Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-0639ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, III, Plaintiff V. LEAH N. SANSONE, Defendant To: The Judges of Said Court IN THE COURT of COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 0q- 6 3r C,,;U CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY Complaint for Custody AND NOW this day of February, 2009 comes Plaintiff, ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, III, above named, by and through his attorney, John M. Glace, Esquire, and presents this Complaint for Custody as follows: 1. Plaintiff Rollin E. Ronemus, III is an single adult individual who presently resides at 613B Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17070.. 2. Defendant Leah N. Sansone is a single adult individual who presently resides at 417 Water Street, New Cumberland, York County, Pennsylvania 17070. She formerly resided with the Plaintiff. 3. Above parties are the biological parents of Caiden James Ronemus ( dob: 12/3/08). Said minor child was born in of wedlock. 4. For the preceding five (5) years, all the aforementioned minor child has resided only at the Defendant's address. 5. Immediately after birth of the minor child Defendant mother moved from Plaintiff father's residence and has refused to permit Plaintiff father any access or contact with his infant son. 6. It is the best interests of the infant child for Plaintiff father to maintain partial physical custody and joint legal custody of his infant son. 7. All parties of interest have been made party to this action. VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint for Custody are true and correct to the best of my understanding and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties provided by 18 Pa. CSA, Section 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: Rollin . Ronemus, III CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that this C??day of February, 20091 have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint for Custody, by first class mail, postage pre-paid, upon: Leah N. Sansone 4176 Water Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 ID: 23933 1 2- 4 Walnut Street 'sburg, PA 171101-1612 (717) 238-5515 Counsel for Plaintiff Ck ? W v, V 1, (, 1 vN` ?4 rT'.c.' Cf) N c? mRt W GN 'TJ caa ca co 0 -n -4 M :77 r^ }Lri ? r n ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, III IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW LEAH N. SANSONE IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Tuesday, February 17, 2009 , upon consideration of the attached. Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Dawn S. Sunday, Esq. , the conciliator, at 39 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 3:30 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/ Dawn S. Sunda Es q. Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 'Ov S :I add S 1 82d 600Z = do iI H MAR 2 520094 ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, III IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW LEAH N. SANSONE Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW this ;, day of Y-AWA\ , 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The Father, Rollin E. Ronemus, III, and the Mother, Leah N. Sansone, shall have shared legal custody of Caiden James Ronemus, born December 3, 2008. Major decisions concerning the Child including, but not necessarily limited to, his health, welfare, education, religious training and upbringing shall be made jointly by the parties after discussion and consultation with a view toward obtaining and following a harmonious policy in the Child's best interest. Neither party shall impair the other party's rights to shared legal custody of the Child. Neither party shall attempt to alienate the affections of the Child from the other party. Each party shall notify the other of any activity or circumstance concerning the Child that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to the other. Day to day decisions shall be the responsibility of the parent then having physical custody. With regard to any emergency decisions which must be made, the parent having physical custody of the Child at the time of the emergency shall be permitted to make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby. However, that parent shall inform the other of the emergency and consult with him or her as soon as possible. In accordance with 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5309, each party shall be entitled to complete and full information from any doctor, dentist, teacher, professional or authority and to have copies of any reports or information given to either party as a parent as authorized by statute. 2. The Mother shall have primary physical custody of the Child. 3. The Father shall have partial physical custody of the Child beginning March 18, 2009, every Monday from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. and every Wednesday from 3:30 p.m. through 9:00 p.m. At such time as the preconditions set forth in provision 4 of this Order are satisfied, the Father's periods of partial custody shall be expanded so that the Wednesday period of custody extends overnight every week through Thursday morning between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and the Father shall have partial custody on the second weekend of every month, beginning April 2009, from Saturday at 9:00 a.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. 4. Within ten (10) days of the custody conciliation conference, the parties, through counsel, shall obtain guidance from the Father's physicians, Dr. Pheasant and Dr. Margargle as to the Father's ability to provide care for a three month old child in light of the Father's physical limitations and medications. Counsel will submit a joint letter to the Father's physicians requesting this information. In addition, the Mother shall have the opportunity to inspect the Father's residence to ensure that the Father has the necessary equipment for the Child and that the conditions are safe for the Child. The Father shall provide any authorizations necessary to facilitate the release of all information pertaining to the Father's ability to provide care for the Child from his physicians to counsel. 5. In the event the Father's physicians indicate that there are no limitations on the Father's ability to provide care for the Child, the parties shall begin the weekend overnight periods of custody during the second weekend of April, 2009 and the Thursday overnight shall begin on April 16, 2009. In the event there is any dispute as to the physicians' opinion as to the Father's ability to provide care for the Child due to his physical limitations or medications, counsel for the parties shall contact the conciliator to schedule a telephone conference. 6. The parties shall share or alternate having custody of the Child on holidays as follows: A. Christmas: The Christmas holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve, Segment B, which shall run from Christmas Eve at 9:00 p.m. through Christmas Day at 6:00 p.m., and Segment C which shall run from Christmas Day at 6:00 p.m. through December 26 at 12:00 noon. In odd-numbered years, the Father shall have custody of the Child During Segments A and C and the Mother shall have custody during Segment B. In even- numbered years, the Mother shall have custody of the Child during Segments A and C and the Father shall have custody during Segment B. B. Thanks ig vina: The Thanksgiving period of custody shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day. The Mother shall have custody of the Child for Thanksgiving in odd- numbered years and the Father shall have custody in even-numbered years. C. Easter: The Easter holiday shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. The Father shall have custody of the Child for Easter in odd-numbered years and the Mother shall have custody in even-numbered years. D. Mother's DU/Father's Day: In every year, the Mother shall have custody of the Child for Mother's Day and the Father shall have custody for Father's Day from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. E. Memorial Day/Labor Day: The Memorial Day and Labor Day holiday periods of custody shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. on the day of the holiday. In odd-numbered years, the Mother shall have custody of the Child for Memorial Day and the Father shall have custody for Labor Day. In even-numbered years, the Father shall have custody of the Child for Memorial Day and the Mother shall have custody for Labor Day. F. Independence DU: The holiday period of custody on Independence Day shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. or after the fireworks. The Mother shall have custody of the Child for Independence Day in odd-numbered years and the Father shall have custody in even-numbered years. G. Child's Birthday: The non-custodial parent shall be entitled to have custody of the Child for at least two (2) hours on the Child's birthday with the specific times to be arranged by agreement between the parties. H. The holiday custody schedule shall supersede and take precedence over the regular and vacation custody schedules. 7. Each parent shall be entitled to have custody of the Child for one (1) week each year for vacation upon providing at least thirty (30) days advance notice to the other parent. The parent providing notice first shall be entitled to preference on his or her selection of vacation days. In the event either party intends to remove the Child from his or her residence for a vacation period of custody, that parent shall provide advance notice to the other parent of the address and telephone number where the Child can be contacted. 8. The Child shall be transported at all times in an age appropriate car seat. 9. Neither party shall smoke in the Child's presence or in the residence or car when the Child is present. 10. Each party shall undergo drug testing (hair follicle) promptly at the request of the other party. The party requesting the testing shall be responsible to pay the costs of the test. When making arrangements for the test, the parties shall consult with the testing agency to ensure that the effects of prescribed medications will not influence or cause inaccurate test results. 11. Neither party shall do or say anything which may estrange the Child from the other parent, injure the opinion of the Child as to the other parent, or hamper the free and natural development of the Child's love and respect for the other parent. Both parties shall ensure that third parties having contact with the Child comply with this provision. 12. This Order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a custody conciliation conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. J. cc: / John M. Glace, Esquire - Counsel for Father .,4homas M. Clark, Esquire - Counsel for Mother nn //. r B'S :7 IJJ 9z 8vw HE 3'Hi -40 ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, III Plaintiff VS. LEAH N. SANSONE Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME Caiden James Ronemus DATE OF BIRTH December 3, 2008 CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Mother 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on March 17, 2009, with the following individuals in attendance: the Father, Rollin E. Ronemus, III, with his counsel, John M. Glace, Esquire, and the Mother, Leah N. Sansone, with her counsel, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. 6blxk f Date r Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire If' Custody Conciliator ROLLIN E. RONEMUS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. No. 2009-639 LEAH SANSONE : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant. : IN CUSTODY EMERGENCY PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION AND NOW COMES, Leah Sansone, by and through her attorney, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire, of Colgan Marzzacco, LLC, and files the instant Emergency Petition for Custody Modification, and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Petitioner/Defendant is Leah Sansone ("Mother"), an adult individual who currently resides at 417 Water Street, Apartment #4, New Cumberland, York County, Pennsylvania 17070. 2. Respondent/Plaintiff is Rollin E. Ronemus ("Father"), who currently resides at 613 B Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. 3. Mother seeks sole physical custody of the following child: Caden Ronemus-Sansone, born December 3, 2008. 4. On March 26, 2009, This Honorable Court issued an Order of Court providing that Mother has primary physical custody of the child, and that Father has periods of partial physical custody. (A copy of the Order of Court is attached hereto as Exhibit "A'). 5. Additionally, the Order dated March 26, 2009, states as follows: Each party shall undergo drug testing (hair follicle) promptly at the request of the other party. The party requesting the testing shall be responsible to pay the costs of the test. Page 3, Section 10. 6. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting Mother sole physical custody of the child for the following reason: a. On April 9, 2009, Father appeared at Concentra (4400 Lewis Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17111) for the purpose of taking a drug test. b. On April 9, 2009, Father provided Concentra with a hair sample for testing. C. On April 17, 2009, National Diagnostics, Incorporated, confirmed that Father tested positive for cocaine (A copy of the National Diagnostics, Incorporated, drug test is attached hereto as Exhibit `B"). 7. It is believed and therefore averred that Father is a present and continuing danger to the child. 8. Mother respectfully requests that she be awarded sole physical custody of the minor child pending a hearing regarding this matter. 9. This matter has not yet been heard by a Judge; however, The Honorable Edward E. Guido signed the Conciliation Order dated March 26, 2009. 10. Opposing Counsel, John Glace, Esquire, was contacted on April 28, 2009 regarding this Emergency Petition and does not concur in said Petition. WHEREFORE, Mother respectfully requests This Honorable Court to award her sole physical custody of the minor child pending a hearing regarding this matter. Respectfully submitted, CO "AN RZZACCO,LLC By: Thomas M. Clark, Esquire ID # 85211 130 W. Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 Dated: 44 z? D 9 (717) 502-5000 EXHIBIT A MAR 2 5 20094 ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, III IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW LEAH N. SANSONE Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 91 day of rhwJ\ 1 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The Father, Rollin E. Ronemus, III, and the Mother, Leah N. Sansone, shall have shared legal custody of Caiden James Ronemus, born December 3, 2008. Major decisions concerning the Child including, but not necessarily limited to, his health, welfare, education, religious training and upbringing shall be made jointly by the parties after discussion and consultation with a view toward obtaining and following a harmonious policy in the Child's best interest. Neither party shall impair the other party's rights to shared legal custody of the Child. Neither party shall attempt to alienate the affections of the Child from the other party. Each party shall notify the other of any activity or circumstance concerning the Child that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to the other. Day to day decisions shall be the responsibility of the parent then having physical custody. With regard to any emergency decisions which must be made, the parent having physical custody of the Child at the time of the emergency shall be permitted to make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby. However, that parent shall inform the other of the emergency and consult with him or her as soon as possible. In accordance with 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5309, each party shall be entitled to complete and full information from any doctor, dentist, teacher, professional or authority and to have copies of any reports or information given to either party as a parent as authorized by statute. 2. The Mother shall have primary physical custody of the Child. 3. The Father shall have partial physical custody of the Child beginning March 18, 2009, every Monday from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. and every Wednesday from 3:30 p.m. through 9:00 p.m. At such time as the preconditions set forth in provision 4 of this Order are satisfied, the Father's periods of partial custody shall be expanded so that the Wednesday period of custody extends overnight every week through Thursday morning between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and the Father shall have partial custody on the second weekend of every month, beginning April 2009, from Saturday at 9:00 a.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. 4. Within ten (10) days of the custody conciliation conference, the parties, through counsel, shall obtain guidance from the Father's physicians, Dr. Pheasant and Dr. Margargle as to the Father's ability to provide care for a three month old child in light of the Father's physical limitations and medications. Counsel will submit a joint letter to the Father's physicians requesting this information. In addition, the Mother shall have the opportunity to inspect the Father's residence to ensure that the Father has the necessary equipment for the Child and that the conditions are safe for the Child. The Father shall provide any authorizations necessary to facilitate the release of all information pertaining to the Father's ability to provide care for the Child from his physicians to counsel. 5. In the event the Father's physicians indicate that there are no limitations on the Father's ability to provide care for the Child, the parties shall begin the weekend overnight periods of custody during the second weekend of April, 2009 and the Thursday overnight shall begin on April 16, 2009. In the event there is any dispute as. to the physicians' opinion as to the Father's ability to provide care for the Child due to his physical limitations or medications, counsel for the parties shall contact the conciliator to schedule a telephone conference. 6. The parties shall share or alternate having custody of the Child on holidays as follows: A. Christmas: The Christmas holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve, Segment B, which shall run from Christmas Eve at 9:00 p.m. through Christmas Day at 6:00 p.m., and Segment C which shall run from Christmas Day at 6:00 p.m. through December 26 at 12:00 noon. In odd-numbered years, the Father shall have custody of the Child During Segments A and C and the Mother shall have custody during Segment B. In even- numbered years, the Mother shall have custody of the Child during Segments A and C and the Father shall have custody during Segment B. B. Thanksgiving: The Thanksgiving period of custody shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day. The Mother shall have custody of the Child for Thanksgiving in odd- numbered years and the Father shall have custody in even-numbered years. C. Easter: The Easter holiday shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. The Father shall have custody of the Child for Easter in odd-numbered years and the Mother shall have custody in even-numbered years. D. Mother's DgyZEather's Day: In every year, the Mother shall have custody of the Child for Mother's Day and the Father shall have custody for Father's Day from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. E. Memorial D"d bor Dav: The Memorial Day and Labor Day holiday periods of custody shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. on the day of the holiday. In odd-numbered years, the Mother shall have custody of the Child for Memorial Day and the Father shall have custody for Labor Day. In even-numbered years, the Father shall have custody of the Child for Memorial Day and the Mother shall have custody for Labor Day. F. Independence Da v: The holiday period of custody on Independence Day shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. or after the fireworks. The Mother shall have custody of the Child for Independence Day in odd-numbered years and the Father shall have custody in even-numbered years. G. Child's Birthday: The non-custodial parent shall be entitled to have custody of the Child for at least two (2) hours on the Child's birthday with the specific times to be arranged by agreement between the parties. H. The holiday custody schedule shall supersede and take precedence over the regular and vacation custody schedules. 7. Each parent shall be entitled to have custody of the Child for one (1) week each year for vacation upon providing at least thirty (30) days advance notice to the other parent. The parent providing notice first shall be entitled to preference on his or her selection of vacation days. In the event either party intends to remove the Child from his or her residence for a vacation period of custody, that parent shall provide advance notice to the other parent of the address and telephone number where the Child can be contacted. 8. The Child shall be transported at all times in an age appropriate car seat. 9. Neither party shall smoke in the Child's presence or in the residence or car when the Child is present. 10. Each party shall undergo drug testing (hair follicle) promptly at the request of the other party. The party requesting the testing shall be responsible to pay the costs of the test. When making arrangements for the test, the parties shall consult with the testing agency to ensure that the effects of prescribed medications will not influence or cause inaccurate test results. 1 l . Neither party shall do or say anything which may estrange the Child from the other parent, injure the opinion of the Child as to the other parent, or hamper the free and natural development of the Child's love and respect for the other parent. Both parties shall ensure that third parties having contact with the Child comply with this provision. 12. This Order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a custody conciliation conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. J. cc: John M. Glace, Esquire - Counsel for Father Thomas M. Clark, Esquire - Counsel for Mother =1;A, A *mks °? ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, III Plaintiff VS. LEAH N. SANSONE Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Caiden James Ronemus December 3, 2008 Mother 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on March 17, 2009, with the following individuals in attendance: the Father, Rollin E. Ronemus, III, with his counsel, John M. Glace, Esquire, and the Mother, Leah N. Sansone, with her counsel, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. {fi t Clt f ?i 0 9 Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator EXHIBIT B APR-27-09 16:37 FROM-Concentra HBG East 7175586709 T-915 P.002/002 F-304 NATIONAL DIAGNOSTICS, INCORPORNI'h1..) OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES April 17, 2009 Concentra - Harrisburg East (PPP) 4400 Lewis Rd. Harrisburg, PA 17111 Attn: Candy Baer CONFIDENTIAL __._Re: S6N.XXX-X2 267-9- --•-COC Number.-099901-8 - Name: ROLLIN RONEMUS Please be advised that the,above referenced employee submitted a Hair specimen for Other substance abuse testing on 419/2009. Testing for drug abuse was performed on the specimen in compliance with SAMHSA guidelines at: Omega Laboratories, Inc. 400 N. Cleveland Ave Mogadore, OH 44260 The specimen with testing completed on 4/1712009 was Positive far Cocaine. The drugs tested for include: 1) Amphetamine 2) Cocaine 3) Cannabinold 4) Opiates 5) Phencyclidine (PCP) Confirmation testing of all positive substances was performed by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry methodology at the above-named Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) certified laboratory. This information should be made a part of your confidential substance abuse testing records. Sincerely, . f Phillip Greene, M. D. Medical Director/Medical Review officer 6407 ldiewlid Road, 5uit6 211 • Chattotte, Month CarWina 28212 • (704) 3647550 • Fax (704) 3644038 ROLLIN L RONLVIIIS : iN,rllFl CO URT OF t''CNIMON 111A PlrailltifL : (U1 BEIR.L.AND COUN IN, PENNS LA' ),NlA. L ::AII S ANS0,1NE : CIVIL ACTION - L;AAA Defendant.. ; IN f l'STOD) ?'??.C:a1- t??lt 1y1:' S;.alCI11C'iltS made ill th1ti ,Illl'i'p'11Cv l°C'tltlf?11 i0i' 4"listi?t1v .L"d>:SE t 4.:It"3 t1 c<i:'C c1-l that 1" js' ;tlitelll?l2tS,1t?.}... ; . !_ :f a_ °sti???f. Tit] Ee a K`14u, 1 5 '? , ? i'c!"at1i1 ' to 1:17 "4101'I) !Ili ItIC illf?il t?I !'1??i l'lil:: ? ?v nn ROLLIN E. RONEMUS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. :No. 2009-639 LEAH SANSONE : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant. : IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by first class mail as follows: John M. Glace, Esquire 132 Walnut Street, Floor 2 Harrisburg, PA 17101 CO ARZZACCO,LLC Date: 2g o 9 by: Thomas M. Clark, Esq. 130 West Church Street, Suite 100 Dillsburg, PA 17019 (717) 502-5000 Counsel for Plaintiff ??A `} ti ? py 2CJ 3 APR 28 P; ? -: r. , a ROLLIN E. RONEMUS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. LEAH SANSONE DEFENDANT 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Thursday, April 30, 2009 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Dawn S. Sunday, Esq. , the conciliator, at 39 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 at 3:30 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/ Dawn S. Sunda Es q. Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 FIB. U.__ OF THE 26'M APR 30 PH ' . 0 Q Jl' Z/--?40 -Oy' a Z.?e Z:?;- e?? a?4 -,5 :9 JUN 15 200 ROLLIN E. RONEMUS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW LEAH SANSONE Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this (P day of 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation eeport, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The prior Order of this Court dated March 26, 2009 is vacated and replaced with this Order. 2. The Father, Rollin E. Ronemus, III, and the Mother, Leah N. Sansone, shall have shared legal custody of Caiden James Ronemus-Sansone, born December 3, 2008. Major decisions concerning the Child including, but not necessarily limited to, his health, welfare, education, religious training and upbringing shall be made jointly by the parties after discussion and consultation with a view toward obtaining and following a harmonious policy in the Child's best interest. Neither party shall impair the other party's rights to shared legal custody of the Child. Neither party shall attempt to alienate the affections of the Child from the other party. Each party shall notify the other of any activity or circumstance concerning the Child that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to the other. Day to day decisions shall be the responsibility of the parent then having physical custody. With regard to any emergency decisions which must be made, the parent having physical custody of the Child at the time of the emergency shall be permitted to make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby. However, that parent shall inform the other of the emergency and consult with him or her as soon as possible. In accordance with 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5309, each party shall be entitled to complete and full information from any doctor, dentist, teacher, professional or authority and to have copies of any reports or information given to either party as a parent as authorized by statute. 3. The Mother shall have primary physical custody of the Child. 4. The Father shall have partial physical custody of the Child every Monday from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. and every week from Wednesday at 3:30 p.m. through Thursday morning between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. In addition, the Father shall have custody of the Child on the second weekend of every month from Saturday at 9:00 a.m. through Sunday at 6:00 p.m. 3 5. The parties shall share or alternate having custody of the Child on holidays as follows: A. Christmas: The Christmas holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve, Segment B, which shall run from Christmas Eve at 9:00 p.m. through Christmas Day at 6:00 p.m., and Segment C which shall run from Christmas Day at 6:00 p.m. through December 26 at 12:00 noon. In odd-numbered years, the Father shall have custody of the Child During Segments A and C and the Mother shall have custody during Segment B. In even- numbered years, the Mother shall have custody of the Child during Segments A and C and the Father shall have custody during Segment B. B. Thanks iving: The Thanksgiving period of custody shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day. The Mother shall have custody of the Child for Thanksgiving in odd- numbered years and the Father shall have custody in even-numbered years. C. Easter: The Easter holiday shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. The Father shall have custody of the Child for Easter in odd-numbered years and the Mother shall have custody in even-numbered years. D. Mother's Day/Father's Day: In every year, the Mother shall have custody of the Child for Mother's Day and the Father shall have custody for Father's Day from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. E. Memorial Day/Labor Day: The Memorial Day and Labor Day holiday periods of custody shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. on the day of the holiday. In odd-numbered years, the Mother shall have custody of the Child for Memorial Day and the Father shall have custody for Labor Day. In even-numbered years, the Father shall have custody of the Child for Memorial Day and the Mother shall have custody for Labor Day. F. Independence Day: The holiday period of custody on Independence Day shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. or after the fireworks. The Mother shall have custody of the Child for Independence Day in odd-numbered years and the Father shall have custody in even-numbered years. G. Child's Birthday: The non-custodial parent shall be entitled to have custody of the Child for at least two (2) hours on the Child's birthday with the specific times to be arranged by agreement between the parties. H. The holiday custody schedule shall supersede and take precedence over the regular and vacation custody schedules. 