HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-2118THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WE~ DY J. STROUP,
PLAINTIFF
DANIEL N. STROUP,
DEFENDANT
: NO. 91-SU-04078-02C
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: ACTION IN CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW, this q~day of /t.(c~ , 2004, upon consideration of the Plaintiff.
Wt 'q)Y J. STROUP'S Petition to Transfer, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED this case
sba be transferred to Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
CERTIFIED__from the records_of the Court of Common Plea~ of Y~unty, Pennsvlvan/ao
/ Pamela S Lee, Pro.14'[~mo~ 'f
·
·
:~R~TP 23
LtST: IggT/37/$B
C i ¥ ~. L
~002 g~SIG, W?~p¥ j
DGO1 LE~KWAy, ~LIS&
117 ~ ~A:~T ST
1T~3~
~AT~S, S~U~L ALAN
1733!
SUSAN A
1991 SU 05168 03
~'OOI LEARYAYe CL,[NT N
OOOI W~TTER, STEPHEN
ROB! WCT?E~, SHELLEY ~
I 090880846
l?eOl
VEL?~Z, CH~ISTIN~ M
14 S GEORGE ST SUITE
KAUG, ~0BERT
53 E C~N~L St P~R 155
DDVE~ P~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIl. ACT[ON - LAW
WEJ~Y I. :~ fF. OUP, :
Phintiff :
VS. :
DANIE~ N. :)i~KOUP, :
NO. 91-SU.-0407~-02C
Ai..-i{ON IN CUSTODY
CUS'J'ODY WQRK.~HOP CERTIFICATION
Attached is P~n[~ff'$ Ct~lific~l:~ c,~deflc~ng her complaio~ f~ ~t~ Semina~'
Sep~'~ Par~n~ to be filed of record in the nb~'~
/SuCh A. Deck. r, Esquire
Atton~ fo~ pt~ntiff
53 N. l~k~ Sneer
York, pe~ns~lv~i~ 1'/401
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL AuFION - LAW
WENDY J. S'fROUP,
Plaintiff
DAI~I~L N, srRouP,
Defendant
NO, 91-SU-04078-O2C
AL:I {~ON iN CUSTODY
CUSTODY WORKSHOP CERTIFICATION
Attached is Plaintiff's Ctn'tificalion evidencing her completion fo~ the S~mina~
For Separ~ng Parents to ~ filed of record in the at~ referenced mater.
Respectfully submitted.
A. Doektor. F..squir~
Allorn~ for Plaintiff
$uprtmne Court I.D. #43883
$3 N. Duk~ Stte~
YoH~ Pennsylvania 17401
017) 8469773
Has Completed
The Seminar For Separating Parents
1~ THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF YORK. COUNTY,
CUSTODY
CONSI:NT TO FNTRY OF COURT ORDFR
We: have allt, zlx:l~ ~ Custody Conciliatlo. Confe~nce and ha'*'e t~achecl an agreement
all i~su~s raised in this matter. We have listened to the dictation of the Report ~d
~--uf.,osed Order by. the Conciliator. We agree with the content of'thc proposed Order and consent
that it ~ bt s~brait~ to ~: Court for entry as il~ C~e,r, wltbou; the nc¢~ssit~ for a beating
ot ~/bct I:~K'~lin~ upo~ ~c r~cord.
Co~for Plaiatifi':'
Degendant:
Couas~t kn' Dcft~dant:
.TN THE COURT OF C(~MMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY~ PENNSYLVANIA
NENDY J. STROUP : NO: 91-SU-04078-02C
vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DANIEL N. STROUP : ACTION IN CUSTODY
CONCILIATION CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Submitted by: Sa~ue! A. Gates , Counsel for Defendant
1. Party is natural father
2. Child: Ryan D. Stroup
Date of Birth: 12/26/90
Child:
Date of Birth:
Child:
Date of Birth:
Child:
Date of Birth:
Party is requesting: {Outline proposed Order)
Maintain status q~o which includes child spendin9 overnights
' .with father on alternate Tuesday evenings to Wednesday a.m.
4. The present custody situation is as follows: (Include any
visitation arrangements ~-hat may exist}. Identify specifically
or egree~eflt, and atta~ · co~y to ~ M~rand~.
S~e Order of Court dated 4/6/94. In addition, the parties have
agreed in practice,although never memorialized in writing, that
on alter~ate Tuesdays Father has tAe child overnight until
M~e~day a.m.
$. ~"ne present custody situation has existed since
/~4~ril, 94. Prior to that time the c%~stody situation was as ~
follows: ' ~ ~
Contact with the children7 No If so, state the~ ~. ~
7. Do you allege unfitness of the other party? No
8. Do you allege improper home environment? No
9. What other issues will be presented to the court?
Mother's unwillingness to allow father to be caregiver while
mother is unavailable and father is. Mother's unilateral
decision making regarding the child. Mother's transitory
lifestyle.
10. Do you plan to raise emotional or psychological problems of
the children or others involved? No
11. Do you request psychological evaluations? No
12. WAll you agree to the appointment of one neutral
psychologist to be used by both parties to perform psychological
evaluations? No
13. How much time will the presentation of your case, (including
cross-examination), take? 2 days.
14. Factual Witnesses:
Father's wife
Wendy J. Stroup, as on cross
15. Are home studies requested? No
16. Other relevant information you wish to bring to the
&~tention of the Conciliator.
The status quo
Respectfully submitted,
Samuel A. Gates, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
I.D.962399
WENDY ~. ii 1~KOUP
iN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 91-SU-O4078-02C
CIVIL ACTION - LAW ,.o o~
CUSTODY --~ '~
~- ~,~
Wendy J. Stroup t~ed a Pefitiou to Modify an Onie~ emered in lhlm c~ue on April 6, 1994.
'i"nat O~det tdat~ Io embody of l~e one child of these parfie~, Ryan D. Sm~p, bom December 26,
1990. The pmmies and their counsel met with Conciliator Glenn C. Vaushn (standing in for Dorothy
A,:~6, ~,~,"y, the e~sfing Ot~r i~ modiBed in the followin8 th.,~e r~uect a:
i. 'fhe Mmher is not suing to he wuddng during the summer of 1997. She w~ll provldeday
'1~ ~s~ n~ al~y to tt~e Falhn"s vacation days or to a ms.-nam of five day~ dur~rtg which the child
may be in ll~ cu~ody of the paternal ip~ndpar~ms. The Fa~er shall tmtify the Mother ,u f~ Jn
~hqu~e as possible as to the ~ when she would be providing the day care. The Mother will
the ~ on these occasiom, pk;~-,{ up m~d ix~rning the child to the Father's
2. Thru F~her slmll have mstody o~ alternating Tuesday evminSs during the school y~ar from
~ unu'{ ~he Fmther ~ lhe ctn'ld to ~honl the next morning (Wednesday). On the other
Father shall pick up lhe child ~n' ~ ~zt return the child to the Mother
3. The Father's time to r~um the child to ~he Mother's cu~ody at the ~ offs gt~fi~
p.m. on ~y.
~ p~ r~ a~ t~ ~ ~ ~d ~ ~shop, ~ t~ w~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ Co~t~, ~ ~ ~ to ~ t~r C~ifi~t~ ofA~ ~
C~m oft~ ~ ~ ~ ~t to ~ Su~ ~ ~or ~d S~ A. ~tm,
BY TH]~ COURT:
WENDY J. STROUP
VS.
DANIEL N. STROUP
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 91-SU-04078-02C
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY
REPORT OF CONCILIATOR
Legal Counsel:
Date of Conciliation - May 28, 1997
1. Parties in this case are:
~ Father
~x Mother
Samuel A. Gates, Esquire
Susan A. Docktor, Esquire
2. The child is Ryan D. Stroup, bom December 26, 1990.
3. Present action was initiated by Mother.
4. Have there been any prior custody proceedings and/or Orders? Yes. An Order was entered in
this case dated April 6, 1994, upon the agreement of the parties. That Order provides for shared legal
custody with majority custody in the Mother. The Father has rights of partial physical custody, which
had been modified slightly by the understanding of the parties since 1995 to include overnights on
alternating Tuesdays.
5. The present custody situation is as set forth in paragraph 4.
6. Agreement: The parties reached an agreement at the conciliation conference. I was sitting in for
Dorothy Livaditis, although this case was originally heard by me in 1992.
Respectfully submitted,
G,~.~/V~a u~dy C~onciliat or
Date:
DIRECTIVE
You, Daniel N, Stroup, Defendant, have been sued in Court to obtain custody, partial
custody or visitation of the child(ten): , ~
RYAN D. STROUP
It is hereby Ordered and Directed:
onciliation Conference. I , Esquire, is hereby assigned to C°nduct .~.
2. A Concilialion Conference will be held before the assigned Conciliator on the
~ ~> day of T~/[0-~ , 199 ~/ , at 9:o21 ~4.m., at the Government Center,
corner of Market and Beavett Streets, York, Pennsylvania, in the Basement Conference Room.
The anticipated length of the Conciliation Conference is one hour.
3. The parties shall appear in person at the Conciliation Conference and shall bring
with them all CHILDREN AGE SEVEN (7) OR OLDER.
4. At the Conciliation Conference, an effort will be made to see if the custody and/or
visitation situation can be resolved by an agreement between the parties; or if an agreement cannot
be reached, to define and narrow the issues to otherwise reduce the time required for hearing by
the Court, then the Conciliator will prepare a Conference Summary Report for further action by
the Court pending a hearing to be scheduled at a later date before Judge Penny L. Blackwell,
without prejudice to the rights of the parties at such hearing, which all parties and the children
shall be ordered to attend.
5. You have the right to be represented by an attorney who may attend the
Conciliation Conference with you. If for some reason an attorney has not been secured by the
time of the Conciliation Conference, you shall personally appear at the time scheduled for the
Conciliation Conference without an attorney.
6. If Children's Services is conducting an investigation, their representative shall be
subpoenaed by the appropriate attorney to attend the Conciliation Conference. It shall be the
responsibility of the attorney subpoenaing the representative to obtain a Court Order or releases
from the parties prior to the release of information by the representative.
7. If you fail to appear as provided by this Order or to bring the child(ren), an Order
for custody, partial custody or visitation may be entered against you, or the Court may issue a
warrant for your arrest.
8. The parties and their counsel, if applicable, are hereby directed to engage in
meaningful negotiations to resolve this matter prior to the Conciliation Conference.
Page 1 of 3
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.
LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE OF THE
YORK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
137 EAST MARKET STREET
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA 17401
TELEPHONE (717) 854-8755
J. ROBERT CHUK
DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES
ACT OF 1990
The Court of Common Pleas of York 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 disable individuals
having business before the court, please conmet the court at (717) 771-9097. All arrangements must be made at least 72
hours prior to any hearing or business before the court.
...... ~_~ BY THE 'COURT,
Date: ~ ............. _ ..,; ·
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
D1RECTIVA
Usted, , ha sido demandado en la Corte para obtener
custodia, custodia parcial o visita de los menores:
Por cuanto se Ordena que:
1. El abogado
Conferencia de Conciliaci6n.
est,5 asignado a conducir una
2. Una Conferencia de Conciliaci6n ser~i fijada ante el Conciliador asignado el dfa
de , de 199 __ .m. en el Sal6n de Conferencias,
S6tano (Nivel Subterrftneo), Government Center, en la esquina de las calles Market y Beaver,
York, Pennsylvania. La duraci6n anticipada de la Conferencia es una hora.
