Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-0985Lj Leelawattie Jagdeo, Plaintiff V DIVORCE, EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, ALIMONY,CUSTODY Rohan Dookharan, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 09- '? ?s CIVIL TERM NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take prompt action. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a decree of divorce or annulment may be entered against you by the court. A judgment may also be entered against you for any other claim or relief requested in these papers by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other right important to you, including custody or visitation of your children. When the ground for the divorce is indignities or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, you may request marriage counseling. A list of marriage counselors is available in the Office of the Prothonotary, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM FOR ALIMONY, DIVISION OF PROPERTY, LAWYER'S FEES OR EXPENSES BEFORE A DIVORCE OR ANNULMENT IS GRANTED, YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY OF THEM. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE LAWYER, GO TO OR TELE PHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford St. Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) - 249-3166 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities 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. JUL 10 2009(, LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO Plaintiff vs. ROHAN DOOKHARAN Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2009-985 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ ~ day of ~ 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered d directed as follows: The prior Order of this Court dated April 14, 2009 shall continue in effect as modified by this Order. 2. During the summer school break, beginning on Saturday, July 11, 2009, and immediately following the last day of school in future years, the Mother shall have partial physical custody of the Children on alternating Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m. During the weeks following the Mother's period of Saturday custody, the Mother shall also have custody of the Children on Tuesday and Thursday from 10:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. During weeks preceding the Mother's Saturday period of custody, the Mother shall have custody of the Children on Wednesday from 10:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. The summer partial physical custody schedule shall end on the last day before the beginning of the school year. 3. The transportation for the Mother's periods of partial custody shall continue to be by public transportation unless otherwise agreed between the parties. 4. The parties acknowledge that it is in the Children's best interests to maintain a cooperative and respectful co-parenting relationship at all times. Therefore, the parties agree to focus on their common goal of establishing sufficient communication, cooperation and mutual respect to enable them to effectively co-parent the Children. 7. 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 THE COUR' Edgar B. Bay cc: ~ystal MacIntyre and Anne MacDonald-Fox, Esquire -Counsel for Mother Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire -Counsel for Father ~ ~~ ,-~~« ~ `3~~s J. LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO Plaintiff vs. ROHAN DOOKHARAN Defendant Prior Judge: Edgar B. Bayley IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2009-985 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 Children who are the subjects of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Dillon Dookharan November 24, 1996 Father Brandon Dookharan January 14, 2000 Father 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on June 10, 2009, with the following individuals in attendance: the Mother Leelawattie Jagdeo, with her counsel, Crystal MacIntyre, and Anne MacDonald-Fox, Esquire, and the Father, Rohan Dookharan, with his counsel, Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire. 3. The parties discussed several options at the conciliation conference after which the conciliator agreed to hold the matter open for a period of time following the conference to enable the parties and their counsel to continue the discussions. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. ~.~.~, ~ goo ~ Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator ~i4',:.1,.3,..1' j,. . %ly .,, r ,-- • ~ ~~i •,;r~. Leelawattie Jagdeo, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION-LAW DIVORCE, EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, ALIMONY, CUSTODY Rohan Dookharan, Defendant NO. 09- CIVIL TERM DIVORCE COMPLAINT WITH EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, ALIMONY AND CUSTODY The plaintiff, Leelawattie Jagdeo , by her attorneys, the Family Law Clinic, sets forth the following causes of action in divorce, equitable distribution, alimony, and custody: COUNTI DIVORCE UNDER TITLE 23 Pa. C.S. §MQI a)(6), (c) and (d) 1. Plaintiff is Leelawattie Jagdeo, who currently resides at 2 Lilac Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050. 2. Defendant is Rohan Dookharan, whose legal address is 2 Lilac Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050. 3. Plaintiff has been a bona fide resident of Cumberland County and the Commonwealth for at least six months immediately previous to the filing of this complaint. 4. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married on August 10, 2001 in Queens County, New York, without a marriage license. The parties moved to Pennsylvania in early 2003 and renewed their vows in the present tense several times in Pennsylvania in 2003 and 2004. 5. Plaintiff and Defendant have lived separate and apart since December 22, 2008. 6. There have been no prior actions of divorce or annulment between the parties. 7. The marriage is irretrievably broken. 8. Defendant offered such indignities as to the innocent and injured Plaintiff as to render Plaintiff's condition intolerable and life burdensome. 9. Plaintiff has been advised that counseling is available and that Plaintiff may have the right to request that the court require the parties to participate in counseling. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests the court to enter a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage. COUNT II EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION 10. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs one through nine. 11. Plaintiff and Defendant have acquired property during their marriage, including, but not limited to: a. REAL PROPERTY with house and contents therein, located in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, particularly described as follows: i. Beginning at a point on the northwesterly side of Lilac Drive (50 feet wide) at the dividing line between Lot Nos. 27 and 28 on the hereinafter mentioned plan of lots; thence along the dividing line between Lot Nos. 27 an 28, North 28 degrees 38 minutes 43 seconds west, a distance of 137.00 feet to a point at the dividing line between Lot Nos. 28 and 29 on said plan; thence along said dividing line, North 61 degrees 21 minutes 17 seconds East, a distance of 81.00 feet to a point on the Westerly side of Bayberry Drive; thence along the said side of Bayberry Drive, South 28 degrees 38 minutes 43 seconds East, a distance of 125.00 feet, thence along same and along the arc of a curve having a radius of 12.00 feet, the arc distance of 18.85 feet to a point on the said side of Lilac Drive; thence along the said side of Lilac Drive, South (incorrectly designated North on the prior deed) 61 degrees 21 minutes 17 seconds West (incorrectly designated East on the prior deed), the distance of 69.00 feet to a point, the place of beginning. ii. Being Lot No. 28 on the Plan of Mulberry Crossing, as recorded in Cumberland County Plan Book 40, Page 142. iii. Being Known as No. 2 Lilac Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the court to enter a decree dividing the marital property equitably between the parties and such other relief as the court deems just. COUNT III ALIMONY 12. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs one through eleven. 13. Plaintiff is not gainfully employed. 14. Defendant is financially able to provide for the reasonable needs of the Plaintiff. 15. Plaintiff requires reasonable support to adequately maintain herself in accordance with the standards of living established during the marriage. 16. Plaintiff lacks sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs and is currently unable to support herself through full-time employment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the court to enter an award of reasonable alimony, and such other relief as the court deems just. COUNT IV CUSTODY 17. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs one through sixteen. 18. Plaintiff seeks shared legal and primary physical custody of the following children: Name Present Residence Age Dillon Dookharan 2 Lilac Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 12 (d.o.b. 11/24/1996) Brandon Dookharan 2 Lilac Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 9 (d.o.b. 1/14/2000) 19. During the past five years, the children have resided with the following persons and at the following addresses: Persons Address Dates Plaintiff and Defendant 2 Lilac Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 10/2004 - Present Plaintiff and Defendant 501 Boston Court, Mechanicsburg, PA 2/2004- 10/2004 20. The mother of the children is Leelawattie Jagdeo. 21. She is married. 22. The father of the children is Rohan Dookharan. 23. He is married. 24. The relationship of the Defendant to the children is that of father. 25. The relationship of the Plaintiff to the children is that of mother. 26. The children were born out of wedlock. 27. Plaintiff has participated as a party in a Protection from Abuse action in this court, Docket No. 09-679, concerning the custody of the children. 28. Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the children pending in a court of this Commonwealth, or any other state, other than as set forth in paragraph 27, supra.. 29. Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the children or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the children. 30. The best interest and permanent welfare of the children will be served by granting the relief requested because: a. Plaintiff has been primary caretaker of the children throughout their lives. b. Plaintiff is prepared to provide the children with a stable home environment with adequate moral, emotional, and physical surroundings as required to meed the children's needs; c. Plaintiff is willing to accept custody of the children; d. Plaintiff continues to perform parental duties while the children are in her care and enjoys the love and affection of the children; 31 e. Plaintiff will foster substantial contact between the children and their father. Each parent whose parental rights to the children have not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the children have been named as parties to this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the court to grant her shared legal and primary physical custody of the children, with the Defendant to have reasonable periods of partial custody to be determined by the parties. Date !KR ctfully submitted, TAL J. MACINT Certified Legal Intern 4 G2.. ROBEF.y E. RAINS THOMAS M. PLACE ANNE MACDONALD-FOX LUCY JOHNSTON-WALSH MEGAN RIESMEYER Supervising Attorneys Family Law Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 243-3696 Fax: (717) 243-3639 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing complaint are true and correct to the best of my personal 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. Dated: 2- 25 ..-o ? e -- Leelawattie Jagdeo f"s a ?: ? - r . ° r...a s7 - ,.sue --1 ` ["'re ?'t y '? ? ? . ?'; ?? ' y -{ rJ ? ; ? , r ?i;) -. ` .. .r. Leelawattie Jagdeo, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE, EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, : : ALIMONY, CUSTODY Rohan Dookharan Defendant NO. 09- 98:5'CIVIL TERM PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly allow Leelawattie Jagdeo, Plaintiff, to proceed in forma pauperis The Family Law Clinic, attorneys for the party proceeding in forma pauperis, certifies that we believe the party is unable to pay the costs and that we are providing free legal service to the party. Date z is ?m Res ectfully submitted, i KRYSTAL J. MAMTYRE Certified Legal Intern MEGAN RIESMEYER Supervising Attorney FAMILY LAW CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-2968 ,'. CCJ p t Leelawattie Jagdeo, Plaintiff V. IN DIVORCE, EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION Rohan Dookharan, Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 09- 985 CIVIL TERM PRAECIPE FOR LIS PENDENS Please enter a Lis Pendens against the land and premises at No. 2 Lilac Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. REAL PROPERTY in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, affected by this notice is particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the northwesterly side of Lilac Drive (50 feet wide) at the dividing line between Lot Nos. 27 and 28 on the hereinafter mentioned plan of lots; thence along the dividing line between Lot Nos. 27 an 28, North 28 degrees 38 minutes 43 seconds west, a distance of 137.00 feet to a point at the dividing line between Lot Nos. 28 and 29 on said plan; thence along said dividing line, North 61 degrees 21 minutes 17 seconds East, a distance of 81.00 feet to a point on the Westerly side of Bayberry Drive; thence along the said side of Bayberry Drive, South 28 degrees 38 minutes 43 seconds East, a distance of 125.00 feet, thence along same and along the arc of a curve having a radius of 12.00 feet, the are distance of 18.85 feet to a point on the said side of Lilac Drive; thence along the said side of Lilac Drive, South (incorrectly designated North on the prior deed) 61 degrees 21 minutes 17 seconds West (incorrectly designated East on the prior deed), the distance of 69.00 feet to a point, the place of beginning. Being Lot No. 28 on the Plan of Mulberry Crossing, as recorded in Cumberland County Plan Book 40, Page 142. Being known as No. 2 Lilac Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Respectfully Submitted, „??lli_ A 1 Krys'tal MaUntyre Certified Legal Intern 11V411 ROBE T E. RAINS THOMAS M. PLACE ANNE MACDONALD-FOX LUCY JOHNSTON-WALSH MEGAN RIESMEYER Supervising Attorneys FAMILY LAW CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-3639 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing notice are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand making any false statement would subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date '0 Plaintiff Leelawattie Jagdeo ,xa ?