6. Each parent shall be entitled to have custody of the Child for one (1) week each year for vacation upon providing at least thirty (30) days advance notice to the other parent. The parent providing notice first shall be entitled to preference on his or her selection of vacation days. In the event either party intends to remove the Child from his or her residence for a vacation period of custody, that parent shall provide advance notice to the other parent of the address and telephone number where the Child can be contacted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in 2009, the Father agrees to split his one week period of custody into two parts. In 2009, the Mother shall have an uninterrupted period of vacation custody with the Child from August 15 through August 22. 7. The Father shall not exercise a period of vacation custody under the preceding paragraph until such time as he has obtained a hair specimen drug test result that is negative or confirms that the Father has not used drugs since the April 2009 drug test. 8. The Child shall be transported at all times in an age appropriate car seat. 9. Neither party shall smoke in the Child's presence or in the residence or car when the Child is present. 10. The Father shall undergo hair specimen drug testing within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order at the Mother's request. The Father shall obtain the drug test within seven (7) days of the request made by the Mother therefor. The Mother shall provide transportation for the Father to and from the drug testing site. The Father shall submit to additional hair specimen drug tests as requested by the Mother thereafter, at the Mother's expense, on the condition that the Mother submits to the same test at the same time at her sole expense. 11. The Father shall sign any necessary releases to enable the Mother's attorney to obtain the hair specimen drug test results. 12. In the event of a positive test result (which for the Father means a result confirming drug use since the April 2009 drug test), counsel for either party may contact the conciliator to schedule an additional custody conciliation conference, if necessary. 13. This Order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a custody conciliation conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. cc: ? Jahn M. Glace, Esquire - Counsel for Father /Thomas M. Clark, Esquire - Counsel for Mother e6P L les r-n ?.l L5c 0.. toll -2 10? Edward E. Guido J. ROLLIN E. RONEMUS Plaintiff vs. LEAH SANSONE Defendant Prior Judge: Edward E. Guido IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Caiden Ronemus-Sansone December 3, 2008 Mother 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on June 3, 2009 on the Mother's Emergency Petition for Modification, with the following individuals in attendance: the Father, Rollin E. Ronemus, with his counsel, John Glace, Esquire, and the Mother, Leah Sansone, with her counsel, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. Dat--r Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator I LE D. 3 Jt?,r L ? ?a1`'i l? f 29 j it, Y cu -_. «, 1~~, ROLLIN E. RONEMUS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. • 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW LEAH SANSONE DEFENDANT . IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday, August 02, 2010 ,upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Dawn S. Sunday, Esq. ,the conciliator, at 39 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 9:00 AM for aPre-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/ Daum S. Sunda 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. c ,~ o ^.; Cumberland County Bar Association c.. o ~- ;~ (} _ 32 South Bedford Street ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~~~~ ~` ~'~''~ '~--~o`'r Carlisle, Pennsylvania ] 7013 Q `', ~~~ C.Q._ ~~ ~~d 'b Telephone (717) 249-3166 W ~-= ~ ,' g• 3•to ~ ~_-, Spa ~=~ w < -.; ROLLIN E. RONEMUS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : No. 2009-639 LEAH SANSONE : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant. : IN CUSTODY ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I, John M. Glace, Esquire, Attorney for the Plaintiff, accept service of the Petition for Modification of Custody filed on July 26, 2010 and Order of Court scheduling a Conciliation Conference for August 31, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. I certify that I am authorized to accept service on behalf of said, Plaintiff, Rollin E. Ronemus. Date: /6 ace, Esquire A No.: 23933 132 1 4 alnut Street H ' urg, PA 17101 Ph : (717) 238-5515 ,I SEP 10 2010 ROLLIN E. RONEMUS vs. LEAH SANSONE Plaintiff Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT - 7iz c -ca -0 C, W C3 { AND NOW, this day of 2'0 10, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The parties shall submit themselves, their minor Child, and any other individuals deemed necessary by the evaluator to a custody evaluation to be performed by Deborah Salem. The purpose of the evaluation shall be to obtain independent professional recommendations concerning ongoing custody arrangements which will best meet the needs of the Child. The parties shall sign any authorizations deemed necessary by the evaluator in order to obtain additional information pertaining to the parties or the Child. The Mother shall be responsible to pay all costs of the evaluation. 2. Pending completion of the custody evaluation and further Order of Court or agreement of the parties, the prior Order of this Court dated June 16, 2009 shall continue in effect as modified by this Order. 3. The parties shall share having custody of the Child over the Christmas holiday as follows: the Christmas holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from Christmas Eve at 2:00 p.m. through Christmas Day at 2:00 p.m., and Segment B, which shall run from Christmas Day at 2:00 p.m. through December 26 at 2:00 p.m. In even numbered years, the Mother shall have custody of the Child during Segment A and the Father shall have custody during Segment B. In odd numbered years, the Father shall have custody of the Child during Segment A and the Mother shall have custody during Segment B. 4. The Father shall provide as much notice as possible to the Mother if he is unable to assume custody of the Child for his regular custodial period due to a medical appointment or other medical reason. The parties shall cooperate in scheduling a makeup period of custody for the Father in that circumstance. 5. At such time as the Mother is no longer able to provide all transportation for exchanges of custody due to her advanced pregnancy, or at the time and after the birth of her expected child, the parties shall cooperate in reviewing the custodial schedule and adjusting the transportation arrangements so that the Father has shared responsibility for making arrangements for transportation to exchanges of custody. The parties agree that both the Father's girlfriend and the Mother's boyfriend may provide transportation as necessary. 6. Both parties shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the Child refers only to the Mother in maternal terms and only to the Father in paternal terms. 7. Neither party shall take the Child to non-restaurant bars during his or her periods of custody. The parties shall exercise careful judgment as to the environment to which the Child is exposed. 8. Within 60 days of receipt of the evaluator's custody recommendations, counsel for either party may contact the conciliator to schedule an additional custody conciliation conference, if necessary. 9. This Order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a custody conciliation conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. BY E COURT, Edward E. Guido J. cc: ? M. Glace, Esquire - Counsel for Father Thomas M. Clark, Esquire - Counsel for Mother ROLLIN E. RONEMUS vs. LEAH SANSONE Plaintiff Defendant 'AC ?p 102010. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: Edward E. Guido CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH Caden Ronemus-Sansone December 3, 2008 CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Mother 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on September 8, 2010, with the following individuals in attendance: the Father, Rollin E. Ronemus, with his counsel, John M. Glace, Esquire, and the Mother, Leah Sansone, with her counsel, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. 4ti _ f Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator ROLLIN E. RONEMUS Plaintiff, VS. LEAH SANSONE Defendant. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 2009-639 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN CUSTODY EMERGENCY PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY AND NOW COMES, Barbara Ward, by and through her attorney, C ") ftJ Esquire, of Colgan & Associates, LLC, and files the instant Petition for Modification of Custody, and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Petitioner is Barbara Ward ("Maternal Grandmother"), an adult individual who currently resides at 6017 Wertzville Road, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. 2. Respondent/Plaintiff is Rollin E. Ronemus ("Father"), who currently resides at 613B Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. 3. Maternal Grandmother seeks shared legal and primary physical custody of the following child: Caden Ronemus-Sansone, born in December, 2008. Caden Ronemus-Sansone was born out of wedlock. The child is presently in the custody of Maternal Grandmother. The Mother of the child was Leah Sansone. Mother tragically passed away on June 10, 2011 (a copy of proof of cremation is attached hereto as Exhibit A, as if fully set forth herein). 4. The relationship of Petitioner to the child is that of maternal grandmother. 5. The relationship of Respondent to the child is that of father. 6. Petitioner has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the child #70.oo PQ A"`ti+ r-* 4159 7 P-* MCU K Thomai"M. ?tlark ? pending in a court of this Commonwealth or any other state. The Honorable Edward E. Guido signed Orders dated June 16, 2009 and September 13, 2010 (a copy of said Orders are attached hereto as Exhibit B, as if fully set forth herein). This matter was previously scheduled for Conciliation before Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire. The Orders involving the child in this matter were between Mother and Father. 7. Under the Custody Order dated June 16, 2009, Mother was to exercise primary physical custody of the child. Father is to exercise custody every Monday from 8:30 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. and every Wednesday from 3:30 p.m. until Thursday morning between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. In addition, Father has custody of the child on the second weekend of every month from Saturday at 9:00 a.m. through Sunday at 6:00 p.m. 8. Petitioner does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the child or who claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child. 9. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting Petitioner shared legal custody and primary physical custody of the child, for the following reasons: a) During the time that Mother had custody, Maternal Grandmother spent a significant amount of time with the child and helped care for the child while Mother was working. b) Maternal Grandmother has spent a significant amount of time with the minor child, and it would not be in the child's best interest to remove the child from Maternal Grandmother's care. C) Maternal Grandmother has concerns with Father being able to care for the child, as Father claims to be disabled. d) Maternal Grandmother has concerns with Father's time being expanded any greater than what the June 16, 2009 Order provides, e) Maternal Grandmother believes that removing the child from her care at the time of his Mother's passing, may cause undue stress to the child. f) The child sustained injuries (including a broken collar bone) at the time of the car accident which makes it difficult for him to be transported. f) Maternal Grandmother believes that it is in the best interest of the child, pending a hearing that she assumes Mother's periods of custody. 10. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the child has been named as parties to this action. 11. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting Petitioner shared legal and primary physical custody of the minor child. 12. A copy of the instant Petition was faxed to John M. Glace, Esquire, attorney for Father. WHEREFORE, Maternal Grandmother respectfully requests This Honorable Court to award her shared legal custody and primary physical custody of the child, consistent with what Mother was exercising, until this matter can be heard by the Court. Respectfull COLG & PCIATES, LLC By: ?. Thomas M. Clark, Esquire ID # 85211 130 W. Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 Dated: C._ (717) 502-5000 EXHIBIT A C-,oaXe Fear Crematory RTIFICATE OF CREMATION LEAH IUCUE SMSONC was cremated on JUNE 11, 2011 at the Cape Fear Crematory Stedman, North Carolina CFC Number: 11_06-10365 Auth zed Signatur EXHIBIT B JUN 15 200, ROLLIN E. RONEMUS Plaintiff vs. LEAH SANSONE Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW this (P day of - 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation eport, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The prior Order of this Court dated March 26, 2009 is vacated and replaced with this Order. 2. The Father, Rollin E. Ronemus, III, and the Mother, Leah N. Sansone, shall have shared legal custody of Caiden James Ronemus-Sansone, born December 3, 2008. Major decisions concerning the Child including, but not necessarily limited to, his health, welfare, education, religious training and upbringing shall be made jointly by the parties after discussion and consultation with a view toward obtaining and following a harmonious policy in the Child's best interest. Neither party shall impair the other party's rights to shared legal custody of the Child. Neither party shall attempt to alienate the affections of the Child from the other party. Each party shall notify the other of any activity or circumstance concerning the Child that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to the other. Day to day decisions shall be the responsibility of the parent then having physical custody. With regard to any emergency decisions which must be made, the parent having physical custody of the Child at the time of the emergency shall be permitted to make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby. However, that parent shall inform the other of the emergency and consult with him or her as soon as possible. In accordance with 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5309, each party shall be entitled to complete and full information from any doctor, dentist, teacher, professional or authority and to have copies of any reports or information given to either party as a parent as authorized by statute. 3. The Mother shall have primary physical custody of the Child. 4. The Father shall have partial physical custody of the Child every Monday from 8:30 a.. i , until 5:00 p.m. and every week from Wednesday at 3:30 p.m. through Thursday morning between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. In addition, the Father shall have custody of the Child on the second weekend of every month from Saturday at 9:00 a.m. through Sunday at 6:00 p.m. 5. The parties shall share or alternate having custody of the Child on holidays as follows: A. Christmas: The Christmas holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve, Segment B, which shall run from Christmas Eve at 9:00 p.m. through Christmas Day at 6:00 p.m., and Segment C which shall run from Christmas Day at 6:00 p.m. through December 26 at 12:00 noon. In odd-numbered years, the Father shall have custody of the Child During Segments A and C and the Mother shall have custody during Segment B. In even- numbered years, the Mother shall have custody of the Child during Segments A and C and the Father shall have custody during Segment B. B. Thanksgiving: The Thanksgiving period of custody shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day. The Mother shall have custody of the Child for Thanksgiving in odd- numbered years and the Father shall have custody in even-numbered years. C. Easter: The Easter holiday shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. The Father shall have custody of the Child for Easter in odd-numbered years and the Mother shall have custody in even-numbered years. D. Mother's Day/Father's Day: In every year, the Mother shall have custody of the Child for Mother's Day and the Father shall have custody for Father's Day from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. E. Memorial Day/Labor Day: The Memorial Day and Labor Day holiday periods of custody shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. on the day of the holiday. In odd-numbered years, the Mother shall have custody of the Child for Memorial Day and the Father shall have custody for Labor Day. In even-numbered years, the Father shall have custody of the Child for Memorial Day and the Mother shall have custody for Labor Day. F. Independence Day: The holiday period of custody on Independence Day shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. or after the fireworks. The Mother shall have custody of the Child for Independence Day in odd-numbered years and the Father shall have custody in even-numbered years. G. Child's Birthday: The non-custodial parent shall be entitled to have custody of the Child for at least two (2) hours on the Child's birthday with the specific times to be arranged by agreement between the parties. H. The holiday custody schedule shall supersede and take precedence over the regular and vacation custody schedules. 6. Each parent shall be entitled to have custody of the Child for one (1) week each year for vacation upon providing at least thirty (30) days advance notice to the other parent. The parent providing notice first shall be entitled to preference on his or her selection of vacation days. In the event either party intends to remove the Child from his or her residence for a vacation period of custody, that parent shall provide advance notice to the other parent of the address and telephone number where the Child can be contacted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in 2009, the Father agrees to split his one week period of custody into two parts. In 2009, the Mother shall have an uninterrupted period of vacation custody with the Child from August 15 through August 22. 7. The Father shall not exercise a period of vacation custody under the preceding paragraph until such time as he has obtained a hair specimen drug test result that is negative or confirms that the Father has not used drugs since the April 2009 drug test. 8. The Child shall be transported at all times in an age appropriate car seat. 9. Neither party shall smoke in the Child's presence or in the residence or car when the Child is present. 10. The Father shall undergo hair specimen drug testing within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order at the Mother's request. The Father shall obtain the drug test within seven (7) days of the request made by the Mother therefor. The Mother shall provide transportation for the Father to and from the drug testing site. The Father shall submit to additional hair specimen drug tests as requested by the Mother thereafter, at the Mother's expense, on the condition that the Mother submits to the same test at the same time at her sole expense. 11. The Father shall sign any necessary releases to enable the Mother's attorney to obtain the hair specimen drug test results. 12. In the event of a positive test result (which for the Father means a result confirming drug use since the April 2009 drug test), counsel for either party may contact the conciliator to schedule an additional custody conciliation conference, if necessary. 13. This Order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a custody conciliation conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. cc: John M. Glace, Esquire - Counsel for Father Thomas M. Clark, Esquire - Counsel for Mother -?nomw, i W* unt vm- 'fi t 's Edward E. Guido J. ROLLIN E. RONEMUS Plaintiff vs. LEAH SANSONE Defendant Prior Judge: Edward E. Guido IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH Caiden Ronemus-Sansone December 3, 2008 CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Mother 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on June 3, 2009 on the Mother's Emergency Petition for Modification, with the following individuals in attendance: the Father, Rollin E. Ronemus, with his counsel, John Glace, Esquire, and the Mother, Leah Sansone, with her counsel, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. ?. Q009 Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator SEP 10 ZO10 3 ROLLIN E. RONEMUS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW LEAH SANSONE Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of 54? , 2010, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The parties shall submit themselves, their minor Child, and any other individuals deemed necessary by the evaluator to a custody evaluation to be performed by Deborah Salem. The purpose of the evaluation shall be to obtain independent professional recommendations concerning ongoing custody arrangements which will best meet the needs of the Child. The parties shall sign any authorizations deemed necessary by the evaluator in order to obtain additional information pertaining to the parties or the Child. The Mother shall be responsible to pay all costs of the evaluation. 2. Pending completion of the custody evaluation and further Order of Court or agreement of the parties, the prior Order of this Court dated June 16, 2009 shall continue in effect as modified by this Order. 3. The parties shall share having custody of the Child over the Christmas holiday as follows: the Christmas holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from Christmas Eve at 2:00 p.m. through Christmas Day at 2:00 p.m., and Segment B, which shall run from Christmas Day at 2:00 p.m. through December 26 at 2:00 p.m. In even numbered years, the Mother shall have custody of the Child during Segment A and the Father shall have custody during Segment B. In odd numbered years, the Father shall have custody of the Child during Segment A and the Mother shall have custody during Segment B. 4. The Father shall provide as much notice as possible to the Mother if he is unable to assume custody of the Child for his regular custodial period due to a medical appointment or other medical reason. The parties shall cooperate in scheduling a makeup period of custody for the Father in that circumstance. 5. At such time as the Mother is no longer able to provide all transportation for exchanges of custody due to her advanced pregnancy or at the time and after the birth of her expected child, the parties shall cooperate in reviewing the custodial schedule and adjusting the transportation arrangements so that the Father has shared responsibility for making arrangements for transportation to exchanges of custody. The parties agree that both the Father's girlfriend and the Mother's boyfriend may provide transportation as necessary. 6. Both parties shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the Child refers only to the Mother in maternal terms and only to the Father in paternal terms. 7. Neither party shall take the Child to non-restaurant bars during his or her periods of custody. The parties shall exercise careful judgment as to the environment to which the Child is exposed. 8. Within 60 days of receipt of the evaluator's custody recommendations, counsel for either party may contact the conciliator to schedule an additional custody conciliation conference, if necessary. 9. This Order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a custody conciliation conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. BY E COURT, Edward E. Guido J. cc: John M. Glace, Esquire - Counsel for Father Thomas M. Clark, Esquire - Counsel for Mother TRUE COPY'FROM RECORD in 'Cestifnogy_wh9reof, a harp unto set my he and ttrs' SeQJ of said - ?,t?CaHisle; Pa. This BY c# _ 20IQ _ N SEp 10 2010. ROLLIN E. RONEMUS Plaintiff vs. LEAH SANSONE Defendant Prior Judge: Edward E. Guido IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Caden Ronemus-Sansone December 3, 2008 Mother 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on September 8, 2010, with the following individuals in attendance: the Father, Rollin E. Ronemus, with his counsel, John M. Glace, Esquire, and the Mother, Leah Sansone, with her counsel, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. ';L0 r Date Dawn Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator 06112/2011 16:43 717-502-5050 COLGAN AND ASSOC PAGE 02/02 VERIFICATION I, Barbara S. Ward, verify that the statements made in this Petition are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. / W? Date: f/o -BARBARA S. WARD Petitioner ROLLIN E. RONEMUS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. No. 2009-639 LEAH SANSONE : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant. : IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this date, I served a true and correct copy of Petition for Modification of Custody upon the following individual, via United States First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: John M. Glace, Esquire 132-134 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 CO By: IATES, LLC Thomas M. Clark, Esquire ID # 85211 130 West Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 (717) 502-5000 Dated: 6 ` / 3 - ROLLIN E. RONEMUS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. No. 2009-639 LEAH SANSONE : CIVIL ACTION - LAW - Defendant. : IN CUSTODY ar a' "`' ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this S day of g is sc e?uled in tFis ma ter, BY THE COURT: ,J. Distribution: ? Thomas M. Clark, Esquire, 1.30 W. Church Street, Dillsburg, PA 17019 ? John M. Glace, Esquire, 132-134 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101 2011, it is hereby QRD RED that, 4-" A es ?0# J 16, ! pKl3 0 Nutt- AdnviAt&:Wor - irl it 0, ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 2009-639 LEAH SANSONE, CIVIL ACTION - LAW z Defendant IN CUSTODY ??',.-y ;,, ." f c ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17th day of June, 20113y agreement of the parties, we enter the following Temporary order, which is not meant to prejudice the rights of either party after a full and fair hearing on the merits: 1. Maternal Grandmother, Barbara Ward, and Father, Rollin E. Ronemus, shall have shared legal custody of the minor child, Caden Ronemus-Sansone, born December 3, 2008. 2. They shall share physical custody on a four-three/three-four alternating basis, with Father's four days of physical custody commencing at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, June 20, 2011. [Provided, however, that Father shall be entitled to visit with the child between noon and 2:00 on Father's Day]. 3. Maternal Grandmother shall be responsible for transportation. 4. The parties shall submit to a custody evaluation with a professional agreed upon by the parties. Maternal Grandmother shall bear all costs incurred in connection with said evaluation. 5. This order shall remain in full force and effect until further order of Court. We will schedule a hearing upon request of either party. By t "Court, Edward E. Guido, J. r ?Thomas M. Clark, Esquire 130 West Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 John M. Glace, Esquire 132-134 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 srs O'Piesf,010 f??, ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, Plaintiff V. LEAH SANSONE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS THE NINTH JUDICIAL COURT IN CUSTODY CIVIL ACTION NO: 2009-0639 IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR HEARING ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 28th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff's June 12, 2012 request for a hearing, and the above-captioned matter now being assigned by the Court Administrator to the undersigned judge, a Custody Trial is scheduled for Thursday, 13 September 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom Number 6 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED that counsel attend a half hour pre-trial conference that shall address the subject matter outlined in the numbered paragraphs below. Said pre-trial conference shall be held on Thursday, 9 August 2012, at 1:30 p.m. in the chambers of the undersigned judge. The attorneys may attend in person, via video conference (Polycom or Skype), or via telephone, provided that either party wishing to do so provides notice to the court at least five days in advance of the scheduled conference. 