Page 2 of 3 ~i
3. Las partes debenin comparecer en persona en la Conferencia de Conciliaci6n y
deber~in traer consigo todos los NIglOS DE SIETE (7) AIr/OS DE EDAD O MAYORES.
4. En la Conferencia de Conciliaci6n se hani un esfuerzo para ver si la situaei6n de
custodia y/o visita puede ser resuelta por acuerdo entre las partes; o si no se puede llegar a algtln
acuerdo, para definir y disminuir las desigualdades con el fin de reducir el tiempo requerido en
una audiencia de la Corm. Luego el Conciliador preparar~i un Reporm Sumario de la Conferencia
para someter a la Corte mientras queda pendiente una audiencia a ser fijada mas tarde ante Penny
L. Blackwell, iuez, sin prejuicio a los derechos de las partes en tal audiencia, a la cual las partes
y los menores se les ordena asistir.
5. Usted tiene derecho a estar representado por abogado el cual puede asistir a la
Conferencia con usted. Si por alguna raz6n usted no tiene un abogado a la hora de la Conferencia
de Conciliaci6n, usted debe comparecer personalmente a la hora indicada para la Conferencia sin
abogado.
6. Si Children's Services est5 conduciendo una investigaci6n, el representante de
Children's Services deber~i ser citado por el abogado apropiado para asistir a la Conferencia.
Debeni ser responsabilidad del abogado que cite al representante obtener una Orden de la Corte
o autorizaci6n de las partes antes de publicar informaci6n decha por el representante.
7. Si usted no comparece o no trae los hijos menores como se provee en esta Orden,
una Orden de custodia, custodia parcial o visita puede ser emitida en su contra o la Corte puede
emitir una orden para su arresto.
8. Se les ordena a las partes y sus abogados, si los tienen, comprometerse en
negociaciones sinceras con el fin de resolver este asunto antes de la Conferencia de Conciliaci6n.
USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE PAPEL A SU ABOGADO DE UNA VEZ. SI NO
TIENE O NO PUEDE PAGAR UN ABOGADO, VAYA O LLAME A LA OFICINA
INDICADA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE OBTENER AYUNDA LEGAL.
LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE OF THE
YORK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
137 EAST MARKET STREET
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA 17401
TELEPHONE (717) 854-8755
TELEFONO (717) 854-8755
POR LA CORTE,
Administrador de la Corte del Distrito
, Juez
Page 3 of 3i
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
WENDY J, STROUP,
Plaintiff
VS.
DANIEL N. STROUP,
Defendant
NO. 91-SU-04078-02C
ACTION IN CUSTODY
PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER
DATED APRIL 6, 1994
DORION 6. DOCKTOR
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
53 NORTH DUKE STREET
YORK, PA I740I
AND NOW, this [~ day of May, 1997 comes Plaintiff, Wendy J. Stroup,
now Wendy J. Resig, by her attorney, Susan A. Docktor, Esquire, of the law firm of
Dorion & Docktor, and files this Petition to Modify Custody Order Dated April 6,
1994 of which the following is a statement:
1. Petitioner, Wendy J. Resig, is an adult individual residing at 209 Glenn
Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011.
2. Respondent, Daniel N. Stroup, is an adult individual with a mailing
address of P.O. Box 589, Mt. Wolf, Pennsylvania 17347.
3. Petitioner is the mother and Respondent the father of the minor child,
Ryan D. Stroup, born December 26, 1990.
Petitioner and Respondent are divorced.
Both Petitioner and Respondent have remarried.
DORION & DOCKTOR
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
~3 NORTH DUKE ~TREET
YORK, PA 17401
a)
b)
c)
biological caretaker.
d)
6. Respondent, father, is the parent of an 18 month old son.
7. Petitioner, mother, married Steve Resig and is expecting a child of this
marriage in June.
8. The parties' minor son, Ryan, resides with mother and step-father by
agreement of the parties and pursuant to Court Order dated April 6, 1994, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference as if fully
set forth, granting mother majority physical custody.
9. Furthermore, father "shall be permitted to exercise visitation for one-half
of the summer on an alternating weekly basis...". This summer visitation begins the
first Sunday in June.
10. Because of mother's, pregnancy she will not be working and will be
home this summer and able, during father's weeks of custody, to provide childcare for
the parties' son, Ryan.
11. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by
granting the relief requested because:
Mother has been the primary caretaker of son since his birth.
Mother and son are bonded.
Son will be happier being cared for by mother than by a non-
There is no need for father to incur additional expenses for a
daycare provider when mother is available at no cost to father to care for son.
e) Father must place child in daycare for a long period each day.
f) Father's second son and Ryan are separated by age in the daycare
-2-
where father has Ryan enrolled.
12. Father only objects to this change because he would have to drive to
Ryan's mother's residence daily and this is inconvenient. Furthermore, Ryan starts
school full-time this fall and his one overnight every other week with father will disrupt
his school schedule.
13. Mother will be home to see Ryan off to school and greet him on his
return since she will be working part-time only during the 1997-98 school year.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court modify the Court Order
dated April 6, 1994 to direct father to transport son, Ryan, to his mother's residence
to provide daycare for Ryan for the summer of 1997. Furthermore, father's midweek
overnight visits shall cease during the school year.
Respectfully submitted,
Dorion & Docktor
DORION & DOCKTOR
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
53 NORTH DUKE STREET
YORK. PA i?40I
Susan A. Docktor, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Supreme Court I.D. #43883
53 N. Duke Street
York, PA 17401
(717) 846-9773
-3-
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
WEN-DY J. STROUP,
Plaintiff
VS.
DANIEL N. STROUP,
Defendant
NO. 91-SU-04078-02C
ACTION IN CUSTODY
AFFIDAVIT
I, Susan A. Docktor, Esquire, verify that I am counsel for the Petitioner in this
matter. Based on information supplied to me by the Petitioner, I verify that the
statements made in the foregoing Petition to Modify Custody Order Dated April 6,
1994 are true and correct. I am unable to obtain the Petitioner's verification to this
Petition within the time required by a Rule in this case. I understand that false
statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
Susan A. Docktor, Esquire
DORION ~ DOCKTOR
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
53 NORTH DUKE STREET
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY J. STROUP : NO: 91-SU-04078-02C
vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DANIEL N. STROUP : CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW, TO WIT, this/~'~g// day of/?~/~
1994, upon presentation of the within Agreement For Custody,
it is hereby Ordered that the terms and provisions of the
same are hereby approved and
hold precedent over the court
the same force and effect as
incorporated by reference and
as fully as though and with
if such Order had been entered
J.
EXHIBIT "A"
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY J. STROUP :
DANIEL N. STROUP
NO: 91-SU-04078-02C
CIVIL ACTION LAW
CUSTODY
AGREEMENT FOR CUSTODY
AND NOW, this ~%~ day of f~-~- , 1994,
comes Wendy J. Stroup, above Plaintiff, and Daniel N.
Stroup, above Defendant, who having been ada_s~_ by ....
~o,~ as follows:
respective counsels h~' ~ao_.e~
!. 'The above-captiened parties are the natural
parents of the minor child, Ryan D. Stroup, born December
26, 1990.
......... che
9 The parties wish +~ set +'~-+h
said minor child.
4. Plaintiff, Wendy J. Stroup, natural mother, Shall
have majority physical custody of the child subject to the
following minimum rights of visitation of the father, Daniel
N. Stroup, Defendant herein.
a. Alternatin~ weekends from Friday at B:00 p.m.
until Sunday at 7:00 p.m..
b. AlternatingT~e~'~],.~.F~..8:00~ ~ ~ a.m. to 7:00
p.m. ano en ~%her Tuesdays from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m..
c. Alternating holidays. Said holidays include
..~..U~mor~o!.- Day, Fourth ~ J,,]~_~, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day,
and New Year's Day. The time for exercising said
alternating holidays ;= from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.. In the
event that Defendant has Thanksgiving Day and the following
weekend, he may extend the Thanksgiving hol .... to include
the intervening Friday so that he would have the child from
.9:00 a.m on Thanksgiving Day to 7:00 p.m. on the following
Sunday.
have visitation with the child as fo_!o,~s: in odd numbered
years, 12:00 o'clock noon on Christmas Eve until 12:00
· ~ ~ Father have
DecemSer. 25 in ~d ........ shall one-half of the
child's Christmas Vacation from school and Mother shall have
the other half. Prior to the Child attending school, Father
shall have three additional days or one ?2-hour period which
shall be in addition to the other time provided herein for
the Father.
e. Father shall be
visitation for one-half of the
weekly basis during which time alto]
permit'ted to exercise
summer on an alternating
~Dg weekends are
suspended. Summer vacation with the Father shall begin with
the first Sunday in June and continue through the last
Sunday in August. When the child commences school, however,
school closes
before school
at 7:00 p.m..
the Father's week shall commence
and shall continue
starts. Exchanges
Father shall continue to use the
care provider as used by Mother during the year.
providing transportation
partial custody.
6. Both parties
cooperative
Defendant/Father shall
for the
on the first Sunday after
until the first Sunday
on these Sundays shall be
same day-
be responsible for
exercise of his rights to
~o~ that they will
with each other if either party
be fully
anticipates a
change in the custody or visitation,
promptly notify the other in order to
arrangements.
7. Both parties a~ree
he or she shall
coordinate other
that they shall refrain from
Witness:
parent.
-- pa ..... ~n= comments front the child and ~!] at
all times conduct themselves in such a manner to encourage
the development of the child's relationship with the other
CONCILIATION CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Submitted by Susan A. Docktor, Esquire, counsel for Petitioner, Wendy J. Stroup Resig.
1. Party is Mother.
2. Child: Ryan D. Stroup Date of Birth: December 26, 1990
3. Party is requesting:
Modification of the April 6, 1994 Court Order to allow mother to provide summer
daycare for son during father's weeks of custody.
4. The present custody situation is as follows:
Pursuant to the April 6, 1994 Court Order the parties share joint legal custody of son
with mother having majority physical custody.
5. The present custody situation has existed since April, 1994.
Prior to that time, the custody situation was as follows:
Mother had custody of son and father had informal visitation.
6. Has either party prevented the other party from having any contact with the children?
No. If so, state the circumstances:
o
10.
11.
Do you allege unfitness of the other party? No.
Do you allege improper home environment? No.
What other issues will be presented to the court?
Father placing son in an unaccredited "soccer' camp last summer (1996) where
children were poorly supervised and only played soccer once during the entire week.
Do you plan to raise emotional or psychological problems of the children or others
involved? Not at this time.
Do you request psychological evaluations? Yes.
12. Will you agree to the appointment of one neutral psychologist to be used by both parties
to perform psychological evaluations? Yes.
13. How much time will the presentation of your case (including cross-examination) take?
1 day
14. Factual witnesses: Unknown at this time.
15. Expert witnesses: Unknown at this time.
16. Are home studies requested? Not at this time.
17. Other relevant information you wish to bring to the attention of the Conciliator.
Mother lives in Cumberland County. Father lives in York County. Approximate
driving distance is one-half hour.
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY,
WENDY J. STROUP,
Plaintiff
DANIEL N. STROUP,
Defendant
: NO:
: ACTION IN CUSTOD~ '~
DEFENDANT' S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF' S MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF HER CROSS-PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AND
IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
PE.~NSYLVANIA
In her Brief, the Plaintiff has cited both statute and
case law indicating that there is support for her contention
that the Nissan 300ZX, which is the sub3ect of the
Defendant's Motion for Contempt, can be retained by her in
satisfaction of part of those monies owed under the Master's
Report and Recommendation. A review of
those cases indicate different findings
first blush.
