Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-4576I , DAVID B. SNYDER and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JANICE M. SNYDER CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. 2009- y?? L CIVIL TERM LAW DAVID A. SNYDER and AMANDA L. SNYDER IN CUSTODY Defendants COMPLAINT IN CUSTODY 1. Plaintiffs are David B. Snyder and Janice M. Snyder, adult individuals residing at 215 Umberto Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070. 2. Defendant, David A. Snyder, is an adult individual who is currently stationed in military school at 431 Rifle Range Road, Monterey, California 93944, however he continues to use the Plaintiffs' address as his residence located at 215 Umberto Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070. 3. Defendant, Amanda L. Snyder, is an adult individual residing at 124 Spanglers Mill Road, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070. 4. Plaintiffs seek shared legal and primary physical custody of the following Children: NAMES PRESENT RESIDENCE DATE OF BIRTH Angel Rose Snyder 215 Umberto Street, New Cumberland, August 1, 2007 PA 17070 Kaylynn Iris Snyder 215 Umberto Street, New Cumberland, February 13, 2009 PA 17070 5. One of the Children (Angel) was born out of wedlock and the other (Kaylynn) was born in wedlock. 6. The Children are presently in the custody of Plaintiffs, who reside at 215 Umberto Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070. 7. During the past five years, the Children have resided with the following persons and at the following addresses: NAMES ADDRESSES DATES Amanda Snyder and 501 Windy Hill Road, Lot 43, August 2007 through David A. Snyder Shermansdale, PA 17090 December 2007 David B. Snyder, 215 Umberto Street, New Cumberland, January 2008 through Janice M. Snyder, PA 17070 April 2008 Amanda L. Snyder and David A. Snyder David B. Snyder and 215 Umberto Street, New Cumberland, April 2008 through Janice M. Snyder PA 17070 December 2008 Amanda L. Snyder 234 Pleasant Valley Road, Elliottsburg, December 2008 and David A. PA 17024 through April 2009 Snyder, Maternal Grandmother, Maternal Grandmother's girlfriend, Amanda's sister and a friend of family David B. Snyder and 215 Umberto Street, New Cumberland, May 4, 2009 to the Janice M. Snyder PA 17070 present 8. The Father of the Children is Defendant, David A. Snyder, whose permanent residence is 215 Umberto Street, New Cumberland, PA 17070, although he is currently attending a military language school in Monterey, California. He is married to Defendant, Amanda L. Snyder. 9. The Mother of the Children is Defendant, Amanda L. Snyder, who resides at 124 Spanglers Mill Road, New Cumberland, PA 17070. She is married to Defendant, David A. Snyder. .w 10. The relationship of the Plaintiffs to the Children is that of Paternal Grandfather and Step-Grandmother. The Plaintiffs currently reside with the following persons: NAME RELATIONSHIP Angel Rose Snyder Granddaughter Kaylynn Iris Snyder Granddaughter 11. The relationship of Defendant, David A. Snyder, to the Children is that of Father. The Father currently resides in a military barracks with other members of the military. 12. The relationship of the Defendant, Amanda L. Snyder, to the Children is that of Mother. The Mother currently resides with the following persons: NAME RELATIONSHIP Samantha Liddick, Samantha's boyfriend, Friend and Friend's relatives Samantha's Father and his girlfriend and Samantha's grandparents 13. Plaintiffs have not participated as parties or witnesses, or in another capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody of the Children in this or another court. 14. Plaintiffs have no information of a custody proceeding concerning the Children pending in a court of this Commonwealth or any other state. 15. Plaintiffs do not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the Children or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the Children. 16. Each parent whose parental rights to the Children have not been terminated and the persons who have physical custody of the Children have been named as parties to this action. r) 17. The best interests and permanent welfare of the Children will be served by granting the relief requested because: a. The Children are presently in the custody of the Plaintiffs at the request of and by agreement with the Defendants; b. The Children have resided continuously with the Plaintiffs since May 4, 2009 and the oldest Child resided with Plaintiffs previously from January, 2008 through November, 2008; c. Plaintiffs are providing and are willing to continue to provide for the Children's needs in a loving and secure environment. 18. The Defendants have agreed to the relief requested herein and all parties have signed a Stipulation reflecting the custodial arrangements to which they have agreed, which is being filed simultaneously with this Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court grant them primary physical custody of the Children, with the Plaintiffs and Defendants sharing legal custody and the Defendants having partial physical custody of the Children as arranged by agreement. Date: a 3 J oo Respectfully submitted, Dawn S. Sunday ?Ij I.D. No. 41954 39 West Main Street Mechanicsburg PA 17055 (717) 766-9622 Attorney for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Z DOW , ?' 