1. Counsel shall prepare and shall file with the court and serve upon the other party a PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT no later than five days prior to the pre-trial conference. The pre-trial statement shall include the following matters, together with any additional information required by special order of the court: a. the name and address of each expert whom the party intends to call at trial as a witness. A report of each expert witness listed shall be included with the pre-trial statement to opposing counsel 1 but not the court. The report shall describe the witness's qualifications and experience and state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and a summary of the grounds for each opinion; b. the name, address, and a short summary of the testimony of each person, other than the party, whom the parry intends to call at trial as a witness, a summary paragraph of the anticipated testimony of each witness and a statement by counsel that counsel has communicated with each witness whose anticipated testimony is summarized; c. the name and age of any child witness either parry proposes to call as a witness, together with a summary paragraph of the anticipated testimonial area for each child that either party intends to call at trial; d. a list of proposed questions the court may ask, in camera, of any child witness; e. a list of all of the exhibits which the party expects to offer in evidence, each containing an identifying mark, together with an indication that the exhibit has been given to opposing counsel; f. the pre-trial statements, summaries, and the identified exhibit list may also be submitted electronically in PDF format via email to the opposing counsel and the court; and g. a proposed final custody order. 2. If a parry fails to file a pre-trial statement as required by paragraph number 1, the court may make an appropriate order under Rule 4019(c) governing sanctions. a. Except for good cause shown, a party who fails to comply with the requirements of paragraph number 1 of this Order shall be barred from offering any testimony or introducing any evidence in support of or in opposition to claims for the matters not covered therein. 2 3. Except for good cause shown, a party shall be barred from offering any testimony or introducing any evidence that is inconsistent with or which goes beyond the fair scope of the information set forth in the pre-trial statement. 4. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the parties may amend their pre- trial statements at any time, but not later than seven days before trial. 5. At the pre-trial conference, the following shall be considered: a. the narrowing of the issues; b. the entry of a scheduling order; c. the special scheduling of any child witness either party intends to call at trial; d. the possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and of documents which will avoid unnecessary proof; e. the limitation of the number of expert witnesses; f. settlement and/or mediation of the case; and g. such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the case. 6. The court shall make an order reciting the action taken at the conference and the agreements made by the parties as to any of the matters considered, and limiting the issues for trial to those not disposed of by admissions or agreements of the attorneys. Such order shall control the subsequent course of the action unless modified at the trial to prevent manifest injustice. 0 ?rGC 67 740 0 D of oia /a"PI BY THE COURT: a Co 136 Thomas A. Placey, C.P.J. 3 Distribution: John M. Glace, Esq. 132-134 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 ? Thomas M. Clark, Esq. 130 West Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 e0p e5 1,' jet 4 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, Plaintiff, VS. LEAH SANSONE, Defendant CIVIL ACTION No.: 2009-639 IN CUSTODY MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND NOW, comes Barbara Ward, by and through her attorney, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire of Colgan & Associates, LLC, and files the instant Motion for Continuance and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. The Petitioner is Barbara Ward ("Maternal Grandmother"), who currently resides at 6017 Wertzville Road, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. 2. The Respondent is Rollin E. Ronemus ("Father"), who currently resides at 638 Allen Drive, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. 3. The minor child is Caiden Ronemus-Sansone (born in 2008). 4. The Mother of the child was Leah Sansone who tragically passed away on June 10, 2011. 5. An Emergency Petition for Modification of Custody was filed by Maternal Grandmother. 6. An Order was entered on June 17, 2011 by the Honorable Edward E. Guido ordering the parties to participate in a Custody Evaluation. (A copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A'). 0 7. The above-captioned matter is scheduled for a Pre-Trial Conference on Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. and a Custody Hearing on Friday, September 13, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. before The Honorable Thomas A. Placey. 8. Counsel for Maternal Grandmother contacted Opposing Counsel asking for his concurrence on continuing the Pre-Trial Conference due to the Custody Evaluation not being completed. 9. The parties agreed to utilize Deborah Salem as the Custody Evaluator. 10. Maternal Grandmother has already paid Deborah Salem in full for the Custody Evaluation. 11. Opposing Counsel informed Counsel for Maternal Grandmother that his client is not in agreement with Deborah Salem as the Custody Evaluator. 12. A continuance is requested because Counsel for Maternal Grandmother feels more time is needed to complete the pending Custody Evaluation. 13. Continuances of the Pre-Trial Conference and Hearing are requested so the Custody Evaluator has sufficient time to complete the Evaluation. 14. Undersigned Counsel emailed Opposing Counsel on July 31, 2012 requesting Opposing Counsel's concurrence regarding a continuance in this matter. 15. Opposing Counsel emailed Undersigned Counsel on August 1, 2012, stating he does not concur with the request for a continuance in this matter. 16. The proceeding has not been previously continued. The moving party has never obtained a continuance. WHEREFORE, Maternal Grandmother respectfully requests This Honorable Court grant the continuance and that the Pre-Trial Conference and Custody Hearing be rescheduled until such time as the Custody Evaluation is complete. Respectfully submitted, COLGAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC Dated: s- By t' M. Thomas M. Clark, Esquire Attorney I.D. #85211 130 West Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 (717) 502-5000 ti CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, Plaintiff, VS. No.: 2009-639 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sharon Sheaffer, Esquire hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the LEAH SANSONE, Defendant CIVIL ACTION IN CUSTODY foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by Regular U. S. Mail, as follows: John M. Glace, Esquire 132-134 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 COLGAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC Date: ?" a- I ?..- By: - Sh on Sheaffer, legal 130 West Church Street Suite 100 Dillsburg, PA 17019 (717) 502-5000 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, Plaintiff, VS. LEAH SANSONE, Defendant CIVIL ACTION "2 No.: 2009-639 ,' "= - -4r IN CUSTODY ' - ' . PETITION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF/FATHER TO PARTICIPATE IN CUSTODY EVALUATION AND NOW, comes Barbara Ward, by and through her attorney, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire of Colgan & Associates, LLC, and files the instant Petition to Compel Plaintiff/Father to Participate in Custody Evaluation and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. The Petitioner is Barbara Ward ("Maternal Grandmother"), who currently resides at 6017 Wertzville Road, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. 2. The Respondent is Rollin E. Ronemus ("Father"), who currently resides at 638 Allen Drive, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. 3. The minor child is Caiden Ronemus-Sansone (born in 2008). 4. The Mother of the child was Leah Sansone who tragically passed away on June 10, 2011. 5. An Emergency Petition for Modification of Custody was filed by Maternal Grandmother and an Order was entered on June 17, 2011 granting shared custody of the minor child. (A copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A'). 6. The Honorable Edward E. Guido ordered the parties to participate in a Custody Evaluation with Maternal Grandmother bearing the costs of said evaluation. 7. The parties agreed to utilize Deborah Salem as the Custody Evaluator. 8. As a result of that Agreement, Maternal Grandmother paid Deborah Salem in full for the Custody Evaluation. 9. Opposing Counsel has now informed Counsel for Maternal Grandmother that his client is not in agreement with Deborah Salem as the Custody Evaluator. 10. It is believed and therefore averred that Father is attempting to delay the completion of the Custody Evaluation. 12. Judge Guido's Order of June 17, 2012, is clear that the parties "shall" submit to a Custody Evaluation. WHEREFORE, Maternal Grandmother respectfully requests This Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Father to participate in the Custody Evaluation with Deborah Salem. Respectfully submitted, Dated: COLGAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC hum-4. A. a,*/,, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire Attorney I.D. #85211 130 West Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 (717) 502-5000 EXHIBIT 6°A" I s ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 2009-639 LEAH SANSONE, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant IN CUSTODY rnCO :Z? rTi ? r -.,,?r Cn r- o .z © to ORDER OF COURT 3 AND NOW, this 17th day of June, 2011y agreement of the parties, we enter the following Temporary Order, which is not meant to prejudice the rights of either party after a full and fair hearing on the merits: 1. Maternal Grandmother, Barbara Ward, and Father, Rollin E. Ronemus, shall have shared legal custody of the minor child, Caden Ronemus-Sansone, born December 3, 2008. 2. They shall share physical custody on a four-three/three-four alternating basis, with Father's four days of physical custody commencing at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, June 20, 2011. [Provided, however, that Father shall be entitled to visit with the child between noon and 2:00 on Father's Day]. 3. Maternal Grandmother shall be responsible for transportation. 4. The parties shall submit to a custody evaluation with a professional agreed upon by the parties. Maternal Grandmother shall bear all costs incurred in connection with said evaluation. 5. This Order shall remain in full force and effect until further Order of Court. We will schedule a hearing upon request of either party. By t Court, Edward E. Guido, J. r ?Thomas M. Clark, Esquire 130 West Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 John M. Glace, Esquire 132-134 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 srs Cop ? ao u ? low CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, Plaintiff, VS. CIVIL ACTION No.: 2009-639 LEAH SANSONE, Defendant IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sharon Sheaffer, Esquire hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by Regular U. S. Mail, as follows: John M. Glace, Esquire 132-134 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 COLGAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC Date:. ByAM 4? n Shea e , Parale 130 West Church Street Suite 100 Dillsburg, PA 17019 (717) 502-5000 ROLLIN E. RONENWS IN THE COURT of COMMON PLF,4S Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY , PENNSYLVANIA r_ i + z - C= c-? 'l + v. No. 2009-639 --<? a, r.. , ?,. LEAH SANSOME, > ?. -y ?. Defendant IN CUSTODY To: The Honorable Thomas A. Placey, Judge of Said Court: Answer and Objection to Motion to Compel Custodv Evaluation AND NOW this 6? day of August, 2012 comes ROLLIN RONEMUS , Plaintiff above named, by and through his attorney, John M. Glace, Esquire, and objects to Defendant's Petition [sic] to Compel Custody Evaluation and, in support thereof, presents the following: L-3. Admitted.. 4. Admitted. By way of further answer, Plaintiff denies that Barbara Ward Petitioner herein has standing to petition the Court for the above relief. 5. Admitted in part, Denied in part. Above Defendant, mother of minor child, was the primary custodian when she was killed in an out of state motor vehicle accident. . Maternal grandmother sought primary physical custody of minor child by emergency petition and Plaintiff objected. Judge Guido's June 11, 2011 Order was temporary in order to aid the minor child in acceptance of the tragic death of his mother. That Order allowed either party to request a hearing due to a change in circumstance and Plaintiff has sought such relief. 6. Admitted in part. The Order specified that Petitioner Barbara Ward should arrange and pay for such evaluation. She failed to take such step until after Plaintiff requested a hearing. 7. Admitted in part, Denied in part. Plaintiff initially admitted agreeing to Deborah Salem as a custody evaluator; but Plaintiff declined when he learned that the full evaluation would take six (6) to nine (9) months. Plaintiff thereafter sought a hearing for an immediate address of disintegration of the mutual custody arrangement and the lack of parental standing of the maternal grandmother Petitioner. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. Plaintiff father has sought and obtained immediate family counseling which includes Petitioner maternal grandmother. An evaluation is neither necessary nor relevant based on the acts and omissions of the Petitioner maternal grandmother. 11. Denied in part. Maternal grandmother Petitioner failed to arrange or pay in any matter for a custody evaluation until after Plaintiff requested a hearing as provided by the June 11, 20111 Order. Accordingly Maternal grandmother Petitioner is equitably estopped from seeking to delay in proceeding due to her failure to act. Because family counseling is ongoing, no prejudice will be incurred and the best interests of minor child will not be served. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully objects to maternal grandmother Petitioner's Petition [sic] to Compel Custody Evaluation and moves that it be dismissed. Respectfully submitted: The Law Offices of John M. Glace Glace, Esquire lain Street Slmanstown, PA 17011 (717) 238-5515 Telefax: (717) 238-6929 Supreme Ct. ID: 23933 Counsel for Petitioners CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that this day of August, 20121 have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Objection and Answer to Petition to Compel Custody Evaluation by first class mail and telefax transmission, postage pre-paid, upon: Thomas Clark, Esquire 130 West Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 and 717-5025050 The Law gOCe of John M. Glace ID: 23933 Street Shirftanstown, PA 17011-6310 (717) 238-5515 ROLLIN E. RONEMUS IN THE COURT of COMMON PLEA§.., Plaintiff. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, ? PENNSYLVANIA ?? c7 V. No. 2009-639 LEAH SANSOME, Defendant IN CUSTODY 5 z: rJ To: The Honorable Thomas A. Placey, Judge of Said Court: Objection to Motion for Conttmimnce AND NOW this / day of August, 2012 comes ROLLIN RONEMUS, Plaintiff above named, b through his attorney, John M. Glace, Esquire, and objects to Defendant's Motion for Continuance, and, in support thereof, presents the following: 1. Plaintiff/ Objector requested on Jame 12, 2012 a hearing for the above matter as provided by Judge Guido's Order of June 17, 2011 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made part hereof.. 2. Upon assignment by the court Administrator Your Honorable Court designated August 9, 2012 (a) 1:30 PM as a Pre-Trial Conference. 3. At that date and time which was one (1) year after issuance of Judge Guido's Order, no custody evaluation had been requested nor arranged by deceased Defendant's mother Barbara Ward.. 4. Subsequent to the scheduled pre-Trial Conference deceased Defendant's mother commenced a custody evaluation with Inner Works in Harrisburg. 5. Because of the number of persons involved, the completion of the custody evaluation will take six (6) to nine (9) months. r, 6. Mother of deceased defendant has been dilatory in failing to arrange the custody evaluation until after Plaintiff requested a hearing and thereby is estopped from asserting that there has been no custody evaluation. 7. Plaintiff requested a hearing pursuant to the dictates of Judge Guido's Order "untenable circumstances" and will be prejudiced by any continuance. 8. The minor child has become extremely upset by the unusual circumstances of the present custody arrangement and Plaintiff has arranged and is participating in family counseling. the mother of the deceased Defendant has been invited to fully participate in said family counseling. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully objects to Defendant's mother's request for a continuance and prays that it be denied. Respectfully submitted: The Law Offices of John K Glace ce, Esquire Street iianstown, PA 17011 (M7) 238-5515 Telefax: (717) 238-6929 Supreme Ct. ID: 23933 Counsel for Petitioners CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that . day of August , 20121 have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Objections to Continuance by first class mail, postage and fax transmission pre-paid, upon: Thomas Clark, Esquire 130 West Church Street Diilsburg, PA 17019 and 717-502-5050 The Law Office of John K Glace Glace, Esquire L" . ID: 23933 Street 5anstown, PA 17011-6310 238-5515 ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, Plaintiff V. WWOW004q? f *-"at% 49" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS THE NINTH JUDICIAL COURT IN CUSTODY LEAH SANSONE, Defendant NO: 2009-639 IN RE: MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND PETITION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF/ FATHER TO PARTICIPATE IN CUSTODY EVALUATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this'h day of August 2012, upon review of the Motion For Continuance, the Petition To Compel Plaintiff/Father To Participate In Custody Evaluation, and the Answers and Objections thereto the following Order is entered: 1. Defendant's Motion for Continuance is DENIED without prejudice to renew said Motion following the 9 August 2012 Pre-Trial Conference; 2. The Petition to Compel Participation in a Custody Evaluation is HELD in ABEYANCE pending the Pre-Trial Conference. In all other respects the Temporary Order entered 17 June 2011 by the Honorable Edward E. Guido shall remain in full force and effect until further order of court. c BY THE COURT: v v r- Z , J C.P . Thomas A. Placey, Distribution: I/ John M. Glace, Esq. 132-134 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 d Thomas M. Clark, Esq. 130 West Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 ?p;eS Mme, -led ?l ??a ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT v . NO. 2009-639 CIVIL TERM LEAH SANSONE, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant IN CUSTODY IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 9th day of August, 2012, a pretr conference was held in the jury deliberation room of Courtroom Number 6 in the Cumberland County Courthouse in the above-captioned case. Present on behalf of Plaintiff was John M. Glace, Esquire and present on behalf of Defendant was Thomas M. Clark, Esquire. The motion of Defendant for a continuance of 13 September 2012 custody hearing is granted. Either party ma request the relisting of the hearing which will necessitate additional pretrial conference. In the interim period of time the parties are compelled to participate in a custody evaluation with Interwo s. Further, the parties shall participate in family counseling wi h Aspire. All parties, father, maternal grandmother, sh 11 promote the natural development of Caden James Ronemus-Sanson (Caden). To the extent possible both parties shall not allow third parties to disparage the other party in the presence of Caden or other minor children in the households. Each party shall speak respectfully of the other whether it is believed he other reciprocates or not. The parties shall refer to the of ex by the appropriate name, such as dad, grandmother or other familial name of respect when in the presence of Caden or oth r minor children of the households. The parents shall refrain from encouraging to provide reports about the other party. Communication always take place directly between the parties or their counsel, without using Caden or other household members as an intermediary. It is harmful to Caden to be placed in the mi of these two parties. The parties shall civilly and respectfully communicate about parenting, legal custody issues, and changes schedules whether in person or by telephone, letters, faxes, texts, e-mails, or other appropriate method of communication. The parties shall refrain from alienating or disparaging the other party or parties' household, especially front of Caden . The legal issues shall be resolved in a civil process, not by Caden. The prior order issued the 17th day of June, 2011, shall remain in full force and effect until further of Court. By the Co s A. t~ Thomas M. Clark, Esquire .P.J. 130 West Church Street = Dillsburg, PA 17019 ~ w --,~ ~ x r ~ v' John M. Glace, Esquire ~~ ~ ~ r ~c 132-134 Walnut Street ~ --tc Harrisburg, PA 17101 <~ ~,. l ~~ ~ 'r ~L in 11 23J e —7 ff10: CH. ;L� t "r_tL f��f av t.tf i CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENT-Sift AMLAURT OF COMMON PLEAS ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, CIVIL ACTION-- LAW Plaintiff vs. DOCKET NO.: 2009-639 LEAH SANSONE, Defendant CUSTODY MOTION FOR SCHEDULING OF A PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND NOW, comes, Barbara Ward, by and through her attorney Thomas M. Clark, Esquire, of Colgan& Associates, LLC and moves the Court as follows: 1. A Pre-Trial Conference in the above-captioned matter was held on August 9, 2012. 2. An Order of Court was entered on August 9, 2012 directing the parties to complete a Custody Evaluation. (A copy of the Order of Court is attached hereto as Exhibit “A". 3. Undersigned Counsel hereby certifies that the Custody Evaluation has been completed and the matter is now ready for a hearing. 4. Notification of this Motion has been given to John M. Glace, Esquire. 5. This matter has been assigned to the Honorable Thomas A. Placey. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that an Order be entered by the Court establishing a date and a time for a Pre-Trial Conference. Respectfully submitt-d, COLG &,AS':OCIATES, LLC By: Thomas M. Clark, Esquire ID # 85211 130 W. Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 Phone: (717) 502-5000 Fax: (717) 502-5050 Dated: 6 - EXHIBIT "A" ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT v NO. 2009-639 CIVIL TERM LEAH SANSONE, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant IN CUSTODY IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 9th day of August, 2012 , a pretrial conference was held in the jury deliberation room of Courtroom Number 6 in the Cumberland County Courthouse in the above-captioned case . Present on behalf of Plaintiff was John M. Glace, Esquire and present on behalf of Defendant was Thomas M. Clark, Esquire . The motion of Defendant for a continuance of the 13 September 2012 custody hearing is granted. Either party may request the relisting of the hearing which will necessitate an additional pretrial conference . In the interim period of time the parties are compelled to participate in a custody evaluation with Interworks . Further, the parties shall participate in family counseling with Aspire. All parties, father, maternal grandmother, shall promote the natural development of Caden James Ronemus-Sansone (Caden) . To the extent possible both parties shall not allow third parties to disparage the other party in the presence of Caden or other minor children in the households . Each party shall speak respectfully of the other whether it is believed the other reciprocates or not . The parties shall refer to the other by the appropriate name, such as dad, grandmother or other familial name of respect when in the presence of Caden or other minor children of the households . The parents shall refrain from encouraging Caden to provide reports about the other party. Communication should always take place directly between the parties or their counsel, without using Caden or other household members as an intermediary. It is harmful to Caden to be placed in the middle of these two parties . The parties shall civilly and respectfully communicate about parenting, legal custody issues, and changes in schedules whether in person or by telephone, letters, faxes, texts, e-mails, or other appropriate method of communication. The parties shall refrain from alienating or disparaging the other party or parties ' household, especially in front of Caden. The legal issues shall be resolved in a civil process, not by Caden. The prior order issued the 17th day of June, 2011, shall remain in full force and effect until further Order of Court . By the Court,_.... ___ _ _ Thomas A. Placey Thomas M. Clark, Esquire 130 West Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 r ,s John M. Glace, Esquire 132-134 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 TRUE COPY FROM RECOF:?J mae In Testimony whereof,I here unto set my hand and the seal of said Court at Carlisle,a`_ This_.l.i_day of �l Prothonotary /dam- iV.- - 9:1/ VERIFICATION I, Barbara Ward, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. CS. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: &/L-1/1. \/ Barbara Ward CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, CIVIL ACTION --LAW Plaintiff vs. DOCKET NO.: 2009-639 LEAH SANSONE, Defendant CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, THOMAS M. CLARK, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I am this day serving a time- stamped copy of Motion for Scheduling a Pre-Trial Conference, upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, mailing the same to: John M. Glace,Esquire 1 East Main Street Shiremanstown,PA 11 F,. Date: 6-75--/ By: , 7‘'/ - Thomas M. Clark, Esquire Attorney I.D. #85211 130 West Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 (717) 502-5000 Attorney for Defendant ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, ,� Plaintiff 261(3 JUN 20 APB W CUMBERLAND COUNTY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PENNSYLVANIA OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT V. 2009-00639 CIVIL TERM LEAH SANSONE Defendant IN CUSTODY IN RE: CUSTODY TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19th day of June 2013, upon review of the Conciliation Summary Report, a custody trial is scheduled for 16 September 2013 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom Number Six of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, at which time testimony will be taken. Plaintiff shall be deemed the moving party and shall initially proceed with testimony. Counsel shall attend a Pretrial Conference scheduled for 15 August 2013 at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom Number Six of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Counsel shall prepare and shall file with the court and serve upon the other party a pre-trial statement no later than 8 August 2013. The pre-trial statement shall include the following matters, together with any additional information required by special order of the court: a. The name and address of each expert whom the party intends to call at trial as a witness. A report of each expert witness listed shall be included with the pre-trial statement to opposing counsel but not the court. The report shall describe the witness's qualifications and experience and state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion; b. The name, address and a short summary of the testimony of each person, other than the party, whom the party intends to call at trial as a witness, a summary paragraph of the anticipated testimony of each witness and a statement by counsel that counsel has communicated with each witness whose anticipated testimony is summarized; c. The name and age of any child witness either party proposes to call as a witness; d. A list of proposed questions the court may ask, in camera, of any child witness; e. A list of all of the exhibits which the party expects to offer in evidence, each containing an identifying mark, together with an indication that the exhibit has been given to opposing counsel; f. The pre-trial statements, summaries, and the identified exhibit list may also be submitted electronically in PDF format via email to the opposing counsel and the court; and g. A proposed final custody order. 2. If a party fails to file a pre-trial statement as required'by paragraph number 1, the court may make an appropriate order under Rule 4019(c) governing sanctions. a. Except for good cause shown, a party who fails to comply with the requirements of paragraph number 1 of this Order shall be barred from offering any testimony or introducing any evidence in support of or in opposition to claims for the matters not covered therein. 3. Except for good cause shown, a party shall be barred from offering any testimony or introducing any evidence that is inconsistent with or which goes beyond the fair scope of the information set forth in the pre-trial statement. 4. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the parties may amend their pre-trial statements at any time, but not later than seven days before trial. 