The case of Taylor vs. Taylor, 349
that statute and
than are apparent at
Pa. Super. 423, 503
A.2d 439 (1986) deals with bifurcation of a divorce from the
property issues raised by the parties. In that case, the
lower court; ordered that the divorce decree could be
entered, however, it did not disturb the property which was
87;'0660626
of interest to the bankruptcy court. While the Plaintiff
accurately indicates that the "consummation and dissolution"
of marriages have been treated as matters which are properly
reserved to the states, that statement does not refer
specifically to property of the marriage, but rather, to the
marital relationship. Admittedly, Judge Cercone cited I~n
Re: Cunnin~ham, 9 B.R. 70 (1981), for the proposition that
the bankruptcy court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over a debtor's divorce. However, he went
further, stating specifically the holding of Cunnin~ham,
(~hich relied upon In Re: Benavidez, 80-1665 (D.N.N. June,
1980)):
The denial of jurisdiction over the
divorce petition, itself, is not to
deny jurisdiction over the property
of the divorce proceeding when one
of the parties is a debtor in
bankruptcy .... and the ruling here
is not to be construed to extend that
far. (emphasis added)
Hence, Judge Cercone, in Taylor, found that while a federal
bankruptcy court does not have subject matter jurisdiction
over the divorce petition itself, thereby allowing a lower
court or state court the ability to enter a divorce,
jurisdiction over the property of the divorce proceedings
still remains with the bankruptcy court. Taylor, then,
would support the exclusivity provision of the Bankruptcy
Reform Act of 1978 in not limiting the bankruptcy court as
regards property of a divorce, as is suggested by the
Petitioner.
The only area in which the Bankruptcy Court addresses
marital property is found in Section 362(b){2) of the
Bankruptcy Code. There, the Court indicates that there
shall not be a stay by the filing of a petition under the
Bankruptcy Code of actions for purposes of collection of
alimony, maintenance, or support from property that is not
property of the estate. Petitioner has fragmatized
subsection (2) to indicate that the vehicle, which is the
sub3ect of the Contempt proceeding, is not property of the
estate and, thus, can be attached. However, more
importantly, she cannot ignore the remainder of that section
that indicates that it is for the collection of alimony,
maintenance, or support for property of the property that is
not property of the estate from which relief of the stay may
be obtained. Petitioner cannot separate the
to collect
case, but
ordered
relief.
characterization of alimony, support, or maintenance
collection from "property that is not property of the
estate". It is clear that the Petitioner is not attempting
alimony, maintenance, or support in the present
rather, seeking replacement for other funds
in equitable distribution and is not entitled to
Hence, the case of In Re: Nelson, 944 F.2d 42 (lst
Cir. 1993) is also not helpful to the Petitioner. In that
particular case, Wife sought attachment for the purposes of
collecting on support arrears, which has no factual
similarity to the circumstances in the present case.
Further, the property against which that plaintiff intended
to place her attachment for arrears was never listed on the
bankruptcy petition as part of the estate, as was done in
the present case. Hence, since it was never listed, no stay
could have been issued in Nelson. It is clear that the
Nissan 300ZX was listed as an asset of the Defendant in his
bankruptcy petition and was property of the estate as it is
defined in Section 542 of the Bankruptcy Code. The vehicle
was then exempted as permitted under Section 522(d), and its
fl.
debt reaffirmed under Section 5241c): arguably, more
properly characterized as property protected by the estate
rather than property removed from the estate.
The Court in In Re: Tant, 156 B.R. 1018 (W.D. Mo
1993), entered an opinion only as to whether or not the
filing of the judgment by the court, subsequent to the
filing of the bankruptcy petition by the debtor, was void or
voidable and whether or not it constituted a violation of
the stay provisions of the Code. The Court determined that,
while technically there may have been a violation, equity
could intervene to deal with any penalty to be meted out to
the violator filing the judgment after the date that the
bankruptcy petition was filed. The opinion did not address
the collectability of any of the monies secured by that
judgment, only whether or not the judgment was correctly
entered of record: Tant only addressed the application of
the stay, the voidability of a judgment, and the punishment
to be ordered in the case of violation of the automatic
stay; it did not address the dischargability of any debt.
In the present case, the Plaintiff herein filed no proof of
claim, nor did she file any objection to the stay or to the
fl.
dischargability of any debt, as was done by the plaintiff in
the Tant case. Again, this case, likewise, does not lend
support to Plaintiff. The equitable considerations
discussed by Judge Fetterman dealt with the levying of
punishment against those who violate the automatic stay and
did not address the dischargability of any debt.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests that the
Cross-Petition for Contempt be denied, that his Motion for
Contempt be granted, and the prayers for relief set forth in
that Motion be awarded.
Respectfully submitted,
KORSAK & DeARMENT
By:
Claudia L. DeArment
Attorney I.D. No: 43879
33 North Queen Street
York, PA 17403
Telephone: {717) 854-3175
Attorney for Defendant
~U~AN A. DOCKTOR
ATTORNEY AT LAW
25 N DUkE ST/~EET
SUITE 205
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
WENDY J. STROUP,
Plaintiff
VS.
DANIEL N. STROUP,
Defendant
NO. 91-SU-04078-02C
ACTION IN CUSTODY
PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OFiH~R ~-' '~
C.OSS*ETmON FO. CONTEMPt AND ro
STA~ OF ~E CASE
Facts :~
On or about January 7, 1993 the pa~ies were divorc~ and ~}r property
~uimbly divid~ by the Honorable Mo~son Williams, Divorce Master. Neither
pa~y took exceptions to the Master's Recommendation which was adopted by ~is
Honorable Court as an OMer. Sho~ly. ther~fter, husband fil~ for Ban~ptcy.
Husband did not pay to wife any of the obligations set fo~h in the ~uimble
distribution OMer. In addition to a distribution of assets, the m~i~l debts on which
the p~ies were jointly and severely li~le were dNM~ betw~n them. Husband's
obligations were: 1) Dauphin Deposit B~k $9,945.56, 2) Norw~d Sellers
$10,740.43, 3) VISA $1,8~.~, 4) People's S~te Bank $10,809.50. These debts
assigned to husband were discharged in the ban~ptcy proce~ing. Wife could not
file for bankruptcy because her parents co-signed on the marital residence mo~gage,
i 80 06
a property which had been taken by the mortgagee by foreclosure leaving the parties
with only a debt. So, despite the residence being foreclosed upon, wife is currently
paying on the obligation to mortgagee, Dauphin Deposit Bank. She is paying on the
entire debt. Husband has the lion's share of marital furniture and furnishings and no
marital debt. Wife has marital debt and never received reimbursement for the
disparity in the property division.
In the bankruptcy, husband affirmed one marital debt, a Nissan 300ZX sports
car and made payments thereon. This asset was also awarded to husband. It was an
asset with a value of $5,737.00 at the time of equitable distribution. It has a debt at
the time of equitable distribution which is determined to exist, but is not itemized by
the Master. Title to the vehicle was held by East Prospect State Bank. Upon
payment of the debt in full the title to the Nissan, which is in both parties names, was
forwarded to husband. Husband requests wife convey title to the sports car solely to
his name.
Procedural History
The parties were divorced on or about February 1993 and the marital assets
and debts were equitably divided by this Honorable Court. Neither party filed
exceptions. Husband filed for bankruptcy some time in the Spring of 1993. Husband
affirmed the debt on a Nissan 300ZX, a marital asset awarded to him by the Master.
Husband's debts were discharged in the Fall of 1993. After the debt on the Nissan
300ZX was paid in full the title to the sports care was given to husband. Both
husband and wife's name is on the title to the car. Husband, through counsel,
-2-
requested wife to sign over title to him. Wife refused. Husband filed a Motion for
Contempt and a Rule. Wife filed a Cross-Petition for Contempt for husband's failure
to assume any debt or pay her for her portion of marital property in husband's
possession. Both actions were presented in Current Business on June 2, 1994 before
the Honorable Michael J. Brillhart. Counsel for the parties agreed there were no facts
at issue and issue was a legal one. A Court Order was entered directing the parties
to file a memorandum supporting their positions. This Brief is submitted in support
of wife's Petition for Contempt.
Issue WHET/tER A HUSBAND CAN DEFEAT EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION BY
FILING A BANKRUPTCY ACTION AND THEN HAVE THE COURT
ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE DISTRIBUTION WHICH BENEFIT
mM?
SUGGESTED RESPONSE*. NO
The issue of whether the bankruptcy action or the domestic action bar
enforcement of the other's proceedings is not one of first impression. The
Pennsylvania Superior Court, the Bankruptcy Court and the US Court of Appeals have
all addressed this jurisdictional issue with one voice. The bankruptcy action cannot
be both a sword and a shield. Husband cannot defeat this Honorable Court's Order
of equitable distribution by filing for bankruptcy to shield his obligations and as a
sword to enforce equitable distribution,
"From an historical point of view the consummation and dissolution of
marriages has always been treated as a matter which is properly reserved to the
states." Taylor v. Taylor, 349 Pa Super, 423 ,503 A.2d 439,441 (1986). In
Taylor, husband requested a bifurcated divorce. Wife argues there could be no
-3-
SUSAN A, I)OCKTOR
equitable distribution because she had started a bankruptcy action and the automatic
stay provisions bar husband's action unless husband had requested of the Bankruptcy
Court relief from the stay. /udge Cercone found this issue, while one of first
impression for the Superior Court had been addressed in the Bankruptcy Court. The
Bankruptcy court found it has no subject matter jurisdiction over the divorce petition.
In fact, the Bankruptcy Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over debtor's
divorce petition pursuant to automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, 11
USCS § 362 (a)(1) In Re Cunningham, 9 B.R. 70 (1981). The exclusivity provision
of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 is not without limits and "one such limit is the
field of domestic relations." Id at 71.
Since the Domestic Relations Code grants authority to this Court to equitably
divide the marital property and enforce compliance with its order, "... at any time a
party has failed to comply with an order of equitable distribution...". 23 P.A.C.S.
§ 3502(e). These petitions are clearly within this Court's jurisdiction.
Regarding whether the bankruptcy petition and its subsequent discharge
protect husband from his failure to shoulder his portion of the debt while keeping
marital assets, there is no question that the answer is no. In anticipation of husband's
argument that the bankruptcy gave him protection, a review of the Act and case law
settles this matter in favor of wife's position. The Bankruptcy Act sets forth what
matters are automatically stayed.
"(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section,
a petition filed under section 301, 302, or 303 of this
title [11 USCS §§ 301, 302, 303], or an application
filed under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor
Protection Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 78eec(a)(3)) [15
USCS 8 78eec(a)(3)], operates as a stay, applicable to
all entities, of -
(1) the commencement or continuation, including
the issuance or employment of process, of a
judicial, administrative, or other action or
proceeding against the debtor that was or could
have been commenced before the commencement
of the case under this title [11 USCS 88 101 et
seq.], or to recover a claim against the debtor that
arose before the commencement of the case under
this title [11 USCS §§ 101 et seq];
(2) the enforcement, against the debtor or against
property of the estate, of a judgment obtained
before the commencement of the case under this
title [11 USCS §§ 101 et seq.];
(3) any act to obtain possession of property of the
estate or of property from the estate or to exercise
control over property of the estate;
(4) any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien
against property of the estate;
(5) any act to create, perfect, or enforce against
property of the debtor any lien to the extent that
such lien secures a claim that arose before the
commencement of the case under this title [11
USCS 88 101 et seq.];
(6) any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim
against the debtor that arose before the
commencement of the case under this title [11
USCS §§ 101 et seq.];
(7) the setoff of any debt owing to the debtor that
arose before the commencement of the case under
this title [11 USCS §§ 101 et seq.] against any
claim against the debtor; and
(8) the commencement or continuation of a
proceeding before the .United States Tax Court
concerning the debtor.