2 _ Da e M. Snyder, Or TvIE T 1. `r 20 C9 J L - 9 PH 12: 2 It OL,y„ 5-0 lp of ? ? ?? vo DAVID B. SNYDER and JANICE M. SNYDER Plaintiffs V. DAVID A. SNYDER and AMANDA L. SNYDER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2009- q,5 74 CIVIL TERM LAW : IN CUSTODY STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CUSTODY ORDER DAVID B. SNYDER and JANICE M. SNYDER (hereinafter referred to as "Paternal Grandparents"), AMANDA L. SNYDER (hereinafter referred to as "Mother") and DAVID A. SNYDER (hereinafter referred to as "Father"), having established arrangements by agreement between themselves for the custody of ANGEL ROSE SNYDER, born August 1, 2007 and KAYLYNN IRIS SNYDER, born February 13, 2009, (hereinafter referred to as the "Children"), hereby stipulate and agree to the entry of an Order of Court as follows: 1. The Paternal Grandparents, David B. Snyder and Janice M. Snyder, the Mother, Amanda L. Snyder, and the Father, David A. Snyder, a gree to share legal custody of Angel Rose Snyder, born August 1, 2007, and Kaylynn Iris Snyder, born February 13, 2009. Major decisions concerning the Children including, but not necessarily limited to, their health, welfare, education, religious training and upbringing shall be made jointly by the parties after discussion and consultation with a view toward obtaining and following a harmonious policy in each Child's best interest. None of the parties shall impair the other parties' rights to shared legal custody of the Children. None of the parties shall attempt to alienate the affections of the Children from the other parties. Each party shall notify the others of any activity or circumstance concerning the Children that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to the others. Day to day decisions shall be the responsibility of the party or parties then having physical custody. With regard to any emergency decisions which must be made, the party or parties having physical custody of the Children at the time of the emergency shall be permitted to make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby. However, that party shall inform the others of the emergency and consult with them as soon as possible. In accordance with 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5309, each party shall be entitled to complete and full information from any doctor, dentist, teacher, professional or authority and to have copies of any reports or information given to any party as authorized by statute. 2. The parties agree that the Paternal Grandparents shall have primary physical custody of the Children. 3. The parties agree that the Mother and the Father shall have partial physical custody of the Children as arranged by agreement between that parent and the Paternal Grandparents. 4. The parties agree that each party shall ensure that all other parties have his or her current address and telephone number on an ongoing basis. 5. The parties agree that this Stipulation shall be submitted to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, for approval and for entry of an Order awarding custody as set forth herein. s 6. The parties hereby request that this Honorable Court enter such an Order which shall replace and supersede any and all prior agreements and shall remain in full force and effect pending further Order of Court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Stipulation for Entry of a Custody Order on the date indicated below. 22 ' D e Witne A I:. S i 7/y o Dad Witnes Z cam' ?? G ate Witness ' ate - -- r j Witness YNICINICE M. R DAVID A. SN R O ' i TARY ryP WILLIAM L. SUNDAY DAWN S. SUNDAY Afforneys-at-Law 39 West Main Street, Ste. 1 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6230 July 7, 2009 Cumberland County Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse One Court House Square Carlisle PA 17013 RE: David B. Snyder and Janice M. Snyder v. David A. Snyder and Amanda L. Snyder, In Custody Dear Sir or Madam: Phone (717) 766-9622 Phone (717) 766-9698 Fax (717) 795-7280 On behalf of the Plaintiffs, David and Janice Snyder, I am enclosing the original and four (4) copies of a Complaint in Custody along with a Stipulation for Entry of Custody Order and a proposed Order of Court. Please file the originals of record and return the extra time-stamped copy to me in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. I am enclosing our check in the amount of $165.50 to pay the filing fee. I am also enclosing addressed and stamped envelopes for forwarding the Custody Order to our office and to each of the Defendants and a self- addressed stamped envelope for forwarding of the time-stamped copy to my office. After filing the original documents, please forward them to the Court for entry of the Custody Order based upon the Custody Stipulation signed by all of the parties. As the parties are all in agreement with the entry of the proposed Order, it is not necessary to forward this matter to the Court Administrator for assignment to custody conciliation. Please note that no prior judge has been assigned to this matter and neither of the Defendants is represented by legal counsel. Please contact me as soon as possible if you have any questions or require additional information in order to comply with this request. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Dawn S. Sunday DSS: cfw Encl. cc: David and Janice Snyder DAVID B. SNYDER and JANICE M. SNYDER Plaintiffs V. DAVID A. SNYDER and AMANDA L. SNYDER JUL 13 2009y IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2009- 41,514 CIVIL TERM LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this iy- day of 2009, upon consideration of the attached Stipulation for Entry of Custody Order entered into by the Parents and Paternal Grandparents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that custody of ANGEL ROSE SNYDER, born August 1, 2007 and KAYLYNN IRIS SNYDER, born February 13, 2009, shall be as follows: 1. The Paternal Grandparents, David B. Snyder and Janice M. Snyder, the Mother, Amanda L. Snyder, and the Father, David A. Snyder, shall. share having legal custody of Angel Rose Snyder, born August 1, 2007, and Kaylynn Iris Snyder, born February 13, 2009. Major decisions concerning the Children including, but not necessarily limited to, their health, welfare, education, religious training and upbringing shall be made jointly by the parties after discussion and consultation with a view toward obtaining and following a harmonious policy in each Child's best interest. None of the parties shall impair the other parties' rights to shared legal custody of the Children. None of the parties shall attempt to alienate the affections of the Children from the other parties. Each party shall notify the others of any activity or circumstance concerning the Children that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to the others. Day to day decisions shall be the responsibility of the party or parties then having, physical custody. With regard to any emergency decisions which must be made, the party or parties having physical custody of the Children at the time of the emergency shall be permitted to make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby. However, that party, shall inform the others of the emergency and consult with them as soon as possible. In accordance with 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5309, each party shall be entitled to complete and full information from t r any doctor, dentist, teacher, professional or authority and to have copies of any reports or information given to any party as authorized by statute. 2. The Paternal Grandparents shall have primary physical custody of the Children. I The Mother and the Father shall have partial physical custody of the Children as arranged by agreement between that parent and the Paternal Grandparents. 4. Each party shall ensure that all other parties have his or her current address and telephone number on an ongoing basis. 5. This Order shall supersede any and all prior custody agreements and shall remain in full force and effect pending further Order of this Court. BY THE COURT: awn S. Sunday, Esquire, uir Y? q e, counsel for Plaintiffs A anda L. Snyder, Mother ?David A. Snyder, Father 2009 JI " UL i A 1 t4 P "I f?: 56 r? SUSAN LEWELLEN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Respondent : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. BRUCE SNYDER and JAN SNYDER, NO. 20094576 CIVIL TERM Defendants/Movants DAVID ALLEN SNYDER and AMANDA LYNN SNYDER, CIVIL ACTION LAW Defendants IN CHILD CUSTODY ENTRY OF APPEARANCE To the Prothonotary: Kindly enter the appearance of Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire, for Defendants, David B. Snyder (improperly named in the caption as "Bruce Snyder") and Janice M. Snyder, in the above-captioned proceeding. Respectfully Submitted, LAW FIRM OF LINDA A. CLOTFELTER Date: 1t j? /?y 5021 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 telephone (717) 796-1933 facsimile SUSAN LEWELLEN Plaintiff V. BRUCE SNYDER and JAN SNYDER Defendant DAVID ALLEN SNYDER and AMANDA LYNN SNYDER Interveners : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 20094576 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CHILD CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this / May of November 2009, the undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the opposing party via hand - delivery as follows: Rachelle J. Armbruster, Esquire 42 East Main Street P.O. Box 331 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Respectfully submitted, LAW FIRM OF LINDA A. CLOTFELTER • /.( Nom/ ? ' " t /t/V inda A. Clotfelter, Esquire ttorney ID No. 72963 5021 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 telephone (717) 796-1933 facsimile Attorney for Defendant's FIMiCE OF THE PR, 0 -11,N'OTARY 2 NOV 19 Ph 12-- 50 PEINNSIUVANIA OESTERLING & ARMBRUSTER .'