5. At the pre-trial or status conference, the following shall be considered: a. the narrowing of the issues; b. the entry of a scheduling order; c. the special scheduling of any child witness either party intends to call at trial; d. the possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and of documents which will avoid unnecessary proof; 2 e. the limitation of the number of expert witnesses; f. settlement and/or mediation of the case; and g. such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the case. 6. The court shall make an order reciting the action taken at the conference and the agreements made by the parties as to any of the matters considered, and limiting the issues for trial to those not disposed of by admissions or agreements of the attorneys. Such order shall control the subsequent course of the action unless modified at the trial to prevent manifest injustice. BY THE COURT, Thomas A. Placey, C.P.J. Distribution: Di ✓Ro in E. Ronemus, Esq. Thomas M. Clark Es q. q C �1 3 3 ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, III, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVA�,4A� VS NO. 09-639 CIVIL TERM LEAH N. SANSONE, C"'r- ' t ; Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODYC�' p ; IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE Wit'),. ORDER OF COURT ; AND NOW, this 15th day of August, 2013, a pretrial conference was held in the Jury Deliberation Room of Courtroom No. 6 of the Cumberland County Courthouse in this custody matter. Present on behalf of Plaintiff Rollin E. "Shadow" Ronemus was John Glace, Esquire. Present on behalf of Defendant Maternal Grandmother Barbara Ward was Thomas Clark, Esquire. This is a custody action started between Mother and Father but is now between Maternal Grandmother Defendant and Father Plaintiff concerning one child, Caiden, born December 2008 whose current custodial status is shared legal with primary at Defendant and partial with Plaintiff. Grandmother is seeking to follow the evaluator ' s recommendation while Father seeks primary non-grandparent custodial rights . Deb Salem shall proceed first with testimony unless stipulated to. That shall be followed by Father ' s testimony and then Grandmother' s testimony. Thereafter, if time permits, other witnesses may testify. However, if Susan Rook is called to testify, the Court will only take recommendation testimony from her, not facts, as the co-parent counselling she is providing is to be kept within the confines of the counselling. The co-parent counselling being provided by Susan Rook from Aspire shall continue with Father, his wife, and Grandmother and her husband until further order of court . In no event shall any of the children including the child at issue here be at the courthouse during any of these proceedings without prior court approval . The total time allotted to each party for examination, cross examination of all witnesses is one and a half hours, how they choose to use is left to them. But additional time will not be given absent extraordinary circumstances . The expert report shall be admitted after testimony unless previously stipulated to. There are no outstanding motions . Trial shall commence on Monday, 16 September 2013, at 9 : 00 a .m. which the Court notes is a half hour earlier than previously scheduled. However, the Court now has an afternoon limitation that may preclude additional testimony that day. This order shall control the subsequent course of. action unless modified at trial to prevent manifest injustice . Any motions or petitions involving the trial shall be filed no later than Monday, September 9th, 2013 . By the Cour Thomas A lacey, C. P. J. John Glace, Esquire For the Plaintiff ./Thomas Clark, Esquire For the Defendant Grandmother :mlc e3 T ROLLIN E. RONEMUS • IN THE COURT of COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff. • CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. No. 2009-639 • •• LEAH SANSOME, r`- ' z T Defendant • IN CUSTODY o ; CD cam , Motion to Strike Maternal Grandmother's .t- Request to Modify and/or Amend Custody To: The Honorable, Thomas A. Placey, Judge of Said Court: AND NOW this day of September, 2013comes above Plaintiff, ROLLIN E. ROMEMUS, by jI2__d through his attorney, John M. Glace, esquire, and respectfully moves to Strike Maternal Grandmother's Request to Modify and/or Amend the Custody of Caiden Sansome-Ronemus and, in support thereof, presents the following: 1. The above action was commenced on February 6, 2009 between the above parties, the biological parents of Caiden Sansome-Ronemus (dob: 12/3/2008) 2. On June 10, 2011 the Defendant mother was tragically killed in an automobile accident and the Plaintiff petitioned for special relief for the return of his son from the maternal grandmother who had refused to allow access. At the time of Defendant mother's death the minor child had not been in grandmother's primary custody nor had the minor child been a primary resident of the maternal grandmother's household for one year. 3. Thereafter litigation has continued between Plaintiff biological father and maternal grandmother. Procedurally maternal grandmother has never joined the above docket as a party nor has she at law established standing for any matter wherein custody would be amended and/or modified. Accordingly such request is procedurally fatally flawed pursuant to PaRCP 1915.6 4. There is a failure to join a necessary party wherein the biological maternal grandfather has not been joined if this Honorable Court should grant standing. parental misconduct or deficiency entitling a grandparent physical custody and therefore this action is procedurally and legally defective. 5. Maternal grandmother's request is fatally flawed wherein she has failed to plead that minor child is at risk due to parental misconduct or deficiency. 6. Maternal grandmother in her own right may bring an action for custody at law only periods of partial or supervised custody pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 5325. WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully moves this Honorable Court for the above reasons to strike maternal grandmother's request to modify and/or amend the underlying custody of Caiden Sansome-Ronemus for the above legal and factual reasons. Respectfully submitted The Law Office of John M. Glace t John : le, Esquire Supre I t ID: 23933 1 East • Street Shirem. stown, PA 17011 (717)238-5515 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that this ( day of September, 2013 I have served a true.b and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Strike Maternal Grandmother's Request to Modify and/or Amend Custody by first class mail, postage pre-paid,upon: Thomas M. Clark, Esquire 130 West Church Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 The Law Office of John M. Glace 41/A L ?�if ye,Esquire Sup D: 23933 1 E ► treet Shiranstown,PA 17011 (717) 238-5515 Counsel for Movant ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT v CIVIL ACTION - LAW LEAH SANSONE, Defendant 2009-0639 CIVIL TERM IN RE : FURTHER HEARING SCHEDULED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2013, this trial is continued until 25 September 2013, at 11 : 00 a.m. , in Courtroom Number 6 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Mr. Clark will begin with his Cross Examination of father, and then the Court will proceed to take testimony from grandmother. Bv t 4E, Thomas A. Placey C. P. J. John M. Glace, Esquire 1 East Main Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011-6310 For Plaintiff homas M. Clark, Esquire 130 W. Church Street Suite 100 Dillsburg, PA 17019 For Defendant MCO r� M _. :ma e lks . u � CD �! JUi lit,l ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, u�. >> 1i�,�{ Plaintiff 2„:i OCT E 0 F m � ;;' •*' nizt CUMBERL J ?j;`, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS v. PENNSYLVANIA OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL COURT 2009-00639 CIVIL TERM LEAH SANSONE, Defendant IN CUSTODY IN RE: CUSTODY TRIAL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 10th day of October 2013, following a trial concerning the physical and legal custodial responsibilities of father and maternal grandmother concerning minor child, Caiden Sansone-Ronemus (Caiden), born 3 December 2008, following the death of his primary custodian mother, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED that, in Caiden's best interests, the "Parenting Plan” shall be as follows: 1. LEGAL CUSTODY: The Father, Rollin E. Ronemus, shall enjoy sole legal custody of Caiden and maternal Grandmother shall have limited legal custody as described below: a. The Father shall have the sole right to make all major non-emergency decisions effecting Caiden's general well-being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding his health, education, and religion. b. Each party shall be entitled to equal access to Caiden's school, medical, dental, and other important records. c. As soon as practical after the receipt by a party, copies of Caiden's school schedules, special events notifications, report cards, and similar items shall be provided to the other party. Father shall notify Grandmother of any medical, dental, optical, and other appointments of Caiden with health care providers, sufficiently in advance thereof, so that she may attend. d. Grandmother shall execute any and all legal authorizations so that the Father may obtain information from Caiden's schools, physicians, dentists, orthodontists, counselors, psychologists, or other similar individuals or entities concerning Caiden's progress and welfare. Such a release or authorization shall be executed within ten (10) days of any written request by Father or his counsel. e. Notwithstanding Father's legal custody, non-major decisions involving Caiden's day-to-day living shall be made by the party then having custody, consistent with the other provisions of this Order. f. Both parties shall maintain an active electronic mail "email" account for the use of the other parent and school to share and convey information regarding Caiden's schedule, school notifications, and the like. Both shall review messages in the email account on a daily basis and respond to any requests within twenty-four (24) hours, if a response is requested or required. Each party will maintain a file of true and correct copies of all electronic communication, either electronically or in paper form. g. Grandmother's guardianship of any estate that financially benefits Caiden is not addressed in this Order. 2. PHYSICAL CUSTODY: Primary physical custody of Caiden, as that term is defined in the Custody Act, shall be with Father. Partial physical custody is the right to take possession of a child 2 away from the custodial parent for a certain period of time. Grandmother shall have primary physical custody of Caiden, subject to Father's physical custody as follows: a. On every 1st and 3rd weekend of every month from Thursday at 6:00 p.m. through Sunday at 6:00 p.m. b. Once Caiden is in school, Grandmother's alternating weekend periods shall begin on Friday from school dismissal. c. Nightly, the custodial party of Caiden shall place a phone call to a designated number of the other party one half-hour prior to Caiden's scheduled bedtime. The sole purpose of this call is to allow Caiden to say good night to the non-custodial party. If the phone call results in an answering machine pick-up, the custodial party shall encourage Caiden to leave a message saying good night. d. The parties are encouraged to establish a holiday custody schedule; however, in the absence of an agreed upon schedule, a "default" Holiday and Special Days schedule is attached to this Order as Attachment A, and is incorporated herein. The periods of partial custody for the holidays, vacations, and other special days set forth in this Order shall be in addition to, and shall take precedence over, but shall not alter the schedule or sequence of regular periods of partial custody for that party set forth within this Order. Holidays and other special days for custody set forth in this Order shall take precedence over vacations. e. Grandmother shall have physical custody of Caiden at such other times as the parties mutually agree in writing. This writing and any other 3 agreement identified in this Order may be on paper or in an electronic format; however, to be enforced by the court it must be written. f. Both parties are expected to use common sense in scheduling telephone calls to talk to Caiden. Both parties are directed to refrain from preventing the party who may be calling from talking to Caiden, or preventing Caiden from calling the other party, provided that the telephone calls are not excessively frequent or too long in duration. The non-custodial party shall have liberal phone contact with Caiden on a reasonable basis including, but not limited to, the nightly good night phone call established by paragraph 2(c) of this Order. g. Grandmother shall handle transportation for exchange of custody. If maternal Grandmother no longer wishes to go to Father's residence, a mutually agreeable custody exchange site should be used. h. Grandmother shall be responsible for maintaining and promoting a relationship with Caiden's maternal half-brother. 3. GENERAL RULES OF CONDUCT: Father and Grandmother, shall promote the natural development of Caiden's love and affection for his entire family. The parties shall promote the affections of Caiden toward the other party or the other's extended family and shall make a conscious effort to do so. To the extent possible, the parties shall prevent third parties from alienating Caiden's affections from the other's as well as the other's extended family. 4 a. The parties shall continue to attend co-parent counseling and begin counseling with Caiden at the Caring Place. Father is directed to attend those sessions whether or not he has custody of Caiden. b. Emergency decisions regarding Caiden shall be made by the party then having custody. However, in the event of any emergency or serious illness of Caiden at any time, the party then having custody of Caiden shall immediately communicate with the other party by telephone or any other means practical, informing the other party of the nature of the illness or emergency so that the other party can become involved in the decision making process as soon as practical. c. During any period of custody, the parties shall not possess or use illegal substances or consume or be under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication. Any prescribed medications shall be taken only to assure therapeutic levels. The parties shall, to the extent possible, ensure that other household members and or guest comply with this provision. d. It shall be the duty of each party to hold out the other party as one Caiden should respect and love. e. Each party shall speak respectfully of the other whether it is believed the other reciprocates or not. Each party shall refer to the other by the appropriate role name such as Dad, Grandmother, Daddy Brian, or other familial name of respect. 5 f. The parties shall refrain from encouraging Caiden to provide reports about the other party. Communication should always take place directly between parties, without using Caiden or others as an intermediary or spy on the other party. It is harmful to Caiden to be put in the role of a spy. g. Parties shall civilly and respectfully communicate about co-parenting, and changes in schedules in person or by telephone and via letters, faxes, texts, or email, whichever means is most appropriate for the matter. h. Both parties shall use their best efforts to engage in joint decision-making with respect to compliance to any changes to this Order. In the event the parties are unable to reach an agreement, they shall exchange written proposals, including appropriate explanations of their positions, after which they shall meet and discuss their modification proposals in person, if necessary, to reach a decision in the best interest of Caiden. This shall be done prior to contacting their respective attorneys, conciliator, or co- parenting coordinator. Toys, clothes, and other daily use items shall not become matters of contention between the parties as these shall be treated as Caiden's property, not the parties, entitling the items to be taken by Caiden, as reasonably appropriate. j. In the event either party intends to leave Caiden overnight or for a period of three (3) hours or longer in the custody of a person other than the custodial party at a location outside the residence, that party must first 6 offer the non-custodial party the opportunity for additional time with Caiden before making other arrangements for the temporary care of Caiden. 1. Either parent shall have the right of first refusal to care for Caiden if the absence of either should be necessary during his or her normal "Parenting Time". The use of babysitters, daycare facilities, friends or family members shall be secondary to this right. For example, should Father have an evening musical booking on a weekend that is during his custodial time, Grandmother gets asked first if she wants additional time with Caiden. k. All parties should be working on Caiden' educational development in advance of formalized education. It is expected that when Caiden reaches 5 years in age, Father shall have in place a plan to enroll him in a school based program or other educational program. This education foundation needs planned well in advance of his reaching this age. 4. SPECIFIC CONDUCT RULES: Either party may request of the other party to submit on a periodic basis to chemical testing to ascertain consumption of prohibited or illegal substances. The party making this request shall bear all the cost of sampling and testing. The party receiving the testing request shall submit within 24 hours to the local testing location for sampling of their blood or urine. Any results of this testing are to be shared with the other party upon receipt and under no circumstances are the results to be made public but will be available to the court for an in camera review upon appropriate request to the court. 7 5. RELOCATION: Relocation is defined as a change in residence of the Caiden which significantly impairs the ability of a non-relocating parent to exercise custodial rights. No relocation shall occur unless every individual who has custody rights to the Caiden consents to the proposed relocation or the court approves the proposed relocation. If a parent seeks to relocate, that parent shall notify every other individual who has custody rights to Caiden. Both parties must follow the statutory requirements contained in 23 Pa.C.S. §5337. Specifically, the relocating parent must notify every other individual who has custody rights to Caiden by certified mail, return receipt requested. The notice must then comply with the following requirements: a. Notice must be sent no later than: (1) the 60t" day before the date of the proposed relocation. (2) the 10th day after the date that the individual knows of the relocation if the individual did not know and could not reasonably know of the relocation in sufficient time to comply with the 60 day notice requirement and it is not reasonably possible to delay the date of relocation so as to comply with the 60 day notice requirement. b. Unless otherwise excused by law, the following information must be included in the notice: (1) the address of the intended new residence. (2) the mailing address, if not the same as the address of the intended new residence. 8 (3) names and ages of the individuals in the new residence, including individuals who intend to live in the new residence. (4) the home telephone number of the intended new residence, if applicable. (5) the name of the new school district and school. (6) the date of the proposed relocation. (7) the reason(s) for the proposed relocation. (8) a proposal for a revised custody schedule. (9) any other information which the parent proposing the relocation deems appropriate. (10) a counter-affidavit as provided under subsection (d)(1) which can be used to object to the proposed relocation and modification of a custody Order. (11) a warning to the non-relocating party that, if the non-relocating parent does not file with the court an objection to the proposed relocation within 30 days after receipt of notice, non-relocating parent shall be foreclosed from objecting to the relocation. c. If any of the aforementioned information is not known when the notice is sent but is later made known to the party seeking the relocation, then that parent shall promptly inform every individual who received notice. d. If the non-relocating parent objects to the proposed move, he/she must do so by filing the counter-affidavit with the court and the other parent within 30 days. The notice of objection to the opposing parent must be sent by 9 certified mail, return receipt requested. If no objection is made in the manner set forth above then it shall be presumed that the non-relocating parent has consented to the proposed relocation and the court will not accept testimony challenging the relocation in any further review of the custodial arrangements. e. The court shall hold an expedited full hearing on the proposed relocation after a timely objection has been filed and before relocation occurs. The court may permit relocation before a full hearing if the court finds that exigent circumstances exist. 6. ENUMERATED OFFENSES: Grandmother has a conviction of an enumerated offense, Driving Under the Influence, under Chapter 38 of Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Code. The parties are reminded that, should a petition to modify this Custody Order be filed, the parties will need to comply with the requirements of 23 Pa.C.S.§ 5329. 7. ASSESSMENT: In arriving at this plan, the court considered the following factors: a) Which parent is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between the child and another party? Since the death of her daughter, Caiden's mother, Grandmother has undertaken great strides to build a family bridge with Father that had not existed previously. Father is being required to be more proactive in communication by the terms of this Order. Father's respect for the grieving process must now be placed behind him and he must step up and act like a Father to all of his children. 10 b) The present and past abuse, continued risk of harm, adequate physical safeguards and supervision of the child. No abuse is alleged, just different parenting styles. Father's health, for which he is on total disability, and past recreational drug use are a concern for his long term ability to safeguard and supervise. c) The parental duties performed by each parent on behalf of the child. Both parties are substitute care givers as deceased mother was the primary care giver. Grandmother stepped up to initially fill this void as Caiden's injuries presented Father from meaningful custody. Thereafter, Father chose not to arbitrarily extract Caiden from the new home he had come to know and love. d) The need for stability and continuity in the child's education, family life and community life. The custody evaluation report clearly emphasis that need for stability and continuity; however, it is conditioned upon the parties being able to work together to put their conflicts in the past. They have not gotten past conflict, nor is it in the near future; thus, a court decision is necessary as Caiden is not responding well to the current shared custody. As easy as it would be to merely follow the custody evaluation, it is not in Caiden's best interest given the unquenched conflict. Grandmother's resources notwithstanding, Caiden needs the stability of the whole family that starts with Father - warts and all - and is bolstered by Grandmother's support as requested by Father. e) The availability of extended family. 11 On the maternal side there is an aunt and uncle nearby as well as many other relatives in the area. On paternal side aunts and uncles as well as Grandfather live in area. f) The child's sibling relationships. In the paternal home there are 3 step siblings and one half-brother. Grandmother is the only party with access to Caiden's maternal half- brother. g) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child's maturity and judgment. Not applicable child is too young. h) The attempts of a party to turn the child against the other party, except in cases of domestic violence where reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the child from harm. This was a strained relationship prior to mother's death but Grandmother has made the more consistent effort to bridge the differences. i) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for the child's emotional needs? Grandmother's home has become a second home to Caiden, whereas Caiden spends a visitor - like existence in his paternal home. j) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the child? Grandmother has been on point in promoting, developing and addressing post trauma issues. Father rebuffs attempts to start early education preferring to utilize "normal" school cycle. k) The proximity of the residences of the parties. 12 The parties are approximately eleven (11) miles apart or seventeen (17) minutes' drive time. Grandmother's business is located near Father's home. I) Each parent's availability to care for the child or ability to make appropriate child-care arrangements. If Grandmother is not available step grandfather, with whom Caiden enjoys a strong relationship, is available. Father does not require day care due to his disability status. m) The level of conflict between the parties and the willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one another. A party's effort to protect a child from abuse by another parent is not evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with that party. Father is not willing to cooperate as he finds Grandmother to be manipulative. Father was not welcome into Grandmother's home prior to death of Mother. Grandmother finds the effort to produce a relationship with Father tedious but worth it for her grandchild. n) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a parent or member of a parent's household. Grandmother and her husband both had DUI's prior to daughter's death, Husband has had one since, but neither grandparent is a danger to Caiden. Father is a an admitted partier, recreational drug user, especially during the relationship with deceased mother. Father disavows continued drug use except for the prescribed litany of medications and nicotine from cigarettes, which he only does outside. o) The mental and physical condition of a parent or member of a parent's household. 13 Step grandfather is on blood pressure medication. Father has serious health issues that render him legally disabled, including reported fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, legal blindness, idiopathic seizures, colitis and IBS. p) Any other relevant factor. Grandmother is relying on the evaluator's report. Father's driver's license was only recently restored and he is involved with a church. 8. MODIFICATION OF ORDER: The parties are free to modify the terms of this Order, but in order to do so, the court makes it clear that both parties must be in complete agreement to any new terms, meaning that both parties must consent in writing on what the new terms of the custody arrangement or schedule shall be. In the event that one or the other does not consent to a change, that does not mean each follows his or her own idea as to what he or she thinks the arrangements should be. The reason this Order is set out in such detail is so both parties have it to refer to and to govern their relationship with the child and with each other in the event of a disagreement. A copy of this Final Order of Custody shall be sent to both attorneys, who shall provide a copy to his client. 8. REASONS FOR AWARD: There are no perfect parents in the world, only perfect children. This case is no different. Father is certainly not perfect and it is clearly understood why one would not have wanted him in a relationship with one's daughter. That is the past and Father is no 14 longer that past man, nor is he the man he could have been. He is the Father in a relationship that brings with it the life development challenges of a larger blended family. Grandmother offers more extraneous developmental factors beyond family, like private school type education. In the absence of mutual agreement, which is necessary under the evaluation, one side needed to be chosen and family was the deciding factor. Grandmother is given access to information, more so than other grandparents, as it is shown she wants Caiden to succeed. If Father should fail in his duties to promote and develop physically, emotionally and intellectually this young boy into a man, there is no doubt the court will hear about it. At this point Father has the presumption that custody shall be awarded to him absent clear and convincing evidence of him be unfit and harmful to his child. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5327(b). 1311_1171E-COURT, • Thomas A. Placey C.P.J. Distribution: John M. Glace, Esq. Thomas Clark, Esq. COr t Lt..) lo//C)//3 15 HOLIDAYS AND SPECIAL DAYS SCHEDULE DAY TIMES EVEN YEAR ODD YEAR Easter 1st half 9 am to 2 pm Father G-Mother Easter 2nd half 2 pm to 7 pm G-Mother Father Memorial Day 9 am to 7 pm G-Mother Father Independence Day 9 am to 7 pm Father G-Mother Labor Day 9 am to 7 pm G-Mother Father Halloween 5 pm to 8 pm Father G-Mother Thanksgiving 1st half 9 am to 2 pm G-Mother Father Thanksgiving 2nd half 2 pm to 7 pm Father G-Mother Christmas 1st half 6 pm 24 December to Father G-Mother noon 25 December Christmas 2nd half Noon 25 December to 9 G-Mother Father am 26 December New Years 6 pm 31 December to G-Mother Father noon 1 January* Mother's Day 9 am to 7 pm G-Mother G-Mother Father's Day 9 am to 7 pm Father Father *The calendar year on December 31st dictates the odd or even year determination. \\ccpasrO7\ncca$\DATA\tplacey\Custody\HOLIDAYS AND SPECIAL DAYS SCHEDULE.docx Attachment A ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, � `��� ,�u1 i11; ';I �, � Plaintiff i 1010 zt IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS v. OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL COURT 2009-00639 CIVIL TERM LEAH SANSONE, Defendant IN CUSTODY IN RE: MOTION TO STRIKE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER'S REQUEST TO MODIFY AND/OR AMEND CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 10th day of October 2013, following a review of the motion and a custody trial the motion is DENIED. BY THE COURT, I Thomas �A . 