(b) The filing of a petition under section 301, 302, or
303 of this title [11 USCS §§ 301,302, 303], or of an
application under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities
Investor Protection Act of 1970 (15 ti.S.C. 78eec(a)(3))
[15 tiSCS 8 78eec(a)(3)], does not operate as a stay -
-5-
SUSAN A. DOCKTOR
ATTORNEY AT LAW
(1) under subsection (a) of this section, of the
commencement or continuation of a criminal
action or proceeding against the debtor;
(2) under subsection (a) of this section, of the
collection of alimony,, maintenance, or support
from property that is not property of the estate".
11 USCS § 362(a)-(b)(2), emphasis added.
In husband's favor, the divorce proceeding and equitable distribution did arise
prior to husband's filing for bankruptcy. However, the Nissan 300ZX was arguably
not part of the estate since husband affirmed that debt removing it from the debtor
estate.
In a similar Massachusetts' case, husband and wife executed a marital
agreement which was made part of a divorce judgment in February of 1991. The
pertinent terms of that agreement were that husband was "to maintain the first and
second mortgages on the marital residence" and list it for sale. In re Nelson, 994
F.2d 42 (lst Cir 1993). In March of 1991, husband transferred the home for one
dollar to his father as trustee. Husband failed to comply with other terms of the
judgment and litigation to enforce the judgment was initiated by wife. In November
of 1991 husband filed for bankruptcy. Wife filed for temporary restraining order to
prevent transfer of the marital home. The Bankruptcy Trustee permitted a stipulation
for the sale of the property because it was not part of the bankrupt estate. In
February of 1992 husband transferred his Chapter 13 Bankruptcy into a Chapter 7 and
mortgagee of the marital home received permission to lift the automatic stay and
foreclose. Husband sued wife and her attorney, bringing the action for a restraining
order claiming this action violated the automatic stay. Judge Stahl found the above
-6-
property not to have been part of the bankrupt estate and found the record of
husband's appeal to be so frivolous that wife was awarded costs and fees. Id.
In the case at Bar, the Nissan was not part of the bankrupt estate or, in the
alternative, now that the husband, debtor, is discharged, is not now part of any
bankruptcy action. A Western District Missouri Bankruptcy Court in Re Tant, 156
B.R. 1018 (W.D. Mo 1993), addresses a similar issue. A 1981 divorce resulted in
a judgment note that was not ripe for 10 years. As soon as the note was executed
upon wife filed a Motion to Quash in State Court. The State Court denied the Motion
giving full force and effect to a 10 year old obligation. Wife and new spouse had in
the interim filed for Bankruptcy to defeat the judgment and other debts. Wife and
new spouse sought protection under the Bankruptcy Code, specifically 11 USCS §
362(a)(1). Judge Federman noted that in some cases even a valid stay can be void for
equitable reasons. Judge Federman cited Matthews v. Rosene, 739 F.2d 249, 251
(7th Cir 1984) and found section 362 to be drafted to benefit the debtor, but there are
equitable considerations which can lift the stay when debtor bears responsibility for
"creating the problems". In re Tan.t, 156 B.R. 1018 (W.D. Mo 1993). The court
found debtor sought refuge in Bankruptcy Court; as a result the court found against
the debtor and allowed the judgment to remain.
In the case at Bar, husband bears the responsibility for failing to perform any
of the obligations assigned to him by the Master and then wishing to benefit from the
award contained in the same order. Wife is not requesting that husband pay the debts
assessed against him by the Master which are: 1) Dauphin Deposit Bank $9,945.56,
-7-
2) Norwood Sellers $10,740.43, 3) VISA $1,860.00, 4) Peoples State Bank
$10,809.50. She is only requesting this Court not use its equitable powers against her
by permitting husband to use the bankruptcy to shield him from obligations and as a
sword to enforce a Master's distribution plan he has thwarted.
Husband has been discharged of his debts and the asset he now has is no part
of the bankrupt estate. It is, however, the last marital asset of any monetary value.
Since wife is precluded from recouping any other personalty, having husband pay his
portion of the marital debt, and collecting $2,768.73 awarded to her by the
bankruptcy. Conveying the car to wife would be a step in curing the wrong done to
wife as a result of husband's filing for bankruptcy and would restore some token of
the intended benefit of the distribution order.
Conclusion
The equity in this matter is clearly on wife's side. Jurisdiction of the matter
rests with this Court and this Court has the power to redress the wrong. Case law
establishes the bankruptcy action is no bar. Wife should be awarded the Nissan
300ZX and husband's Petition for Contempt should be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan A. Docktor, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Supreme Court I.D. #43883
25 North Duke Street, Suite 205
York, Pennsylvania 17401
(717) 846-9773
-8-
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
WENDY J. STROUP,
Plaintiff
VS.
DANIEL N. STROUP,
Defendant
NO. 91-SU-04078-02C
ACTION IN CUSTODY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
SUSAN A. DOCKTOF/
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's
Memorandum in Support of Her Cross-Petition for Contempt and in Opposition
to Defendant's Motion for Contempt in the above captioned matter has been served
by hand delivery to the Honorable Michael J. Brillhart, Judge, York County
Courthouse, 28 East Market Street, York, Pennsylvania, and by depositing the same
in regular United States Mail, postage prepaid, upon Claudia L. ~Arment, Esquire,
Attorney for Defendant, whose address is 33 North Queen Street, York, ~en .~Iv~ia
17403, on th~s 1st day of July, 1994.
Respectfully submitted, ~>~
Susan A. Docktor, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Supreme Court I.D. #43883
25 North Duke Street, Suite 205
York, Pennsylvania 17401
(717) 846-9773
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY J. STROUP :
:
vs.
:
DANIEL N. STROUP :
AND NOW, TO WIT,
NO: 91-SU-04078-02C
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY
ORDER
this day of
1994, upon presentation of the within Agreement For CustOdy,
it is hereby Ordered that the terms and provisions of the
same are hereby approved and incorporated by reference and
hold precedent over the court as fully as though and with
the same force and effect as if such Order had been entered
after Petition notice of hearing.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY J. STROUP : NO: 91-SU-04078-02C
vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DANIEL N. STROUP : CUSTODY
AGREEMENT FOR CUSTODY
AND NOW, this ~1~ day of ~--o~- r.~ ~ 1994,
comes Wendy J. Stroup, above Plaintiff, and Da~i~'l
Stroup, above Defendant, who having been advis~ by~hei~
respective counsels hereby agree as follows:
1. The above-captioned parties are the natural
parents of the minor child, Ryan D. Stroup, born December
26, 1990.
2. The parties wish to set forth a schedule of
custody and visitation as they believe is in the best
interest of the said minor child.
3. The parties shall share joint legal custody of the
said minor child.
4. Plaintiff, Wendy J. Stroup, natural mother, shall
have majority physical custody of the child subject to the
following minimum rights of visitation of the father, Daniel
N. Stroup, Defendant herein.
a. Alternating weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m.
until Sunday at 7:00 p.m..
b. Alternating Tuesdays from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m.~and on ot~er Tuesdays from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m..
c. Alternating holidays. Said holidays include
Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day,
and New Year's Day. The time for exercising said
alternating holidays is from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.. In the
event that Defendant has Thanksgiving Day and the following
weekend, he may extend the Thanksgiving holiday to include
the intervening Friday so that he would have the child from
9:00 a.m on Thanksgiving Day to 7:00 p.m. on the following
Sunday,
d. During the Christmas Holiday Father shall
have visitation with the child as follows: in odd numbered
years, 12:00 o~clock noon on Christmas Eve until 12:00
o'clock noon Christmas Day; in even numbered years, 12:00
o~clock noon on Christmas Day until 12:00 o'clock noon on
December 26. In addition, Father shall have one-half of the
child's Christmas Vacation from school and Mother shall have
the other half. Prior to the child attending school, Father
shall have three additional days or one ?2-hour period which
shall be in addition to the other time provided herein for
the Father.
e. Father shall be
visitation for one-half of the
weekly basis during which time
permitted to exercise
summer on an alternating
alternating weekends are
suspended. Summer vacation with the Father shall begin with
the first Sunday in June and continue through the last
Sunday in August. When the child commences school, however,
the Father's week shall commence on the first Sunday after
school closes and shall continue until the first Sunday
before school starts. Exchanges on these Sundays shall be
at ?:00 p.m.. Father shall continue to use the same day-
care provider as used by Mother during the year.
5. Defendant/Father shall be responsible for
providing transportation for the exercise of his rights to
partial custody.
6. Both parties agree that they will be fully
cooperative with each other if either party anticipates a
change in the custody or visitation, he or she sh~ll
promptly notify the other in order to coordinate other
arrangements.
7. Both parties agree that they shall refrain from
any disparan~ing comments in front of the child and will at
all times conduct themselves in such a manner to encourage
the development of the child's relationship with the other
parent.
Witness:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY J. STROUP : No. 91-SU-04078-02C
V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DANIEL N. STROUP : CUSTODY
APPEARANCES:
SUSAN DOCKTOR, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
CLAUDIA DeARMENT, Esquire
For the Defendant
ORDER
Wendy J. Stroup (Mother), represented by Attorney
Susan Docktor, and Daniel N. Stroup (Father) , represented by
Attorney Claudia DeArment, have requested that a hearing be
scheduled to ascertain certain rights of visitation/minority
rights of custody for Father. Particularly at issue is
Father's request for overnights during the week with Ryan D.
Stroup, date of birth, December 26, 1990. Father has
requested that he be permitted one, if not two, overnights
with Ryan. Mother is opposed to that because of the child's
age.
The last
from 5:00 p.m. to
The Court
Court will permit
(generally the week
Order allows the Father visits any Tuesday
8:00 p.m.
notes to the parties that generally the
one overnight visit every other week
in which the parent is not exercising a
weekend following the overnight.)
Counsel have also indicated that the parties may have
a misunderstanding of what shared legal custody encompasses.
The Court notes that shared legal custody means that each
parent shall participate in major decisions affecting the
social, medical, education, and religious aspects of a child.
Each parent is given equal access to school and medical
records of their child.
Counsel are directed to discuss this Order with their
client to see if settlement can be reached.
This matter is now set for trial on the afternoon of
Thursday, June 30, 1994, commencing at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom
No. 5 of the York County Courthouse. Counsel shall forward a
picture of the child, as well as the names of witness to the
Court by February 15, 1994.
BY THE COURT:
!!
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY J. STROUP :
VS. :
:
DANIEL N. STROUP :
APPEARANCES:
SUSAN DOCKTOR, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
CLAUDIA DeARMENT,
For the Defendant
No. 91-SU-04078-02C
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY
Esquire
ORDER
AND NOW, this 501 day of November, 1993, it is
ORDERED and DIRECTED that a pretrial conference in this
matter has been scheduled and shall be held thereon in
Chambers on Friday, January 14, 1994, commencing at 8:30
a.m., to discuss the following:
the possibility of settling this case without the
necessity of hearing;
2. if settlement is not possible, the anticipated
length of hearing;
the names of all witnesses to be called by each
party;
4. the names and addresses of any expert witnesses
to be called by each party; and
5. any unusual evidentiary matters.
BY THE COURT:
Submitted by Claudia L. DeArment,
Stroup.
CONCILIATION CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Esquire,
the next
b.
