Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-1237 FILED-()F ICE t;F ;tHT Fri,, jY 2010 FEB 23 Ps $1 2: 12 BRANDEN E. ROWE, : IN THE COURT ft?V?OMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND CO>?", ?N?VANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW 2010 - 3 7 CIVIL TERM JENNIFER R. REATH, Defendant IN CUSTODY COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Branden E. Rowe, by his attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, P.C., and presents the following Complaint for Custody. 1. The Plaintiff, Branden E. Rowe, is an adult individual with an address of 3810 Mountain Shadow Circle, Fayetteville, Pennsylvania 17222. 2. The Defendant, Jenifer R. Reath, is an adult individual with an address of 104 Rustic Drive, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 3. The parties are the natural parents of two (2) minor children, namely, Myles E. Rowe, born January 16, 2006 and Rayne B. Rowe, born April 1, 2008. 4. The Plaintiff, Branden E. Rowe, desires that the parties have shared legal custody of the minor children, Myles E. Rowe and Rayne B. Rowe. s ?yy. ad A 3/ I-3793 5. The Plaintiff, Branden E. Rowe, desires shared physical custody of the said minor children as the parties can agree. 6. The best interests and permanent welfare of said minor children requires that the Court grant the Plaintiff's request as set forth above. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Branden E. Rowe, respectfully requests that he be awarded shared physical custody and shared legal custody of the minor children, Myles E. Rowe and Rayne B. Rowe, as provided herein. Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & McWGHT, P.C. By: Marcus A. M6KOgg& III, Esquire Attornfor Plaintiff 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court I. D. No. 25476 Date: February 23, 2010 VERIFICATION The foregoing document is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel and myself in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this document and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. BRAN . ROWE Date: February 23, 2010 BRANDEN E. ROWE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JENNIFER R. REATH DEFENDANT • 2010-1237 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Wednesday, February 24, 2010 __ __, upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Jacqueline M. Verney, Esq. ,the conciliator, at__ __ .4th_Floor, Cumberland Coun Courthouse, Carlisle on ____ Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 8:30 AM for aPre-}-Tearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR. THE COURT, By: /s/ ,Lacqueline M. Verne Es Custody Conciliator '~ The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our of~fiee. 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 FORTI-{ BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 ,. ~ ~ ~~~~~ 2010 MAR - I PM 3~ 2 4 Cd.7P,l~=;~- ~~~ ~OUiViY ~E~;Pv~ ~~"VA~1~ ~ ~ j ~~ ~~~ ~~..~ ~ a~ ~~ AUG 20,E BRANDEN E. ROWE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW - c 2010 - 1237 CIVIL TERM' f s JENNIFER R. REATH, ? Defendant IN CUSTODY -n RULE 5; c A 30 lt AND NOW this day of V 2010. upon consideration ot he Motion for Leave to Withdraw Appearan ce, a rule is hereby issued to show cause why the within request should not be granted. 20 Rule returnable days after service. BY THE COURT: By M. L. Ebert, Jr., Judge Distribution List: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire randon Rowe, Plaintiff , cri Coover, Esquire (?F(or Defendant) r/ ' 5>- V 'D 0 o% BRANDON E. ROWE, Plaintiff/Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. trlC -t t CASE NO. 10-1237 - rr JENNIFER R. REATH, rJ Defendant/Petitioner IN CUSTODY MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER NOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF CUS TODY 6RD6R AND NOW, comes Defendant/Petitioner Jennifer R. Reath, by and through her attorney, Sheri D. Coover, Esquire and files the following MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY/MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDER and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. After a custody hearing, the Honorable Judge Ebert entered an Order of Court on September 8, 2010 which granted Mother primary physical custody of the minor children Myles E. Rowe (dob 1/16/2006) and Rayne B. Rowe (dob 4/1/2008) and granted Father periods of partial custody of the minor child. (A true and correct copy of the November 7, 2002 Order is hereby attached as Exhibit 1). 2. That Order also stated that the parties were to share legal custody of the children. 3. Since the entry of the custody Order, Father has refused to effectively communicate with Mother regarding the children. 4. Since the custody hearing, Father has engaged in a pattern of cursing at Mother any time contact is made regarding custody exchanges. 5. According to the custody Order, Father was to have custody of the children from Friday, October 15, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday, October 17, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. 6. When contact was made between the parties on Friday, October 15, 2010 regarding the custody exchange, Father cursed at Mother and said that he did not want to exercise his period of custody with the children. 7. Later on the evening of Friday, October 15, 2010, Father's paramour called Mother and apologized for the way that Father had talked to Mother and explained that Father was under the influence of alcohol at that time even though the custody order states that neither party is to be under the influence of alcohol during their period of custody and Father should have exercised a period of custody during Friday, October 15, 2010. 8. On the morning of Saturday, October 16, 2010, Father contacted Mother and said that he had decided that he did want to exercise his period of custody with the children so Mother made arrangements for the children to go with Father for the remainder of his period of custody. 9. On the morning of Sunday, October 17, 2010, Father showed up at Mother's residence with the children and said that he needed to drop the children off because Father's brother had been shot and killed the previous day. 10. Mother resumed custody of the minor children on the morning of Sunday, October 17, 2010. 