'lacey C.P.J. Distribution: - ---John M. Glace, Esq. -homas Clark, Esq. r t F s t o/<o//3 rn co — mac: n - - (Ti CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, CIVIL ACTION --LAW Plaintiff vs. DOCKET NO.: 2009-639 LEAH SANSONE, Defendant CUSTODY NOTICE OF APPEAL THIS IS A CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL Notice is hereby given that the above-named Defendant, Barbara Ward, appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the Final Order entered in this matter on the 10th day of October 2013,by The Honorable Thomas A. Placey,Judge, Court of Common Pleas,Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. This order has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached copy of the docket entry. R:spectfully itted, C 1 GA & A SOCIATES, LLC By: Thomas M. Clark, Esquire ID # 85211 130 W. Church Street C, ,.. Suite 100 Dillsburg, PA 17019 rn ',., zc (717) 502-5000 Dated: November j , 2013 A • --1 • 5 7.00 -.s c? c2 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, CIVIL ACTION --LAW Plaintiff vs. DOCKET NO.: 2009-639 LEAH SANSONE, Defendant CUSTODY ORDER ,c ono jO- A notice of appeal having been filed in this matter, the official court reporter is hereby ordered to produce,certify and file the transcript in this matter in conformity with Rule 1922 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. The dates of the transcript are stated below: a. September 16, 2013 b. September 25, 2013 azt-13914 ec,Se L, -37)i'In5o"1 - e'\511 PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary' s Office Page 1 Civil Case Print 2009-00639 RONEMUS ROLLIN E III (vs) SANSONE LEAH N Reference No. . : Filed 2/06/2009 Case Type • COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time 3 : 08 Judgment . 00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: PLACEY THOMAS A Jury Trial . . . . Disposed Desc . : Disposed Date . 0/00/0000 Case Comments Higher Crt 1 . : Higher Crt 2 . : ******************************************************************************** General Index Attorney Info RONEMUS ROLLIN E III PLAINTIFF GLACE JOHN M 613B BRIDGE STREET NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 SANSONE LEAH N DEFENDANT 417 WATER STREET NEW CUMBERLAND YORK CO PA 17070 ******************************************************************************** * Date Entries * ******************************************************************************** FIRST ENTRY 2/06/2009 COMPLAINT - CUSTODY FILED BY JOHN M GLACE ESQ FOR PLFF 2/18/2009 ORDER OF COURT - 2/17/09 IN RE: COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY - PREHEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 3/17/09 AT 3 : 30 PM 39 WEST MAIN STREET MECHANICSBURG PA - BY DAWN S SUNDAY ESQ CUSTODY CONCILIATOR - COPIES MAILED 2/18/09 3/26/2009 CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT AND ORDER OF COURT - DATED 3/26/09 - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 3/26/09 4/28/2009 EMERGENCY PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION - BY THOMAS M CLARK ATTY FOR C COURT PETITIONER 4/30/2009 MODIFICATION - PREHEARING I M PETITION CUSTODY IINGCUSTODYCONFERENCESCHEDULED FOR 6/3/09 AT 3 : 30 PM AT 39 WEST MAIN STREET MECHANICSBURG 17055 - BY DAWN S SUNDAY ESQ CUSTODY CONCILIATOR - COPIES MAILED 4/30/09 6/17/2009 ORDER OF COURT - 6/16/09 IN RE: CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT - THE PRIOR ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 3/26/09 IS VACATED AND REPLACED WITH THIS ORDER - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 6/17/09 7/26/2010 PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY - BBY THOMAS M CLARK ATTY FOR DEFT 8/03/2010 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 08-02-10 - IN RE: PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY - A PRE-HEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 08-31-10 AT 9 : 00 AM AT 39 WEST MAIN STREET MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 BEFORE DAWN S SUNDAY ESQ - FOR THE COURT DAWN S SUNDAY CUSTODY CONCILIATOR - COPIES MAILED 08-03-10 8/16/2010 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE OF THE PETITION FOR MODIFICATION ON PLFF- BY JOHN M GRACE ATTY FOR PLFF 9/13/2010 ORDER OF COURT DATED 9-13-10 IN RE CUSTODY CONCILIATION REPORT - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 9-13-10 6/13/2011 PETITION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF - BY THOMAS M CLARK ATTY FOR DEFT 6/15/2011 ORDER OF COURT - 6/15/11 - IN RE: HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE MATTER BE REFERRED TO THE CUSTODY CONCILIATOR FOR AN EXPEDITED CONFERENCE - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED 6/15/11 6/20/2011 ORDER OF COURT - 6/17/11 - IN RE: TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDER - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED 6/20/11 6/28/2012 ORDER OF COURT - 6/28/12 - IN RE: CUSTODY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR PY$511 Cumberland County Prothonotary' s Office Page 2 Civil Case Print 2009-00639 RONEMUS ROLLIN E III (vs) SANSONE LEAH N Reference No. . : Filed 2/06/2009 Case Type • COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time 3 : 08 Judgment . 00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: PLACEY THOMAS A Jury Trial . . . . Disposed Desc . : Disposed Date . 0/00/0000 Case Comments Higher Crt 1 . : Higher Crt 2 . : 9/13/12 @ 9 : 30 AM IN CR 6 - PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD 8/9/1Y J 1 :30 PMSINAIHAMBERS8OF2JUDGE - BY THE COURT THOMAS A 8/02/2012 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE BY THOMAS M CLARK ESQ 8/02/2012 PETITION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF/FATHER TO PARTICIPATE IN CUSTODY EVALUATION BY THOMAS M CLARK ESQ 8/06/2012 ANSWER AND OBJECTION TO MOTION TO COMPEL CUSTODY EVALUATION - BY JOHN M GLACE ATTY FOR PLFF 8/06/2012 OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE - BY JOHN M GLACE ATTY FOR PLFF 8/07/2012 ORDER OF COURT - 8/7 12 - IN RE: MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND PETITION TO COMPEL P FF/FATHER TO PARTICIPATE IN CUSTODY EVALUATION - FOLLOWING ORDER IS ENTERED: 1 - DEFT' S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEW SAID MOTION FOLLOWING THE 9 AUG 2012 PRE-TRIL CONFERENCE 2 - THE PETITION TO COMPEL IS HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING THE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE - IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS THE TEMP ORDER ENTERED 6/17/11 BY HOMORABLE EDWARD E GUIDO SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF COURT - BY THE COURT THOMAS A PLACEY J - COPIES MAILED 8/7/12 8/15/2012 ORDER OF COURT DATED 8-9-12 IN RE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE - ALL PRIOR SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT - BY THE COURT THOMAS A PLACEY J- COPIES MAILED 8-15-12 6/07/2013 MOTION FOR SCHEDULING OF A PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE - BY THOMAS M CLARK ATTY FOR DEFT 6/20/2013 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 6/19/13 - IN RE CUSTODY TRIAL SCHEDULING - CUSTODY TRIAL 9/16/13 9 : 30 AM IN CR 6 - PRETRIAL CONFERENCE M/I5/1363 : 301PM CR 6 - BY THE COURT THOMAS A PLACEY J - COPIES 8/20/2013 ORDER OF COURT DATED 8-15-13 IN RE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE - TRIAL SHALL COMMENCE ON SEPTEMBER 16 2013 AT 9 AM - BY THE COURT THOMAS A PLACEY J- COPIES MAILED 8-20-13 9/10/2013 MOTION TO STRIKE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER' S REQUEST TO MODIFY AND/OR AMEND CUSTODY - BY JOHN M GLACE ATTY FOR PLFF 9/20/2013 ORDER SOTRIALTISUCONTINNUEDHEIL 9/25/13 @ 11 : 00 IN COPIES MAILED 9/20/13 10/10/2013 ORDERS OF COOURTY J10/COPIES MAILREPICUSTODY TRIAL - BY THE COURT 10/10/2013 ORDER OF COURT - 10/10/13 - IN RE: MOTION TO STRIKE MATERNAL GRANMOTHER' S REQUEST TO MODIFY AND OR AMEND CUSTODY - *DENIED* COPIES MAILED 10/10/13 LAST ENTRY ******************************************************************************** * Escrow Information * Fees & Debits Beg Bal Pymts/Adj End Bal ******************************** ******** ****** ******************************* CUSTODY AGMT 135 . 00 135 . 00 . 00 TAX ON AGMT . 50 . 50 . 00 SETTLEMENT 8 . 00 8 . 00 . 00 AUTOMATION FEE 5 . 00 5 . 00 . 00 JCP FEE 10 . 00 10 . 00 . 00 PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary' s Office Page 3 Civil Case Print 2009-00639 RONEMUS ROLLIN E III (vs) SANSONE LEAH N Reference No. . : Filed 2/06/2009 Case Type • COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time • 3 : 08 Judgment . 00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: PLACEY THOMAS A Jury Trial . . . . Disposed Desc . : Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 Case Comments Higher Crt 1 . : Higher Crt 2 . : CUSTODY FEE 5 . 60 5 . 60 . 00 CUSTODY FEE-CO 1 .40 1 .40 . 00 MODIFICATION CU 70 . 00 70 . 00 . 00 MODIFICATION CU 70 . 00 70 . 00 . 00 SPEC RELIEF CUS 70 . 00 70 . 00 . 00 375 . 50 375 . 50 . 00 ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Information * ******************************************************************************** TRUE COPY FROM RECORD fn wf,1 here unto t hand end the Testimony seal of hereo said Court at Carlislese,my Pa. This 7 day of Wei; ,20 /l Prothono fly CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, CIVIL ACTION-- LAW Plaintiff vs. DOCKET NO.: 2009-639 LEAH SANSONE, Defendant CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal by hand delivery as follows: John M. Glace, Esquire 1 East Main Street Shiremanstown,PA 17011 The Honorable Thomas A. Placey Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 Michele Eline, Court Repo er Cumberland County Cou house One Courthouse Sq are Carlisle, PA 170 3 By: Thomas M. Clark, Esquire Dated: November 2 , 2013 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS C tea , ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, CIVIL ACTION --LAW ")3 a> 74 Plaintiff IT1W .7,•• rrt....„. (.5 ;; VS. vs t ._t DOCKET NO.: 2009-639 ca';' LEAH SANSONE, > .a, - `V ~1 Defendant CUSTODY - _ -F- , STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925(b) TO THE HONORABLE THOMAS A. PLACEY,JUDGE OF SAID COURT: l And now this day of November, 2013, comes the Defendant, Barbara Ward, by and through her counsel, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire of COLGAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, and respectfully advances the below issues for appellate review: A. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and mistakenly applied the law by failing to rely on the custody factors enumerated in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328 to determine the best interest of the child in assessing whether to grant Grandmother primary physical custody, when the custody factors are heavily weighted in Grandmother's favor? B. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and mistakenly applied the law by relying solely on a presumption in favor of Father simply because he is the biological parent of the child when Grandmother provided clear and convincing evidence the best interests of the child were served by granting Grandmother primary custody, and for over two (2) years, Grandmother shared physical custody of the child with Father and Father has never exercised primary physical custody of the child? C. Whether the trial court's decision granting Grandmother partial physical custody, rather than primary physical custody, was an abuse of discretion and unsupported by the evidence when an experienced Custody Evaluator clearly and convincingly stated that, after a full evaluation, it was her opinion that the best interest of the child would be served by Grandmother exercising primary physical custody of the child? D. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and made a mistake of law by awarding Father "sole legal custody" and Grandmother "limited legal custody," which appears to be the legal definition of shared legal custody. Resp;ctfully su• • ted, CO GAN AS OCIATES,LLC 1 Thomas M. Clark, Esquire 130 West Church Street Suite 100 Dillsburg, PA 17019 (717) 502-5000 ID No.: 85211 Dated: /l' 7 f J Dated:November 7 . 201; VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. CS. §4904,relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: I1 17 l 2_O I CRYI Barbara !V and CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, CIVIL ACTION--LAW Plaintiff vs. DOCKET NO.: 2009-639 LEAH SANSONE, Defendant CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal was served by hand delivery as follows: John M. Glace,Esquire 1 East Main Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011 The Honorable Thomas A. Placey Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 Michele Eline, Court Reporter Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse uare Carlisle,PA 1 013 By: /�.. Thomas M. Clark, Esquire Dated: November t , 2013 *uperior (Court of Veuufspibaufa Joseph D.Selet�m,Esq. Pennsylvania Judicial Center Prothonotary Middle District P.O.Box 62435 Mary A.Graybill, ry 601 Commonwealth Avenue,Suite 1600 Deputy Prothonotary Harrisburg,PA 17106-2435 November 13, 2013 (717)772-1294 www,pacourts.us/courts/superior-court Buell, David D. Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 C: CO ^�- RE: R.E.R. c� ri,_ 1_r, V. L.S. Appeal of: B.W. " 2003 MDA 2013- c�r Trial Court Docket No: 2009-639 ' c� Dear David D. Buell: Enclosed please find a copy of the docket for the above appeal that was recently filed in the Superior Court. Kindly review the information on this docket and notify this office in writing if you believe any corrections are required. Appellant's counsel is also being sent a Docketing Statement, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 3517, for completion and filing. Please note that Superior Court Dockets are available on the Internet at the Web site address printed at the top of this page. Thank you. Respectfully, Mary A. Graybill, Esq. Deputy Prothonotary /wjt Enclosure TO: The Honorable Thomas A. Placey FROM: The Honorable John T. Bender, President Judge RE: R.E.R. v. L.S. Appeal of: B.W. 2003 MDR 2013 Trial Court Docket No: 2009-639 Date: November 13, 2013 The appeal in this case has been designated as a Children's Fast Track appeal in accordance with recent amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, The amendments, effective for notices of appeal filed on or after March 16, 2009, were implemented to give expedited treatment to certain types of family cases in an effort to mitigate the harmful effects of such litigation on children. As such, this Court is seeking your help in moving this matter along as expeditiously as possible. To that end, you should be aware that amended Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) requires the appellant to file and serve the statement of errors complained of on appeal simultaneously with the filing of the notice of appeal. Amended Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(ii) requires you, if the reasons for the order do not already appear of record, to file, within 30 days of receipt of the notice of appeal and 1925 statement, at least a brief opinion of the reasons for the order or for the rulings or other errors complained of, which may, but need not, refer to the transcript of proceedings. Please also note that amended Pa.R.A.P. 1931 requires the clerk to transmit the completed record to this Court within 30 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. I respectfully ask you to give priority to this matter and complete your opinion or statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925 as soon as possible. I also request your assistance in ensuring that the record is transmitted as promptly as possible so that a briefing schedule may issue promptly from this Court. If the appellant has not requested or made payment for necessary transcripts, please notify the staff person below as soon as possible. Under such circumstances, this Court would direct appellant to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a) or risk dismissal of the appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d). If the problem lies with the court reporter, this Court would request your indulgence in strictly enforcing Pa.R.J.A. 5000.10, which allows for the imposition of sanctions when the request for transcripts is met with reticence. Counsel and pro se parties will also be required to do their part in filing their briefs and other documents timely. Please note that, under the amended Rules,the parties have shortened times for filing their briefs. It is this Court's policy.that extensions of time in Children's Fast Track appeals Will be granted only for good cause shown. This Court is very mindful of your enormous work load and we thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. If all of us do our part to expedite this appeal as quickly as possible, hopefully, we can lessen the impact of this litigation on the children involved. The staff person designated below is responsible for tracking this appeal. While ex parte communication with this Court is forbidden, if you or your chambers have any questions, please contact this staff person. Cara Fagan: (412) 565-7634 Cc: Lower Court Clerk Buell, David D. Thomas M. Clark, Esq. John M. Glace, Esq. Court Reporter The Honorable Thomas A. Placey 11:47 A.M. Children's Fast Track Appeal Docket Sheet Superior Court of Pennsylvania Docket Number: 2003 MDA 2013 Page 1 of'2 _ November 13, 2013 Secure CAPTION R.E.R. V. L.S. Appeal of: B.W. I CASE INFORMATION Initiating Document: Notice of Appeal Case Status: Active Case Processing Status: November 12, 2013 Awaiting Original Record Journal Number: Case Category: Domestic Relations Case Type(s): Custody/Visitation CONSOLIDATED CASES RELATED CASES SCHEDULED EVENT Next Event Type: Receive Docketing Statement Next Event Due Date: November 27, 2013 Next Event Type.- Original Record Received Next Event Due Date: December 9, 2013 COUNSEL INFORMATION Appellant Ward, Barbara Pro Se: No Appoint Counsel Status: Represented IFP Status: No Attorney: Clark, Thomas M. Bar No: 085211 Law Firm: Colgan &Associates, LLC Address: 130 W Church St Ste 100 Dillsburg, PA 17019 Phone No: (717) 502-5000 Fax No: Receive Mail: Yes Receive EMail: Yes EMail Address: tclark @cmlaw1.com Appellee Ronemus, Rollin E. Pro Se: No Appoint Counsel Status: Represented IFP Status: No Attorney: Glace, John M. Bar No: 023933 Address: 1 E Main St Shiremanstown, PA 17011 Phone No: (717) 238-5515 Fax No: Receive Mail: Yes Receive EMail: Yes EMail Address: jmglace @aolcom 11:47 A.M. Children's Fast Track Appeal Docket Sheet Superior Court of Pennsylvania Docket Number: 2003 MDA 2013 Page 2 of 2 November 13, 2013 Secure FEE INFORMATION Fee Dt Fee Name Fee Amt Receipt Dt Receipt No Receipt Amt 11/12/2013 Notice of Appeal 73.5011/13/2013 2013-SPR-M-001008 73.50 AGENCYITRIAL COURT INFORMATION Court Below: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas County: Cumberland Division: Cumberland County Civil Division Order Appealed From: October 10, 2013 Judicial District: 09 Documents Received: November 12, 2013 Notice of Appeal Filed: November 7, 2013 Order Type: Order Entered OTN(s): Lower Ct Docket No(s):2009-639 Lower Ct Judge(s): Placey, Thomas A. Judge ORIGINAL RECORD CONTENT Original Record Item Filed Date Content Description Date of Remand of Record: BRIEFING SCHEDULE None None DOCKET ENTRY Filed Date Docket Entry/ Representing Participant Type Filed By November 12, 2013 Notice of Appeal Docketed Appellant BW November 13, 2013 Docketing Statement Exited (Domestic Relations) s, Middle District Filing Office CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, CIVIL ACTION--LAW Plaintiff `- VS. c DOCKET NO.: 2009-639 , LEAH SANSONE, , >.� Defendant ' CUSTODY AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE C.R cap I, Thomas M. Clark, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is an adult and that he served the Notice of Appeal and Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) filed on (November 7, 2013) on Counsel for Defendant, at Counsel for Defendant's last known address as follows: 1 East Main Street, Shiremanstown, PA 17011 by certified mail, restricted delivery, return receipt requested on the 15th day of November, 2013. The PS Form 38111 i4NS tth ht marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof by reference thereto. Date: November 22,2013 COATES,LLC By: Thomas M. Clark, Esquire COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : SS COUNTY OF YORK On this, the 22"d day of November, 2013, before me, a notary public, personally appeared Thomas M. Clark, Esquire to me or satisfactorily proven to be the whose name is subscribed to the within Affidavit and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained. WITNESS, my hand and notarial seal the day and year aforesaid. 3�1 /YJ P�, /D OG(,&,� TARP PUBL C FDILLSBURG OTARIAL SEAL My Commission Expires: ,� - •��j RON SHEAFFER Notary Public BORO..YORK C OUNTY ion Expires Feb 26, 2016 a SENDER: and 3.Also complete 7BkDoelgi-v re • Complete items t,2, Item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired A ent • Print your name and address on the reverse Addressee so that we can return the card to you. ( N C.Dat e of Delivery • Attach this card to the back of the maiipiece, r or on the front if space permits. - D. Is deli Veeir d'Vadss m item 1? 0 Yes 1. Article Addressed to: ff YES ery below: ❑No 3�Service Type Q/ Certified Mail ❑Express Mail V ❑Registensd tm Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail O C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes X 2. Artkid Nu i t (,ansferfrom service bW 7012 101101 0000 6286 7793 Ps Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 1025ss-02-101-1540 EXHIBIT "A" ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, Plaintiff Q IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS v THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2009-00639 CIVIL TERM LEAH SANSONE, IN CUSTODY si Defendant %. CD a IN RE: 1925(a) SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION IN SUPPORT- OF PARENTING PLAN ORDERr C7- PLACEY, C.P.J., 6 DECEMBER 2013 ". History Plaintiff Father initiated a custody action in February 2009, which was followed by Defendant Mother's Emergency Petition and a subsequent Petition for Modification of Custody that resulted in the parents having shared legal custody and Mother being awarded primary physical custody of the parties' one child, Son, born 3 December 2008. Mother was tragically killed in an out-of-state automobile accident in June 2011. Son was also injured in that accident and upon his return to the Commonwealth, Father was initially denied access to his injured son. Maternal Grandmother, within days of her daughter's death, filed an Emergency Petition for Modification of Custody from which an agreed upon temporary custody order was reached. The matter was assigned to this jurist in June 2012 and ultimately a custody trial was held over two days in September 2013., A Parenting Plan Custody Order describing the court's assessment pursuant to Section 5328 guidelines entered in October 2013. Grandmother has filed a Fast Track Appeal raising four issues that this writing will address ad seriatim. It is noted that given the nature of a Fast Track Appeal this Opinion is done without a transcript. Matters Complained of on Appeal Failure to rely on the custody factors enumerated in Section 5328. The Section 5328 factors were addressed individually in the parenting plan order. The Grandmother's perception that the custody factors are heavily weighted in her favor is mistaken. The custody evaluation report is heavily weighted in Grandmother's favor; however, it was distinctly stated by the custody evaluator that those recommendations were conditioned upon the cooperation of the Father and Grandmother. There is no such cooperation between parties and there is no way for any court to force Father or Grandmother to cooperate. Indeed, there is a history, a long history, of prior conflicts between Father and Grandmother, dating back to the beginning of the relationship between Mother and Father. Grandmother prohibited Father from entering her house, even though he was in a relationship with Mother. Grandmother, even through today, is still exerting her influence and control over that relationship through this custody action. The statement of Grandmother that she has attempted to mend the relationship is hollow as she continues to insist that it is her way or no way. It is understood why Grandmother would take such protective action of Mother during her relationship with Father. Unfortunately, Grandmother did not and still does not understand that Father is not concerned with these slights and that they have no impact upon his behavior. Father was not dictated to in the past and does not wish to be dictated to now by the demands of Grandmother. Father does not seek conflict with 2 Grandmother and takes an avoid-if-possible approach towards dealing with her. Nothing speaks louder to this personable attribute of Father than when he was outrageously and improperly denied visitation with his injured son, which was followed by his allowance of custody by Grandmother. Father is not an unfit or bad parent and he takes his responsibility seriously. Absent Father being found to be a bad parent under the factors reviewed, Father is to be given sole legal custody and primary physical custody. Presumption in favor of Father. Grandmother has only ever had custody of Son following Mother's death, as Father saw fit. Father's Motion to Strike Maternal Grandmother, if granted, may have changed the nature of the grounds on appeal, but an appeal was inevitable. It was not granted as Father had allowed Grandmother into the life of Son to a level which Grandmother had not previously enjoyed. But there is no mistaking it was Father's permission that allowed Grandmother this opportunity. It would neither be proper nor in the best interest of Son to remove Grandmother from the action on this technical issue notwithstanding the stout merits of that motion. It must be noted that the parenting plan incorrectly identifies Title 42 as being the source of the presumption in favor of a parent, it is actually Title 23 Pa.C.S.§ 5327(b) that states this presumption. The presumption that Father be awarded custody as the parent is only overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the parenting by Father is not in the best interest of the child. Again, it has been found Father is a fit parent. Instead of being a dynamic proactive "helicopter parent" that Grandmother wants Father to be, Father's style of parenting is reactive to needs but this style is neither wrong parenting nor neglectful of the child. Exception is taken with the evaluators report that 3 the "issue was never who had the right to [Son]" as Father is generally non- confrontational and had not asserted his rights. It is clear that Grandmother is more assertive, has access to more resources, and that she wants to fill the void left by her daughter in an attempt for "normalcy." This push will only serve to alienate Son from his Father, as Father will not confront and will not cooperate to the "dictated" terms of Grandmother for primary custody. Abuse of discretion in opposition to custody evaluation. The custody evaluation was clearly understood that if the parties cooperated this custodial plan was, in the experienced custody evaluator's opinion, how best to handle this situation. This lack of cooperation, as noted by the evaluator, has always existed. Further, cooperation being the basis of the recommendation, causes the recommendation to fail. The evaluation notes throughout that co-parenting is necessary and also notes that it has not occurred. Father's distrust of Grandmother occurred long before Son was born and the power play in this custody action only seeks to reinforce it. Sole legal custody. Grandmother is mistaken in the belief that she is being awarded shared legal custody. In fact what is being awarded is sole legal custody to Father with access to records granted to Grandmother. The terminology may be unclear to Grandmother but the intent is not. Father has the sole right to make all major non-emergency decisions affecting Son's general well-being, including but not limited to, all decisions regarding his health, education and religion. Grandmother is entitled to equal access to son's school, medical, dental and other important records. This in no way gives Grandmother any decision-making responsibility for decisions regarding son's health, education or religion. 4 Conclusion In the 10 October 2013 Parenting Plan supplemented by this 1925(a) Opinion, the custody factors involving Son have carefully been considered and the best interest determined based on family, parentage, and demeanor, exclusive of personal opinions on how to parent, is that Father offers the fuller family environment for the long term physical, mental and spiritual well-being of Son. The Parenting Plan of 10 October 2013 clearly reflects this decision-making process and demonstrates sound legal reasoning that is to be affirmed. ................ Thomas A. Placey C.P.J. D istribution: / ✓John M. Glace, Esq. ZeThomas M. Clark, Esq. SILL 5 • CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) To the Prothonotary of the Appellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: Superior Court of Pennsylvania The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, III vs LEAH N. SANSONE 2009-639 CIVIL TERM 2003 MDA 2013 The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No. 1 to 143, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 12/09/2013 . David D. Buell, Proth.notary Alma Kostjerevac, Dpty. An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy, thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. • chic` den ac Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ss: County of Cumberland 1, David D.Buell , Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in and for said County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full,true and correct copy of the whole record of the case therein stated, wherein ROLLIN E.RONEMUS,III Plaintiff, and LEAH N. SANSONE Defendant, as the same remains of record before the said Court at No.09 637 of Civil Term.,Z003 I(3 In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this 9TH day of DECEMBER A. D., 2013 ' ()-2114'7 Prothonotary 1, Kevin A.Hess President Judge of the Ninth Judicial District, composed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that David D.Buell . by whom the annexed record, certificate and attestation were made and given.and who, in his own proper handwriting,thereunto subscribed his name and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said County,was,at the time of so doing,and now is Prothonotary in and for said County of Cumberland in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,duly commissioned and qualified to all of whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere,a that the said record, certificate and attestation are in due form of law and made by e proper office President Judge Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland ( ss: I, David D.Buell } , Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable Kevin A.Hess by whom the foregoing attestation was made,and who has thereunto subscribed his name,was,at the time of making thereof,and still is President.1 udge of the Court of Common Pleas,Orphan'Court and Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for said County,duly Commissioned and qualified;to all whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to he given, as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF. 