition should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE aw 1. D' tribution List: Grace E. D'Alo, Esquire, MidPenn Legal Services, 401 E. Louther Street, Suite 103, Carlisle, PA Y013 ,/Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esq., 2080 Linglestown Rd., Harrisburg, PA 17110 I QS ma't Cam, alG.1oq Lal _ J N ??? .et r C ?; 4G ? ? y ? . ?i.#. ' ma y ! , , i? JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 2008-7075 CIVIL TERM OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA :CUSTODY CORNETT, Defendant RESPONSE TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WITH RESPECT TO PLANITFF'S PETITION FOR METNAL HEALTH EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1915.8 AND NEW MATTER AND ALTERNATIVE RELIEF REQUESTED AND NOW, comes the Defendant, OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT, hereinafter referred to as "Mother," and gives the following response to Plaintiff's request for a mental health examination. The numbered paragraphs below correlate to the numbered paragraphs in Plaintiff's Petition: 1. Procedural History 1. Admitted. Plaintiff is the father in the above-captioned custody action. 2. Admitted. Defendant is the mother in the above-captioned custody action and she resides at the address given. 3. Admitted as to the date of the parties' marriage. 4. Admitted as to the dates of birth of the parties' children. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted in part. In addition, this Court granted Mother primary physical custody. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. II. Facts Supporting Petition 11. Denied. At this Court's custody hearing Mother testified to having a post-partum reaction after the birth of each child. There was no other testimony by Plaintiff or Mother that indicated that Mother was ever diagnosed with clinical depression, or that Mother was taking any medication related to her mental heath, or that Mother was seeing any doctor, therapist or mental health professional for mental health treatment. There is no material fact in dispute since Mother testified to a very short term use of medication after the birth of her children. 12. Denied. First, there is no evidence that a bottle of vodka is or was missing from the Plaintiff's residence. Second, it is unreasonable and defies common sense to equate that one missing bottle vodka equates to Mother having a "alcohol problem." In short, even if there is a fact in dispute here, it is not material. 13. Admitted in part. It is true that the conciliator talked to the Shelly Barrick of Children and Youth Services and that the conciliator was convinced, based on that conversation, that there was no need for either party to undergo a mental health examination. Any other information that Plaintiff offers as to medications or treatment are not material. Mother testified to her post-partum reaction to childbirth. She was treated for this and it ended. This is simply not a sufficient basis for granting Plaintiff's request for a mental health examination. To summarize, this paragraph raises no dispute of a material fact in that John.Mangan's decision was based on his conversations with the parties and with the CYS worker who investigated the parties, and his decision speaks for itself.. 14. Denied. Mother has no history of mental health problems, has no history of alcohol abuse or "problems," and has not demonstrated any erratic or irresponsible behavior when it comes to the safety of her children. Plaintiff's Petition makes the allegation without an explanation or any support in law or fact. By way of further answer, this Court and the conciliator, John Mangan, have had the opportunity to hear, observe and consider Mother's demeanor while testifying and appearing at the conciliation conference. Mother's behavior in Court and in conciliation has been consistently calm, caring and considerate of Plaintiff and she has consistently focused her attention and concerns on the welfare of her children despite the fact that a PFA was issued by this Court protecting her from Plaintiff's violent actions. This allegation has no basis in law or fact and is repetitive of the allegations in Paragraphs I 1 and 12 above. It should not form the basis for the Court granting Plaintiff's Petition. 15. This is not a factual allegation and cannot be admitted or denied and it raises no dispute as to a material fact. 16. This is not a factual allegation and cannot be admitted or denied and it raises no dispute as to a material fact. 17. This is a conclusion of law and cannot be admitted or denied although Mother believes Plaintiffs conclusion is wrong in that this request is not proper. In any case, this paragraph raises no dispute as to a material fact. NEW MATTER AND ALTERNATIVE PRAYERS FOR RELIEF 18. Since Plaintiff s present Petition for a mental health examination solely of the Mother has no basis in fact, it is oppressive, unreasonable and vexatious. 19. If this Court desires information beyond what is available through testimony of the parties and their witnesses, the Court would be better served by appointing a Guadian Ad Litem for the children. The Family Law Clinic could be appointed and serve the Court in this role at no charge to either party. 20. If this Court desires information beyond what is available through testimony of the parties and their witnesses, this Court could order the Plaintiff to pay for a custody evaluation at his expense that would involve the evaluation of both parties' ability to care for the children and their willingness to keep the children's best interests paramount to their own. WHEREFORE, Mother respectfully requests this Court to deny Plaintiff's Petition for Mental Health Examination of Defendant Pursuant to Pa. R.Civ.P. 1915.8 on the basis of the Plaintiff's Petition and this Answer, without further hearing or discovery, because there are no disputes as to material facts, and the Petition is without basis. In the alternative, Mother asks this Court to appoint the Family Law Clinic as Guardian Ad Litem for the children pending the resolution of this custody case. Respectfully submitted, 1 c r ce D'Alo, Esquire Penn Legal Services 401 E. Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-9400 JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III, Plaintiff V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS o CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2008-7075 CIVIL TERM CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Grace D'Alo, Esquire, of MidPenn Legal Services, attorney for the Plaintiff, OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing Custody Complaint on the following date and in the manner indicated below: U.S. First Class Mail, Postage Pre-Paid Paige MacDonald-Matthes, Esq. 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 MidPenn Legal Services, Inc. Date: 0- 1 ?(-) / C)? G ace D'Alo, Esquire Penn Legal Services M . Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 C7 +*.s r- q e ., ;,. ? ? r?- ,;,,,, -?