= ~ uL ~' - `~ ~ '-'tiny 42 East Main Street, PO Box 331 ~ , Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 2 u l ~ ~ ~~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ `` (717)620-8434 .,~~, i ~ ~~ , c~, ,._ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SUSAN LEWELLEN : Plaintiff/Petitioner No. 2009-4576 v. Civil Action- Petition for DAVID B. SNYDER, Modification of Custody Order JANICE M. SNYDER and Intervention Defendants/Respondents DAVID A. SNYDER, . AMANDA L. SNYDER Co-Defendants/Co-Respondents PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND NOW, comes Respondent, Susan Lewellen, Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, by and through her counsel, Rachelle J. Armbruster, Esquire, who files this Answer to the Preliminary Objections filed by above-captioned defendants, Petitioners, David B. Snyder and Janice M. Snyder, in corresponding numeric paragraphs: 1. Paragraph 1 -Admit. 2. Paragraph 2 -Admit 3. Paragraph 3 - Admit 4. Paragraph 4 - Admit 5. Paragraph 5 - Admit 6. Paragraph 6 - Admit 7. Paragraph 7 - No response required 8. Paragraph 8 - Admit 9. Paragraph 9 - Admit 10. Paragraph 10 -Denied. The averment in paragraph 10 is specifically denied, as it contains conclusions of law and fact as to the ultimate issue before the court and strict proof is therefore demanded. 11. Paragraph 11 -Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that there are specific requirements for third parties seeking visitation and custody. However, the characterization by the Movant as to the stringency of these requirements is denied. 12. Paragraph 12 -Admitted. 13. Paragraph 13 -Denied. Respondent believes and therefore avers that she does have standing, as set forth in "New Matter" contained herein. 14. Paragraph 14 -Denied. Respondent believes and therefore avers that she does have standing, as set forth in "New Matter" contained herein. 15. Paragraph 15 -Admitted. 16. Paragraph 16 -Admitted. 17. Paragraph 17 -Denied. Respondent believes and therefore avers that she does have standing, as set forth in "New Matter" contained herein. 18. Paragraph 18 -Denied. Respondent believes and therefore avers that she does have standing, as set forth in "New Matter" contained herein. 19. Paragraph 19 -Denied. 20. Paragraph 20 - No response required. 21. Paragraph 21 -Denied. 22. Paragraph 22 -Denied. 23. Paragraph 23 -Admitted. 24. Paragraph 24 -Admitted. 25. Paragraph 25 -Admitted. 26. Paragraph 26 -Denied in part; admitted in part. Respondent denies that it is not in the best interest of the Children to be with Respondent. Respondent admits that Cumberland County Children and Youth Services were previously involved, but contends that any safety plan that was devised was due to the actions of Natural Mother, which Respondent frequently worked to combat and in no way reflects Respondent's ability or competency to care for the Children. NEW MATTER I. RESPONDENT HAS STANDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH 23 Pa.C.S.A. && 5312, 5313 A. R.M. v. Baxter, 565 Pa. 619 (2001) and 23 Pa C S A §5313 27. Paragraphs 1- 26 incorporated hereto. 28. In R.M. v. Baxter, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that Grandmother had standing to seek primary physical and legal custody of grandchild despite not meeting the twelve (12) month requirement of §5313(a) because 1. the child had been taken away from the parents due to their inability to properly care for the child, and, 2. the Grandmother had met the requirements of §5313(b). 29. Respondent has not had custody of Children for 12 months, but, as in Baxter, Respondent meets §5313(b) because it is not in Children's best interest to be with Natural Parents, Respondent has a genuine care and concern for Children, relationship between Children and Respondent began with parental consent, and Children would be a risk to be with Natural Parents. 30. Baxter dealt with primary physical and legal custody whereas Respondent merely seeks visitation with Children, if even public and supervised by Movants. 31. Respondent should have been joined originally because she has standing under R.M. v. Baxter and 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5313 and therefore should be permitted to seek visitation presently. B. 23 Pa.C.S.A. &5312: Six Month Separation and Children's Best Interest 32. Paragraphs 1- 31 incorporated hereto. 33. 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5312 states, in relevant part, that "when parents have been separated for six months or more, the court may, upon application of the parent or grandparent of a party, grant reasonable partial custody or visitation rights, or both, to the unmarried child if it finds that visitations rights or partial custody, or both, would be in the best interest of the child and would not interfere with the parent-child relationship." 34. David A. Snyder and Amanda L. Snyder, Natural Parents, were married in February 2009. 35. Respondent was informed by Natural Mother that a divorce was filed end of July 2009. 36. It is Respondent's understanding that the Natural Parents were both physically separated during these six (6) months as well as separated in a marital sense, as their relationship was in severe turmoil. 