\ of " Leelawattie Jagdeo, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE, EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, ALIMONY, CUSTODY Rohan Dookharan, Defendant NO. 09-985 CIVIL TERM AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Krystal J. MacIntyre, hereby certify that I personally served a true and correct copy of the Divorce complaint and Praecipe of Lis Pendens on the Defendant, Rohan Dookharan, at the Cumberland County Courthouse, at 2:30p.m. on Wednesday February 18, 2009. I verify that the statements made in this Affidavit of Service are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: 19 np n KRYSTAL J. M CIN RE Certified Legal Intern FAMILY LAW CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-3639 c,_J "'3-''`t ?? ire r f.?,. a "'C? ...... ; b'l7 _ _ L ., i?3 ``• LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO IN THE COURT; OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND', COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2009-985 CIVJL ACTION LAW ROHAN DOOKHARAN IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Tuesday, February 24, 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 ^ Monday, March 23, 2009 _ at 12:00 PM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort i11 be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be herd by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for ent? of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all e*isting 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. S nda Es q. Custody onciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is equired by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible fa ilities 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 b fore 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 B4r Association 32 South Bedforkl Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) X49-3166 CX F r C` C Q c -r E ^, '?F t ? y ? M?? 0 LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO Plaintiff VS. ROHAN DOOKHARAN Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 09-985 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN DIVORCE AND CUSTODY ANSWER TO DIVORCE COMPLAINT WITH EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, ALIMONY AND CUSTODY AND NOW, comes Defendant, Rohan Dookharan, by and through his counsel, Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire, and files the Answer to Divorce Complaint with Equitable Distribution, Alimony, and Custody, respectfully responding as follows: 1. Admitted in part and denied in part. The identity of Plaintiff is admitted, but it is denied that she resides at that address because Defendant resides there. Defendant has no personal knowledge of Plaintiff's current address although he believes that it has changed several times since December, 2008. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. The parties to this proceeding have never been married as alleged by Plaintiff, under common law, or otherwise, and therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded. In further answer hereof, concurrently with the filing of this Answer, Defendant is filing a Petition for Declaratory Judgment as to Marital Status seeking to have this Honorable Court declare that the parties were not married and accordingly, will seek to have this Complaint in Divorce dismissed. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that no prior action for divorce or annulment has been instituted by either party, however, any implication that an action for divorce or annulment is required is specifically denied by Defendant. In further answer hereof, I the parties to this proceeding have never been married and therefore, a divorce or annulment is unnecessary and Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. 7. Denied. See response to paragraph 4, above. 8. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant has committed any conduct that would be constitute indignities under the law and further denied that the issue is in any way relevant to these parties as they have never been married. See response to Paragraph 4, above. 9. Denied. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to determine the truth of this averment and therefore, strict proof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Complaint in Divorce and the claims therein be dismissed, with prejudice. COUNT II - EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION 10. Denied. No response is required. 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the parties may have acquired property as unmarried individuals; however, it is denied that they are married. a. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are denied to the extent that they infer that Plaintiff has any interest in the real property described in this paragraph and its subparts. In further answer hereof, the property it titled solely to Defendant, an unmarried individual. Therefore, strict proof is demanded. i. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are denied to the extent that they infer that Plaintiff has any interest in the real property described in this paragraph and its subparts. In further answer hereof, the property it titled solely to Defendant, an unmarried individual. Therefore, strict proof is demanded. ii. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are denied to the extent that they infer that Plaintiff has any interest in the real property described in this paragraph and its subparts. In further answer hereof, the property it titled solely to Defendant, an unmarried individual. Therefore, strict proof is demanded. iii. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are denied to the extent that they infer that Plaintiff has any interest in the real property described in this paragraph and its subparts. In further answer hereof, the property it titled solely to Defendant, an unmarried individual. Therefore, strict proof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Complaint in Divorce and the claims therein be dismissed, with prejudice. COUNT III - ALIMONY 12. Denied. No response is required. 13. Denied. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to determine the truth of this averment and therefore, strict proof is demanded. 14. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant has the financial means to provide support for Plaintiff and the implication herein that he is in any way obligated to financially support Plaintiff is also denied. In further answer hereof, Defendant is currently unemployed and due to the fact that the parties have never been married, Defendant is not obligated to provide Plaintiff with any financial support. Therefore, strict proof is demanded. 15. Denied. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to determine the truth of this averment and therefore, strict proof is demanded. 16. Denied. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to determine the truth of this averment and therefore, strict proof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Complaint in Divorce and the claims therein be dismissed, with prejudice. ¦ 1 COUNT IV - CUSTODY 17. Denied. No response is required. 18. Denied. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to determine the truth of this allegation and therefore, strict proof there of is demanded. In further answer hereof, the implication herein that it is in the best interests and permanent welfare of the children to be within Plaintiff's physical custody is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 19. Denied. The allegation of the children's residence with the parties is inaccurate. In further answer hereof, the children have resided with the following persons at the following addresses: NAME ADDRESS Leelawattie Jagdeo 501 Boston Court Rohan Dookharan Mechanicsburg, PA Leelawattie Jagdeo, 2 Lilac Drive Rohan Dookharan, Mechanicsburg, PA & Ashti Jagdeo (2004-12/08) Rohan Dookharan 2 Lilac Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 20. Admitted. DATES 02/2004-10/2004 10/2004-2/19/2009 2/19/2009-present 21. Denied. The parties have never been married to one another. 22. Admitted. 23. Denied. The parties have never been married to one another. 24. Admitted. 25. Admitted. 26. Admitted. The parties have never been married to one another. I 27. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff participated in a Protection from Abuse action on February 19, 2009. It is specifically denied that it was regarding the custody of the children as clearly stated in the final Order. 