-: rr-? ® ,:-- _. -... "" :) Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Supreme Court I. D. No. 66266 SERRATELLI SCHIFFIYIAN BROWN & CALHOON 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone (717) 540-9170 Facsimile (717) 540-5481 Attorney for Plaintiff JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :DOCKET NO: 2008- 7075 V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY Defendant PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENGAGE IN DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PA. R.Civ. P. 1930.5 RE: PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR MENTAL HEALTH EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT_ PURSUANT TO Pa; R.Civ. P. 1915.8 AND NOW, comes Plaintiff/Movant, James Estil Cornett, III, by and through his counsel, Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown & Calhoon, P.C. and Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, and files Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Engage in Discovery Pursuant to Pa. R.Civ. P. 1930.5 Re: Plaintiffs Petition for Mental Health Examination of Defendant Pursuant to Pa. R.Civ. P. 1915.8 and avers as follows: 1. Procedural History 1. Movant is James E. Cornett. III, the Plaintiff in the above custody action, who resides at 542 Lucinda Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 2. Respondent is Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett, the Defendant in the custody action. Upon information and belief, the Respondent is now residing at 6721 Evelyn Street, Apartment #3, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17111. 3. Movant and Respondent were married on June 18, 2004 in Allison Park, Pennsylvania. 4. The Parties are the parents of two minor child, minor children, James Cornett, IV, born May 21, 2005 and Yekaterina Cornett, born May 20, 2007. 5. The Parties separated on November 30, 2008. 6. Movant filed for divorce on December 22, 2008. 7. Movant filed his Complaint for Custody in the above captioned matter on December 2, 2008. 8. On December 15, 2008 this Honorable Court issued an Order granting Movant shared legal custody and partial physical custody of the' Parties' two minor children, pending a Custody Conciliation Conference. 9. On January 16, 2009 and January 22, 2009, Custody Conciliation Conferences were held. 10. On January 26, 2009, this Honorable Court issued an Order granting Movant shared legal custody and shared physical custody of the' Parties' two minor children pending a hearing scheduled in this matter for March 19, 2009. 11. On February 3, 2009, Movant filed his Petition for Mental Health Examination of Defendant Pursuant to Pa. R.Civ. P. 1915.8. 12. On February 6, 2009, the Court issued a Rule to Show Cause to Respondent to show cause why the relief requested in Movant's Petition should not be granted. 13. On February 11, 2009, Movant was served with a copy of Respondent's Reply to the Rule to Show Cause. II. Facts Supporting Motion for Leave to Enzage in Discovery 14. The Respondent has a history of depression and had been treating with a psychologist, Dr. Raymond S. Klein for several months prior to the Parties' separation and specifically in response to Respondent's repeated threats of suicide. Respondent's most recent of suicide was made in front of the Parties' minor son, Jay on or about November 30, 2008. 15. In her recently filed response to the Rule to Show Cause, Respondent denies this history of depression; denies that she has a history of mental health problems; and further denies the treatment she received from Dr. Raymond S. Klein. See Respondent's Reply to Rule to Show Cause at paragraphs 11-14. In fact, Respondent even goes so far as to deny that there was any testimony other than concerning her "post-partum reaction." (Emphasis added). Despite Respondent's attempt to "cleverly" disguise the fact that she has (and upon information and belief still does) suffered from depression by the use of the word "reaction" instead of depression, (which is the proper clinical term), the simple fact of the matter is that Respondent has been recently treated for depression and that condition as been on-going for quite some time. Movant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court take judicial notice of the testimony that was given during the hearing on December 18, 2008 concerning the current state of Respondent's mental health, including inter alia, testimony concerning Respondent's multiple suicide threats; her recent treatment by Dr. Raymond S. Klein; and Dr. Larsen prescribing Lexapro (a very strong anti-depressant) and Respondent refusing to take the same (in fact Respondent's prescription bottle containing the Lexapro that she was prescribed and deliberately refused to take was offered as an exhibit during the hearing). 16. The Respondent also has recently developed problems with alcohol, as evidenced by the fact that during a recent visit to Movant's residence, she was more concerned with securing for herself a gallon of vodka and a gallon of rum than she was with the need to secure proper child car seats for the children and in fact determined to take the alcohol with her and the children but not the car seats. 17. In her response to the Rule to Show Cause, Respondent similarly denies having problems with alcohol. See Respondent's Reply to' Rule to Show Cause at paragraph 12 18. Movant believes and therefore avers that the Respondent's medical records in general, and in particular her records from her treatment with Pennsylvania Counseling Services, 445 Gettysburg Pike, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania; Dr. Raymond S. Klein, 1229 Scenery Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania and Dr. Jeanne Larsen, Bowmansdale Family Practice will disprove Respondent's recent claims that she does not have a history of depression issues and/or treatment. 19. Without the benefit of discovery in general, and specifically the production of Respondent's medical and psychological treatment records the Court will be faced with a "he said, she said" issue to determine at the time of hearing on Movant's Petition for Mental Health Examination. 20. Respondent will not be prejudiced by the relief requested in this Motion as Respondent has denied that she has any psychological issues. Assuming arguendo that Respondent is correct (which Movant does not concede), then the medical and psychological treatment records for Respondent will bear that out. Thus, Respondent will not be prejudiced by the production of her medical and psychological treatment records that will allegedly support her position. Any opposition to this request simply begs the question of what Respondent is trying to hide from the Court. 21. The best interests and permanent welfare of the children will be served by the relief requested as the Court will be afforded the opportunity to review the Respondent's medical and psychological treatment records first hand to determine whether or not to grant the relief requested in Movanf s Petition for Mental Health Examination of Defendant. Moreover, these treatment records will also be necessary for the mental health examination of Respondent should such examination be ordered by the Court as requested by Movant. 22. In light of the pending hearing in this matter on March 19, 2009, time is clearly of the essence for discovery in general and specifically the production of medical and psychological treatment records and therefore Movant further requests that this Court Order and direct the production of Respondent's medical and psychological treatment records without requiring Movant to wait out the twenty day period otherwise required by Pa. R.Civ. P. 4009.21. 23. Copies of the proposed records subpoenas are attached hereto and are collectively marked as Exhibit "A." 24. Defendant's counsel has been contacted regarding the present Motion for Order of Discovery and defense counsel has advised the undersigned counsel that she does not concur in this Motion. 25. This matter has been assigned the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley. WHEREFORE, Movant, James Estil Cornett, III respectfully requests this Honorable Court (a) granting his Motion for Leave to Engage in Discovery Pursuant to Pa. R.Civ. P. 1930.5 Re: Petition for Mental Health Examination of Defendant; (b) waive the twenty day waiting period otherwise provided for in Pa. R.Civ. P. 4009.21; and (c) further award Movant all such other relief as is proper and just. Respectfully submitted, SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN & CALHOON Date: February 12, 2009 Paige Macdonald- ' Matthes, Esquire Attorney No. 66266 2080 Linglestown, Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Movant IV 3.IZIFIt lIUN I,. Jaynes F. r'ornett, III verity, that the slaters ents made in the foregoing Motion for leaw to I:;rtgapc° in Discovery Re:: Peddon I:r:>r Moral Ilealth I:valuation anti Custody i?