11. Later that same day, Mother learned from the news that Father's brother was shot by Father's father (paternal grandfather). 12. The minor child who is four years old reported to mother that he and his younger brother were present when his uncle (Father's brother) was shot and killed. 13. Mother has attempted to ask Father what happened and discuss with him the fact that the children are very upset so that she can determine if any medical and or psychological treatment is needed to care for them as a result of their possible witnessing of this incident, but Father refuses to speak to Mother about it and instead engages in a pattern of cursing and berating Mother when she attempts to speak to him. 14. Since returning to Mother's care, Mother has observed that the children seem to be more upset and more emotional than normal. 15. The children have expressed to Mother that they do not want to go to visit with Father and that they are fearful of being with Father at this time. 16. Due to the lack of information or knowledge that she has regarding what the children experienced or witnessed at the time that they were allegedly present during the shooting, Mother cannot assess what care or treatment is necessary for the children. 17. Father refuses to communicate with Mother of cooperate with her in any manner regarding the custody of the children. 18. Despite the fact that the children expressed concerns about going with Father during the weekend of October 29, 2010, Mother contacted Father to inquire as to whether he was planning to exercise his period of custody. 19. Father chose not to exercise his period of custody with the children on October 29, 2010. MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY 20. Defendant/Petitioner incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19 above as contained herein in their entirety. 21. Mother would like to modify the current custody order to grant her primary physical custody of the minor children and allow Father to have periods of partial custody as the parties mutually agree until it is determined by a medical and/or psychological professional that it is in the children's best interest to resume the custody arrangement established under the September 8, 2010 Order. 22. Mother believes that her request for modification of the September 8, 2010 Custody Order is appropriate for the following reasons: a). The children have possibly experienced a traumatic event for which medical and/or psychological help may be appropriate; b). Although the children are of a young age and cannot completely articulate their feelings and emotions, the children have expressed that they are fearful of going with Father and do not want to go with him; c). The children feel comfortable with Mother and Mother is able to provide them a stable environment and calming surroundings while the children are dealing with emotions that they may be experiencing as a result of the traumatic event; d). Mother has made attempts to discuss the children with Father and due to his lack of cooperation she is unable to reach an agreement regarding medical and/or psychological treatment for the children without the court's intervention. 23. Upon information and belief, Mother's request to modify the current custody Order is in the children's' best interest because it will allow for the children to receive needed medical and/or psychological treatment and will protect the interest of both parents as it will allow the current custody Order to resume when it has been deemed to be appropriate and acceptable by a medical and/or psychological professional. WHEREFORE, Mother requests that this Court alter paragraph 2B of the current custody Order to state "Father shall have partial physical custody of the children as the parties mutually agree until the time that a medical and/or psychological professional deems that it is appropriate to resume the partial custody schedule stated in the September 8, 2010 Order. Both parents shall be notified of any medical and/or psychological appointments arranged by the other parent for the children and shall be given the opportunity to attend and participate in any such appointment." MOTION FOR CONTEMPT 24. Defendant/Petitioner incorporates paragraphs 1 through 23 above in their entirety. 25. The current custody Order states that neither party is to say or do anything to estrange the children from the other parent (paragraph 5 of the current custody Order.) 26. Father refuses to effectively communicate with Mother regarding the custody of the children and curses at Mother and makes derogatory statements regarding Mother in the presence of the children. WHEREFORE, Mother respectfully requests that this Court: A. Find Father in contempt of the September 8, 2010 Court Order; B. Father be assessed a $500.00 penalty for contempt of the Court's Custody Order pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 4346; C. Mother's Petition for Contempt of Court Order be addressed at a Hearing before the Court; D. The current Court Order be modified to grant Mother primary physical custody and Father periods of partial custody as expressed above; Other relief that this Court determines to be just and proper. ily submitted, Sh ri D. Coover, Esquire orneylD 93285 44 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 BRANDON E. ROWE, Plaintiff/Respondent V. JENNIFER R. REATH, Defendant/Petitioner : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA CASE NO. 10-1237 IN CUSTODY ATTORNEY VERIFICATION I, Sheri D. Coover, Esquire hereby certify that I have reviewed the statements contained in the foregoing MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER/MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF CUSTODY ORDER with Jennifer Reath and hereby verify that she has indicated that the statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. I have made my client understand that I can be subject to the penalties of perjury, both civilly and criminally under federal and Pennsylvania lair for any false statements contained herein. ri D. Coover, Esquire 200 Date BRANDON E. ROWE, Plaintiff/Respondent V. JENNIFER R. REATH, Defendant/Petitioner : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA CASE NO. 10-1237 IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sheri D. Coover, Esquire hereby certify that on this 1101 day of November, 2010,1 caused the foregoing DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY/MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF CUSTODY ORDER to be served upon Respondent via United States First Class mail addressed as follows: Brandon E. Rowe 3810 Mountain Shadow Circle Fayetteville, PA 17222 ly submitted, 7tt e ri\B'Coover, Esquire orney ID 93285 44 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 BRANDON E. ROWE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF o PLAINTIFF ,) PENNSYLV CUMBERLAND COUNTY o ?, ? -+ , r r' F V . 