28. Denied. Defendant lacks sufficient information to determine the truth of this averment and therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded. 29. Denied. Defendant lacks sufficient information to determine the truth of this averment and therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded. 30. Denied. It is specifically denied that the best interest permanent welfare of the children will be served by granting the parties shared legal and physical custody. In further answer hereof, Plaintiff's life is unstable and unsuitable for the care of children. In fact, Plaintiff's sixteen year old daughter from a prior relationship, Ashti Jagdeo, was raised primarily by her maternal uncle, aunt and grandmother and is currently within the custody of her uncle, Alvin Jagdeo, and not the custody of Plaintiff. a) Denied. Defendant currently has primary custody of the children. Plaintiff failed as a primary caregiver and due to that fact, Defendant, and in the past the Paternal Grandmother had to provide the primary care of the children that are the subject of this proceeding. Moreover, an uncle has physical custody of Plaintiff's other child due to Plaintiff's inability to care for her. b) Denied. Plaintiff is unable to provide a stable and safe home environment for the children and her morals are circumspect. In further answer, Plaintiff's residence has been unstable since leaving the marital home and her living environment and associates are questionable. Her ability to financially support the children is severely limited due to the fact that she can barely read and write. Plaintiff's moral and emotional state is also of concern. More specifically, she attacked Defendant with a knife and she has criminal charges pending for that act. Her lack of morals is an additional concern. She has been admittedly promiscuous while living with Defendant; she had her first child just after she turned 16; and she hid that pregnancy from her family. Her sexual conduct at such a young age was so severe that due to the number of partners she has been unable to name the child's father to date. C) Denied. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to determine the truth of this allegation and therefore strict proof thereof is demanded. d) Denied. Plaintiff, after slashing Defendant with a knife in December 2008, left the home at 2 Lilac Drive, and left the children with Defendant. Although Plaintiff was staying just nine houses away, she did not see the children for two months. It was only after filing a Complaint for Protection from Abuse in February, 2009 when Defendant was evicted from the home that Plaintiff cared for the children and that was only for a week and one-half. Since then they have been in the custody of Defendant and Plaintiff has not cared for the children since the Protection from Abuse Order was entered on February 19, 2009. e) Denied. Given Plaintiff's physical attack upon Defendant and her emotional instability, it is denied that she will encourage a relationship with Defendant if she would be granted primary physical custody. 31. Admitted. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint in divorce and the claims therein with prejudice; ordering shared legal custody to the parties and confirming Defendant's primary physical custody and granting Plaintiff partial custody periods; and granting such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, LAW FIRM OF LINDA A. CLOTFELTER By: Lin a A. Clotfelter, Esquire Att rney ID No. 72963 East Trindle Road, Suite 1 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 telephone (717) 796-1933 facsimile Attorney for Defendant LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : NO. 09-985 ROHAN DOOKHARAN : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : IN DIVORCE AND CUSTODY VERIFICATION I, ROHAN DOOKHARAN, verify that the statements in the foregoing ANSWER TO DIVORCE COMPLAINT WITH EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, ALIMONY AND CUSTODY 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. Date: LO 6q LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : NO. 09-985 ROHAN DOOKHARAN : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : IN DIVORCE AND CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this IP day of April, 2009, the undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER COUNTERCLAIM was served upon the opposing party by United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid: Krystal J. MacIntyre, Legal Intern Family Law Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Respectfully submitted, LAW FIRM OF LINDA A. CLOTFELTER r y: Lin A. Clotfelter, Esquire Atto ey ID No. 72963 ZJUZVEast Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 telephone (717) 796-1933 facsimile Attorney for Defendant R I FrE OF THE PIW)??,ONC 'fARY 1009 APR - 3 PM t : 5 3 PI i 4Nsy?V144 a LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO Plaintiff/Respondent VS. ROHAN DOOKHARAN Defendant/Petitioner : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 09-985 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN DIVORCE - DECLARATORY : JUDGMENT AS TO MARITAL STATUS Prior Judicial Assignment: Non to this docket number. (Judge Edgar B. Bayley, in related matter. See paragraph 17) Nonconcurrence: See paragraph 18, below PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO MARITAL STATUS AND NOW, comes Petitioner, Rohan Dookharan, by and through his counsel, Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire, and files this Petition for Declaratory Judgment as to Marital Status respectfully stating in support thereof as follows: 1. Petitioner is Rohan Dookharan, (hereinafter "Petitioner"), an adult individual who resides at 2 Lilac Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 2. Respondent is Leelawattie Jagdeo, (hereinafter "Respondent"), an adult individual whose current residential address is not known by Petitioner. 3. Respondent filed a Complaint for Divorce under sections 3301(a)(6), (c), and (d) of the Pennsylvania Divorce Code on February 18, 2009. 4. Respondent alleged in her Complaint for Divorce that the parties were married August 10, 2001 in Queens County, New York without a marriage license. 5. New York abolished common law marriage in 1933. 7. The parties lived in New York until 2003 when they moved to Pennsylvania. 8. The parties to this proceeding have never been married under common law or otherwise, and therefore, Respondent's Complaint in Divorce is improper. 9. At no time since moving to Pennsylvania have the parties uttered words in the present tense, spoken with the specific purpose that the legal relationship of husband and wife be created by same. 10. The parties have not held themselves out to the world as husband and wife, although they have resided together and do have children. 11. The parties were, and Respondent still is Hindu, and it is traditional for a married Hindu woman to take her husband's name. 12. Respondent has not taken Petitioner's name, despite her allegations they are married. 13. Real property purchased after the date Respondent alleges the parties were married is titled to Petitioner's name, alone. 14. The parties do not have joint bank accounts, utility accounts or other similar accounts. 15. Since the parties' relationship began in 1995, they did not file joint tax returns as husband and wife, with the exception of one filing in 2006 which was an aberration due to an error by a new tax preparer. All other years Petitioner filed as head of household. 16. Defendant now seeks to have this Court determine that no marriage exists between the parties. IT Prior litigation involving these parties was filed to civil docket number 09-0679 and after a hearing, a Protection from Abuse Order was entered by the Honorable Judge Edgar B. Bayley, on February 19, 2009. A true and correct copy of the Order is attached as "Exhibit A". 18. Respondent does not concur with this Petition per conversation with Krystal J. MacIntyre, Legal Intern. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Rohan Dookharan, by and through his counsel Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order finding that no marriage exists between the parties; dismissing the Complaint in Divorce filed by Plaintiff; and granting such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, LAW FIRM OF LINDA A. CLOTFELTER Lirida A. Clotfelter, Esquire A rney ID No. 72963 21 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 telephone (717) 796-1933 facsimile Attorney for Defendant LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Respondent : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : NO. 09-985 ROHAN DOOKHARAN : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant/Petitioner : IN DIVORCE - DECLARATORY : JUDGMENT AS TO MARITAL STATUS VERIFICATION I, ROHAN DOOKHARAN, verify that the statements in the foregoing PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO MARITAL STATUS 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. Date: ? p 0 q LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO Plaintiff/Respondent Vs. ROHAN DOOKHARAN Defendant/Petitioner : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 09-985 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN DIVORCE - DECLARATORY : JUDGMENT AS TO MARITAL STATUS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE h AND NOW, this day of April, 2009, the undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO MARITAL STATUS was served upon the opposing party by United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid: Krystal J. MacIntyre, Legal Intern Family Law Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Respectfully submitted, LAW FIRM OF LINDA A. CLOTFELTER Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 telephone (717) 796-1933 facsimile Attorney for Defendant LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO, PLAINTIFF V. ROHAN DOOKHARAN, DEFENDANT : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 09-0679 CIVIL TERM PR9O_TECTiON FROM A2U§A!QRQ9R (1) Defendant is Rohen Dookheren. (2) Defendant's date of birth is July 25, 1988. (3) Defendant's social security number is 097-824486. (4) %intlff is Leelawattie Jagdeo, born December 31,1976. AND NOW, this 19"' day of February, 2009, following a hearing on the merits and finding that defendant abused plaintiff, IT is ORDERED: (1) The temporary protection from abuse order entered on February 9, 2009, is vacated and replaced with this order. (2) Defendant shall not abuse, stalk, harass, threaten or attempt to use physical force that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury to the plaintiff. (3) Certified copies of this order shall be provided to the Silver Spring Township Police Department, Mechanicsburg Police Department and the PA State Police. (4) All pmvlsions of this order shall expire on February 19, 2012.1 You are notified that violation of this Order may result In arrest for indirect criminal contempt, which is punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.00 andlor up to six months in jail. 23 Pe.C.S. §6114. A violation of this Order may subject you to state charges and The request of plaintiff for exclusive possession of the marital residence is not granted nor is there a custody order being entered. EXHIBIT re A, penaities under the PennsyWanle Crimes Code and to federal charges and penalties under the Violence Against Women Act, 16 U.S.C. §$2281-2262. NO-WA M LAW 6NFORC®AEfN? OFFICIALS This Order shell be enfereed by the police who have jurisdiction over the plaintllf a residence or any location where a violation of this order occurs or where the defendant may be located. If defendant violates this Order, he may be arrested on the charge of Indirect Criminal Contempt. An arrest br violatlon of this Order may be made without warrant, based on probable cause whether or not the violation Is committed In the presence of law enforcement. Subsequent to any arrest, the law enforcement officer shall sales all weapons used or threatened to be used during any violation of this Order. Weapons shell fbrthwith be delivered to the Cumberland County Shoff a Office, which office shall maintain possession of the weapons until further Oder of this court, unless the weepords are evidence of a crime, in which case, they shall remain with the low eMbrcerrieM agency whose officer made the street. B eC Edgar B. Krystai J. Mfaclntyr+e, CeMMI 1.6901 Intent RobM't I Ralro, 110ts For PlaintNf Cinay L Mel, Esquire For Defendent PSP Silver SPrMg Townshrp P9ke Depe tmeM McMonicxbury Police oepwrtment :eat 4 ...?. r-, •_ z 1 y .:h- E ? ??, ??.?.:_? ?p?r r?ii f".Yr„"7 .? r._ ? ,?. 4?,.?2 .. APR 1 3 2.999 LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO Plaintiff vs. ROHAN DOOKHARAN Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2009-985 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The Mother, Leelawattie Jagdeo, and the Father, Rohan Dookharan, shall have shared legal custody of Dillon Dookharan, born November 24, 1996, and Brandon Dookharan, born January 14, 2000. Major decisions concerning the Children including, but not necessarily limited to, their 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 each Child's best interest. Neither party shall impair the other party's rights to shared legal custody of the Children. Neither party shall attempt to alienate the affections of the Children from the other party. Each party shall notify the other of any activity or circumstance concerning the Children 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 Father shall have primary physical custody of the Children. 3. Beginning on Monday, April 13, 2009, the Mother shall have partial physical custody of the Children every Monday and Tuesday from 4:00 p.m., when the Mother shall meet the Children at the bus stop, until 6:00 p.m., when the Mother shall walk the Children back to the Father's residence. The Mother shall exercise her periods of custody on Mondays and Tuesdays in the neighborhood where the Children reside. In addition, beginning April 18, 2009, the Mother shall have custody of the Children on alternating Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. during which time the Mother shall not be limited to the neighborhood but may transport the Children by public transportation to activities in the local area. Except when the Mother is obtaining custody of the Children under this provision directly at the bus stop, the Father shall make the Children available outside the residence for the Mother to pick them up at the times specified and the Mother shall take the Children back to the Father's residence at the end of her periods of custody. During exchanges of custody, the Father shall remain in his residence to receive custody of the Children and the Mother shall remain outside the residence. 4. On days when the Mother does not have a period of custody, the Mother shall be entitled to contact the Children by telephone at bedtime. The Father shall not unreasonably restrict the Children from initiating telephone calls to the Mother at any other time. 5. Within six (6) months of the date of this Order, counsel for either party may contact the conciliator to schedule an additional custody conciliation conference to review the custodial arrangements in light of changing circumstances or to further discuss expansion of the Mother's periods of partial custody after the school year has ended. 6. Neither party shall do or say anything which may estrange the Children from the other parent, injure the opinion of the Children as to the other parent, or hamper the free and natural development of the Children's love and respect for the other parent. Both parties shall ensure that third parties having contact with the Children comply with this provision. 7. 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, this Order shall control. cc: all MacIntyre and ??