37. Neither 23 PaC.S.A. §5312, nor case law, specifies when the parental six month separation shall take place. Rather, §5312 states only that the parents must first be separated for six months before a grandparent may file and puts no deadline or limit on such grandparent filing time. 38. Respondent filed December 17, 2009; after Natural Parents were separated for six (6) months and therefore fits squarely within §5312. 39. Respondent is gainfully employed, maintains a suitable and safe home, and fosters a true love and concern for Children and Children's best interest. Respondent has much to offer Children in the way of emotional and intellectual support. Respondent's visitation with Children is, therefore, in their best interest. C. 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5312: Parent-child relationship and Legislative Intent 40. Paragraphs 1- 39 incorporated hereto. 41. Respondent visitation would not interfere with the child-parent relationship. 42. A Legislative purposes of §§5312, 5313 is to maintain the "nuclear family" and the bonds between parent and child. 43. No "nuclear family" exists, as Natural Parents gave partial legal custody and primary physical custody to Movants via the 3uly 14, 2009 Order of Court and do not reside in Pennsylvania. As such, Respondent visitation with Children will not interfere with the parent-child relationship. 44. An additional Legislative purpose of both §5312 and §5313, v~rhen no substantial parent-child relationship interference will occur, is to afford grandparents standing as an opportunity to seek visitation with grandchildren to maintain a health familial relationship. 45. Respondent seeks to have monthly visitation with Children to foster a familial relationship and serve as a resource and outlet for Children throughout the years. 46. It was not intended by the Legislature that these sections be used as a road block or legal loophole by one set of grandparents against another third party. 47. Movants had the opportunity to seek and obtain custody of Children when Natural Parents were unable to properly care for Children. Respondent should be afforded an opportunity to litigate visitation with Children because there is no nuclear family present and therefore no disruption to the parent-child relationship and in order to continue a healthy familial relationship. II. Pa. R.C.P. ~& 2327, 2328 A. Attachment of Pleading -Notice 48. Paragraphs 1- 47 incorporated hereto. 49. Pa.R.C.P. §2328 requires that a copy of the Pleading, which the Petitioner will file in the action, if permitted to, be attached to the motion to intervene. 50. A main purpose of this Rule is to put all relevant parties on notice as to why there is a request to intervene and what relief the filing party seeks. 51. Movant, through counsel, knew of this filing before it was made and therefore had proper notice of the desire to intervene and the relief to be sought by any subsequent action. 52. Movant, through counsel, also had notice of the intention to intervene and the specific relief being sought via the motion itself, which stated, in relevant part, "it is in the best interest and welfare of the children for Plaintiff to have periodic visitation with the children to foster a health familial relationship and bond as well as aid in creating stability for said children." This language clearly indicates a desire to intervene and notice as to the visitation relief being sought. B. Attachment of the Pleadings -Judicial Economy 53. Paragraphs 1- 52 incorporated hereto. 54. To remedy a failure to attach the pleading, in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. §2328, Petitioner may re-file the motion with the attached pleading. 55. Respondent will re-file the motion with the attached pleading, as to come within the guide of Pa.R.C.P. §2328, if the Court should so require. However to do so will be a needless expenditure of the Court's time and resources, as well as those of the parties. 56. Another main purpose of this Rule is to promote judicial efficiency and allow granted motions to continue into the next "phase" with little delay. Re-filing the motion with an attached pleading will frustrate this purpose and cause delay in deciding the more pressing issues of the case. WHEREFORE, Respondent, Susan Lewellen, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an order denying Movants' Preliminary Objections seeking to dismiss Respondent's Petition for Intervention and Modification of Custody Order. Respectfully submitted, Rachel J. A mbruster, Esquire Attorney ID No. 307077 42 East Main Street, PO Box 331 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 P: (717) 620-8434 F: (717) 620-8415 Dated: ~~ '' ( o VERIFICATION The language of the foregoing document is that of counsel. However, I, as counsel for the Respondent in this matter, have read the foregoing document to the Respondent, who has acknowledged to me that the contents thereof are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the