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this 9TH day • D.CE■ I:E• A.D. 2013 . Prothonotary 1<, No. Term 19 No. 2009-639 CIVIL TERM 2003 MDA 2013 ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, III Versus LEAH N. SANSONE EXEMPLIFIED RECORD From Cumberland County Debt, . . . $ Int. from Costs Entered and Filed Prothonotary. Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the Cumberland county < in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2009-639 CIVIL TERM to No. 2003 MDA 2013 Term. 19 is contained the following: COPY OF Appearance DOCKET ENTRY ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, III vs. LEAH N. SANSONE **SEE CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCKET ENTERIES** PYS511 cumoerlana county rrotnonotary• s ui=ice rage Civil Case Print 2009-00639 RONEMUS ROLLIN E III (vs) SANSONE LEAH N • Reference No. . : Filed 2/06/2009 Case Type • COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time 3 :08 Judgmen- • . 00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: PLACEY THOMAS A Jury Trial. . . . Disposed Desc . : Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 Case Comments Higher Crt 1. : 2003MDA2013 Higher Crt 2 . : ******************************************************************************** General Index Attorney Info RONEMUS ROLLIN E III PLAINTIFF GLACE JOHN M 613B BRIDGE STREET NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 SANSONE LEAH N DEFENDANT 417 WATER STREET NEW CUMBERLAND YORK CO PA 17070 *****************************************************.*************************** * Date Entries * ******************************************************************************** FIRST ENTRY .2-4 2/06/2009 COMPLAINT - CUSTODY FILED BY JOHN M GLACE ESQ FOR PLFF 2/18/2009 ORDER OF COURT - 2/17/09 IN RE: COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY - PREHEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 3/17/09 AT 3 :30 PM 39 WEST MAIN STREET MECHANICSBURG PA - BY DAWN S SUNDAY ESQ CUSTODY CONCILIATOR - COPIES MAILED 2/18/09 1--io 3/26/2009 -CUSTODY DATED CONCILIATION BY SUMMARY REPORT MADILEDD3/26/090URT (2-23 4/28/2009 EMERGENCY PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION - BY THOMAS M CLARK ATTY FOR PETITIONER fI 4/30/2009 ORDER OF COURT - 4/30/09 IN RE: EMERGENCY PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION - PREHEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 6/3/09 AT 3 :30 PM AT 39 WEST MAIN STREET MECHANICSBURG 17055 - BY DAWN S SUNDAY ESQ CUSTODY CONCILIATOR - COPIES MAILED 4/30/09 .21,4 -,21 6/17/2009 ORDER OF COURT - 6/16/09 IN RE: CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT - THE PRIOR ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 3/26/09 IS VACATED AND REPLACED WITH THIS ORDER - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 6/17/09 AI -- 3.37/26/2010 PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY - BBY THOMAS M CLARK ATTY FOR DEFT 8 8/03/2010 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 08-02-10 - IN RE: PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY - A PRE-HEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 08-31-10 AT 9 : 00 AM AT 39 WEST MAIN STREET MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 BEFORE DAWN S SUNDAY ESQ - FOR THE COURT DAWN S SUNDAY CUSTODY CONCILIATOR - COPIES MAILED 08-03-10 8/16/2010 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE OF THE PETITION FOR MODIFICATION ON PLFF- BY JOHN M GRACE ATTY FOR PLFF 9/13/2010 ORDER OF COURT DATED 9-13-10 IN RE CUSTODY CONCILIATION REPORT - 3 s�'� BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 9-13-10 3q-- 5-56/13/2011 PETITION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF - BY THOMAS M CLARK ATTY FOR DEFT 3 g6/15/2011 ORDER OF COURT - 6/15/11 - IN RE: HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE MATTER BE REFERRED TO THE CUSTODY CONCILIATOR FOR AN EXPEDITED CONFERENCE - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED 6/15/11 Jr+'16.5 7 6/20/2011 EDWARD OF COURT - 6/17/11 - IN RE: TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDER - BY J COPIES MAILED 6/20/11 - 42 ( 6/28/2012 ORDER OF COURT - 6/28/12 - IN RE: CUSTODY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR rz�5il Lumperlana county rrotnonotary. s v==ice raye Civil Case Print 2009-00639 RONEMUS ROLLIN E III (vs) SANSONE LEAH N Reference No. . : Filed • 2/06/2009 Case Type • COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time 3 : 08 Judgment . 00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: PLACEY THOMAS A Jury Trial . . . . Disposed Desc. : Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 Case Comments Higher Crt 1. : 2003MDA2013 Higher 9/13/12 @ 9:30 AM IN CR 6 - PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCECSHALL BE HELD 8/9/12 @ 1:30 PM IN CHAMBERS OF JUDGE - BY THE COURT THOMAS A PLACEY J - COPIES MAILED 6/28/12 0-64 8/02/2012 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE BY THOMAS M CLARK ESQ 6 i-7i 8/02/2012 PETITIOOIOTOBCOMPELAPLAINTIFF/FATHER TO PARTICIPATE IN CUSTODY 11S-12 8/06/2012 ANSWER ANDCOBJECTIONRTOLMMOTION TO COMPEL CUSTODY EVALUATION - BY ri q-81 8/06/2012 OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE - BY JOHN M GLACE ATTY FOR PLFF 22-83 8/07/2012 ORDER OF COURT - 8/7/12 - IN RE: MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND PETITION TO COMPEL PLFF/FATHER TO PARTICIPATE IN CUSTODY EVALUATION - FOLLOWING ORDER IS ENTERED: 1 - DEFT'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEW SAID MOTION FOLLOWING THE 9 AUG 2012 PRE-TRIL CONFERENCE 2 - THE PETITION TO COMPEL IS HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING THE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE - IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS THE TEMP ORDER ENTERED 6/17/11 BY HONORABLE EDWARD E GUIDO SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF COURT - BY THE COURT THOMAS A PLACEY J - COPIES MAILED 8/7/12 84-858/15/2012 S ORDER OF COURT DATED 8-9-12 IN RE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE - ALL PRIOR SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT - BY THE COURT THOMAS A PLACEY J- COPIES MAILED 8-15-12 O q—qb 6/07/2013 MOTION FOR SCHEDULING OF A PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE - BY THOMAS M CLARK ATTY FOR DEFT g(0--Se 6/20/2013 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 6/19/13 - IN RE CUSTODY TRIAL SCHEDULING - CUSTODY TRIAL 9/16/13 9 :30 AM IN CR 6 - PRETRIAL CONFERENCE HH QQ M/I5/1363 : 301PM CR 6 - BY THE COURT THOMAS A PLACEY J - COPIES �'!�-l28/20/2013 ORDER OF COURT DATED 8-15-13 IN RE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE - TRIAL SHALL COMMENCE ON SEPTEMBER 16 2013 AT 9 AM - BY THE COURT THOMAS //�� A PLACEY J- COPIES MAILED 8-20-13 q —10 9/10/2013 MOTION TO STRIKE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER'S REQUEST TO MODIFY AND/OR AMEND CUSTODY - BY JOHN M GLACE ATTY FOR PLFF fo3 9/20/2013 ORDER CONTINUEDITIL39/25/13E@ FURTHER HEARING -CLIMB CO COURTHOUSE - BY THE COURT THOMAS A PLACEY J - COPIES MAILED 9/20/13 Iv -1/1r10/10/2013 THOMASOA F COURT -PLACEY J1- COPIES MAILEDP10/10/113 TRIAL - BY THE COURT .2.O 10/10/2013 ORDER OF COURT - 10/10/13 - IN RE: MOTION TO STRIKE MATERNAL GRANMOTHER'S REQUEST TO MODIFY AND OR AMEND CUSTODY - *DENIED* COPIES MAILED 10/10/13 12141 11/07/2013 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT - CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL - BY THOMAS M CLARK ATTY FOR DEFT/BARBARA WARD ,•11-7.... 13Q 11/07/2013 1925E BE- MATTERS CLLARKAATTDY ON APPEAL PURSUANT TO PA RAP 131- 13 s-11/14/2013 SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 2003 MDA 2013 6 X13 11/25/2013 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE - SERVED NOTICE OF APPEAL AND CONCISE 13 STATEMENTPOFFMATTERS UPON COUNSEL FOR DEFT - BY THOMAS M CLARK AF rY511 Lumperiana Louncy rrotnonotary• s oirice raye .S Civil Case Print 2009-00639 RONEMUS ROLLIN E III (vs) SANSONE LEAH N Reference No. . : Filed • 2/06/2009 Case Type • COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time • 3 : 08 Judgment . 00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: PLACEY THOMAS A Jury Trial. . . . Disposed Desc. : Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 Case Comments Higher Crt 1. : 2003MDA2013 Higher Crt 2. : (3S -42)12/06/2013 1 255/A3 SUPPLEMENTAL OPINIONAINASUPPORT OF PARENTING PLAN ORDER -J COPIES MAILED 12/6/13 12/09/2013 NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRIES MAILED TO JOHN M GLACE ESQ AND THOMAS M CLARK ESQ ` NI /q3 - - - - - /y�ec na(1M z l;9 f4 s EN YF ,.5 C ** ** ** * * ***** ** * ** **** * * ******* ** * ************************** * Escrow Information * * Fees & Debits Beg Bal Pymts/Adi End Bal * ******************************** ******** ****** ******************************* CUSTODY AGMT 135 . 00 135 . 00 . 00 TAX ON AGMT .50 .50 . 00 SETTLEMENT 8 . 00 8 . 00 . 00 AUTOMATION FEE 5 . 00 5 . 00 . 00 JCP FEE 10 . 00 10 . 00 . 00 CUSTODY FEE 5 . 60 5 .60 . 00 CUSTODY FEE-CO 1.40 1.40 . 00 MODIFICATION CU 70 . 00 70 . 00 . 00 MODIFICATION CU 70 . 00 70 . 00 . 00 SPEC RELIEF CUS 70. 00 70 . 00 . 00 APPEAL HIGH CT 57 . 00 57. 00 . 00 432 .50 432 .50 . 00 ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Information * ******************************************************************************** TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof,I here unto set my hand and the stalci said at Carlisle,Pa. This q day of ,20 A Oli 4A6/4C il Prothonotary CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD To the Prothonotary of the Appellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: SUPERIOR COURT OF PA The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, III vs LEAH S. SANSONE 2009-639 CIVIL TERM 2003 MDA 2013 The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No. 144 to 308, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 12/11/2013. -i'iii A l David D. Buell, Prothonotary Alma Kostjerevac, Deputy. An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy, thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. • - CA ik/reis SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD fg-S+ �ac� Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland ss: 1, David D.Buell , Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in and for said County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full,true and correct copy of the whole record of the case therein stated, wherein ROLLIN E.RONEMUS,III Plaintiff, and LEAH S.SANSONE Defendant, as the same remains of record before the said Court at No. 2009-639 of Civil Term.,t003 MO A old 13 In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, l have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this 11TH day of DECEMBER A. D., 2013 Prothonotary 1, Kevin A.Hess President Judge of the Ninth Judicial District, composed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that David D.Buell , by whom the annexed record, certificate and attestation were made and given.and who,in his own proper handwriting,thereunto subscribed his name and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said County,was,at the time of so doing,and now is Prothonotary in and for said County of Cumberland in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,duly commissioned and qualified to all of whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere,and t at the said record, certificate and attestation are in due form of law and made by th- •roper officer. President Judge Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland ss: David D.Buell , Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable Kevin A.Hess by whom the foregoing attestation was made,and who has thereunto subscribed his name,was,at the time of making thereof,and still is President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas,Orphan'Court and Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for said County.duly Commissioned and qualified;to all whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given, as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF. 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this 11TH day DECEMBER A.D. 2013 Prothonotary No. Term 19 No. 2009-639 Civil Term 2003 MDA 2013 ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, III Versus LEAH S. SANSONE EXEMPLIFIED RECORD From Cumberland County Debt, . . . $ Int. from Costs Entered and Filed Prothonotary. • Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the Cumberland county tr in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2009-639 Civil Term 2003 MDA 2013 to No. Term, 19 is contained the following: COPY OF Appearance DOCKET ENTRY ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, III vs. LEAH S. SANSONE **SEE CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCKET ENTERIES** • PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 1 • Civil Case Print 2009-00639 RONEMUS ROLLIN E III (vs) SANSONE LEAH N Reference No. . : Filed • 2/06/2009 Case Type. . . . . : COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time 3 : 08 Judgment . 00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: PLACEY THOMAS A Jury Trial. . . . Disposed Desc. : Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 Case Comments Higher Crt 1. : 2003MDA2013 Higher Crt 2 . : ******************************************************************************** General Index Attorney Info RONEMUS ROLLIN E III PLAINTIFF GLACE JOHN M 613B BRIDGE STREET NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 SANSONE LEAH N DEFENDANT 417 WATER STREET NEW CUMBERLAND YORK CO PA 17070 ******************************************************************************** * Date Entries * ******************************************************************************** FIRST ENTRY ,2-472/06/2009 COMPLAINT - CUSTODY FILED BY JOHN M GLACE ESQ FOR PLFF . 1 2/18/2009 ORDER OF COURT - 2/17/09 IN RE: COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY - PREHEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 3/17/09 AT 3 :30 PM 39 WEST MAIN STREET MECHANICSBURG PA - BY DAWN S SUNDAY ESQ CUSTODY CONCILIATOR - COPIES MAILED 2/18/09 1- 103/26/2009 CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT AND ORDER OF COURT - DATED 3/26/09 - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 3/26/09 a.23 4/28/2009 EMERGENCYPPEIIIIONRFOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION - BY THOMAS M CLARK jI 4/30/2009 ORDER OF COURT - 4/30/09 IN RE: EMERGENCY PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION - PREHEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 6/3/09 AT 3 :30 PM AT 39 WEST MAIN STREET MECHANICSBURG 17055 - BY DAWN S SUNDAY ESQ CUSTODY CONCILIATOR - COPIES MAILED 4/30/09 24_21 6/17/2009 ORDER OF COURT - 6/16/09 IN RE: CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT - THE PRIOR ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 3/26/09 IS VACATED AND REPLACED WITH THIS ORDER - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 6/17/09 2/-33 7/26/2010 PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY - BBY THOMAS M CLARK ATTY FOR DEFT 22 8/03/2010 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 08-02-10 - IN RE: PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY - A PRE-HEARING CUSTODY CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 08-31-10 AT 9 : 00 AM AT 39 WEST MAIN STREET MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 BEFORE DAWN S SUNDAY ESQ - FOR THE COURT DAWN S SUNDAY CUSTODY ,L CONCILIATOR - COPIES MAILED 08-03-10 34 8/16/2010 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE OF THE PETITION FOR MODIFICATION ON PLFF- BY JOHN M GRACE ATTY FOR PLFF 3-_31 9/13/2010 ORDER OF COURT DATED 9-13-10 IN RE CUSTODY CONCILIATION REPORT - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 9-13-10 31-56/13/2011 PETITION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF - BY THOMAS M CLARK ATTY FOR DEFT 3g 6/15/2011 ORDER OF COURT - 6/15/11 - IN RE: HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE MATTER BE REFERRED TO THE CUSTODY CONCILIATOR FOR AN EXPEDITED CONFERENCE - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED 6/15/11 9(0-51 6/20/2011 ORDER OF COURT - 6/17/11 - IN RE: TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDER - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J q__ COPIES MAILED 6/20/11 j O - 61 6/28/2012 ORDER OF COURT - 6/28/12 - IN RE: CUSTODY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary' s Office Page 2 • Civil Case Print 2009-00639 RONEMUS ROLLIN E III (vs) SANSONE LEAH N Reference No. . : Filed • 2/06/2009 Case Type COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time 3:08 Judgment . 00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: PLACEY THOMAS A Jury Trial. . . . Disposed Desc. : Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 Case Comments Higgher Crt 1. : 2003MDA2013 9/13/12 @ 9 :30 AM IN CR 6 - PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE Crt BE HELD 8/9/12 @ 1:30 PM IN CHAMBERS OF JUDGE - BY THE COURT THOMAS A PLACEY J - COPIES MAILED 6/28/12 a-448/02/2012 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE BY THOMAS M CLARK ESQ — 1I' 8/02/2012 PETITIOIOTOBCOMPELAPLAINTIFF/FATHER TO PARTICIPATE IN CUSTODY 75---1 8/06/2012 ANSWER AND OBJECTION TO MOTION TO COMPEL CUSTODY EVALUATION - BY JOHN M GLACE ATTY FOR PLFF 101-4 ( 8/06/2012 OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE - BY JOHN M GLACE ATTY FOR PLFF V.-438/07/2012 ORDER OF COURT - 8/7/12 - IN RE: MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND PETITION TO COMPEL PLFF/FATHER TO PARTICIPATE IN CUSTODY EVALUATION - FOLLOWING ORDER IS ENTERED: 1 - DEFT'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEW SAID MOTION FOLLOWING THE 9 AUG 2012 PRE-TRIL CONFERENCE 2 - THE PETITION TO COMPEL IS HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING THE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE - IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS THE TEMP ORDER ENTERED 6/17/11 BY HOMORABLE EDWARD E GUIDO SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF COURT - BY THE COURT THOMAS A PLACEY J - COPIES MAILED 8/7/12 gq —8S-8/15/2012 ORDER OF COURT DATED 8-9-12 IN RE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE - ALL PRIOR SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT - BY THE COURT THOMAS A PLACEY J- COPIES MAILED 8-15-12 gq AG 6/07/2013 MOOTIOONAFOR SCHEDULING OF A PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE - BY THOMAS M 648 6/20/2013 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 6/19/13 - IN RE CUSTODY TRIAL SCHEDULING - CUSTODY TRIAL 9/16/13 9 :30 AM IN CR 6 - PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 8/15/13 3 :30 PM CR 6 - BY THE COURT THOMAS A PLACEY J - COPIES MAILED 6/20/13 q 7- 41.E 8/20/2013 ORDER OF COURT DATED 8-15-13 IN RE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE - TRIAL SHALL COMMENCE ONSEPTEMBER162013AT9M - BY THE COURT THOMAS A PLACEY J- COPIES MAILED 8-20-13 q q- mot 9/10/2013 MOTIONCTOTSTR STRIKE BMATERNAL GL RA DMOTHER'SRREQQUEST TO MODIFY AND/OR (03 9/20/2013 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 9/16/13 - IN RE: FURTHER HEARING SCHEDULED - THIS TRIAL IS CONTINUED TIL 9/25/13 @ 11: 00 AM IN CR #6 OF THE CUMB CO COURTHOUSE - BY THE COURT THOMAS A PLACEY J - COPIES MAILED 9/20/13 104—111 10/10/2013 ORDERS OF COOURTY J10/10/I3 MAILED 10/10/13 TRIAL - BY THE COURT IZ) 10/10/2013 ORDER OF COURT - 10/10/13 - IN RE: MOTION TO STRIKE MATERNAL GRANMOTHER'S REQUEST TO MODIFY AND OR AMEND CUSTODY - *DENIED* COPIES MAILED 10/10/13 12,( - (16 11/07/2013 APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT - DEFT/BARBARA CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL - WARD 130 11/07/2013 1925STATEMENT E - MATTERS COMPLAINED PURSUANT TO PA RAP WARD 131--13c11/14/2013 SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 2003 MDA 2013 13 031 11/25/2013 SERVED STATEMENT OF MATTERS UPON COUNSEL O LFORDEFT P- BY AT CHOMASMSCLARK ATTY FOR PLFF PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 3 .� Y Civil Case Print 2009-00639 RONEMUS ROLLIN E III (vs) SANSONE LEAH N Reference No. . : Filed 2/06/2009 Case Type • COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time 3: 08 Judgment . 00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: PLACEY THOMAS A Jury Trial. . . . Disposed Desc. : Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 Case Comments Higher Crt 1. : 2003MDA2013 Higher Crt 2. : i3g-I ,2• 12/06/2013 1925 A SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION IN SUPPORT OF PARENTING PLAN ORDER - 12/6///13M- BYDTHE/COURT THOMAS A PLACEY J 12/09/2013 NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRIES MAILED TO JOHN M GLACE ESQ AND THOMAS M CLARK q�ESQ y� 0/�eJ / �'y1('�L zq - 12/11/2013 �T) SCRTP O PROCEEDINGS- 9/16/13 - BEFORE HONORABLE THOMAS A / ` + '2�� PLACEY J 2,43_30g 12/11/2013 A PNSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - 9/25/13 - BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS 12/11/2013 NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRIES MAILED TO JOHN M GLACE ESQ AND THOMAS M CLARK ESQ LAST ENTRY ******************************************************************************** * Escrow Information * * Fees & Debits Beg Bal Pmts/Adi End Bal * ******************************** ******** ****** ******************************* CUSTODY AGMT 135. 00 135 . 00 . 00 TAX ON AGMT .50 . 50 .00 SETTLEMENT 8 . 00 8 . 00 . 00 AUTOMATION FEE 5 . 00 5. 00 . 00 JCP FEE 10. 00 10 . 00 . 00 CUSTODY FEE 5. 60 5 . 60 . 00 CUSTODY FEE-CO 1.40 1.40 .00 MODIFICATION CU 70. 00 70 . 00 . 00 MODIFICATION CU 70. 00 70 . 00 . 00 SPEC RELIEF CUS 70. 00 70 . 00 . 00 APPEAL HIGH CT 57. 00 57. 00 . 00 432 . 50 432 . 50 . 00 ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Information * ******************************************************************************** TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof,I here unto set my hand and the, sg�l of said Co at Carlisle,Pa. _L L da a/A4 This y of i C. ,20__./ 3 Prothonota m., ek/040n k CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER ck PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) To the Prothonotary of the Appellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: Superior Court of Pennsylvania The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, III vs LEAH N. SANSONE 2009-639 CIVIL TERM 2003 MDA 2013 The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No. 1 to 143, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 12/09/2013 . Lti . Buell, Prothonotary Alma Kostjerevac, Dpty. An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy, thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. Received in Superior Court DEC 1 1 2013 MIDDLE Tack CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD To the Prothonotary of the Appellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: SUPERIOR COURT OF PA The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: ROLLIN E. RONEMUS,III vs LEAH S. SANSONE 2009-639 CIVIL TERM 2003 MDA 2013 The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No. 144 to 308, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 12/11/2013. D. onotary Alma Kostjerevac, •eputy. An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. PletiEEM embilcakerfvp,yr thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. DEC 1 3 2013 MIDDLE ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS c l : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLNI --� Plaintiff rte • NO. 2009-00639 = 7 f i V. ...0> IN) C:3(J r'"- Ci3 --4 r .,C CJ -r`1 LEAH SANSONE : CIVIL ACTION �'`-' ' ,. : CUSTODY {,.� Defendant - EMERGENCY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW COMES, Barbara Ward, by and through her attorney, Thomas M. Clark, Esquire, of Colgan & Associates, LLC, and files the instant Emergency Petition for Special Relief, and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Petitioner is Barbara Ward ("Grandmother"), who currently resides at 6017 Wertzville Road, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. 2. Respondent/Defendant is Rollin E. Ronemus ("Father"), who currently resides at 638 Allen Drive,New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. 3. The child is Caiden Ronemus-Sansone, age 5 (year of birth 2008). 4. Grandmother seeks shared legal and primary physical custody of the child. 5. The parties exercise custody pursuant to an Order for Custody dated October 10, 2013, which grants Father sole legal custody and primary physical custody, while Grandmother exercises periods of partial physical custody every other weekend. (A copy of the Order is attached hereto as "Exhibit A"). 6. There has been a significant change in circumstances since entry of the October 10, 2013 Custody Order. Specifically, Trodod P� C6* (e�46 80091 . a. On January 17, 2014, during Grandmother's custodial period, Grandmother noted a large bruise, covering the Child's right buttock and small bruises on the child's arm, as though someone had held the child and spanked him. b. The child stated Father inflicted the bruises when he spanked the child for getting out of bed in the morning. c. The child has consistently recounted the same facts to two separate Cumberland County Children and Youth Services ("CYS") caseworkers. d. When CYS conducted an unannounced visit at Father's home, Father acknowledged that the child was spanked, but stated it was the child's Step Mother who caused the injury. e. CYS instituted a temporary safety plan, in which the child will remain in Grandmother's care until February 4, 2014, when the plan will be re-evaluated. (A copy of the temporary safety plan is attached hereto as "Exhibit B"). f. To Grandmother's knowledge, CYS has not yet completed a CY-48, issuing a finding as to abuse in this case. g. The child has since told Grandmother that a wooden spoon is kept in the Father's room for the purpose of physically disciplining the children. 8. Additionally, Father has violated the October 10, 2013 custody order in the following ways: a. Father has not continued to attend co-parenting classes with Grandmother. b. Father has made no attempt to initiate counseling for the child at the Caring Place. 9. The relationship of Petitioner to the child is that of Maternal Grandmother. • 10. The relationship of Respondent to the child is that of natural Father. 11. The child's Mother is deceased. 12. At the time this petition is being filed, there is an appeal pending before the Pennsylvania Superior Court with regard to custody of this child, the parties to the action being Grandmother and Father. 13. Grandmother does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the child or who claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child 14. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting Grandmother shared legal custody and primary physical custody of the child. 15. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the child have been named as parties to this action. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests This Honorable Court to find Father in contempt of the October 10, 2013 Order of Court and modify the Order as requested by Grandmother. Respect y Submitted, COL N & ASS IATES,LLC By Thomas M. Clark, Esquire Attorney ID #85211 130 West Church Street Suite 100 Dillsburg, PA 17019 Tel: (717) 502-5000 Dated: :lit_ EXHIBIT A a of en ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, l moot* Plaintiff "t::;: 0:1 10 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS v l'L:.i; s'r'l.`1A lip, OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL COURT 2009-00639 CIVIC. TERM LEAH SANSONE, Defendant IN CUSTODY IN RE: CUSTODY TRIAL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 10th day of October 2013, following a trial concerning the physical and legal custodial responsibilities of father and maternal grandmother concerning minor child, Calder, Sansone-Ronemus (Caiden), born 3 December 2008, following the death of his primary custodian mother, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED that, in Caiden's best interests, the "Parenting Plan" shall be as follows: 1. LEGAL CUSTODY: The Father, Rollin E. Ronemus, shall enjoy sole legal custody of Caiden and maternal Grandmother shall have limited legal custody as described below: a. The Father shall have the sole right to make all major non-emergency decisions effecting Caiden's general well-being including, but not limited to. all decisions regarding his health, education, and religion. b. Each party shall be entitled to equal access to Caiden's school, medical, dental, and other important records. c. As soon as practical after the receipt by a party, copies of Caiden's school schedules, special events notifications, report cards, and similar items shall be provided to the other party. Father shall notify Grandmother of any medical, dental, optical, and other appointments of Caiden with health care providers, sufficiently in advance thereof, so that she may attend. d. Grandmother shall execute any and all legal authorizations so that the Father may obtain information from Caiden's schools, physicians, dentists, orthodontists, counselors, psychologists, or other similar individuals or entities concerning Caiden's progress and welfare. Such a release or authorization shall be executed within ten (10) days of any written request by Father or his counsel. e. Notwithstanding Father's legal custody, non-major decisions involving Caiden's day-to-day living shall be made by the party then having custody, consistent with the other provisions of this Order. f. Both parties shall maintain an active electronic mail "email" account for the use of the other parent and school to share and convey information regarding Caiden's schedule, school notifications, and the like. Both shall review messages in the email account on a daily basis and respond to any requests within twenty-four (24) hours, if a response is requested or required. Each party will maintain a file of true and correct copies of all electronic communication, either electronically or in paper form. g. Grandmother's guardianship of any estate that financially benefits Caiden is not addressed in this Order. 