- e MacDonald-Fox, Esquire - Counsel for Mother XnIr da a A. Clotfelter, Esquire - Counsel for Father W!P a7 ?? IJ cr, L aE C! rl- N LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO Plaintiff vs. ROHAN DOOKHARAN Defendant Prior Judge: Edgar B. Bayley IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2009-985 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 Children who are the subjects of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Dillon Dookharan November 24, 1996 Father Brandon Dookharan January 14, 2000 Father 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on April 6, 2009, with the following individuals in attendance: the Mother Leelawattie Jagdeo, with her counsel, Crystal MacIntyre, and Anne MacDonald-Fox, Esquire, and the Father, Rohan Dookharan, with his counsel, Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ROHAN DOOKHARAN, DEFENDANT 09-0985 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this If day of April, 2009, a hearing will be conducted on the issue of whether or not plaintiff and defendant are married, on Monday, May 11, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in Courtroom Number 2, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Byt ourt r i V. Edgar B. Bayley, P. Xstal J. Maclntyre, Certified Legal Intern Robert E. Rains, Esquire For Plaintiff inda A. Clotfelter, Esquire For Defendant sal J n C - ,a z- c? w a. Cn 3a. c? cn to O rn 0 LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO Plaintiff/Respondent Vs. ROHAN DOOICHARAN Defendant/Petitioner : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-985 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO MARITAL STATUS AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this Al I day of April, 2009, the undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO MARITAL STATUS filed April 8, 2009 was served upon the opposing party by facsimile and United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid: Krystal J. MacIntyre, Legal Intern Family Law Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Respectfully submitted, LAW FIRM OF LINDA A. CLOTFELTER f L' da A. Clotfelter, Esquire A rney ID No. 72963 1-021 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 telephone (717) 796-1933 facsimile Attorney for Defendant OF THE P, TARY 2009 APR 22 PH 3: 06 LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff/ Respondent OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE - DECLATORY ROHAN DOOKHARAN, JUDGMENT AS TO MARITAL Defendant/Petitioner :STATUS : No. 09-985 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Krystal MacIntyre , Certified Legal Intern, Family Law Clinic, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Divorce Complaint on Linda A. Clotfelter, Esq., counsel for Rohan Dookharan, on the 8`" day of May, 2009 via facsimile and United States Mail at the following address: Linda A Clotfelter, Esq. 5021 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Respectfully Submitted, Ki stal Mac tyre Certified Legal Intern Anne d-Fox, Esq. Supervis' g Attorney FAMILY LAW CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2968 Fax: (717) 243-3639 FILED--OF, dCE OF THE PFOT' -0,1'1TARY 2009 MAY -8 Psi 1: 55 iii-, '? 11 ,;:I 'L..E AJ,,s[A 4 LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO, Plaintiff/ Respondent V. ROHAN DOOKHARAN, Defendant/Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN DIVORCE - DECLATORY : JUDGMENT AS TO MARITAL :STATUS : No. 09-985 CIVIL TERM RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR DECLATORY JUDGMENT AS TO MARITAL STATUS AND NOW, comes Respondent, Leelawattie Jagdeo, by and through her counsel, the Family Law Clinic, and files this Answer to Petition for Declatory Judgment as to Marital Status, respectfully stating in support thereof as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. By way of further answer, although Respondent sometimes stays at other locations for purposes of commuting to and from her place of employment, Respondent's current residential address is 20 Lilac Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Petitioner mis-numbered, therefore there is no paragraph 6. 7. Admitted. 8. Denied. By way of further answer, Respondent's Complaint in Divorce is proper because Petitioner and Respondent were married in a solemnized marriage ceremony valid under New York Domestic Relations Laws § 12, § 13, and §25 when they intentionally engaged in a Hindu marriage ceremony on August 10, 2001 at the home of Respondent's mother in Richmond Hill, Queens County, New York, declaring in the presence of an officiating Hindu Pandit and several attending witnesses that they took each other as man and wife. Because Petitioner and Respondent established a marriage that is valid under New York law, Pennsylvania courts must give full faith and credit to the parties' marriage. 9. Denied. Since their marriage in 2001, Petitioner and Respondent repeatedly referred to each other as husband and wife. 10. Denied. The parties have, since their marriage in 2001, and since moving to Pennsylvania in 2003, repeatedly held themselves out to the world as husband and wife, in front of family, friends, and neighbors, including their church congregation and clergy, and their sons' schoolteachers, among others. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Respondent did not take Petitioner's name in any legal context. By way of further answer, because Petitioner and Respondent did not obtain a marriage license at the time of their marriage, Respondent was unaware that she could legally take Petitioner's name. However, Respondent has used Petitioner's surname in context of the children's school and in classes she took in New York. Furthermore, although it is tradition in many cultures for a married woman to take her husband's name, it is not required to establish the existence of a marriage. 13. Admitted. By way of further answer, at the time Petitioner and Respondent purchased real property located at No. 2 Lilac Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17050, Petitioner informed Respondent that they would pay a higher interest rate on their mortgage if Respondent were included in the title to the property, and Respondent deferred to Petitioner's judgment on the matter because it is traditional for a married Hindu woman to defer to the judgment of her husband in all household matters. 14. Admitted that Petitioner and Respondent have no joint accounts at this time; however, until Petitioner recently closed the account, Petitioner and Respondent shared a joint checking account with Commerce Bank for at least three years from 2006 - 2009. 15. Denied. Respondent believes and therefore avers that Petitioner filed tax returns as Head of Household, claiming Respondent as a dependent until Respondent began receiving taxable income, whereupon Petitioner and Respondent filed jointly. Petitioner and Respondent filed joint tax returns for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007, and they jointly received a 2008 Economic Stimulus Payment. 16. Admitted. 17. Admitted. 18. Admitted. WHEREFORE, Respondent, Leelawattie Jagdeo, by and through her undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order finding that a` marriage exists between the parties and granting such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Date V 4 es ectfully submitted, KRYSTAL J. MACINT Certified Legal Intern RO E THOMAS . PLACE ANNE MACDONALD-FOX LUCY JOHNSTON-WALSH MEGAN RIESMEYER Supervising Attorneys Family Law Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 243-3696 Fax: (717) 243-3639 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing complaint are true and correct to the best of my personal 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. Dated:, S/- 710 3T.L ? elawattie Jagdeo FILE c NOTASY nr: 1a?9 ??Y -$ ?'?9 ? ? 