foregoing document is that of counsel, I, the undersigned, verify that it is accurate, true, and correct to the best of my knowledge information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: e2.?f ~ ~ Rachelle J. Armbruster, Esq. ID 307077 OESTERLING & ARMBRUSTER 42 East Main Street, PO Box 331 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 620-8434 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SUSAN LEWELLEN Plaintiff/Petitioner No. 2009-4576 v. DAVID B. SNYDER, JANICE M. SNYDER Defendants/Respondents Civil Action- Petition for Modification of Custody Order and Intervention DAVID A. SNYDER, AMANDA L. SNYDER Co-Defendants/Co-Respondents CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby Certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the attached Petition by first class United States Mail to the following person(s): Linda A. Clotfelter, Esq. 5021 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Date: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~~~ Rachelle J. Armbruster, Esquire East Main Street, PO Box 331 Mechancisburg, PA 17055 OESTERLING & ARMBRUSTER 42 East Main Street, PO Box 331 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 620-8434 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SUSAN LEWELLEN Plaintiff/Petitioner No. 2009-4576 v. DAVID B. SNYDER, JANICE M. SNYDER Defendants/Respondents Civil Action- Petition for Modification of Custody Order and Intervention DAVID A. SNYDER, AMANDA L. SNYDER Co-Defendants/Co-Respondents CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby Certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the attached Petition by first class United States Mail to the following person(s): David A. and Amanda L. Snyder Defense Language Institute Building 834 Mason Road Presidio Monterey, California 93944 Date: a ~ O Rachelle J. Armbruster, squire 2 East Main Street, PO Box 331 Mechanccsburg, PA 17055 ~^ , ~~~ ;- , r. ~ _ -., t r:°~4 ~bo AEG' C~ PIn t :55 Ct.i`~~~ ..- `'.;`y IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SUSAN LEWELLEN Plaintiff/Petitioner v. DAVID B. SNYDER, JANICE M. SNYDER Defendants/Respondents DAVID A. SNYDER, AMANDA L. SNYDER Co-Defendants/Co-Respondents No. 2009-4576 Civil Action- Petition for Modification of Custody Order and Intervention MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR SUSAN LEWELLEN AND NOW comes Rachelle J. Armbruster, Esquire, counsel for plaintiff Susan Lewellen, who respectfully requests to withdraw as counsel in the above-captioned matter for the following reasons: 1. No hearing or other such event is currently scheduled before this court or any other in regard to the above-captioned matter; 2. Attorney Armbruster is moving out of the state of Pennsylvania at the end of August 2010 and will therefore no longer be practicing in Central Pennsylvania; 3. Plaintiff Susan Lewellen has been given notice of this fact as of early July 2010 and has been supplied with attorney references for any future legal needs; 4. Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(1) holds that withdrawal may be granted if it can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client; 5. Withdraw can be accomplished without material adverse effect in the present case as there is no issue at hand presently and the client has been given ample notice and attorney references for any future legal needs; 6. Opposing Counsel, Attorney Linda A. Clotfelter, is in concurrence. WHEREFORE, Rachelle J. Armbruster, Esquire respectfully requests to withdraw from the above-captioned case due to a change in geographic practice area and the lack of adverse effect on the client and the case. ~3o~ro RacheH~e J. Armbruster, Esquire Date ID #307077 503 Bridge Street, Suite 212 New Cumberland, PA 17070 717-635-9641 1 AUG 1 12010 y IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL (DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SUSAN LEWELLEN Plaintiff/Petitioner No. 2009-4576 V. DAVID B. SNYDER, JANICE M. SNYDER Defendants/Respondents Civil Action- Petition for Modification of Custody Order and Intervention DAVID A. SNYDER, AMANDA L. SNYDER Co-Defendants/Co-Respondents ORDER AND NOW, this /3' day of August, 2010 on motion by Attorney Rachelle J. Armbruster for withdraw for the above-captioned case it is hereby GRANTED that Rachelle J. Armbruster, Esquire be removed as counsel due to her relocation out of state and a lack of material adverse effect on the client and case. P. Date 17 i4r -? §Iev- A - rE c.-o p%es At e , lew g/,3,1 v SUSAN LEWELLEN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYI_,VANIA vs. NO. 20G9-4576 CIVIL ACTION -LAW DAVID I3. SNYDER., JANICE M. SNYDER,: IN CUSTODY DAVID A. SNYDER and AMANDA L. SNYDER, Defendants ORDER ~~ AND NOW, this i ~ day of May, 2012, the above case being previously assigned to the Conciliator and there being no activity on this case for a period of six months or more, the Conciliator relinquishes jurisdiction. 1,p ~;-~-- ~' ` °~ ~. ~. . ~, Hubert ~;. Gilroy, Esquire Custody Conciliator .~ _, , ,. -, ~;~ i:~ _~, _ _ . _,: ^,