°:-,ahmJon are vue and C:ta'to. i t1nlystand that Allse tatellIC].i , htrcin :1!';: ft id, . lfC -Cl l+ !h w '' ' `s Pat t .S.'»c:ctton -41)(14. rclatiny, to un?xvorn falsification lei alltllo lies. two: l ??;4I lIC> I' _ ?. c?rn? rt, III - ?. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, counsel for the Plaintiff in the above captioned matter, certify that on this 12th day of February, 2009, I served a copy of the foregoing Motion for Leave to Engage in Discovery Re: Plaintiff's Petition for Mental Health Examination of Defendant Pursuant to Pa. R.Civ. P. 1915.8 upon the person(s) indicated below by United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and addressed as follows: Grace E. D'Alo, Esquire MidPenn Legal Services 401 E. Louther Street Suite 103 Carlisle, PA 17013 . - W-a M6t ? wit Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire ???????' COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND James Estil Cornett, III File No. 2008-7075 , v. Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR ;THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Pennsylvania Counseling Servic?G 445 Gettyshur4 Pike MechaninGhurg PA 17055 (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all medical, psychological and psychiatric records, including but not limited to notes and reports of Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett, date of birth 8/26/79; SS# 171-82-6074 at 2080 Linglestown Road, Suite 207 Harrisbura. PA 17110 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing' the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Paige Macdonald-Matthes ADDRESS: 208 Harrisburg, PA 17T10 TELEPHONE: 717-540-9170 SUPREME COURT ID # 66266 ATTORNEY FOR: Plaintiff BY THE COURT: Date: 'Seal of the Court Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND James Estil Cornett, III File No. 2008-7075 V. Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR "THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Raymond Klein, Ed D 1229 Scenery Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all medical, psychological and psychiatric records, including but not limited to notes and reports of Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett, date of birth 8/26/79; SS# 171-82-6074 at 2080 Linglestown Road, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party malting this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Paige Macdonald-Matthes ADDRESS:2080 Linglestown Road Harrisb=, PA 17110 TELEPHONE: 717-540-9170 SUPREME COURT ID # 66266 ATTORNEY FOR: P i n i ff BY THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division Date: 'Seal of the Court Deputy 715 . IQ F;, -rr I C1 Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Supreme Court 1. D. No. 66266 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN & CALHOON 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone (717) 540-9170 Facsimile (717) 540-5481 Attorney for Plaintiff JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF ( CUMBERLAND COI Plaintiff :DOCKET NO: 2008- :. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA : CORNETT : CIVIL ACTION Defendant PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO "NEW MATTER AND 1 REQUESTED" FILED BY DEFENDANT IN RESPONSE FOR MENTAL HEALTH EXAMINATION OF DEFET R.Civ. P. 1915.8 7075 1ON PLEAS , PENNSYLVANIA AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, James Estil Cornett, III, by and through his counsel, Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown & Calhoon, P. C. and Paige Macdonald Matthes, Esquire, and files his Reply to Defendant's "New Matter and Alternative Relief' filed in response to Plaintiff's Petition for Mental Health Examination of Defendant Pursuant to Pad. R.Civ. P. 1915.8, and in support thereof avers as follows: 18. Denied. It is denied that "Plaintiff's Petition for a menta health examination solely of the Mother has no basis in fact." It is further denied that Plaintiff s Petition for Mental Health Examination of Defendant "is oppressive, lunreasonable and vexatious." To the contrary, Defendant has recently been treated for depression due to her repeated threats of suicide and Plaintiff has submitted the invoices for those medical and psychological provided to Defendant to his despite Defendant's protestations, the medical records contention that she does not have mental health pro 19. Denied. It is denied that "if the Court desires through the testimony of the parties and their witnesses, served by appointing a Guardian Ad Litem for the Court on Plaintiff's Petition for Mental Health Ad Litem for the children can resolve, especially since a mental health care provider, or medical doctor. The Plaintiff's Petition can only be resolved by way of the and the testimony of the parties and their witnesses. It is Family Law Clinic should be appointed to serve the insurance. Thus, insurance claims belie her beyond what is available Court would be better " The issue before the is not one that a Guardian Ad Litem is not a before the Court on of medical records denied that the in the role of the Guardian Ad Litem, or that a Guardian Ad Litem is even needed. By way of further reply, the Family Law Clinic is integrally related to the MidPenn appointment would be an inherent conflict of interest gi currently being represented in this matter by MidPenn upon information and belief, present counsel for the the professors at the Dickinson Law School who is i Family Law Clinic, thus posing an additional conflict of 20. Admitted in part. It is admitted that the Court could fact, Plaintiff specifically requested a custody evaluation Services and such the fact that Defendant is Services. Moreover, is married to one of involved with the a custody evaluation. In both conciliation conferences' and represented to the Custody Conciliator ?n both occasions that he would be willing to pay for a custody evaluation. Plaintiff would ask that the Court ' Defendant failed to appear at the first conference, despite having notice of the take judicial notice of the fact that both Defendant and her counsel rejected this request at the Conciliation Conference. Given the fact counsel have strategically resurrected the request for a c "own idea" after Plaintiff was forced to file his Petition Examination is further evidence of Defendant's Defendant's eleventh hour filing of a "New Matter and do what was previously requested by Plaintiff but oppressive, unreasonable and vexatious. WHEREFORE, Movant, James Estil Cornett, III respect lly requests this Honorable Court (a) deny the relief requested by Defendant in her "New Matte and Alternative Relief"; (b) grant his Motion for Leave to Engage in Discovery Pursuant to Pa. .Civ. P. 1930.5 Re: Petition for Mental Health Examination of Defendant; (c) waive the twenty ay waiting period otherwise provided for in Pa. R.Civ. P. 4009.21; and (d) grant the relief quested by Plaintiff in his Petition for Mental Health Examination and (e) further award Plai iff all such other relief as is both Defendant and her tody evaluation as their • Mental Health dilatory tactics and :ernative Relief' offering to by Defendant is proper and just. Date: February 12, 2009 Respectfully submitted, SERRATELLI CHIFF CALHOON Paige' Macdona -Matth Attorney No. 6 266 2080 Linglesto Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Attorneys for Pl intifflx BROWN & M Esquire nMCATI I, James E. Cornett, III vrofi y that the statements made pn the foregoing Reply to Deferdant's 'New Matter and Alternative Relief' filed in xesponsll to Plaintiffs Pstition for Mental Yealth Bvaluation and Custody Evaluation we true and co ect. I understand that false statements herein are. made subject to the penalties of 18 Fa. C. Section 4904, relating to I unsworn f? lsifxwion to whorities. Date: `j L Z I 4?., s E. Cornett, II.I . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, counsel for the Plaintif matter, certify that on this 12th day of February, 2009,1 served a cop) Defendant's "New Matter and Alternative Relief' filed in response t( Mental Health Examination of Defendant Pursuant to Pa. R.Civ. P. 1 indicated below by United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, a and addressed as follows: Grace E. D' Alo, Esquire MidPenn Legal Services 401 E. Louther Street Suite 103 Carlisle, PA 17013 Paige Macdonald- F in the above captioned of the foregoing Reply to Plaintiff's Petition for 915.8 upon the person(s) t Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Imo- k Wti>t.Q) ies, Esquire C'3 p?'? - ? e=-- 1?"Y t F - ? ..?., ATE = t?, ? E5_ c,. "'" rt ^} I C7 ? _ f'.. .. "p. , JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 2008-7075 CIVIL TERM OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA :CUSTODY CORNETT, Defendant RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENAGAGE IN DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1930.5 RE: PLATNIFF'S PETITION FOR MENTAL HEALTH EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT' PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1915.8 AND NOW, comes the Defendant, OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT, hereinafter referred to as "Mother," and gives the following response to Plaintiff's request for a mental health examination. The numbered paragraphs below correlate to the numbered paragraphs in Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Engage in Discovery: 1. Procedural History 1. Admitted. Plaintiff is the movant in the above-captioned motion. 2. Admitted. Olean Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett hereinafter "Mother," is the Defendant in the above-captioned custody action and she resides at the address given. 3. Admitted as to the date of the parties' marriage. 4. Admitted as to the dates of birth of the parties' children. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted in part. In addition, this Court granted Mother primary physical custody. 9. Denied. A custody conciliation conference was scheduled on January 16, 2009. Plaintiff did not attend and the conciliation was rescheduled for January 22, 2009. No order was issued pursuant to the conciliator's meeting with Plaintiff and counsel on January 16. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. By way of further answer, Mother opposed Plaintiff s motion. 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted. H. Response to Facts Supporting Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Engage in Discovery 14. Denied. In addition, Mother asserts that discovery is expressly not permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 1930.5 (a): "There shall be no discovery in a simple support, custody or Protection From Abuse proceeding unless authorized by order of Court." Plaintiff has shown no compelling reason for this Court to authorize the use of discovery. 15. Denied. Plaintiff's unsupported allegations are baseless and should not be considered reliable in that they are based on hearsay, Plaintiff's biased opinion, or patently absurd interpretations of actual testimony. In addition, Mother asserts that discovery is expressly not permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 1930.5 (a): "There shall be no discovery in a simple support, custody or Protection From Abuse proceeding unless authorized by order of Court." Plaintiff has shown no compelling reason for this Court to authorize the use of discovery. 16. Denied. Plaintiff's concern for the children's safety is belied by the fact that he refused to provide Mother with two of the four car seats in his possession. Mother purchased her own car seats and Plaintiff is well-aware of that. In addition, Plaintiff's insistence that a missing bottle of alcohol constitutes a history of alcohol abuse is patently absurd. In addition, Mother asserts that discovery is expressly not permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 1930.5 (a): "There shall be no discovery in a simple support, custody or Protection From Abuse proceeding unless authorized by order of Court." Plaintiff has shown no compelling reason for this Court to authorize the use of discovery. 17. Admitted in part. Plaintiff does deny having any problem with alcohol. In addition, Mother asserts that discovery is expressly not permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 1930.5 (a): "There shall be no discovery in a simple support, custody or Protection From Abuse proceeding unless authorized by order of Court." Plaintiff has shown no compelling reason for this Court to authorize the use of discovery. 18. Denied. The material sought by the Plaintiff is privileged, is not discoverable under any Rule of Court or any Rule of Procedure, and was not deemed to be needed by the conciliator. In addition, Mother asserts that discovery is expressly not permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 1930.5 (a): "There shall be no discovery in a simple support, custody or Protection From Abuse proceeding unless authorized by order of Court." Plaintiff has shown no compelling reason for this Court to authorize the use of discovery. 19. Neither admitted nor denied. This is not a factual allegation and cannot be admitted or denied and it raises no dispute as to a material fact. In addition, Mother asserts that discovery is expressly not permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 1930.5 (a): "There shall be no discovery in a simple support, custody or Protection From Abuse proceeding unless authorized by order of Court." Plaintiff has shown no compelling reason for this Court to authorize the use of discovery. 20. Denied in part. To the extent that this is a conclusion of law, this paragraph cannot be admitted or denied. To the extent that it raises any facts, Mother denies Plaintiff's allegations. To the extent, that this paragraph shows Plaintiff's intent to fish for evidence, the Court should deny Plaintiff's motion based on Pa.R.C.P. 1930.5. In addition, Mother asserts that discovery is expressly not permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 1930.5 (a): "There shall be no discovery in a simple support, custody or Protection From Abuse proceeding unless authorized by order of Court." Plaintiff has shown no compelling reason for this Court to authorize the use of discovery. 21. Denied. This paragraph raises conclusions of fact based on the unsupported facts raised in other paragraphs. Both the facts and the conclusions raised from those facts are denied by Mother. In addition, Mother asserts that discovery is expressly not permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 1930.5 (a): "There shall be no discovery in a simple support, custody or Protection From Abuse proceeding unless authorized by order of Court." Plaintiff has shown no compelling reason for this Court to authorize the use of discovery. 