55 LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ROHAN DOOKHARAN DF,FENDANT • 2009-985 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Tuesday, August 11, 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 Thursday, September 03, 2009 at 3:30 PM 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/ Dawn 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. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 FIB k '-, ~,,aY z~ q~ C~.',,. - _. ~ 5.': r ~ v LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. ROHAN DOOKHARAN Defendant/ Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-985 CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN CUSTODY FATHER'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION 1. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted the Petition was filed but denied that Mother is entitled to exclusive possession, so strict proof thereof is demanded. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Father resides at 2 Lilac Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania and that he was in incarcerated on July 22, 2009. However, in the implication therein that Father does not reside at the residence is denied. The residence, which is titled to Father and was purchased with Father's non-marital funds continues to be Father's residence absent his brief incarceration and hospitalization. Therefore, strict proof hereof is demanded. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Mother has been without stable housing and that the Children live in the home with Father. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied as Mother was never forced to leave the marital residence. In further answer hereof, Mother voluntarily left the marital residence to pursue her adulterous relationship. ~. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Order was modified but the implication therein that the court decided same is denied. In further answer hereof, the parties amicably agreed upon a Modified Custody Order. 12. Denied. Father lacks sufficient knowledge to determine the truth to this averment and therefore strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer Mother's home environment has been so unstable that overnight periods of custody ait this point cannot be ordered. 13. Denied. It is specifically denied that Father has failed iri any way to provide a stable home environment for the Children. The subparts of this averment are also denied as follows: a. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Fathher was charged with driving under the influence and related charges and he spent three days in jail. However, in the implication herein that; Father's prior incarceration is pertinent to this Petition for Exclusive Possession is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial It is further denied that Mother cared for the Children for the three days that Father was incarcerated for his DUI. Father's brother, Deroj Dookharan, came from New Jersey to care for the Children while Father was incarcerated in March, 2009. b. Denied. It is specifically denied that Father verbally harassed Mother. In further answer hereof on several occasions it has been Mother who yells repeatedly from across the street in an attempt to provoke Father. It is further denied that the Children were unsafe at their own home. In further answer hereof, Mother failed to comply with the terms of the parties' Custody Order and in direct violation of the Custody Order failed to return the Children as mandated by the court Order. c. Denied. Father lacks sufficient knowledge or information to determine the truth of the averment and therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded. In further answer, Father knows of no instances when the police have been called by neighbors regarding Father's alleged loud music and Father's alleged intoxication. d. Denied. See answer to 13 (c) above. e. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Father was taken into custody for an alleged violation of the Protection from Abuse Order and alleged violations of his probation. It is denied that Father violated the PFA or the terms of his probation. It is further denied that Father was arrested on July 22, 2009, when in fact he was arrested on July 23, 2009. Therefore, strict proof hereof is demanded 14. Admitted. 15. Denied. Although Father was hospitalized at the Carlisle Medical Center he has been released from same. It is specifically denied that Father is sufferin€; medical issues related to alcoholism. In further answer hereof, while incarcerated Father contracted an infection that resulted in pneumonia and kidney infection. Father needed hospitalization but has returned to his home and has custody of the Children. Therefore, strict proof of the allegations of this paragraph are demanded at trial. l6. Admitted. 17. Admitted. 18. Denied. Father lacks sufficient knowledge or information to determine the truth of this averments of this paragraph and therefore, strict proof thereof is demand. 19. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mother is able to provide a stable home environment for the Children. Mother has very minimal income and can barely support herself. She is unable to finance a mortgage, utilities, and other costs associated with the use and possession of the marital residence. In further answer hereof, Mother has shown that she is unable to obtain and maintain her own residence since the parties' separation as she has resided with friends and at public shelters. Father, on the other hand, has despite- his limited income has been able to continue to maintain the marital residence financially and otherwise such that the Children are provided a stable home environment in which they are most familiar. Father and not Mother would be able to continue to maintain the marital residence. 20. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Father does not have the financial resources to secure alternative housing and the remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied. In further answer hereof it is not in the best interest of the Clhildren to grant Mother exclusive possession of the marital residence as Mother has proven that s,he is unable to provide a stable environment and also proven that she lacks sufficient income, assets, or an earning capacity to provide income to maintain the marital residence while Father has been able to do so during the parties' separation. 21. Admitted. 22. Denied to the extent to which no response is required thereto. 23. Admitted. WHEREFORE, Father respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Mother's Petition for Exclusive Possession of the Marital Residence and grant such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: Il Z~ Respectfully submitted, LAW FIRM OF LINDA A. CLOTFELTER ~~ Li da A. Clotfelter, Esquire torney ID No. 72963 5021 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 telephone (717) 796-1933 facsimile LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. ROHAN DOOKHARAN Defendant/ Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-985 CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~~'day of August, 2009, the undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Father's Answer to Petition for Exclusive Possession was served upon the opposing party by facsimile and first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Krystal MacIntyre, Certified Legal Intern Family Law Clinic 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: ~~ c~ ~ 4~ ~~ ;-~a ~ ~- ~ r r ~~ ` ~~ Sh on Sheaffer, arale ~1 5021 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 telephone (717) 796-1933 facsimile FlLEB--~r, ~~E OF ~'c p~~T~.;r,~y~~T~ 2~0~ At~c t 7 f': i ~ ~ 2 MAR 0 ~ 7(111 3 Leelawattie Jagdeo, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff/ Petitioner OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, :PENNSYLVANIA v. :CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN DIVORCE Rohan Dookharan, - ` , { Defendant/ Respondent No. 09-985 CIVIL TERM ~, ~ , n w~•,•2 ORDER OF COURT c~ ~ w ca .