Sunday at 8:00 P.M.
counsel for Daniel
Party is the natural father.
Child: Ryan D. Stroup Date of Birth: December 26, 1990
Party is requesting Modification: ~
Two overnights per week, beginning at 4:00 ~.~. ~nt~_
morning.
Extension of visitation on alternating wee!~X~s ~at~P
c. One half the summer on an alternating week basis,
during which time alternating weekends would be suspended.
d. Alternating Thanksgiving break, beginning at 6:00
the day before and continuing through until Monday morning after
Thanksgiving.
e. One half of the Christmas break while the child is in
school and prior to him being in school, at least three
additional days during the Christmas season, in addition to what
is already outlined in the previous Agreement.
4. The present custody situation is as follows: An Agreement
that was entered of Court Record of August 19, 1992.
5. The present custody situation has existed since August 19,
1992.
274 I I 170 28
6. Has either party prevented the other party from havinf any
contact with the children? Respondent, mother, has not
cooperated in make-up time and has not cooperated in making the
child available for additional visitation as is found in
paragraph 6(f) of the previously mentioned Agreement.
7. Do you allege unfitness of the other party? No.
8. Do you allege improper home environment? No.
9. What other issues will be presented to the court? Mother is
not cooperating with the sharing of clothing.
10.
Do you plan to raise emotional or psychological problems of
the children or others involved? No.
11. Do you request psychological evaluations? No.
12.
Will you agree to the appointment of one neutral
psychologist to be used by both parties to perform
psychological evaluations? No.
13. How much time will the presentation of your case take? One
day.
14. Factual witnesses:
the parties and other upon proper notice to the other side.
Expert witnesses: None.
16. Are home studies requested? No,
17. Other relevant information you wish to bring to the
attention of the Conciliator.
CONCILIATION CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Submitted by Susan A. Do~ktor, Esquire___~ counsel for Wendy J. 8troup
1. Party is Mother
(define relationship to child).
2. Child: Ryan D. Stroup Date of Birth: 12/26/90
Child:
Date of Birth:
Child:
Date of Birth:
Child:
Date of Birth:
3. Party is requesting: (Outline proposed Order)
Majority physical custody with father to have reasonable visitation.
The present custody situation is as follows: (Include andy vi~-~ta~on~
arrangements that may exist) identify specifically the date of~:~e
last Order (Protection from Abuse or Custody), or agreement, and attach
a copy to this Memorandum.
As per Agreement for Custody dated May 1, 1992, mother has majority
physical custody with father having minimum rights Of visitation
as outlined therein (copy attached).
The present custody situation has existed since May 1, 19~2
Prior to that time, the custody situation was as follows:
The parties resided together in the marital residence with child.
27 ,4 I I I 7 0 $ 2 7
Has either party prevented the other party from having any contact with
the children? No
If so, state the circumstances:
10
11
12
13.
14.
Da you allege unfitness of the other party? No
Do you allege improper home environment? No
What other issues will be presented to the court?
Father wrote to mother telling her which weeks he would be taking
long visits with son without consulting with mother. Mother wrote
back to father stating that those times were not appropriate as
family vacations were previously scheduled to include son. Father found
this unacceptable.
Do you plan to raise emotional or psychological problems of the children
or others involved? No
Do you request psychological evaluations? No
Will you agree to the appointment of one neutral psychologist to be
used by both parties to perform psychological evaluations? N/A
How much time will the presentation of your case (including cross-
examination) take? t ~u~/day~
Factual witnesses:
Unknown at this time Address:
Address:
Address:
Address:
-2-
15. Expert witnesses:
Unknown at this time
Address:
Address
Address
16~ Are home studies requested? No
17. Other relevant information you wish to bring to the attention of the
Conciliator.
-3-
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA~ OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY J. STROUP : NO. 91-SU-04078-02D
vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
DANIEL N. STROUP : ACTION IN DIVORCE/CUSTODY
AGREE~NT FOR CUSTODY
A~D NOW, this day of , 1992 comes Wendy
J, Stroup, above Plaintiff, a iel N, S~roup, above
Defendant, who, having been advised by their respective counsel,
hereby agree as' follows:
1. The above captioned parties are the natural parents of
the below named minor child.
2. The parties' manor child is Ryan D.. StrouD, born
December 26, 1990,
3. Tbs parties wish to set forth a schedule of custody and
visitation which they believe would serve the best interests of
the child.
4. The parties shall have joint legal custody of the child.
5. The parties agree that Mother, Wendy J. Stroup, shall
have majority physical custody of the child.
6. Father, Daniel J. Stroup shall have the following
minimu~ rights of visitation:
(a) Alternating weekends from Frida~ at 6:00 p.mo
until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. be~innin~ April !0, t992.
(b) Alternating holidays (Memorial Day, Fourth of
July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Da~, New ~e~r~ Day)' ~-~
(e) Father shall have custody of the child on
Christmas Eve from 12:00 noon until Christ. mas Da~ at
12:00 noon in odd numbered years. Father shall have
custody of the child on Christmas Day ~rom 12:00 noon
until December 26 at 12:00 noon in even numbered years,
(d) Two non-conseCutive weeks during the
provided thirt~ (30) days written notice is given %o Mother.
Father sh~ll have only one (1) week in 1992.
(e) On Father's day from ~:00 a.m. to 6:00 p~m.; provided
the Mother shall have thechild on Mother's day for a similar period.
(f) Such other times as the parties can a~ree.
7. Father shall be responsible for providing transporta=ion
in the exercise of his right to partial custody.
8. Both parties agree that the~ will be prompt and
cooperative. ~f either party anticipates being late ~or
scheduled exchange of custody he/she shall promptly notif~ the
other party in order to coordinate alternative arrangements.
9. Failure of Father to exercise his rights of partial
c~stody in strict accordance with this agreement do~s no~
(2)
constitute a waivsr by Father o~ tbs terms of this agreement.
Witness:
(3)
WENDY J. STROUP :
:
VS. :
:
DANIEL N. STROUP :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 91-SU-04078-02C
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY
Daniel N. Stroup has filed a petition seeking to modify and expand his fights of partial
custody. The Court entered an Order providing for such rights in 1992, based upon an
Agreement signed by the parties dated May 1, 1992.
At the conciliation conference, the parties negotiated a resolution of four out oflhe~ve! i
requests of the Father. The remaining issue could not be resolved.
The parties agreed that the Court could modify the existing arrangement in th~ow.~t, g
respects:
1. The time for exercise of rights on alternating holidays is from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.
2. The weekend partial custody period shall extend to 7 p.m. as opposed to 6 p.m.
3. In the event that the Father has Thanksgiving Day as a holiday and also has the
following weekend, he may extend the Thanksgiving holiday to include the intervening Friday,
so that he would have the child from 9 a.m. on Thanksgiving Day to 7 p.m. on the following
Sunday.
4. The Father will have one-half of the child's Christmas vacation from school, and the
Mother will have the other half. Prior to the child attending school, the Father shall have three
additional days or one 72 hour period which shall be in addition to the other day presently
provided under Paragraph 6C of their Agreement.
27411170S26
5. For one-half of the summer on an alternating week basis during which time alternating
weekends would be suspended. This shall begin each summer with the Father's week
commencing on the first Sunday in June and then the Mother's first week commencing on the
second Sunday in June and continuing through the last Sunday in August. When the child is in
school, then the Father's first week shall commence on the first Sunday after the close of school,
and the schedule shall continue until the first Sunday before school starts. Exchange shall occur
at 7 p.m. on Sunday. The child's day-care provider shall remain the same no matter which
parent has custody during the summer.
6. On Tuesday each week from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
The parties could not agree on this last provision because the Father wanted these
evenings to be overnight and the Mother would not ar:c~e to that. The Conciliator
recommended that the Father have an overnight every other Tuesday. The counsel for the parties
are directed to contact the Court to schedule a pre-trial conference, after which a trial could be
scheduled if this issue could not be resolved at that conference.
Except as provided in this agreement, the provisions of the 1992 Court Order shall remain
in effect.
BY THE COURT:
Date:
WENDY J. STROUP
VS.
DANIEL N. STROUP
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 91-SU-04078-02C
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY
REPORT OF CONCII JATOR
Date of Conciliation - August 13, 1993
1. Parties in this case arc:
Legal Counsel:
Father
Mother
Claudia DeArment, Esquire
Susan Docktor, Esquire
2. The child is Ryan D. Stroup, born December 26, 1990.
3. Present action was initiated by Father.
4. Have there been any prior custody proceedings and/or Orders? Yes. The parties stipulated
to the entry of an Order on May 1, 1992, in this Court. Pursuant to that Agreement andaOrd~r,
custody was with the Mother, and the Father had certain specified "minimum rights of vis~tion~"
5. The present custody situation is as ordered. ~-.~ !;: ro ','~
6. The present custody situation has existed since the date of the Order. ~: m ;~3c~
7. Position of Father: He has filed a petition seeking to expand the rights providers} ~tl~
8. Position of Mother: She has agreed on a lot of the requests of the Father. They negotiated
to a settlement of some of them. There is one issue which remains unresolvable.
9. Position of Others in case: N/A
10. The parties agree on the following: Some of the requested expansions of Father's rights as
set forth in the attached proposed Order.
11. The parties disagree on the following: The Father's right to overnights during the week.
12. The following allegations are made by one or more of the parties: N/A
13. Issues Addressed: N/A
27'391160446
14. Summary of issues: The parties agreed upon everything except the fight of the Father to
have overnights during the week, Initially he requested two overnights each week. The Mother
agreed to give him one evening for three horns each week. This issue will have to go to a
hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Gle~ C./~Vau ~~y ~ciliator
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DANIEL N. STROUP :
:
VS. :
:
WENDY STROUP :
NO. 91-SU-04078-02C
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
Before me, a Notary Public, in and for said
County and Commonwealth, personally appeared Claudia
DeArment, who being duly sworn according to law deposes and says
that a true and correct copy of the Original Petition for
Modification was caused to be served upon the above-named,
Defendant, Wendy N. Stroup, by certified mail, restricted
delivery, return receipt requested, on the 26th day of July,
1993, as shown by the original green receipt card attached
hereto.
Sworn and subscribed to
before me this ~ day
, 1993.
No~a~ia;
Joseph C. Ko~ak, Notary ,'=u~ic
My Commi~n E~s Jan. ~, 1995
N%m~r, Pe:~y~an~a ~a~rl of
2 I ';
Claudia DeArment, Esquire
KORSAK & DEARMENT
I.D. No. 43879
33 North Queen Street
York, Pennsylvania 17403
717-854-3175
17~11
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY J. STROUP : NO. 91-SU-04078-02C
VS. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW c~ rq
DANIEL N, STROUP : CUSTODY --~.--' ~-~.m
You, Wendy J. Stroup, Respondent, have been sued inlUou~z te
obtain visitation of the child: Ryan D. Stroup.
It is hereby Ordered and Directed:
assione~W~to conduct a Conciliation Conference.
2. A Conciliation Conference will be held before thc
assigned Conciliator on the ~ day of
1993, at ~J'f) , ~ .m., in Confer~ce Room, Basement,
Government Center, corner of Market and Beaver Streets, York,
Pennsylvania. The anticipated length of the Conciliatior
Conference is one hour,
3. The parties shall appear in person at the Conciliatior
Conference and shall bring with them all CHILDREN AGE SEVEN (7)
OR OLDER.