22. Denied. This paragraph raises conclusions of fact based on the unsupported facts raised in other paragraphs. Both the facts and the conclusions raised from those facts are denied by Mother. In addition, since there is no need for the discovery Plaintiff is seeking and there is no basis for permitting it, there is clearly no need for this Court to act quickly except to deny all of Plaintiff's requests including his request for a Mental Health Examination and his request for discovery. In addition, Mother asserts that discovery is expressly not permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 1930.5 (a): "There shall be no discovery in a simple support, custody or Protection From Abuse proceeding unless authorized by order of Court." Plaintiff has shown no compelling reason for this Court to authorize the use of discovery. 23. This is not an allegation of fact. The documents attached to Plaintff's Petition speak for themselves. In addition, Mother asserts that discovery is expressly not permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 1930.5 (a): "There shall be no discovery in a simple support, custody or Protection From Abuse proceeding unless authorized by order of Court." Plaintiff has shown no compelling reason for this Court to authorize the use of discovery. 24. Mother does not concur in Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Engage in Discovery. In addition, Mother asserts that discovery is expressly not permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 1930.5 (a): "There shall be no discovery in a simple support, custody or Protection From Abuse proceeding unless authorized by order of Court." Plaintiff has shown no compelling reason for this Court to authorize the use of discovery. WHEREFORE, Mother respectfully requests this Court to deny PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENAGAGE IN DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1930.5 RE: PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR MENTAL HEALTH EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1915.8. Respectfully submitted, Vr$ce D'Alo, Esquire NIMPenn Legal Services 401 E. Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-9400 JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS o Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 2008-7075 CIVIL TERM OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA : CUSTODY CORNETT, Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Grace D'Alo, Esquire, of MidPenn Legal Services, attorney for the Plaintiff, OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENAGAGE IN DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1930.5 RE: PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR MENTAL HEALTH EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT' PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1915.8 on the following date and in the manner indicated below: U.S. First Class Mail, Postage Pre-Paid Paige MacDonald-Matthes, Esq. 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Date: 2 MidPenn Legal Services, Inc. race D' Alo, Esquire idPenn Legal Services 401 E. Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 t'iZ r 'U JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III, PLAINTIFF V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT, DEFENDANT 08-7075 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this `7-k--,_day of February, 2009, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The motion of plaintiff for leave to engage in discovery, IS DENIED. (2) The petition of plaintiff for an order directing a mental health examination of defendant, IS DENIED. (3) This court, believing that a custody evaluation is warranted in this dispute involving the custody of James Cornett, IV, born May 21, 2005, and Yekaterina Cornett, born May 20, 2007, IT IS ORDERED that Arnold Shienvold, Ph.D., 2151 Linglestown Road, Suite 200, Harrisburg, PA 17110, is appointed to conduct a custody evaluation. Plaintiff and defendant shall immediately contact Dr. Shienvold and cooperate in the completion of a custody evaluation. (4) Plaintiff shall pay for this custody evaluation but may seek contribution from defendant for which testimony will be taking during any subsequent custody hearing, or if the issue of custody is resolved, upon a hearing that will be set upon request. (5) The hearing scheduled for the merits of the custody dispute on March 19, 2009, IS CANCELLED.' ' The hearing scheduled for 8:45 a.m. on Thursday, March 19, 2009, on the petition of plaintiff for exclusive possession of the marital residence and to hold defendant in contempt of the current custody order, shall be heard as scheduled. (6) Dr. Shienvold shall send a copy of his report of the custody evaluation to counsel for plaintiff, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, and counsel for defendant, Grace D'Alo, Esquire. No copy of the report shall be forwarded to the court. (7) Upon receipt of the report, either party may file a petition with this judge for an expedited hearing on the merits. ?ge Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire 080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 For James Cornett, III Race D'Alo, Esquire MidPenn Legal Services 401 E. Louther Street, Suite 103 Carlisle, PA 17013 For Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett ?Fnold Shienvold, Ph.D 2151 Linglestown Road, Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17110 sal ? ?. ,? ?; ; : ? ?j ,, ,?t. ; ? c..- C;j.. ? y ti t .!-? a- ? ? ? ? w r o v c JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 2008-7075 CIVIL TERM OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA : CUSTODY CORNETT, Defendant RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO "NEW MATTER AND ALTERNATIVE RELIEF REQUESTED" AND NOW, comes the Defendant, OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT, hereinafter referred to as "Mother," and gives the following response to Plaintiff's request for a mental health examination. The numbered paragraphs below correlate to the numbered paragraphs in Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Engage in Discovery: 18. This paragraph raises no new factual allegations. Mother's responses filed in her Response to Plaintiff's Request for Mental Health Examination are hereby incorporated by reference. 19. This is a conclusion of law and fact to which no response is necessary. However, Mother asserts that this Court is being asked to determine custody and, therefore, is being asked to determine what custodial arrangement is in the best interests of the children. A Guardian Ad Litem could provide this Court with unbiased reports based on its ability to investigate who can best provide for the children's social, emotional, intellectual and physical well-being. It is also denied that there is any conflict of interest in appointing the Children's Advocacy Clinic as Guardian Ad Litem. The Children's Advocacy Clinic is under the direction of Lucy Johnston-Walsh and no one in MidPenn Legal Services is married to Ms. Walsh. It is also denied that the Family Law Clinic is "integrally related" to MidPenn Legal Services. The Family Law Clinic is part of the Penn State Dickinson School of Law and MidPenn Legal Services is a separate unrelated entity that shares no staff, directors, or administration. The Family Law Clinic and the Children's Advocacy Clinic are separate clinics at Penn State Dickinson and Professor Place, to whom the undersigned is admittedly married, has no access, authority or interest in the conduct of the Children's Advocacy Clinic. No conflict is possible or existing. 20. This paragraph contains conclusions of law and fact to which no response is necessary. Plaintiff may have asked for a custody evaluation at the January 16, 2009, custody conciliation but because Mother did not participate in that conciliation she cannot address Plaintiff's assertion regarding this. At the conciliation on January 22, 2009, Plaintiff requested that the conciliator order a mental health examination and that request was denied by the conciliator after his conversation with the relevant CYS worker. WHEREFORE, Mother again respectfully requests this Court to deny Plaintiff's Petition for Mental Health Examination of Defendant Pursuant to Pa. R.Civ.P. 1915.8 on the basis of the Plaintiff's Petition and this Answer, without further hearing or discovery, because there are no disputes as to material facts, and the Petition is without basis. In the alternative, Mother asks this Court to appoint the Children's Advocacy Clinic as Guardian Ad Litem for the children pending the resolution of this custody case. Respectfully submitted, ra a D' Alo, Esquire Ndlenn Legal Services 40 . Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-9400 JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 2008-7075 CIVIL TERM OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA : CUSTODY CORNETT, Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Grace D'Alo, Esquire, of MidPenn Legal Services, attorney for the Plaintiff, OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO "NEW MATTER AND ALTERNATIVE RELIEF REQUESTED" on the following date and in the manner indicated below: U.S. First Class Mail, Postage Pre-Paid Paige MacDonald-Matthes, Esq. 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 MidPenn Legal Services, Inc. Date: 4:?L, n Z oaU qGrace D' AI( Esquire idPenn Legal Services 401 E. Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 .c, ??? . -? ?? -r>rri ;, _?? ; ??' -Y ?,?t >r?t JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT, DEFENDANT 08-7075 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ICI+-% day of March, 2009, following a hearing, the Rule entered against defendant, Olena Cornett, to show cause why she should not be adjudicated in contempt of the custody order of December 15, 2008, the Rule IS DISMISSED.' /aige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire For James Cornett, III /ace D'Alo, Esquire For Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett :sal ' Defendant returned to plaintiffs residence on December 25, 2008, and lived there with the children until she left again on Saturday, January 17, 2009, after another blowup between the parties. She took the children, James and Yekaterina, which was during a time that plaintiff would have otherwise had them under the order of December 15, 2008, was entered when the parties were separated. When an order was entered on January 26, 2009, following a conciliation conference, plaintiff was given make up time, which he then received, for the period he should have had them on January 17"' and afterward. Under these circumstances any contempt is de minimis. c "I Cy 6? -?- b l?. S LLJ LL3 ? ? N Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Supreme Court I. D. No. 66266 SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN & CALHOON 2080 Linglestown Road Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone (717) 540-9170 Facsimile (717) 540-5481 Attorney for Petitioner JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III Petitioner V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :DOCKET NO: 2008- 7075 CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY PETITIONER'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, comes Petitioner, James Estil Cornett, III, by and through his counsel, Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown & Calhoon, P. C. and Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, and avers as follows: 1. Petitioner is James Estil Cornett, III, the Plaintiff in the above captioned custody action. He is an adult individual who currently resides at 542 Lucinda Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Respondent, Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett, the Defendant in the above captioned custody action, whose current address is 6721 Evelyn Street, Apartment #3, Harrisburg, PA 17111, is an adult individual whose present whereabouts are unknown. Respondent, who is not citizen of the United States, emigrated from the Ukraine prior to Petitioner's and Respondent's marriage in 2004. 3. On January 26, 2009, this Honorable Court issued an Order granting Petitioner shared legal and physical custody of the Parties two minor children, James Cornett, N, born May 21, 2005 and Yekaterina Cornett, born May 20, 2007. 4. Pursuant to this Order, Respondent had physical custody of the children from April 17, 2009 through April 20, 2009. Petitioner was supposed to effectuate custody on Monday, April 20, 2009 by making a custody exchange at Respondent's place of residence at 6PM. 5. During the afternoon of April 20, 2009, while Petitioner was traveling from Richmond to Respondent's place of residence to make the custody exchange, Petitioner's car broke down. Petitioner immediately called Respondent to notify her that he may be delayed in picking up the children. Respondent did not answer the phone. Petitioner then arranged for a rental car in order to travel to Respondent's place of residence. During the time it took to secure a rental car and travel to Harrisburg to Respondent's place of residence, Petitioner repeatedly called Respondent. Respondent never answered her phone (land line or cell phone) or otherwise responded to Petitioner's calls. 6. Upon reaching Respondent's place of residence on the evening of April 20, 2009, Petitioner found there were no lights on at the residence and no one answered the door. 7. At approximately 7:40 PM on April 20, 2009, Petitioner contacted the undersigned counsel by phone to inform her that he had been unable to effectuate custody and that he could not locate Respondent and the children. The undersigned counsel advised him to continue to attempt to contact Respondent. 8. Subsequent to his conversation with the undersigned counsel, Respondent contacted Respondent's close friend, Luda Drucker, by telephone. Ms. Drucker informed Petitioner that she had visited with Respondent on Saturday, April 18, 2009. During this visit, Respondent informed Ms. Drucker that Respondent had all of the necessary paperwork she needed to leave the United States with the children and return to the Ukraine. Respondent stated that her father was ill and that she planned on visiting him in the Ukraine with the children and then eventually would return to the United Stated to live in Florida. Respondent further informed Ms. Drucker that she planned on flying from New York JFK Airport to the Ukraine with the children on Sunday, April 19, 2009 9. Ms. Drucker is a Russian immigrant and a close friend of Respondent. Respondent has also periodically used Ms. Drucker's residence as a "safe haven" after Petitioner and Respondent separated. Petitioner and undersigned counsel have no reason to believe that the information provided by Ms. Drucker is incorrect or unreliable. However, Petitioner and undersigned counsel are presently working on confirming the veracity of Ms. Drucker's information. 10. Undersigned counsel has confirmed that on April 19, 2009, there were two direct flights from New York JFK Airport to Kiev Borispot Airport, Ukraine. See Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 11. On April 21, 2009, undersigned counsel's assistant contacted Respondent's two employers, Hansel and Gretel and the Goddard School. A representative of Hansel and Gretel stated that Respondent was no longer employed there. The Goddard School informed undersigned counsel's assistant that Respondent had not been scheduled to work on Monday, April 20, 2009 and was not due to arrive at work until 4:00 PM on Tuesday, April 21, 2009. 12. On April 21, 2009, undersigned counsel also contacted Respondent's counsel at Mid Penn Legal Services, Jessica Holtz, Esquire. Ms. Holtz had her assistant attempt to contact Respondent by calling the two phone numbers that had been provided by Respondent. No one answered at either phone number. One of the phone numbers reached a voicemail message and Ms. Holtz's assistant left a message requesting that Respondent immediately return her phone call. At the time of the filing of this Petition, no information on a return phone call has been provided to undersigned counsel. 