„~ a~ AND NOW, this day of ~ 010, upon consideration of the attached Petition for Special Relief, it is hereby Ordered as follows: 1. The respondent, Rohan Dookharan, shall immediately provide all information regarding the foreclosure action on the marital residence to his wife, Leela Jagdeo, and to execute any documents necessary to permit her to access respondent's loan information with American Home Mortgaging Servicing, Inc. ~~ n 2. The respondent, Rohan Dookharan, shall place any proceeds o~trirtetl from the sale of the marital residence into The Family Law Clinic's escrow account pending any future division between the parties. • ~ ~~~-~, ~~ ~~p"~• RT, b~M r J. I ~L 3`a,jty ~~~ LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PlaintifVPetitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : NO. 09-985 ° ROHAN DOOICHARAN : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Z rnr-- Defendant/ Respondent . IN DIVORCE ?-- -urn 3 =C:> ;Z,.,... C> m RULE AND NOW this day of , 2011, upon consideration of the Petition of Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire, to withdraw as counsel for the Defendant, a Rule is issued upon all parties to show cause why the Petition should not be granted, returnable* days from date of service. BY THE COURT: .Frdga?9. Owfh "Judge Distribution: Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire, 5021 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050, Attorney for Defendant Megan Reismeyer, Esquire, Family Law Clinic, 45 N. Pitt St., Carlisle, PA 17013, Attorney for Plaintiff Rohan Dookharan, 59 Regency Woods, Carlisle, PA 17015, Respondent L'oPoes ma . /elf 01,4g111 b? C> LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO Plaintiff/Respondent VS. ROHAN DOOKHARAN Defendant/Petitioner : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-985 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN DIVORCE Prior judicial assignment: Edward E. Guido, Judge MM c= r ;_`4 Concurrence/Nonconcurrence: See paragraph 3 below PETITIONER'S MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE ? ° -? -•- ;zc:) 1 O J 16 2011 P i i Li d A Cl f l E i fi a? =.=C) CD ` . n une , , et t oner, n a . ot e ter, re, squ led e ti n d Withdraw Appearance and on June 29, 2011, a Rule was issued upon all interested parties to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. 2. On July 7, 2011, Petitioner served all interested parties with the Rule to show cause on the Petition to Withdraw Appearance and terminate representation as Defendant's counsel. 3. As per the Rule dated June 29, 2011, the 20-day return date was passed without answer by Defendant, and Petitioner now seeks to have the Rule made absolute. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Court to make the Rule absolute and to grant her permission to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Rohan Dookharan, in the above- captioned proceeding. LAW FIRM OF LINDA A. CLOTFELTER Date: I I A I / I Lida A. Clotfelter, Esquire A orney ID No. 72963 5621 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 telephone (717) 796-1933 facsimile LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Respondent : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : NO. 09-985 ROHAN DOOKHARAN : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant/Petitioner : IN DIVORCE VERIFICATION I, Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire, verify that the statements in the foregoing Petitioner's Rule to Make Motion Absolute 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. Date: I 5021 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 telephone (717) 796-1933 facsimile LEELAWATTIE JAGDEO : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Respondent : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : NO. 09-985 ROHAN DOOKHARAN : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant/Petitioner : IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of July, 2011, the undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petitioner's Motion to Make Rule Absolute was served upon the opposing party by United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Rohan Dookharan Megan Reismeyer, Esquire 59 Regency Woods Family Law Clinic Carlisle, PA 17015 45 N. Pitt Street (Defendant) Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Respectfully submitted, LAW FIRM OF LINDA A. CLOTFELTER By: ;(-Y1nDA ? L A Kimbftly M. N e alegal 5021 East T dle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 telephone (717) 796-1933 facsimile Leelawattie Jagdeo, Plaintiff. v. Rohan Dookharan, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-985 CIVIL ACTION - LAW DIVORCE WITHDRAWAL OF EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION CLAIM TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Kindly withdraw Leelawattie J 1D ?? 11 Date 's Equitable distribution claim. Patrick Boyce Certified Legal Intern Martin J. D' rso Esq. THE FAMILY LAW CLINIC 45 North Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2968 (fax) (717) 243-3639 c _.a `- N 1 ?r ?W Leelawattie Jagdeo , IN THE COND O OUONTYpPENNSYLVOANI CUMBERLA r-- Plaintiff v : CIVIL ACTION-LAW DIVORCE Rohan Dookharan, Np 09 - 985 CIVIL TERM C. Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Patrick Boyer, Certified Legal Intern, Family Law Clinic, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Notice of Intention to Request Entry of Divorce Decree on Rohan Dookharan, residing at 2 Lilac Dr. Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 by depositing a copy of the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Patrick Boyer Certified Legal Intern Leelawattie Jagdeo, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ,.??` Plaintiff : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSY4iANf; ,Z:rn c-5 ? f CIVIL ACTION - LAW= _c f V. : DIVORCE Rohan Dookharan, - Defendant :NO: 09-985 CIVIL TERM NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REQUEST ENTRY OF § 3301(d) DIVORCED&RVE TO: DEFENDANT You have been sued in an action for divorce. You have failed to answer the complaint or file a counter-affidavit to the § 3301(d) affidavit. Therefore, on or after November 14, 2011, the other party can request the court to enter a final decree in divorce. If you do not file with the Prothonotary of the court an answer with your signature notarized or verified or a counter-affidavit by the above date, the court can enter a final decree in divorce. A counter-affidavit which you may file with the Prothonotary of the court is attached to this notice. Unless you have already filed with the court a written claim for economic relief, you must do so by the above date or the court may grant the divorce and you will lose forever the right to ask for economic relief. The filing of the form counter-affidavit alone does not protect your economic claims. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. IF YOU CANNOT .AFFORD A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 The Court of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities 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. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Leelawattie Jagdeo V. Rohan Dookharan NO. 09-985 DIVORCE DECREE AND NOW, N d( , it is ordered and decreed that Leelawattie Jagdeo plaintiff, and Rohan Dookharan bonds of matrimony. defendant, are divorced from the Any existing spousal support order shall hereafter be deemed an order for alimony pendente lite if any economic claims remain pending. The court retains jurisdiction of any claims raised by the parties to this action for which a final order has not yet been entered. Those claims are as follows: (If no claims remain indicate "None.") None By W /l- /7- //- Coif A fvh? e ? llyy 112?llpy A L?w /,j,YiG eel ,Iv o/& ?f V