4. At the Conciliation Conference, an effort will be mad~
to see if the visitation situation can be resolved bs, an
agreement between the parties; or if an agreement cannot be
reached, to define and narrow the issues and to otherwise reduce
the time required for hearing by the Court, then the ConciliatoE
will prepare a Conference Summary Report for further action bg
the Court pending a hearing to be scheduled at a later date
before Judge Blackwell, without prejudice to the rights of the
parties at such hearing, which all parties and the children shall
be ordered to attend.
5. You have the right to be represented by an attorney whc
may attend the Conciliation Conference with you. If for some
reason an attorney has not been secured by the time of the
Conciliation Conference, you shall personally appear at the time
scheduled for the Conciliation Conference without an attorney.
6. If Children's Services is conducting an investigation,
their representation shall be subpoenaed by the appropriate
attorney to attend the Conciliation Conference. It shall be the
responsibility of the attorney subpoenaing the representative to
obtain a Court Order or releases from the parties prior to the
release of information by the representative.
7. If you fail to appear as provided by this Order or tc
bring the child(ten), an Order for custody~ partial custody or
visitation may be entered against you, or the Court may issue a
warrant for your arrest.
8. The parties and their counsel, if applicable, are hereb~
directed to engage in meaningful negotiations to resolve this
matter prior to the Conciliation Conference.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOL
DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THH
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE OF THE
YORK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
YORK COUNTY BAR CENTER
137 EAST MARKET STREET
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA 17401
TELEPHONE (717) 854-8755
~ BY THE COURT,~_
Judge
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY J. STROUP : NO. 91-SU-04078-02C
:
VS. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
DANIEL N. STROUP : CUSTODY
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
1. The Petitioner is Daniel N. Stroup, the natural father,
whose address is PO Box 589, Mt. Wolf, Pennsylvania 17347.
2. The Respondent is Wendy J. Stroup, the natural mother, whose
address is ll0 May Drive, Apartment 6, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania,
17011,
3. The minor child is Ryan D. Stroup, born December 26, 1990.
4. The parties entered into an Agreement for custody on or
about August 19, 1992 at the above captioned matter. ,~-~
5 The Petitioner is seeking a modification to exp~.~
rights that were previously contained in that prior
g. Petitioner is seeking the following modificatiofi~S~{~}
until
a. Two overnights per week, beginning at 4:00 P.M.
the next morning,
b. Extension of visitation on alternating weekends until
Sunday at 8:00 P.M.
c, One half the summer on an alternating week basis,
during which time alternating weekends would be suspended,
d. Alternating Thanksgiving break, beginning at 6:00 P.M.
the day before and continuing through until Monday morning after
Thanksgiving.
e. One half of the Christmas break while the child is in
school and, prior to him being in school, at least three
additional days during the Christmas season, in addition to what
is already outlined in the previous Agreement.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the
Agreement and Order entered on August 19~ 1992 be modified
outlined above.
as
Respectfully submitted,
Claudia L. DeArment, Esquire
KORSAK & DEARMENT
I.D.# 43879
33 North Queen Street
York, Pennsylvania 17403
(717) 854-3175
II
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :
COUNTY OF YORK :
SS:
Before me, a Notary Public, in and for said County and
Commonwealth, personally appeared ~,~t ~w? , who,
being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that the facts
contained in the foregoing instrument are true and correct to the
best of his/her knowledge, information and belief.
Subscribed and
me this I~'~-~ day of
sworn to before
Notary Public
1993.
· t:~k Yom County J,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
02~ ~"'
WENDY J. STROUP ~ NO. 91-SU-04078-
vs. .- civir ACTION -
DANIEL N. STROUP : ACTION IN DIVORCE~U~T~Y
/~REE~ENT FOR CUSTODY
AND NOW, this day of , 1992 comes
J. Stroup, above Plaintiff, and Daniel
N. Stroup, above
Defendant, who, having been advised by their respective counsel,
hereby agree as follows~
1. The above captioned parties are the natural parents of
the below named minor child.
2. The parties' minor child is Ryan D. Stroup, born
December 26, 1990.
3. The parties wish to set forth a schedule of custody and
visitation which they believe would serve the best interests of
the child.
4. The parties shall have joint legal custody of the child.
5. The parties agree that Mother, Wendy J. Stroup, shall
have majority physical custody of the child.
19140680269
6. Father, Daniel J. Stroup shall have the following
minimum rights of visitation~
(a) Alternating weekends from Friday at 6~00 p.m.
until Sunday at 6~00 p.m. beginning April 10, 1992.
(b) Alternating holidays (Memorial Day, Fourth of
July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, New Years Day)
(c) Father shall have custody of the child on
Christmas Eve from 12:00 noon until Christmas Day at
12~00 noon in odd numbered years. Father shall have
custody of the child on Christmas Day from 12:00 noon
until December 26 at 12~00 noon in even numbered years.
(d) Two non-consecutive weeks during the summer,
provided thirty (30) days written notice is given to Mother.
Father shall have only one (1) week in 1992.
(e) On Father's day from 9:00 a.m. to 6~00 p.m. ; provided
the Mother shall have the child on Mother's ~ for a similar period.
(f) Such other times as the parties can agree.
7. Father shall be responsible for providing transportation
in the exercise of his right to partial custody.
8. Both parties agree that they will be prompt and
cooperative. If either party anticipates being late for the
scheduled exchange of custody he/she shall promptly notify the
other party in order to coordinate alternative arrangements.
9. Failure of Father to exercise his rights of partial
custody in strict accordance with this agreement does not
constitute a waiver by Father of the terms of this agreement.
Witness
(3)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY J. STROUP z NO. 91-SU-O4078-O2D
vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DANIEL N. STROUP ~ ACTION IN DIVORCE/CUSTODY
ER OF COURT
AND NOW, this II~'~day of , 1992,
within Agreement is hereby entered as an Or~ of Court.
the
BY THE COURT,
THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN1 A
WI "DY J. STROUP,
PLAINTIFF
VS.
DA 'li lEI, N. STROUP,
DEFENDANT
: NO. 91-SU-04078-02C
.. fC
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: ACTION 1N CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW, this t-~ ~%ay of
2004, upon consideration of the P[a:ntiff
W;~ NDY J. STROUP'S Petition to Transfer, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED this case
Sh~: be transferred to Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
BY T. JIE~COURT:"~ \ x
J
'I2E)ODO i30141
0
~ lAW_FIRM OF
SUSAN KAY CANDI~LLO~ PoC.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY J. STROUP,
PLAINTIFF
DANIEL N. STROUP,
DEFENDANT
NO. 91-SU-04078-02C
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ACTION IN CUSTODY
To the Prothonotary:
PRAECIPE TO REACTIVATE
Please reactivate the above custody action. The present custody order is dated Aln~ 6~
1994 and the parties require a new custody order to accommodate the present circumstances ~r
the child.
Dated: April ~, 2004
Respectfully submitted,
LAW FIRM OF SUSAN KAY CANDIELLO, P.C.
Counsel for~laint~ff
PA I.D. # 64998-~
5021 East Trindle Road
Suite 100
Mechanicsburg PA 17050
(717) 796-1930
125090630642
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY J. STROUP,
PLAINTIFF
VS.
DANIEL N. STROUP,
DEFENDANT
: NO. 91-SU-04078-02C
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: ACTION IN CUSTODY
PETITION TO TRANSFER
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, WENDY J. STROUP, by and through her
counsel, Susan Kay Candiello, Esquire, of the Law Firm of Susan Kay Candiello, P.C., and files
this Petition for Transfer of this Custody Action of which the following is a statement:
1. The Plaintiff is WENDY J. STROUP, (~Og~0~own as Wendy J. Resig)
who currently resides at 209 Glenn Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011.
2. The Defendant is DANIEL N. STROUP, who currently resides at P.O. Box 589,
Mount Wolf, York County, Pennsylvania, 17347.
3. The Plaintiff filed a custody action in York County in 1991, which resulted in a
custody order dated April 6th, 1994. (A copy which is attached hereto and made a part hereof at
Exhibit "A".)
4. Plaintiff has always had Primary Physical Custody of the child with Defendant
having Partial Physical Custody of the child.
5. Plaintiff formerly resided in Yodt C?"qA h,,t has since moved to Cumberland
125090630644
County where she and the child have resided for the past eleven (11 ) years.
6. The child is now a teenager and the present custody order no longer appropriately
addresses the child's best interests, a new custody order is needed.
7. Venue and jurisdiction are proper in Cumberland County.
8. Defendant will not experience any disadvantage by the removal of this custody
action to Cumberland County.
WltEREFORE, Plaintiff, WENDY J. STROUP, now known as WENDY J. RESIG,
respectfully requests that this Honorable Court Order the Custody action to be transferred to
Cumberland County.
Dated: April ¢ , 2004
Respectfully submitted,
LAW FIRM OF SUSAN KAY CANDIELLO, P.C.
Counsel for t~laintjff
PA I.D. # 649¢8
5021 East Trindle Road
Suite 100
Mechanicsburg PA 17050
(717) 796-1930
125090630644
WENDY J. RESIG,
PLA/NTIFF
VS.
DANIEL N. STROUP,
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
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 action within twenty (20) days after this complaim and notice are
served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the
court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you
fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the
court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or
relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to
you.
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 WF/ERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL
HELP.
Central Pennsylvania Legal Services
213A North Front Street
Harrisburg PA 17101
(800) 932-0356
WENDY J. RESIG,
PLAINTIFF
VS.
DANIEL N. STROUP,
DEFENDANT
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: PENNSYLVANIA
::
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: IN CUSTODY
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ORDER
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, WENDY J. RES/G, by and through her counsel, Susan
Kay Candiello, Esquire, of the Law Firm of Susan Kay Candiello, P.C., and files this Petition for
Modification of Custody Order upon a cause of action of which the following is a statement:
1. The Plaintiff is WENDY J. RESIG (formerly known as WENDY J. STROUP)
who presently resides at 209 Glenn Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011.
2. The Defendant is DANIEL N. STROUP, who currently resides at 102 Maple
Street, Mount Wolf, York County, Pennsylvania, 17347.
3. Plaintiff is seeking to continue Shared Legal Custody and Primary Physical
Custody, but to change the Defendant's Partial Physical Custody schedule of the following child:
Nllme
Ryan D. Stroup
Present Residence
209 Glenn Road
Camp Hill, PA
Date of Birth
December 26, 1990
The child was bom in wedlock.
The child is presently in the Primary Physical Custody of the Plaintiff.
the following addresses:
Name~s)
Plaintiff
During the past five (5) years, the child has resided with the following persons at
Address Dates
209 Glenn Road 1998 to Present
Camp Hill, PA
The mother of the child is Plaintiffwho presently resides at 209 Glenn Road,
Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011,
8. The father of the child is Defendant who currently resides at 102 Maple Street,
Mount Wolf, York County, Pennsylvania 17347.
9. Defendant and Plaintiffhave both remarried.
10. The relationship of the Plaintiffto the child is that of natural mother. The
Plaintiff currently resides with her husband, Mr. Resig.
11. The relationship of the Defendant to the child is that of natural father. The
Defendant currently resides with his wife, Mrs. Stroup.
12. Plaintiff has participated as a party in a prior custody agreement
concerning the custody of the child. The court, term and number, and its relationship to this
action are as follows: the court was York County, the docket number was 91-SU~04078-02C, the
result was a custody agreement and order dated April 6, 1994 which is attached hereto and made
a part hereof as Exhibit "A".
13. Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the child pending
in a court of this Commonwealth at this time.
14. Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has
physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the
child,
15. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting the
relief requested because:
A. Plaintiff has great love and concern for her child's physical,
educational and psychological safety and well-being;
B. Plaintiff has scheduled vacation based upon a previously determined
end of school for the child, which subsequently changed as a result of the days the
child's school was closed. Defendant refuses to cooperate to allow the child to go
on vacation during this time, stating it conflicts with his time with the child;
C. The child has been invited to an invitation only basketball camp, which
conflicts with the Defendant's scheduled visitation with the child, the child would
like to attend this basketball camp;
D. Plaintiffand Defendant have previously alternated weeks during the
child's summer vacation. As a result of the child's activities and friendships the
child would prefer to continue with the Defendant's visitation schedule during the
summer months;
E. The Plaintiff believes it is in the child's best interest to be able to
attend the basketball camp, attend the family vacation and be able to engage in
other activities with his friends during the summer months.
16. 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, Plaintiff, WENDY J. RESIG, requests this Honorable Court continue
with SHARED LEGAL CUSTODY as between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and continue
PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY with the Plaintiff, WENDY J. RESIG and PARTIAL
PHYSICAL CUSTODY with the Defendant, DANIEL N. STROUP, of the minor child,
RYAN D. STROUP.
Dated: May I [, 2004
Respectfully submitted,
LAW FIRM OF SUSAN KAY CANDIELLO, P.C
Suite 100
Mechanicsburg PA 17050
(717) 796-1930
Exhibit "A"
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY J. STROUP : NO: 91-SU-04078-02C
!i vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
il' DAY'tEL N STROUP : CUSTODv
AND NOW, TO WIT, this/-/-~'~L~"/ day of/7_/~.,,~
1994, upon presentation of the within A~reement For Custody,
it is hereby Ordered that the terms and provisions of the
same are hereby approved and incorporated by reference and
hold precedent over the court as fully as though and with
the
after
same force and effect as if such Order had been entered
J.
!N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY J. STROUP : biO: 91-SU-04078-02C
vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DANIEL N. STROUP : CUSTODY
AGREEMENT FOR CUSTODY
, 1994,
comes W ..... J. fl, and .... N.
~.o~p, above P!ainti nani=}
Stroup, above Defendant, who having been advised by their
respective counsels..~r~-.,~o ~" agree ar- follows:
..... The =~ ..... e ~a=_.on-~-~ ~ parties are the natural
parents of the ~. . child,
m~..o. Ryan D. Stroup, born December
· 2~, 1990.
9_. ~e... ~a_-+~._~ wish ~o_ ~_ forth a schedule ~+'
in~ere~ ~' '~ s'~,~ minor ch~i'd.
3. The parties shall share joint __?a_%~ ..... .. ~. the
saidm_..~, child.
4- Plaintiff, Wendy J. Stroup, natural mother, shall
physical ~u=+ody of the child subject to the
f~l.o._no minimum rights of visitation of the father, Daniel
~f c ~,~ De¢~nda~ a=~=i~
=. ~}+=~o~ ~ =~=" = ~-iday at 6:00 p.a.
............ nm ~e ...... d- from ..
until Sunday at 7:00 p.a..
b. Alternating Tuesdays from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. and on ~{her Tuesdays from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m..
c. A!ternatin== holidays. Said holidays include
Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgivin== Day,
~.~nt ~h-~ De._nd_n_ h ..... a ..... =..in= Day the following
weekend, ..~h= m=,~,._~ extend the ~hanUsg~v~ng.. .~ _ _. hoi~a., include
the intervenin~ Friday so that he would have the child from
.9:00 a,m on Thanks~ivin~ Day to 7:00 p.m. on the followin~
Sunday.
d. Du .... = the Christmas Holiday ¢ath~ shall
have visitation with the child as follows: in odd numbered
years, 12:0Q o'clock noo~ on Christmas Eve until 1E:OO
DecemDer 25. in addition, Father shall have one-half of the
child's Christmas Vacation .from school and Mother shall have
the other half. Prior to the Child attendin~ =~_~hoe_] ~ ..... ~a~h=~
shall have h~=
t ..... additional days or one 72-hour period which
shall ~=~ ~..;~ addition ~ the o~.._~*h~ time., provided herein for
the Father.
e. Father shall be
visitation for one-'half of the
p~-m~tted to
summer on an alternating
weekly ba__~ ~,,~ing ~hich time alternating weekends are
.... be=~n with
suspended. Summer vacation ~¢ith the ~her shall =~
......... c~nt.nu, through the last
the ~-=+ Sunday in June ~-~ ~
c .... in August w~ the child _~mmen~s
~.nd-, . school, however,
'
~h~~~t-h-~~~- commence on
v~ ~ ~= these Sundays shall be
before scheo! starts ..... h~n=__ on
at 9:00 p.m.. Father shall continue to use the same day-
care provider as used by Mother durin~ the year.
5. Defendant/Father shall be responsible for
providing transportation for thee~c~~=~ of his rights to
partial
6. Beth parties a~ree that they will be fully
........ t .... party
~oop~r~t~,o with each other ~ ~
7. Both parties =~ o= that they shall refrain from
any ~ ..... =~-= comments ~ front ~ the child and will a+
all times conduct themselves in such a manner to encourage
..... + child's relationship with the other
the de,~lo=me..~ of the
parent.
WENDY J. STROUP
VS.
DANIEL N. STROLrP
APPEARANCES:
Susan A. Docktor, Esquire
For the Mother
Samuel A. Gates, Esquire
For the Father
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 91-SU-04078-02C
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: CUSTODY
That Order relates to custody of the one child of these parties, Ryan D. Stroup, born December 26,
1990, The parties and their counsel met with Conciliator Glenn C. Vaughn (standing in for Dorothy
Livaditis) on May 28, 1997, and reached an agreement. The Court approves their agreement.
Accordingly, the e~:isting Order is modified in the following three respects:
1. The Mother is not going to be working during the summer of 1997. She will provide day
care for Ryan during the hours the Father would normally place Ryan in day care while he is working.
This shall not apply to the Father's vacation days or to a maximum of five days during which the child
may be in the custody of the paternal grandparents. The Father shall notify the Mother as far in
advance as possible as to the days when she would be providing the day care. The Mother will
provide the transportation on these occasions, picking up and returning the child to the Father's
residence.
2. The Father shall have custody on alternating Tuesday evenings during the school year from
after school until the Father returns the child to school the next morning (Wednesday). On the other
Tuesday nights, the Father shall pick up the child after school and return the child to the Mother at
7:30 p.m,
3. The Father' s tkne to retum the cNld to the Mother' s custody at the end of his altemating
weekend shall be 7:30 p.m. on Sunday.
Except as set forth herein, the Order dated April 6, 1994, in this case is affirmed.
These parties never attended the four hour child custody workshop, and they were given
irfformation sheets by the Conciliator. They are directed to file their Certificates of Attendance on
the record by July 31, 1997.
........... -~pie~l~s Order shall be sent to Attorneys Susan A. Docktor and Samuel A. Ga~es.
....... BYTH~ C~O URT~
Date:
05/13/04 PAGE:
YORK COUNTY COURTHOUSE
CIVIL ACTION DOCKET
STROUP, WENDY J
VS.
STROUP, DANIEL N
ET AL CASE NO: 1991-CU-004078-Y34 YK Y03
FILING DATE: 07/09/92
JUDGE:
PARTY TYPE LITIGANT PARTY NAME
ATTORNEY P001 DOCKTOR, SUSAN A
PLAINTIFF FOR CIVI P001 STROUP, WENDY J
ATTORNEY P002 DOCKTOR, SUSAN A
PLAINTIFF FOR CIVI P002 RESIG, WENDY J
ATTORNEY D001 GATES, SAMUEL ALAN
DEFENDANT FOR CIVI D001 STROUP, DANIEL N
DATE FEE/AMOUNT
05/04/04 00063 00141 AS TO STROUP, WENDY J 23.25
*ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO ANOTHER COUNTY CUMBERLAND CO BY THE CT:
RICHARD K RENN JUDGE
06/27/~00088 0846
CASE INACTIVE PER LOCAL RULE 6036
07/18/97 00080 0297
CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE
OF WENDY RESIG AT SEMINAR FOR SEPARATING PAR-
ENTS ON 7/12/97
06/24/97 00070 0347
CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE
OF DANIEL STROUP FOR CUSTODY WRKSHP KIDS
FIRST 6/7/97
06/06/97 00062 0524
CONSENT TO ENTRY OF COURT ORDER
06/06/97 00062 0525
CONCILIATION CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
SUBMITTED BY SAMUEL A GATES
06/06/97 00000 0000
NOTICE GIVEN RE: PA R. C. P. 236
06/06/97 00062 0534
ORDER RE: CUSTODY
BY THE CT PENNY L BLACKWELL
06/03/97 00062 0108
REPORT OF CONCILIATOR
FILED BY GLENN C VAUGHN ESQ
05/14/97 00053 0462 100.00
DIRECTIVE APPOINTING CUSTODY CONCILIATOR
DOROTHY LIVADITIS ESQ ASSIGNED TO CONDUCT A
CONFERENCE ON 5/28/97 AT 9:00
05/14/97 00053 0462
PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER
DATED APRIL 6 1994
05/13/04 PAGE:
YORK COUNTY COURTHOUSE
CIVIL ACTION DOCKET
DATE
07/08/94 00066 0626
RESPONSE
TO MEMO IN SUPPORT OF CROSS PETITION FOR
CONTEMPT
06/30/94 00064 0607
MEMOPJ~NDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF CROSS-PETITION FOR CONTEMPT & OPPOSITION
TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT W/CERT OF SERVICE
04/18/94 00036 0481
ORDER OF COURT
W/IN AGREEMENT IS APPROVED & INCORPORATED
BY CT PENNY L BLACKWELL JUDGE
04/18/94 00036 0481
AGREEMENT
FOR CUSTODY
02/02/94 00009 0549
NOTICE GIVEN RE: PA R. C, P. 236
02/02/94 00009 0549
ORDER RE: CUSTODY AND VISITATION
BY THE CT: PENNY L BLACKWELL JUDGE (TRIAL
SCHEDULED FOR 06/30/94 AT 1:30 P,M. CT RM 5)
11/30/93 00000 0000
NOTICE GIVEN RE: PA R. C. P. 236
11/30/93 00138 0762
ORDER OF COURT
PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE 1/14/94 @8:30AM
BY CT PENNY L BLACKWELL JUDGE
10/04/93 00117 0528
CONCILIATION CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
10/04/93 00117 0527
CONCILIATION CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
10/04/93 00000 0000
NOTICE GIVEN RE: PA R, C. P. 236
10/04/93 00117 0526
ORDER RE: CUSTODY
BY CT PENNY L BLACKWELL JUDGE
09/29/93 00116 0446
REPORT OF CONCILIATOR
GLENN C VAUGHN ESQUIRE
08/09/93 00095 0553
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
OF PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
07/19/93 00084 0660
DIRECTIVE APPOINTING CUSTODY CONCILIATOR
GLENN C VAUGHN ESQ CONFERENCE SET 6TH OF AUG
OF 1993 AT 9:00 A_M BY THE CT JUDGE BLACKWELL
07/19/93 00084 0660
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY
07/09/92 00068 0269
STIPULATION FOR CUSTODY
1991-CU-004078-Y34 YK Y03
FEE/AMOUNT
100.00
05/13/04 PAGE:
YORK COUNTY COURTHOUSE
CIVIL ACTION DOCKET
STROUP, WENDY J
VS.