2. PHYSICAL CUSTODY: Primary physical custody of Caiden, as that term is defined in the Custody Act, shall be with Father. Partial physical custody is the right to take possession of a child 2 away from the custodial parent for a certain period of time. Grandmother shall have primary physical custody of Caiden, subject to Father's physical custody as follows: a. On every 1S1 and 3"' weekend of every month from Thursday at 6:00 p.m. through Sunday at 6:00 p.m. b. Once Caiden is in school, Grandmother's alternating weekend periods shall begin on Friday from school dismissal. c. Nightly, the custodial party of Caiden shall place a phone call to a designated number of the other party one half-hour prior to Caiden's scheduled bedtime. The sole purpose of this call is to allow Caiden to say good night to the non-custodial party. If the phone call results in an answering machine pick-up, the custodial party shall encourage Caiden to leave a message saying good night. d. The parties are encouraged to establish a holiday custody schedule; however, in the absence of an agreed upon schedule, a "default" Holiday and Special Days schedule is attached to this Order as Attachment A, and is incorporated herein. The periods of partial custody for the holidays, vacations, and other special days set forth in this Order shall be in addition to, and shall take precedence over, but shall not alter the schedule or sequence of regular periods of partial custody for that party set forth within this Order. Holidays and other special days for custody set forth in this Order shall take precedence over vacations. e. Grandmother shall have physical custody of Caiden at such other times as the parties mutually agree in writing. This writing and any other 3 agreement identified in this Order may be on paper or in an electronic format; however, to be enforced by the court it must be written. f. Both parties are expected to use common sense in scheduling telephone calls to talk to Caiden. Both parties are directed to refrain from preventing the party who may be calling from talking to Caiden, or preventing Caiden from calling the other party, provided that the telephone calls are not excessively frequent or too long in duration. The non-custodial party shall have liberal phone contact with Caiden on a reasonable basis including, but not limited to, the nightly good night phone call established by paragraph 2(c) of this Order, g. Grandmother shall handle transportation for exchange of custody. If maternal Grandmother no longer wishes to go to Father's residence, a mutually agreeable custody exchange site should be used. h. Grandmother shall be responsible for maintaining and promoting a relationship with Caiden's maternal half-brother. 3. GENERAL RULES OF CONDUCT: Father and Grandmother, shall promote the natural development of Caiden's love and affection for his entire family. The parties shall promote the affections of Caiden toward the other party al the other's extended family and shall make a conscious effort to do so. To the extent possible, the parties shall prevent third parties from alienating Caiden's affections from the other's as well as the other's extended family. 4 a. The parties shall continue to attend co-parent counseling and begin counseling with Caiden at the Caring Place. Father is directed to attend those sessions whether or not he has custody of Caiden. b. Emergency decisions regarding Caiden shall be made by the party then having custody. However, in the event of any emergency or serious illness of Caiden at any time, the party then having custody of Caiden shall immediately communicate with the other party by telephone or any other means practical, informing the other party of the nature of the illness or emergency so that the other party can become involved in the decision making process as soon as practical. c. During any period of custody, the parties shall not possess or use illegal substances or consume or be under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication. Any prescribed medications shall be taken only to assure therapeutic levels. The parties shall, to the extent possible, ensure that other household members and or guest comply with this provision. d. It shall be the duty of each party to hold out the other party as one Caiden should respect and love. e. Each party shall speak respectfully of the other whether it is believed the other reciprocates or not. Each party shall refer to the other by the appropriate role name such as Dad, Grandmother, Daddy Brian, or other familial name of respect. 5 f, The parties shall refrain from encouraging Caiden to provide reports about the other party. Communication should always take place directly between parties, without using Caiden or others as an intermediary or spy on the other party. It is harmful to Caiden to be put in the role of a spy. g. Parties shall civilly and respectfully communicate about co-parenting, and changes in schedules in person or by telephone and via letters, faxes, texts, or email, whichever means is most appropriate for the matter. h. Both parties shall use their best efforts to engage in joint decision-making with respect to compliance to any changes to this Order. In the event the parties are unable to reach an agreement, they shall exchange written proposals, including appropriate explanations of their positions, after which they shall meet and discuss their modification proposals in person, if necessary, to reach a decision in the best interest of Caiden. This shall • be done prior to contacting their respective attorneys, conciliator, or co- parenting coordinator. Toys, clothes, and other daily use items shall not become matters of contention between the parties as these shall be treated as Caiden's property, not the parties, entitling the items to be taken by Caiden, as reasonably appropriate. j. In the event either party intends to leave Caiden overnight or for a period of three (3) hours or longer in the custody of a person other than the custodial party at a location outside the residence, that party must first 6 offer the non-custodial party the opportunity for additional time with Caiden before making other arrangements for the temporary care of Caiden. 1. Either parent shall have the right of first refusal to care for Caiden if the absence of either should be necessary during his or her normal "Parenting Time". The use of babysitters, daycare facilities, friends or family members shall be secondary to this right. For example, should Father have an evening musical booking on a weekend that is during his custodial time. Grandmother gets asked first if she wants additional time with Caiden. k. All parties should be working on Caiden' educational development in advance of formalized education. It is expected that when Caiden reaches 5 years in age, Father shall have in place a plan to enroll him in a school based program or other educational program. This education foundation needs planned well in advance of his reaching this age. 4. SPECIFIC CONDUCT RULES: Either party may request of the other party to submit on a periodic basis to chemical testing to ascertain consumption of prohibited or illegal substances. The party making this request shall bear all the cost of sampling and testing. The party receiving the testing request shall submit within 24 hours to the local testing location for sampling of their blood or urine. Any results of this testing are to be shared with the other party upon receipt and under no circumstances are the results to be made public but will be available to the court for an in camera review upon appropriate request to the court. 7 5. RELOCATION: Relocation is defined as a change in residence of the Caiden which significantly impairs the ability of a non-relocating parent to exercise custodial rights. No relocation shall occur unless every individual who has custody rights to the Caiden consents to the proposed relocation or the court approves the proposed relocation. If a parent seeks to relocate, that parent shall notify every other individual who has custody rights to Caiden. Both parties must follow the statutory requirements contained in 23 Pa.C.S. §5337. Specifically, the relocating parent must notify every other individual who has custody rights to Caiden by certified mail, return receipt requested. The notice must then comply with the following requirements: a. Notice must be sent no later than: (1) the 60"' day before the date of the proposed relocation. (2) the 101' day after the date that the individual knows of the relocation if the individual did not know and could not reasonably know of the relocation in sufficient time to comply with the 60 day notice requirement and it is not reasonably possible to delay the date of relocation so as to comply with the 60 day notice requirement. b. Unless otherwise excused by law, the following information must be included in the notice: (1) the address of the intended new residence. (2) the mailing address, if not the same as the address of the intended new residence. B • (3) names and ages of the individuals in the new residence, including individuals who intend to live in the new residence. (4)the home telephone number of the intended new residence, if applicable. (5) the name of the new school district and school. (6) the date of the proposed relocation. (7) the reason(s) for the proposed relocation. (8) a proposal for a revised custody schedule. (9) any other information which the parent proposing the relocation deems appropriate. (10) a counter-affidavit as provided under subsection (d)(1) which can be used to object to the proposed relocation and modification of a custody Order. (11) a warning to the non-relocating party that, if the non-relocating parent does not file with the court an objection to the proposed relocation within 30 days after receipt of notice, non-relocating parent shall be foreclosed from objecting to the relocation. c. If any of the aforementioned information is not known when the notice is sent but is later made known to the party seeking the relocation, then that parent shall promptly inform every individual who received notice. d. If the non-relocating parent objects to the proposed move, he/she must do so by filing the counter-affidavit with the court and the other parent within 30 days. The notice of objection to the opposing parent must be sent by 9 certified mail, return receipt requested. If no objection is made in the manner set forth above then it shall be presumed that the non-relocating parent has consented to the proposed relocation and the court will not accept testimony challenging the relocation in any further review of the custodial arrangements. e. The court shall hold an expedited full hearing on the proposed relocation after a timely objection has been filed and before relocation occurs. The court may permit relocation before a full hearing if the court finds that exigent circumstances exist. 6. ENUMERATED OFFENSES: Grandmother has a conviction of an enumerated offense, Driving Under the Influence, under Chapter 38 of Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Code. The parties are reminded that, should a petition to modify this Custody Order be filed, the parties will need to comply with the requirements of 23 Pa.C.S.§ 5329. 7. ASSESSMENT: In arriving at this plan, the court considered the following factors: a) Which parent is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between the child and another party? Since the death of her daughter, Caiden's mother, Grandmother has undertaken great strides to build a family bridge with Father that had not existed previously. Father is being required to be more proactive in communication by the terms of this Order. Father's respect for the grieving process must now be placed behind him and he must step up and act like a Father to all of his children. 10 b) The present and past abuse, continued risk of harm, adequate physical safeguards and supervision of the child. No abuse is alleged, just different parenting styles. Father's health, for which he is on total disability, and past recreational drug use are a concern for his long term ability to safeguard and supervise. c) The parental duties performed by each parent on behalf of the child. Both parties are substitute care givers as deceased mother was the primary care giver. Grandmother stepped up to initially fill this void as Caiden's injuries presented Father from meaningful custody. Thereafter, Father chose not to arbitrarily extract Caiden from the new home he had come to know and love. d) The need for stability and continuity in the child's education, family life and community life. The custody evaluation report clearly emphasis that need for stability and continuity; however, it is conditioned upon the parties being able to work together to put their conflicts in the past. They have not gotten past conflict, nor is it in the near future; thus, a court decision is necessary as Caiden is not responding well to the current shared custody. As easy as it would be to merely follow the custody evaluation, it is not in Caiden's best interest given the unquenched conflict. Grandmother's resources notwithstanding, Caiden needs the stability of the whole family that starts with Father-warts and all - and is bolstered by Grandmother's support as requested by Father. e) The availability of extended family. 11 On the maternal side there is an aunt and uncle nearby as well as many other relatives in the area. On paternal side aunts and uncles as well as Grandfather live in area. f) The child's sibling relationships. In the paternal home there are 3 step siblings and one half-brother. Grandmother is the only party with access to Caiden's maternal half- brother. g) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child's maturity and judgment. Not applicable child is too young. h) The attempts of a party to turn the child against the other party, except in cases of domestic violence where reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the child from harm. This was a strained relationship prior to mother's death but Grandmother has made the more consistent effort to bridge the differences. i) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for the child's emotional needs? Grandmother's home has become a second home to Caiden, whereas Caiden spends a visitor- like existence in his paternal home. j) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the child? Grandmother has been on point in promoting, developing and addressing post trauma issues. Father rebuffs attempts to start early education preferring to utilize "normal"school cycle. k) The proximity of the residences of the parties. 12 The parties are approximately eleven (11) miles apart or seventeen (17) minutes' drive time. Grandmother's business is located near Father's home. I) Each parent's availability to care for the child or ability to make appropriate child-care arrangements. If Grandmother is not available step grandfather, with whom Caiden enjoys a strong relationship, is available. Father does not require day care due to his disability status. m) The level of conflict between the parties and the willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one another. A party's effort to protect a child from abuse by another parent is not evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with that party. Father is not willing to cooperate as he finds Grandmother to be manipulative. Father was not welcome into Grandmother's home prior to death of Mother. Grandmother finds the effort to produce a relationship with Father tedious but worth it for her grandchild. n) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a parent or member of a parent's household. Grandmother and her husband both had DUI's prior to daughter's death, Husband has had one since, but neither grandparent is a danger to Caiden. Father is a an admitted partier, recreational drug user, especially during the relationship with deceased mother. Father disavows continued drug use except for the prescribed litany of medications and nicotine from cigarettes, which he only does outside. o) The mental and physical condition of a parent or member of a parent's household. 13 Step grandfather is on blood pressure medication. Father has serious health issues that render him legally disabled, including reported fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, legal blindness, idiopathic seizures, colitis and IBS. p) Any other relevant factor. Grandmother is relying on the evaluator's report. Father's driver's license was only recently restored and he is involved with a church. 8. MODIFICATION OF ORDER: The parties are free to modify the terms of this Order, but in order to do so, the court makes it clear that both parties must be in complete agreement to any new terms, meaning that both parties must consent in writing on what the new terms of the custody arrangement or schedule shall be. In the event that one or the other does not consent to a change, that does not mean each follows his or her own idea as to what he or she thinks the arrangements should be. The reason this Order is set out in such detail is so both parties have it to refer to and to govern their relationship with the child and with each other in the event of a disagreement. A copy of this Final Order of Custody shall be sent to both attorneys, who shall provide a copy to his client. 8. REASONS FOR AWARD: There are no perfect parents in the world, only perfect children. This case is no different, Father is certainly not perfect and it is clearly understood why one would not have wanted him in a relationship with one's daughter. That is the past and Father is no 14 longer that past man, nor is he the man he could have been. He is the Father in a relationship that brings with it the life development challenges of a larger blended family. Grandmother offers more extraneous developmental factors beyond family, like private school type education. In the absence of mutual agreement, which is necessary under the evaluation, one side needed to be chosen and family was the deciding factor. Grandmother is given access to information, more so than other grandparents, as it is shown she wants Caiden to succeed. If Father should fail in his duties to promote and develop physically, emotionally and intellectually this young boy into a man, there is no doubt the court will hear about it. At this point Father has the presumption that custody shall be awarded to him absent clear and convincing evidence of him be unfit and harmful to his child. 42 Pa.C,S. § 5327(b). BY.?HE-COURT, Thomas A. Macey C.P.J. Distribution: John M. Glace, Esq. .!Thomas Clark, Esq. fit' igid/i3 15 ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, � nn yea, Plaintiff to IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS v. OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL COURT 2009-00639 CIVIL TERM LEAH SANSONE, Defendant IN CUSTODY IN RE: MOTION TO STRIKE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER'S REQUEST TO MODIFY AND/OR AMEND CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 10th day of October 2013, following a review of the motion and a custody trial the motion is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Thomas . "lacey C.P.J. Distribution: �hn M. Glace, Esq. -homas Clark, Esq. l o Iroli rq , ✓�• O : HOLIDAYS AND SPECIAL DAYS SCHEDULE DAY TIMES EVEN YEAR ODD YEAR Easter 1st half 9 am to 2 pm Father G-Mother Easter 21F 2 pm to 7 pm G-Mother Father Memorial Day 9 am to 7 pm G-Mother Father Independence Day 9 am to 7 pm Father G-Mother Labor Day 9 am to 7 pm G-Mother Father Halloween 5 pm to 8 pm Father G-Mother Thanksgiving 1st half 9 am to 2 pm G-Mother Father Thanksgiving 2nd half 2 pm to 7 pm Father G-Mother Christmas 1st half 6 pm 24 December to Father G-Mother noon 25 December Christmas P half Noon 25 December to 9 G-Mother Father am 26 December New Years 6 pm 31 December to G-Mother Father noon 1 January* Mother's Day 9 am to 7 pm G-Mother G-Mother Father's Day 9 am to 7 pm Father I Father *The calendar year on December 31st dictates the odd or even year determination. VapastarketecaS 1,OATAVIA■ceavitodAHOUDAYS AND SPECIAl OAYS SCHEDOLE,dotA Attachment A EXHIBIT B _ pt 0.) W m 1 H �' c c n 5• ` - -co p o \` — o _ -� air3 can o ( .--�" '-r. ^y 5 • o '-C rp CD r. - - CD n O G y `G r 5- fl 9 'ate.. P. CS co �. y ;o �_ ry fD Cr co t — v CA 4 ca., '"d 0 ----) ,___. 0-, n • 0 1 '0.''0 „_ . ,.... P) a. _ ,.., m...., (t , _ . ,..,. CD ‘.< = --...-M Z Cl. jTJ O y ... ".� a b in"' J CD ^, ^ CD Y s (''�'1 p `C3 Da ,--=-.; X co p Imo. "� -F-` if CD O 0 N O b � " O �.' CA C ,' O up ,a- .fA CD 0 ti 5°to ! i4fl r« a v ry o •C a°Q • . a C . '7:1 PO - 0 8- 0 co 1 i).'7' o El 0 5 C p o '. °� co A cn CD 2 O JIN M co ` on CAD n 110 i. VERIFICATION I, Barbara Ward, hereby certify that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. r ��� Dated: I/2_7) B. bara Ward, Petitioner ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : NO. 2009-639 v. LEAH SANSONE, : CIVIL ACTION : CUSTODY Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas M. Clark, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, as follows: John M. Glace,Esquire 1 East Main Street Shiremanstown, PA 17 Fr C LGAN & SSOCIATES, LLC By: �.. Thomas M. Clark Dated: January G-C , 2014 0 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, CIVIL ACTION--LAW Plaintiff vs. DOCKET NO.2009-639 ra LEAH SANSONE, -vx ; Defendant �'r CUSTODY z r vs r ry -u t._; ©a CRIMINAL RECORD/ABUSE HISTORY VERIFICATION r " I, bo.A_L a-COL_ "0 , hereby swear or affirm, subject to penalti awtheclud4ng ,*,,.> 18 Pa.C.S.§4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities that: 1. Unless indicated by my checking the "YES" box next to a crime below, neither I nor any member of my household has been convicted or has pled guilty or pled no contest or was adjudicated delinquent where the record is publicly available pursuant to Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6307 to any of the following crimes in Pennsylvania or a substantially equivalent crime in any other jurisdiction,including pending charges: Answer Crime Self Other Date of Sentence Yes or No household conviction, member guilty plea,no contest plea or pending charges YES NO ❑ , 18 Pa.C.S.Ch.25 ❑ ❑ (relating to criminal homicide) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§2702 ❑ ❑ (relating to aggravated assault) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§2706 ❑ ❑ (relating to terroristic threats) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§2709.1 ❑ ❑ (relating to stalking) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§2901 ❑ ❑ (relating to kidnapping) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§2902 ❑ ❑ (relating to unlawful restraint) Answer Crime Self Other Date of Sentence Yes or No household conviction, member guilty plea,no contest plea or pending charges YES NO ❑ ,kif 18 Pa.C.S.§2903 ❑ ❑ (relating to false imprisonment) ❑ .-Nc 18 Pa.C.S. §2910 ❑ ❑ (relating to luring a child into a motor vehicle or structure) ❑ X 18 Pa.C.S.§3121 ❑ ❑ (relating to rape) ❑ it< 18 Pa.C.S.§3122.1 111 ❑ (relating to statutory sexual assault) ❑ CK 18 Pa.C.S.§3123 ❑ ❑ (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse) ❑ X( 18 Pa.C.S.§3124.1 ❑ ❑ (relating to sexual assault) ❑ g 18 Pa.C.S.§3125 ❑ ❑ (relating to aggravated indecent assault) ❑ 12c 18 Pa.C.S.§3126 ❑ ❑ (relating to indecent assault) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§3127 ❑ ❑ (relating to indecent exposure) ❑ ) 18 Pa.C.S.§3129 ❑ ❑ (relating to sexual intercourse with animal) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§3130 ❑ ❑ (relating to conduct relating to sex offenders) ❑ X 18 Pa.C.S.§3301 ❑ ❑ (relating to arson and related offenses) O 18 Pa.C.S.§4302 ❑ ❑ ((( ��\ (relating to incest) Answer Crime Self Other Date of Sentence Yes or No household conviction, member guilty plea,no contest plea or pending charges YES NO ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§4303 ❑ ❑ (relating to concealing death of child) ❑ X. 18 Pa.C.S.§4304 ❑ ❑ f� (relating to endangering welfare of children) ❑ AX 18 Pa.C.S.§4305 ❑ ❑ (relating to dealing in infant children) ❑ .)RC 18 Pa.C.S.§5902(b) ❑ ❑ (relating to prostitution and related offenses) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§5903(c)or(d) ❑ ❑ (relating to obscene and other sexual materials and performances) ❑ X 18 Pa.C.S.§6301 ❑ ❑ (relating to corruption of minors) ❑ V 18 Pa.C.S.§6312 ❑ ❑ (relating to sexual abuse of children) ❑ . 18 Pa.C.S.§6318 ❑ ❑ (relating to unlawful contact with minor) ❑ J54' 18 Pa.C.S.§6320 ❑ ❑ (relating to sexual exploitation of children) ❑ j 23 Pa.C.S.§6114 ❑ ❑ (relating to contempt for violation of protection order or agreement) I, I ❑ Driving under influence of ❑ ❑ 11111M11 Au) drugs or alcohol Answer Crime Self Other Date of Sentence Yes or No household conviction, member guilty plea,no contest plea or pending charges YES NO ❑ Manufacture,sale or delivery, ❑ ❑ holding,offering for sale or possession of any controlled substance or other drug or device 2. Unless indicated by my checking the "YES" box next to an item below, neither I nor any other member of my household have a history of violent or abusive conduct including the following: Answer Self Other Date Yes or No household member YES NO ❑ A finding of abuse by a Children&Youth Agency or ❑ ❑ similar agency in Pennsylvania or similar statute in another jurisdiction. ❑ )71 Abusive conduct as defined under the Protection from ❑ ❑ Abuse Act in Pennsylvania or similar statute in another Jurisdiction. Other: 3. Please list any evaluation,counseling or other treatment received following conviction or finding of abuse: • 4. If any conviction above applies to a household member,not a party,state that person's name,date of birth and relationship to the child. 5. If you are aware that the other party or member of the other party's household has or have a criminal/abuse history,please explain: I verify that the statement made in this Criminal Record/Abuse History Verification are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.§4904,relating to unsworn falsification to authorities and can be punishable by fine or imprisonment. Date: \,2-1 - L — Signature a,-1Da_{_ W arc Printed Name �iiJ�K. ',1 ' ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, �i : lJ " i .7., Plaintiff 41 .� ! •` Q.►� v0 is rL Count?of Cumbertont v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2009-00639 CIVIL TERM LEAH SANSONE, IN CUSTODY Defendant IN RE: EMERGENCY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, thi day of January 2014, upon consideration of the Petitioner's Emergency Petition for Special Relief, and it appearing that the immediate health and well-being of the minor child is not presently in danger, that the matter is currently being handled by Cumberland County Children and Youth Service, and that.Petitioner has an appeal pending with the Superior Court, the Petition is DENIED. The issues related to co-parenting classes and counseling for the child are hereby referred to conciliation. No further relief is granted at this time. - - • • Thomas A. Placey C.P.J. Distribution List: .homas M. Clark, Esq. John M. Glace, Esq. z ./6awn Sunday, Esq. `.o Court Administration _a( �:.I,v i -" Crypt es ir2gslczt 5•;:g w ROLLIN E. RONEMUS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW , LEAH SANSONE IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT :z C> AND NOW, Tuesday, February 04,2014 upon consideration of the attached Complwtorl'it icn w hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Dawn S.Sunday,Esq. ,the concil ator, at 39 West Main Street,Mechanicsburg,PA 17055 on Wednesday,February 26,2014,,,,E 10:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders,and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. You must file with the Court a verification regarding any criminal record or abuse history regarding you and anyone living in your household on or before the initial in-person contact with the court (including, but not limited to, a conference with a Judge or custody conciliator) but not later than 30 days after service of the complaint or petition. No party may make a change in the residence of any child which significantly impairs the ability of the other party to exercise custodial rights without first complying with all of the applicable provisions of 23 Pa.C.S. §5337 and Pa.R.C.P. No. 1915.17 regarding relocation. FOR THE COURT. By: /s/ Dawn S. Sunday, Esq.joz 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 a/ /iY 0 THE. PRDTHD W ,\;: : 2014 FEB 114 PM 14: fl y CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, +CIVIL ACTION--LAW Plaintiff vs. DOCKET NO.2009-639 LEAH SANSONE, Defendant CUSTODY A �i1.J CRIMINAL RECORD/ABUSE HISTORY VERIFICATION I, N 1 Lt—� Q.t , hereby swear or affirm,subject to penalties of law including 18 Pa.C.S.