13. Throughout his pleadings in the above-captioned custody action, Petitioner has repeatedly warned the Court that Respondent posed a flight risk. See Petitioner's December 2, 2008 Custody Complaint and Petitioner's December 5, 2008 Petition for Special Relief (in which Petitioner informed the Court that Respondent was threatening to take the children to Russia and "never return.") See also Petitioner's January 22, 2009 Motion for Order of Contempt (in which Petitioner informed the Court that "the children are in grave danger of being taken out of the country by [Respondent].") Moreover, the Court acknowledged Respondent's potential flight risk when it included a provision in its January 26, 2009 Order requiring the Prothonotary to retain the children's passports unless the Court issued an Order approving their release. 14. On April 21, 2009, Petitioner contacted the U.S. State Department to request their assistance in locating and retrieving his children. The U.S. State Department has opened an investigation file and are awaiting further Order of this Court. 15. Petitioner attempted to seek the assistance of the Pennsylvania State Police on April 21, 2009 to find his children. The State Police told him that they would not help him and that he would have to contact the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office. 16. On April 21, 2009, Petitioner contacted the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office to request their assistance with this matter. Petitioner was advised that he would need an Order of Court directing the Cumberland County Sheriff to "go retrieve the children." 17. Rule 1915.14 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, permits "at any time after commencement of the action, the court may on application or its own motion grant appropriate interim or special relief. The relief may include but is not limited to the award of temporary custody, partial custody or visitation; the issuance of appropriate process directing that a child or a party or person having physical custody of a child be brought before the court; and a direction that a person post security to appear with the child when directed by the court or to comply with any order of the court." 18. Petitioner seeks from this Honorable Court an Order awarding him temporary legal and physical custody of the subject minor children, Jay Cornett and Katya Cornett, and further requests that the Court assist Petitioner in communicating with any authorities that may assist Petitioner in seeking the return of his children, including but not limited to, the State Department, State and Local Police authorities, and the Cumberland and Dauphin County Sheriff's Offices, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 19. In accordance with Cumberland County Local Rules, the content of this Emergency Petition has been shared with and communicated to counsel for Respondent, Jessica Holtz, Esquire. Ms. Holtz has advised the undersigned counsel that in light of the fact that she cannot contact her client, she can neither concur or not concur in the Emergency Petition. 19. This matter has been assigned the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley. WHEREFORE, Petitioner, James E. Cornett, III, requests special relief from this Honorable Court, granting him temporary legal custody and primary physical custody over the minor children, James ("Jay") Estil Cornett, IV (DOB 5/21/05) and Yekaterina ("Katya") Victoria Cornett (DOB 5/20/07), and further requests the Court's assistance in communicating with whatever authorities are necessary to effectuate the return of the minor children. Respectfully submitted, SERRATELLI SCHIFFMAN BROWN & CALHOON Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Attorney No. 66266 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-9170 Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff VERMICATION (..fames E. Cornett, III verify that the statements made in the foregoing Emergency Petition for Special Relief are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: .. ` `? 4EECornett. III CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, counsel for the Petitioner in the above captioned matter, certify that on this 21St day of April, 2009, I served a copy of the foregoing Emergency Petition for Special Relief upon the person(s) indicated below by Facsimile and United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and addressed as follows: Jessica Holtz, Esquire MidPenn Legal Services 401 E. Louther Street Suite 103 Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-8026 Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire v ? ?.? b t New York City Airports Page 1 of 1 Flights found New York City Airports to Kiev, Ukraine - All Airports Departing 19 April 2009 from 16:15 onwards. Direct Flights > Indicates a flight operated by a different airline or subsidiary or division of the airline whose code is shown Flight: DL 88 (Delta Air Lines) Depart: New York J F Kennedy International Apt 19 Apr 16:15 Arrive: Kiev Borispol Apt 20 Apr 09:05 Aircraft: 767 Stops: Non-Stop Click Here for Details Travel Time: 9hrs 50mins Flight: W 132 (Aerosvit Airlines) Depart: New York J F Kennedy International Apt 19 Apr 18:25 Arrive: Kiev Borispol Apt 20 Apr 11:10 Aircraft: 763 Stops: Non-Stop Click Here for Details Travel Time: 9hrs 45mins New Selection Schedules Updated Every Day Schedule Display Services provided by OAG Flight Engine Schedule data Copyright ® 2009 OAG Worldwide Limited. All rights reserved. These Timetables schedules are provided as a convenience only and are subject to change at any time. OAG Worldwide Inc., its suppliers and the airport shall not assume any liability or any loss, damage, or expense from errors or omissions in the Timetables. http://timetables.oag.com/fe_tt//nyc/flights.asp 4/21/2009 OF THE ' .:>RY' 2i Q3 APR 21 F114 1: 13 E 'isy 76, 76 '/ 1 4,? qd 04, of APR 21 zoo@ JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioner :DOCKET NO: 2008-7075 V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT : CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY Respondent ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this .1/ ? day of 2009, upon consideration of the attached Emergency Petition for Special Relief, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Petitioner, James Estil Cornett, III, be granted TEMPORARY legal custody and primary physical custody of the minor children, James ("Jay") Estil Cornett, IV (DOB 5/21/05) and Yekaterina ("Katya") Victoria Cornett (DOB 5/20/07), pending a hearing before The Honorable Edgar Bayley currently scheduled on April 30, 2009 at 3:00 P.M. BY THE COURT: Kevin A. Hess Distribution List: Jessica Holtz, Esquire, MidPenn Legal Services, 401 E. Louther Street, Suite 103, Carlisle, PA 17013 1---? / Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esq., 2080 Linglestown Rd., Harrisburg, PA 17110 C o#pl es pe sso f l elll-? ty_,21 -Oq L" ? I • I 4`id, I z u8 60oz 5 s ??Vn JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT, DEFENDANT 08-7075 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 28 day of April, 2009, the order entered on January 26, 2009, providing that the passports of James Estil Cornett, IV and Yekaterina Victoria Cornett, shall be submitted to the court for retention, IS VACATED. The Prothonotary shall release the passports to the father, James Estil Cornett, III. ?aige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire ` For James Cornett, III Assica Holtz, Esquire MidPenn Legal Services :sal 4 Oq ?Qr?,9,,,?pp,/?at? ?n iglu h leer vm? y?o7 D cy- tk c JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioner :DOCKET NO: 2008-7075 V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT : CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY Respondent ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 3© day of Vl , 2009, upon consideration of the Plaintiff/Petitioner's April 20, 2009, Emergency Petition for Special Relief and following hearing upon the same held on April 30, 2009 in accordance with this Court's Temporary Order issued on April 2,, 2009, the Court makes the following findings: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the children as the children's place of habitual residence since at least calendar year 2005 is Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. The children, James ("Jay") Estil Cornett, IV (DOB 5/21/05) and Yekaterina ("Katya") Victoria Cornett (DOB 5/20/07) are the subject of this Court's Order for Custody dated January 26, 2009. 