STROUP, DANIEL N
CASE NO: 2004-FC-000762-Y34
FILING DATE: 04/19/04
JUDGE:
YK Y03
PARTY TYPE LITIGANT
PLAINTIFF FOR CIVI P001
DEFENDANT FOR CIVI DO01
PARTY NAME
STROUP, WENDY J
STROUP, DANIEL N
DATE FEE/AMOUNT
05/04/04 00063 00141 AS TO STROUP, WENDY J 23.25
*ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO ANOTHER COUNTY CUMBERLAND COUNTY
04/27/04 00058 00521 AS TO STROUP, WENDY J
*PROOF OF SERVICE OF PLTFS PRAECIPE TO REACTIVATE & PETITION TO
TRANSFER UPON DEFT DANIEL N STROUP BY PERSONAL SERVICE ON 04/23/2004
04/19/04 00063 00642 AS TO STROUP, WENDY J
*PETITION TO TP-ANSFER
04/19/04 00063 00642 AS TO STROUP, WENDY J 15.00
*CASE REACTIVATED PER LOCAL RULE 6036 (C)=91 SU 4078-02C
TOTAL NUMBER OF ENTRIES:
4
REQUESTED BY: TDJ
******* END OF REPORT *******
CEI~TIF~ED from the records Rfthe Court of Common ~lea~'e~York C~ounty, p~msylvo~ia
th~s~ ' ~'; ~ .... Pamela S Lee. Prolho.ol;Iry
YORK COUNTY COURTHOUSE
05/13/04 PAGE:
CIVIL ACTION DOCKET
1991-CU-004078-Y34 YK Y03
DATE FEE/AMOUNT
WITH ORDER BY THE COURT PENNY L BLACKWELL
JUDGE
TOTAL NUMBER OF ENTRIES: 28
REQUESTED BY: TDJ
******* END OF REPORT *******
CERTIFIED from the records of the Court of C~,,mmon lqeas(~ork County, l~e~d,r'~m
WENDY J. RESIG
PLAINTIFF
V. :
DANIEL N. STROUP :
DEFENDANT
: IN THE COURT OF cOMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND cOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
04-2118 CIVIL ACTION LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, Wednesday, May 19, 2004 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint,
it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear betbre ]Dawn S. Sunda~ Esq. , the conciliator,
at 39 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 1:00 PM
for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or
if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues tobe heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary
order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. 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 hearin!~.
FOR THE COURT,
By: /s/
Dawn S. Sunda% Esq.
Custody Conciliator
mhc
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) 249-3]~66
WENDY J. RESIG,
PLAINTIFF
VS.
DANIEL N. STROUP,
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 04-2118
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE
I, Charles Rector, Esquire, counsel for the Defendant in the above-captioned custody
matter, accept service of the Petition for Modification of Custody Order, and certify that I am
authorized to do so.
Dated: 5 ~/' ,2004
Che-ARLES RECTOR, ESQUIRE
Counsel for the De~endant
WENDY J. RESIG
Plaintiff
V.
DANIEL N. STROUP
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 04-2118 CIVIl, TERM
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: IN CUSTODY
CROSS PETITION
FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Daniel N. Stroup, by and through his attorney,
Charles Rector, Esquire, and files the within Cross Petition for Modification of Custody
and in support thereof, avers the following:
1. Petitioner is Daniel N. Stroup, Father, who currently resides at 102 W.
Maple Street, Mt Wolfe, Pennsylvania, 17347.
2. Respondent is Wendy J. Resig, Mother, who currently resides at 209 Glen
Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011.
3. The parties hereto are the parents ofRyan D. Stroup (DOB 12/26/90).
4. On June 5, 1997, the Honorable Penny Blackwell of the Court of Common
Pleas of York County entered an Order regarding custody in which inter alia, she
reconfirmed the parties' prior Order of April 6, 1994, where the parties were granted
shared legal custody and where Mother was granted majohty physical custody subject to
periods of temporary physical custody to be exercised by Petitioner/Father on alternating
weekends from Friday through Sunday, alternating Tuesday overnights, alternating
holidays, including shared Christmas vacation and week on/week off custody each
Summer (see Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto).
5. Subject matter jurisdiction and venue properly lie within the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumberland County inasmuch as the minor child has consistently
resided in the County in excess of the preceding six (6) months from the filing of this
Petition, which jurisdictional domicile is consistent, in all ]respects, with the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5341 et. s*t.).
6. The best interests and permanent welfare of the child will be served by a
modification of the Court's Order as follows:
a. Changing the periods of Summer visitation 'to a two week on/two week off
schedule;
b. Requiring that the party obtaining custody provide transportation;
c. Extending Father's time with the minor child, during the school year, from
Friday after school until Sunday at 9:00 p.m.;
d. Granting Father Tuesday overnights on a weekly basis; and
e. Granting Father a change in the alternating 'weekend schedule to facilitate
him having custody of the minor child on the weekend when Father's
nephew, Robbie Getz, is in town, so that the minor child can see him more
often. Petitioner's nephew, consistent with his own custody schedule, is in
the Mt. Wolfe area typically on the weekends when the Petitioner does not
currently have temporary physical custody of Ryan.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that your Honorable Court modify
it's Orders granting Petitioner the relief requested herein.
Respectfully Submitted:
C~hades Rector,~s~(.~.re
1104 Fernwood Avenue, Ste. 203
Camp Hill, PA 17011-6912
(717) 761-8101
Attorney for Petitioner
Date:
~0D1 .: ~r~$ F~ector, Escl. PP/~ NO.,: ?~'+?~+~t~l Ma~. ~l ~0~ ~: ~:~1 PS"
I vitrify Illi1[~ Itl~ ~4~l~l~en~ ma0e her~n are Irue ancl cc~ect. I ondemtancl tha~
[.1~, stat~mal'lte haroln om m~ ~ul~l~ ~ the ~,.n~l#~
~e]ating ~0 unewOm f31~lflc~n lo euiho~li~3
Daniel ~. ~tro~Jp
CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC_.E
I, Charles Rector, Esquire, do hereby certify that on the o2 / day of May
2004, I caused a true and correct copy of the within Cross Petition for Modification of
Custody to be served upon the following counsel of record by depositing same in first
class, United States mail, postage paid, in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania:
Susan K. Candiello, Esquire
5021 E. Trindle Road, Ste. 100
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Date:
Char~es Recto~, E[tqnire
1104 Fernwood Avenue, Ste. 203
Camp Hill, PA 17011-6912
(717) 761-8101
WENDY J. RESIG :
PLAINTIFF :
:
V.
DANIEL N. STROUP
:
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
04-2118 CIVIL ACTION LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, Wednesday, June 09, 2004 , 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 02, 2004 at
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. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to apvear 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 THECOURT.
By: /s/ Dawn S. Sunday..Esq. mhc
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 accessibi[e 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 170113
Telephone (717) 249-3166
WENDY J. RESIG
Plaintiff
VS.
DANIEL N. STROUP :
:
Defendant :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
04-2118 CiVIL ACTION LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, tiffs 2~ 6'( day of ~k~_~z
, 2004, upon
consideration of the attache~l CuStody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as ~ollows:
I. The prior Orders of the York County Court of Common Pleas dated June 5, 1997 and
April 6, 1994 are vacated and replaced with this Order.
2. The Mother, Wendy J. Resig, and the Father, Daniel N. Stroup, shall have shared legal
custody ofRyan D. Stroup, bom December 26, 1990. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be
exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all major non-emergency decisions affecting the
Child's well-being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding his health, education and
religion. Pursuant to the terms of this paragraph each parent shall be entitled to all records and
information pertaining to the Child including, but not limited to, school and medical records and
information.
3. The Mother shall have primary physical custody of the Child.
4. During the school year, the Father shall have partial physJ[cal custody of the Child on
alternating weekends from Friday between 5:30 and 6:00 p.m., when the Mother shall transport the
Child to the Father's residence, through Sunday at 8:30 p.m., when the Father shall transport the Child
to the Mother's residence. In addition, the Father shall have cus , , .
.,when .fl? Father shall pick up the Child throu~,h x~r_~_ J to.dy every Tuesday from aller school,
, r.,, - ,m~esaay morning, when the Father shall transport
me Child to school or to the Child s bus stop. The parties agree to adjust the ,alternating weekend
schedule so that the Child is with the Father on the weekends when the Child s cousin is also visiting.
5. During the summer school break, the Father shall have custody of the Child on an alternating
weekly basis which the parties acknowledge shall be adjusted by the parties' agreement whenever
appropriate to accommodate the Child's desire to spend additional time with his friends at the
M ' '
other s residence or additional time at the Father's residence. Unless otherwise agreed or provided
in this order, the parties shall exchange custody of the Child on Sundays at 7:00 p.m. during the
summer, with the party receiving custody to be responsible to provide transportation for the exchange.
During the summer in 2004, the Mother shall have custody of the Child from June 13 through 20 at
2:00 p.m. (Father's Day), the Father shall have custody fi.om Jtme 20 through June 27 and the parties
shall alternate weeks thereafter. The Father's period ofcustody beginning on August 1 shall
commence at 2:00 p.m. rather than 7:00 p.m. to make up for the period of custody which the Father
missed on Father's Day morning due to the Mother's vacation plans.
6. The parties shall share having custody of the Child on holidays as follows:
A. Christmas: The Christmas holiday shall be divided into segment A, which shall mn from
Christmas Eve at 12:00 noon through Christmas Day at 12:00 noon, and segment B, which
shall nm fi.om Christmas Day at 12:00 noon through December 26 at 12:00 noon. In odd
numbered years, The Father shall have custody of the Child during segment A and the Mother
shall have custody during segment B. In even numbered years, the Mother shall have custody
of the Child during segment A and the Father shall have custody during segment B. The parties
shall equally share having custody of the Child for the remainder of the Christmas school
break.
B. Altemat!p Holida s: The parties shall alternate havi : ·
Day, July 4th, Labor Day Thank ~,',,;,-,~ r, ...... ~n~, .c, ustody of the Child on Memorial
~, so~-,,,~ ,-,,fy anu l,~ew ~ear s Day fi.om 9.00 a.m. until
7:00 p.m. on the holiday. In the event the Father has custody of the Child on Thanksgiving
Day and the following weekend under the regular schedule, the F ' '
ather s period of custody shall
run continuously, without interruption, fi.om Thanksgiving: through the following Sunday.
C. The holiday custody schedule shall supercede and take precedence over the regular custody
schedule.
7. Neither party shall do or say anything which may estrange the Child fi.om 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.
8. After following the school year partial custody schedule for overnight periods every Tuesday
for two months, counsel for either party may contact the Conciliator to request the scheduling of an
additional Custody Conciliation Conference, if necessary to review the weekday overnight schedule.
Neither party shall be prejudiced by his or her agreement to the Tuesday overnight schedule during the
two-month period.
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 THE COURT,
Susan K. Candiello, Esquire - Counsel for Mother
Charles Rector, Esquire - Counsel for Father
WENDY J. RESIG
Plaintiff
VS.
DANIEL N. STROUP
Defendant
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
04-2118 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:
NAIVlE
DATE OF BIRTH
CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF
Ryan D. Stroup December 26, 1990 Mother
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on June 2, 2004, with the following individuals in
attendance: The Mother, Wendy J. Resig, with her counsel, Snsan K. Candiello, Esquire, and the
Father, Daniel N. Stroup, with his counsel, Charles Rector, Esquire.
3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached.
Date
awn S. Sunday, Esqmre
Custody Conciliator
Susan K. Candiello, Esquire
5021 East Trindle Road, Suite 100
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Charles Rector, Esquire
1104 Fernwood Avenue, Suite 203
Camp Hill, PA 17011