§4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities that: 1. Unless indicated by my checking the"YES" box next to a crime below, neither I nor any member of my household has been convicted or has pled guilty or pled no contest or was adjudicated delinquent where the record is publicly available pursuant to Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6307 to any of the following crimes in Pennsylvania or a substantially equivaient crime in any other jurisdiction,including pending charges: Answer Crime Self Other Date of Sentence Yes or No household conviction, member guilty plea,no contest plea or pending charges YES NO ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.Ch.25 ❑ ❑ ( (relating to criminal homicide) ❑ 4 18 Pa.C.S.§2702 ❑ ❑ (relating to aggravated assault) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§2706 ❑ ❑ (relating to terroristic threats) ❑ g, 18 Pa.C.S.§2709.1 ❑ C (relating to stalking) ❑ I 18 Pa.C.S.§2901 ❑ ❑ (relating to kidnapping) ❑ ) 18 Pa.C.S.§2902 ❑ ❑ (relating to unlawful restraint) • 6'd Ll2L-Z£L-L lL 42jVM eLZ:I.0 bl 8Z uer A Answer Crime Self Other Date of Sentence Yes or No household conviction, member guilty plea,no contest plea or pending charges YES NO ❑ '1 18 Pa.C.S.§2903 ❑ ❑ (relating to false imprisonment) ❑ I& 18 Pa.C.S.§2910 ❑ ❑ (relating to luring a child into a motor vehicle or structure) ❑ °� 18 Pa.C.S.§3121 ❑ ❑ (relating to rape) [] 71-„ 18 Pa.C.S.§3122.1 [] ❑ (relating to statutory sexual assault) 18 Pa.C.S.53123 El El (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse) ❑ g 18 Pa.C.S.§3124.1 El El (relating to sexual assault) tif❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§3125 ❑ ❑ (relating to aggravated indecent assault) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§3126 ❑ ❑ (relating to indecent assault) El 18 Pa.C.S. §3127 ❑ ❑ (relating to indecent exposure) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§3129 El (relating to sexual intercourse with animal) • El st 18 Pa.C.S.§3130 ❑ ❑ (relating to conduct relating to sex offenders) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§3301 ❑ ❑ (relating to arson and related offenses) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§4302 ❑ ❑ (relating to incest) Z'd L L8L-ZCL-L LL 421VM eLZ:LO b L 9Z Uef Answer Crime Self Other Date of Sentence Yes or No household conviction, member guilty plea,no contest plea or pending charges YES NO ❑ �] 18 Pa.C.S.§4303 ❑ ❑ '\ (relating to concealing death of child) ❑ IA 18 Pa.C.S.§4304 ❑ ❑ (relating to endangering welfare of children) ❑ \ 18 Pa.C.S.§4305 ❑ ❑ (relating to dealing in infant children) ❑ Y 18 Pa.C.S.§5902(b) ❑ ❑ (relating to prostitution and related offenses) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§5903(c)or(d) CI ❑ (relating to obscene and other sexual materials and performances) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S. §6301 ❑ ❑ (relating to corruption of minors) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§6312 ❑ CI to sexual abuse of children) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§6318 ❑ ❑ (relating to unlawful contact with minor) ❑ 18 Pa.C.S.§6320 ❑ ❑ (relating to sexual exploitation of children) ❑ K 23 Pa.C.S.§6114 ❑ 01(relating to contempt for violation of protection order or agreement) K.l ❑ Driving under influence of ❑ ❑ See Attached Exhibit"A" drugs or alcohol Answer Crime Self Other Date of Sentence Yes or No household conviction, member guilty plea,no contest plea or pending charges YES NO di Manufacture,sale or delivery, ❑ C holding,offering for sale or possession of any controlled substance or other drug or device • 2. Unless indicated by my checking the"YES" box next to an item below,neither I nor any other member of my household have a history of violent or abusive conduct including the following: Answer Self Other Date Yes or No household member YES NO ❑ A finding of abuse by a Children&Youth Agency or C ❑ similar agency in Pennsylvania or similar statute in another jurisdiction. ❑ (� Abusive conduct as defined under the Protection from ❑ ❑ Abuse Act in Pennsylvania or similar statute in another Jurisdiction. Other: 3. Please list any evaluation,counseling or other treatment received following conviction or finding of abuse: b'd L 68L-Z£L-L 6L a?:IVM eLZ:60 b I. 8Z Lief 4. If any conviction above applies to a household member,not a party,state that person's name,date of birth and relationship to the child. 5. If you are aware that the other party or member of the other party's household has or have a criminal/abuse history,please explain: I verify that the statement made in this Criminal Record/Abuse History Verification are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.information and belief._I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.§4904,relating to unsworn falsification to authorities and can be punishable by fine or imprisonment. 111 r Date: 121 L � 1/11 Signature 1ILLyjpc Printed Name 9'd 6 1.8Z-Z£L-L lL G IVM eLZ:1.0 b l E Uef Docket No Date of conviction,guilty plea,no Sentence contest plea or pending charges CP-36-CR-3579-1996 November 15, 1996 Probation—Maximum 2 years CP-21-CR-2381-2000 February 20,2001 Confinement—Min 30 days—Max 23 months CP-21-CR-3437-2011 May 15,2012 Confinement—72 hours—Max 6 months CP-21-CR-2844-2011 May 15,2012 Confinement—72 hours—Max 6 months EXHIBIT "A" ROLLIN E. RON}:MUS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff • CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • vs. • 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW LEAH SANSONE • Defendant • IN CUSTODY ORDER OF C URT AND NOW, this _ day of , 2014, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation R port, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The parties shall promptly initiate counseling for the Child at The Caring Place as follows: The Maternal Grandmother shall contact The Caring Place by February 28, 2014 to initiate the Child's enrollment in counseling and to determine what information/authorizations are needed to begin the process. The Maternal Grandmother shall provide that information to counsel who will facilitate submission of the necessary authorizations. The Maternal Grandmother shall schedule the counseling sessions on dates coordinated with the Father. The party who has custody of the Child at the time of each appointment shall take the Child to the counseling session. The Father shall attend all counseling sessions whether or not he is responsible to take the Child. 2. The parties shall take all necessary steps to resume co-parenting counseling with Susan Rooke or another professional selected by agreement. Any costs of the co-parenting counseling shall be shared equally between the parties. The parties shall select the co-parenting counselor and contact the selected professional's office by March 10, 2014 to schedule the initial session. 3. This Order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a custody conciliation conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. TH COURT, Thoma A. Placey J. rri cc: ,/Jn Glace Esquire -- Counsel for Father -/Thomas M. Clark Esquire — Counsel for Maternal Grandmother 17C ; - COD IQ) 3/s//y ROLLIN E. RONEMUS • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff • CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • vs. • 2009-639 CIVIL ACTION LAW • • LEAH SANSONE Defendant • IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: Thomas A. Placey CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME BIRTH YEAR CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Caiden Ronemus-Sansone 2008 Maternal Grandmother 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on February 26, 2014, with the following individuals in attendance: the Father, Rollin E. Ronemus, with his counsel, John Glace Esquire, and the Maternal Grandmother, Barbara Ward, with her counsel, Casey L. Johnson-Welsh Esquire (for Thomas M. Clark Esquire). 3. By Order dated January 30, 2014, the Court referred issues regarding co-parenting counseling and counseling for the Child to conciliation for resolution. 4. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. -� ✓ wry v2- _Jo F - 4 Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Jennifer Traxler, Esq, Deputy Prothonotary aiuperior Court of Veunotbania Middle District Pennsylvania Judicial Center P.O. Box 62435 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 1600 Harrisburg, PA 17106-2435 (717) 772-1294 www, pacourts. us /courts/ superior -court CERTIFICATE OF REMITTAL/REMAND OF RECORD TO: David D. Buell Prothonotary RE: R.E.R. v. L.S. Appeal of: B.W. 2003 MDA 2013 Trial Court: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas Trial Court Docket No: 2009-639 Annexed hereto pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 2571 and 2572 is the entire record for the above matter. Original Record contents: Item Filed Date Description Part December 11, 2013 1 Envelope December 11, 2013 1 Supplemental Part December 13, 2013 1 Remand/Remittal Date: 05/20/2014 ORIGINAL RECIPIENT ONLY - Please acknowledge receipt by signing, dating, and returning the enclosed copy of this certificate to our office. Copy recipients (noted below) need not acknowledge receipt. Respectfully, Lio4v44417;Acte-g- Jennifer Traxler, Esq. Deputy Prothonotary /wjt Enclosure cc: Thomas M. Clark, Esq. John M. Glace, Esq. The Honorable Thomas A. Placey, Judge J -A10028-14 ,NON -PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 R.E.R., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. L.S., APPEAL OF: B.W., Appellee A, U c t 9 �. —4 c.:_-) 7.-r:::: 1 z C:3 -. C.7 :t • ; �rl h" () No. 2003 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Order entered October 10, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Civil Division at No(s): 2009-00639 BEFORE: DONOHUE, ALLEN, and MUNDY, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, 1: FILED APRIL 11, 2014 B.W. ("Grandmother") appeals from the custody order granting primary physical custody of the minor child, ("Child") (born December 2008), to R.E.R. ("Father"), with Grandmother having partial physical custody of Child on alternating weekends. We affirm. The trial court summarized the background of this case as follows: Plaintiff Father initiated a custody action in February 2009, which was followed by Defendant Mother's Emergency Petition and a subsequent Petition for Modification of Custody that resulted in the parents having shared legal custody and Mother being awarded primary physical custody of the parties' one child, Son, born 3 December 2008. Mother was tragically killed in an out-of-state automobile accident in June 2011. Son was also injured in that accident and upon his return to the Commonwealth, Father was initially denied access to his injured J -A10028-14 son. Maternal Grandmother, within days of her daughter's death, filed an Emergency Petition for Modification of Custody from which an agreed upon temporary custody order was reached. The matter was assigned to [the trial court] in June 2012 and ultimately a custody trial was held over two days in September 2013. A Parenting Plan Custody Order describing the court's assessment pursuant to Section 5328 guidelines [was] entered in October 2013. Trial Court Opinion, 12/6/13, at 1. Grandmother has appealed from the trial court's October 10, 2013 custody order. Grandmother raises the following issues: I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and mistakenly applied the law by failing to rely on the custody factors enumerated in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328 to determine the best interest of the child in assessing whether to grant Grandmother primary physical custody, when the custody factors are heavily weighted in Grandmother's favor? II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and mistakenly applied the law by relying solely on a presumption in favor of Father simply because he is the biological parent of the child when Grandmother provided clear and convincing evidence the best interests of the child were served by granting Grandmother primary custody, and for over two (2) years, Grandmother shared physical custody of the child with Father and Father has never exercised primary physical custody of the child? III. Whether the trial court's decision granting Grandmother partial physical custody, rather than primary physical custody, was an abuse of discretion and unsupported by the evidence when an experienced Custody Evaluator clearly and convincingly stated that, after a full evaluation, it was her opinion that the best interest of the child would be served by Grandmother exercising primary physical custody of the child? Grandmother's Brief at 4 (underlining omitted). 2 J -A10028-14 Our standard and scope of review of custody determinations is well settled: [O]ur scope of review is of the broadest type and our standard of review is an abuse of discretion. We must accept [factual] findings of the trial court that are supported by competent evidence of record, as our role does not include making independent factual determinations. In addition, with regard to issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we must defer to the presiding trial judge who viewed and assessed the witnesses first-hand. However, we are not bound by the trial court's deductions or inferences from its factual findings. Ultimately, the test is whether the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record. We may reject the conclusions of the trial court only if they involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the trial court. C.B. v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946, 956 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted). The primary concern in any custody case is the best interests of the child; the best -interests standard, decided on a case-by-case basis, considers all factors that legitimately have an effect upon the child's physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well[-]being. Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa. Super. 2006), citing Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674, 677 (Pa. Super. 2004). In her first issue, Grandmother asserts that the trial court abused its discretion "by failing to rely on the custody factors enumerated in 23 Pa.C.S. 5328 to determine the best interests of the child ... when the custody factors were ... weighted heavily in Grandmother's favor." Grandmother's Brief at 17. Significantly, Grandmother concedes that the trial court "did assess the 3 J -A10028-14 sixteen custody factors, and provided such assessment in the Custody Order." Id. at 18. However, Grandmother asserts: What is disputed is whether the Trial Court properly relied on the factors when evaluating the best interests of the Child. A review of the Court's assessment of the custody factors quickly reveals that the factors are heavily weighted in Maternal Grandmother's favor. Id. at 19. Grandmother continues, "rather than relying on the clear and convincing evidence weighing those factors in Maternal Grandmother's favor, the Court concluded Father should receive primary custody simply because the factors did not prove him to be a 'bad parent." Id. at 20-21. In contrast, the trial court explained: The Grandmother's perception that the custody factors are heavily weighted in her favor is mistaken. The custody evaluation report is heavily weighted in Grandmother's favor; however, it was distinctly stated by the custody evaluator that those recommendations were conditioned upon the cooperation of Father and Grandmother. There is no such cooperation between parties and there is no way for any court to force Father or Grandmother to cooperate. Indeed, there is a history, a long history, of prior conflicts between Father and Grandmother, dating back to the beginning of the relationship between Mother and Father. Grandmother prohibited Father from entering her house, even though he was in a relationship with Mother. Grandmother, even through today, is still exerting her influence and control over that relationship through this custody action. The statement of Grandmother that she has attempted to mend the relationship is hollow as she continues to insist that it is her way or no way. Trial Court Opinion, 12/6/1, at 2. Critical to our analysis is the fact that when reviewing a child custody order, we must accept the findings of the trial court that are supported by -4- J -A10028-14 competent evidence of record, as our role does not include making independent factual determinations. B.K.M. v. J.A.M., 50 A.3d 168, 176 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). With regard to issues of credibility and weight of the evidence in a child custody case, we must defer to the presiding trial judge who reviewed and assessed the witnesses first-hand. Id. Ultimately, the test is whether the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record. Id. Our review of the record provides competent evidence to support the trial court's findings. The .custody trial encompassed two days, with three (3) witnesses: custody evaluator Deb Salem, Father and Grandmother. The parties stipulated to Ms. Salem being an expert in custody evaluations. N.T., 9/16/13, at 6. In her testimony, Ms. Salem described Father and Grandmother as "people who don't even remotely like each other or have the ability - like isn't the right word, have the ability to comfortably relate." Id. at 21. When asked whether Grandmother was "manipulative", Ms. Salem responded: That's a loaded question. Manipulative. Yeah, I think [Grandmother] - actually I think - I guess I would say [Grandmother and Father] were both pretty skilled at presenting a point of view and really trying to push that point of view. I would also say in my report [deceased Mother's boyfriend] says [Grandmother] is very good at getting what she wants in a situation so probably [Grandmother's husband] might say the same thing about her. I wouldn't see her maneuvering, but, you know, going after what she wants, I would say yes, she does do that. *** 5 J -A10028-14 The best I can tell you is I can see in the animosity between [Father] and [Grandmother] that [Grandmother] would have clearly done what she could do to have her position prevail way before this whole thing happened. Id. at 57-58. Father testified that immediately after Mother's death, "They wouldn't allow me to — they wouldn't allow me to see [Child]. It was difficult for him to be moved because he had broken collarbones, and I wanted to come see him and he was at [Mother's boyfriend's] house and [Mother's boyfriend] didn't want me at his house and said I would never come to his house." Id. at 72. Father explained that he subsequently worked out a custody arrangement with Grandmother, stating: It was supposed to be a temporary order. It was agreed on as far as that we would do 4-3-4-3, which I didn't really want to do, but [Grandmother] was very broken up in the courtroom. I also know it was very difficult for — I was willing to agree to, I believe, weekends, that they would have [Child] weekends and I would have him during the week...so I thought that was a few months, but I definitely didn't think it was best for me to take [Child] and rip him out from where he was completely at that time so...I just — like it would be a total shock to his system, first of all. His mother had just died and I had to take into consideration how he was feeling and the rest of his family, like for everybody it just wasn't the best thing. Id. at 74. Since the shared custody arrangement, Father described his relationship with Grandmother, "It's been tenuous. We haven't really gotten along very well." Id. at 80. -6 J -A10028-14 Father also testified that Grandmother offered to "purchase" custody of Child.' Id. at 84. He explained, "She offered me a large sum of money and said that she would - if I left [my wife] that she would pay for an apartment ... and she wouldn't try to keep [Child's] money or something ... that I could continue to get his social security benefits or something." Id. at 84-85. Father testified that Grandmother offered "somewhere between 20 and $50,000. I don't remember the exact number. It was on more than one occasion she talked about it..... I said you could give me a million dollars, there is no way I'm going to sign away the custody of my son." Id. at 85. Father further commented: I think counseling [with Grandmother] would be a good thing. I mean, we have no real relationship whatsoever. We can't have any kind of interaction or dialogue, I don't think. I know on my part there is absolutely no trust with me as far - I trust [Child] is safe when he is there but there is no trust as far as what her motivation would be or anything that she says to me. Id. at 90. Grandmother testified that she has always had a "volatile" relationship with Father, and "it's never been an easy relationship." N.T., 9/25/13, at 1 Ms. Salem's custody evaluation confirms Father's testimony as follows: "[Father] was offended when [Grandmother] offered him a sum of money in exchange for him allowing her to have primary custody of [Child]. (It should be noted that [Grandmother] confirmed that in the throes of her worst grief shortly after [Mother's] death, she did do this.)" Exhibit 4, Custody Evaluation, 4/15/13, at 5. -7 J -A10028-14 35. When asked "What do you think has been the hurdle between [sic] the communication between you and [Father] at this point?", Grandmother responded: I don't know how to say it. Just - we just can't come to any kind of an agreement. There's never any communication. There's never any - you know, with the schooling. And he was supposed to have called me. He was supposed to have talked to me. There is no communication on that part. Id. at 40. Grandmother sought primary physical custody of Child, but conceded, "I think [Child] needs to see [Father], yes, I do." Id. at 47. Given the foregoing, we find Grandmother's first issue regarding the custody factors to be without merit. The trial court expressly considered the custody factors, see Order, 10/10/13, and ultimately awarded primary physical custody to Father based on the parties' difficult relationship. B.K.M. v. J.A.M., supra (with regard to issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, we defer to the presiding trial judge who reviewed and assessed the witnesses first-hand). In her second issue, Grandmother contends that the trial court abused its discretion "by relying solely on a presumption in favor of Father ... when for over two years, Grandmother shared physical custody with Father and Father has never exercised primary physical custody of Child." Grandmother's Brief at 21. Although Grandmother concedes that "the evidentiary burden is heavily tipped in favor of the parent" in a custody action with a third party, and "it becomes the heavy burden of the non- -8 J -A10028-14 parent to produce evidence which clearly tips the scale back to the non - parent's favor", she avers that she satisfied "her heavy burden to rebut the presumption in favor of Father." Id. at 21-23 (citing Rowles v. Rowles, 668 A.2d 126 (Pa. 1995). According to Grandmother, she "has met her heavy burden of establishing that the special circumstances the child faces and the potential psychological harm the Child could face in Father's primary care clearly indicate the appropriateness of awarding primary custody to Maternal Grandmother." Id. at 25. Again, Grandmother's assertions contravene the findings of trial court, and disregard the trial court's role as factfinder. B.K.M. v. J.A.M., supra. The trial court explained: Grandmother has only ever had custody of Son following Mother's death, as Father saw fit. ... Father had allowed Grandmother into the life of Son to a level which Grandmother had not previously enjoyed. But there is no mistaking it was Father's permission that allowed Grandmother this opportunity. The presumption that Father be awarded custody as the parent is only overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the parenting by Father is not in the best interest of the child. Again, it has been found Father is a fit parent. Instead of being a dynamic proactive "helicopter parent" that Grandmother wants Father to be, Father's style of parenting is reactive to needs but this style is neither wrong parenting nor neglectful of the child. Exception is taken with the evaluator's report that the "issue was never who had the right to [Son]" as Father is generally non - confrontational and had not asserted his rights. It is clear that Grandmother is more assertive, has access to more resources, and that she wants to fill the void left by her daughter in an attempt for "normalcy." This push will only serve to alienate Son from his Father, as Father will not confront and will not -g J -A10028-14 cooperate to the "dictated" terms of Grandmother for primary custody. Trial Court Opinion, 12/6/13, at 3-4. Our review of the record supports the trial court's factual findings. The trial court expressly references 23 Pa.C.S. § 5327(b), which states that in "any action regarding the custody of the child between a parent of the child and a nonparent, there shall be a presumption that custody shall be awarded to the parent. The presumption in favor of the parent may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence." See also V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2012) (reversing and remanding primary physical custody award to maternal grandparents where the trial court "failed to apply the statutory presumption when it divested father of legal custody of his children and severely reduced his ... physical custody"). Thus, the trial court acted within its province as factfinder in determining that Father "is a fit parent" and awarding him primary physical custody. Trial Court Opinion, 12/6/13, at 3. Grandmother's second issue lacks merit. In her third issue, Grandmother again challenges the trial court's discretion as factfinder and arbiter of credibility. Grandmother contends that the trial court erred by not granting her primary physical custody "when an experienced Custody Evaluator clearly and convincingly stated, after a full evaluation, that it was her clinical opinion the best interests of the child would be served by Grandmother exercising primary physical custody of the child." Grandmother's Brief at 25. Grandmother further argues that the trial - 10 - J -A10028-14 court erred in its assessment of the evaluation and determining that the recommendation of custody to Grandmother was contingent on the parties' cooperation. Id. at 26-27. The trial court stated: The custody evaluation was clearly understood that if the parties cooperated this custodial plan was, in the experienced custody evaluator's opinion, how best to handle the situation. This lack of cooperation, as noted by the evaluator, has always existed. Further, cooperation being the basis of the recommendation, causes the recommendation to fail. The evaluation notes throughout that co -parenting is necessary and also notes that it has not occurred. Father's distrust of Grandmother occurred long before Son was born and the power play in this custody action seeks to reinforce it. Trial Court Opinion, 12/6/13, at 4 (bold and underline in original). Again, our review of the record indicates that the trial court's reasoning is supported by competent evidence. In addition to the custody evaluator's trial testimony excerpted above at pages 5-6, our review of the custody evaluation supports the trial court's statement that the "custody evaluation was clearly understood that if the parties cooperated this custodial plan was, in the experienced custody evaluator's opinion, how best to handle the situation." Id. For example, the evaluation contains two separate discussions of the "History of Custody Conflict Prior to [Mother's] Death" and "Current Custody Conflict." Exhibit 4, Custody Evaluation, 4/15/13, at 2-3. The evaluation is rife with references to conflict between Grandmother and Father. See generally, Exhibit 4, Custody Evaluation, 4/15/13. Notably, in the paragraph preceding her "Recommendations for - 11 - J -A10028-14 Consideration by the Family and the Court", Ms. Salem prefaces her recommendation of primary physical custody of Child to Grandmother to include the sentence: "Recommendations also address the absolute necessity for the adults in [Child's] life who he loves as parents to learn a way to allow [Child] his own perceptions of who they are and not force relationships on him. It is equally important for them to relate in a civil and respectful way for [Child's] sake." Id. at 28. Based on the cumulative testimony presented during two (2) days of trial, the trial court acted within its discretion in concluding, "...cooperation being the basis of the recommendation, causes the recommendation to fail." Trial Court Opinion, 12/6/13, at 4. We thus find Grandmother's third issue to be without merit. In sum, because our review of the record shows no abuse of discretion in the trial court's award of primary physical custody of Child to Father, with Grandmother having partial physical custody on alternating weekends, we affirm the order. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. J:seph D. Seletyn, Prothonotary Date: 4/11/2014 - 12 - ROLLIN E. RONEMUS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION — LAW LEAH SANSONE, Defendant : NO. 09-639 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2014, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, in conjunction with this Court terminating dependency of C.S.R. on November 19, 2014, at dependency docket CP -21 -DP -27-2014, that this Court enter an Order at the custody docket regarding C.S.R., it is hereby ordered that Mr. and Mrs. Ronemus and Ms. Ward, shall not use corporal punishment on C.S.R. pending any further full hearing on the matter by a Judge. Further, Mr. and Mrs. Ronemus and Ms. Ward shall ensure that no caregiver to C.S.R. shall use corporal punishment on C.S.R. BY THE COURT, 7/9a‘-` C stylee L. Peck, J. John Glace, Esq. Attorney for Father (Custody Action) TEmas M. Clark, Esq. Attorney for Maternal Grandmother Barbara Ward (Custody Action) Cindy Villanella, Esq. GAL for Juvenile Jason Kutulakis, Esq. Attorney for Father (Dependency Action) - i L Cri .....evasey Johnson-Welsh, Esq. Attorney for Barbara Ward (Dependency Action) Lindsay Dare Baird, Esq. — Attorney for CCCYS CCCYS – -"C? CASA -- e4, iek_