3. Pursuant to this Court's January 26, 2009 Order, the children's United States passports were directed to be placed with the Cumberland County Prothonotary for safe keeping and to prevent the wrongful taking of the children out of the United States. 4. The Defendant/Respondent, Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett took the children with her to the Ukraine on or about April 19, 2009 without the Plaintiff/Petitioner's knowledge or consent and further without leave of this Court to take the children out of the United States. 5. The Defendant/Respondent, Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett's removal of the children from the United States on or about April 19, 2009 was wrongful and in violation of this Court's Order dated January 26, 2009, as well as in violation of Article III of the Hague Convention. Based on these findings, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Plaintiff/Petitioner, James Estil Cornett, III, is granted TEMPORARY legal custody and primary physical custody of the minor children, James ("Jay") Estil Cornett, IV (DOB 5/21/05) and Yekaterina ("Katya") Victoria Cornett (DOB 5/20/07), pending a re-hearing on the issue of custody to be immediately scheduled upon the return of the Defendant/Respondent, Olena Vladimirovna Narovska and the children, James ("Jay") Estil Cornett, IV (DOB 5/21/05) and Yekaterina ("Katya") Victoria Cornett (DOB 5/20/07) to the United States. Distribution List: Jessica Ho$ Esquire, MidPenn Legal Services, 401 E. Louther Street, Suite 103, Carlisle, PA 17013, Counsel for Defendant/Respondent, Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, Serratelli, Schiff nan, Brown & Calhoon, P. C., 2080 Linglestown Rd., Harrisburg, PA 17110, Counsel for Plaintiff/Petitioner, James Estil Cornett, III , a /48? 4? " ?4 3o - 6P JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff DOCKET NO: 2008-7075 V. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT : CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY RETURN OF SERVICE On this day of rr" 2009,1 (name of Process Server) Served A A, ALXIi(L with the foregoing Subpoena to Attend and Testify to Luda Druker By: (describe method of service): -- '-)?o 5? z?lec---A b V 1-?? 'Dxvv c,"VLZ,,.j PA- 1 `7/) /? I verify that the statements in this return of service are true and correct. I understand that false k, statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. sec. 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: -4 Server ofProces rvr LIn OC 1 Hl Y`' A+ t fl ? 2009 A P i ;30 JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : DOCKET NO. 08-7075 CIVIL TERM OLENA VLADIMIROVNA CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY NAROVSKA CORNETT Defendant PETITION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW Petitioner, MidPenn Legal Services, hereby petitions to withdraw from further representation of Olena Vladimirovna Narovska Cornett, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1012, and in support therefore avers the following: 1. MidPenn Legal Services agreed to represent Defendant, Olena Cornett for purposes of a custody case initiated by Plaintiff, James Cornett. 2. Defendant's last known address was 6721 Evelyn Street - Apartment 3, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17111. 3. On April 21, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Petition for Special Relief alleging that Defendant had violated the January 26, 2009 Order by removing the children and taking them to the Ukraine. 4. On April 30, 2009, this Court entered an Order acknowledging that Defendant violated the January 26, 2009 Order and Article III of the Hague Convention and granting Plaintiff temporary legal custody and primary physical custody of the children pending a rehearing on the issue of custody. t 5. Representation of Defendant by undersigned counsel has become unreasonably difficult due to Defendant's flight to the Ukraine and counsel's current inability to locate or communicate with her. 6. Undersigned counsel has good cause to withdraw as counsel for Defendant, pursuant to Rule 1.16(b)(4) and (7) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct. 7. At this time, it is unknown when any further action can take place in this case and permitting MidPenn Legal Services to withdraw at this time would neither unduly prejudice nor have a materially adverse effect on Defendant's interests and would allow her sufficient time to obtain alternative counsel. 8. Counsel has contacted, Attorney Paige Macdonald-Matthes, counsel for Plaintiff, who concurs with the relief requested. 9. Counsel is unable to contact Defendant to seek concurrence with the relief requested. WHEREFORE, MidPenn Legal Services requests the Court to grant its Petition For Leave to Withdraw. 1 Submitted, Ret A J+1 Hols, Esquire 401 East Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing complaint are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand making any false statement would subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ? 1C Date: .fe ica olst, Esquire JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III Plaintiff, VS. OLENA VLADIMIROVNA NAROVSKA CORNETT Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 08-7075 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jessica Holst, Esquire, of MidPenn Legal Services hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing Petition for Leave to Withdraw on the following date and in the manner indicated below: U.S. First Class Mail, Postage Pre-Paid Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Setratelli, Schiffman, Brown & Calhoon, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Elena Cornett 6721 Evelyn Street - Apt 3 Harrisburg, PA 17111 Date: • 1 'Q MidPenn Legal Services, Inc. J ssica Holst, Esquire MidPenn Legal Services 401 East Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 OF THE P` 10, FILED--O '=I :E _AR 2009 MAY -5 PM 3. 4 4 4MY f E N4W t.kANI 1 T MAY 6 6 2009 - JAMES ESTIL CORNETT, III : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. DOCKET NO. 08-7075 CIVIL TERM OLENA VLADIMIROVNA CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY NAROVSKA CORNETT Defendant ORDER AND NOW, this _ day of May 2009 upon consideration of MidPenn Legal Services' Petition for Leave to Withdraw, such relief is hereby GRANTED. By the,Qourt: Distribution: Jessica Holst, Esquire idPenn Legal Services 401 East Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 X l? "`ge Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Serratelli, Schiffman, Brown & Calhoon, P.C. 2080 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 V-6 Cornett ena 6721 Evelyn Street - Apt 3 Harrisburg, PA 17111 Edgar B. Bayf-ey, Judge Y} "7 ` j ? ? ? ? ?T. d ? C.7 ¢ c-i