2010-1237 CIVIL ACTION LAW; C) - -r ? -n JENNIFER R. REATH IN CUSTODY C)rn DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Thursday, November 18, 2010 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Jacqueline M. Verney, Esq. , the conciliator, at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Monday, December 13, 2010 at 9:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: /s/ ac uc ne M. Verne Es . Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street q, M/d ? Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 ,?,,«, Telephone (717) 249-3166 BRANDON E. ROWE, PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT V. JENNIFER R. REATH, DEFENDANT/PETITIONER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CZ rr7C:i ' NO. 10-1237 IN CUSTODY z. y l;?l RESPONSE TO MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER AND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF CUSTODY ORDER N H `earn C)Q a ?T ci rq r, AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff/Respondent Brandon E. Rowe, by and through his attorney, Todd Sponseller, Esquire and for his response to the Defendant/Petitioner's MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER AND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF CUSTODY ORDER does hereby aver as follows: 1. Admit as to Paragraph 1 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. By way of further response, the Court Order provided the Father physical custody of the children on an alternating weekend basis, beginning Fridays at 6:00pm and concluding Sundays at 6:00pm, and further that the Mother was to deliver the children to the Father's residence in Fayetteville, Franklin County, Pennsylvania at the beginning of Father's period of physical custody (See Order attached hereto as Exhibit I at Paragraphs 2 and 4). 2. Admit as to Paragraph 2 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. 3. Deny as to Paragraph 3 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. By way of further response, Father states affirmatively that he has communicated or attempted to communicate with Mother regarding the children, but has avoided communicating with her when she contacts him regarding issues not concerning the children. 4. Admit in part, deny in part as to Paragraph 4 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. By way of further response, Father has uttered curse words to Mother but states that these have been in times of high conflict when she endeavors to provoke him and he further denies that this conduct has become a "pattern" as alleged. Father also denies that he has uttered curse words to Mother in the children's presence or otherwise. Conducted himself so as to alienate the children from their mother. 5. Admit as to Paragraph 5 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. 6. Admit in part, deny in part as to Paragraph 6 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. Father admits that he initially did not want to exercise his physical custody period for the evening of October 15, 2010. However, Father states that he reconsidered and that his paramour contacted Mother and indicated that Father reconsidered and asked Mother to bring the children to Father's residence as provided in the Order and Mother concurred. Father states further that his period of custody that weekend began Saturday morning October 16, 2010. 7. Denied as to Paragraph 7 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. 8. Denied as to Paragraph 8 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. By way of further response and as set forth above, Mother delivered the children to Father's residence Saturday morning as requested. 9. Denied as to Paragraph 9 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. By way of further response, Father attempted to contact Mother numerous times on Sunday, October 17, 2010, and not being able to reach her, brought the children to their great-grandmother (Mother's grandmother)'s residence. Father further states that he did make contact with Mother prior to dropping the children off with their great-grandmother. 10. Father is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments in Paragraph 10 of the Motion and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof. 11. Father is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments in Paragraph 11 of the Motion and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof. 12. Father is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments in Paragraph 12 of the Motion and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof. By way of further response, Father specifically denies that the children were present when their uncle (Father's brother) was shot and killed. 13. Denied as to Paragraph 13 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. By way of further response, Father has told Mother that the children were not present when their uncle was shot and killed, and has done so on more than one occasion. 14. Father is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments in Paragraph 14 of the Motion and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof. 15. Father is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 15 of the Motion and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof. Upon information and belief Father believes that Mother and her paramour have undertaken efforts to alienate Father from his children. 16. Denied as to Paragraph 16 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. Father has been forthright with Mother regarding the fact that the children were not present when their uncle was shot and killed. Moreover neither Father nor Mother is a medical, psychological or counseling expert. Therefore, if Mother genuinely believes that the children are traumatized, she should undertake to take them to their pediatrician who can recommend the appropriate professional to discern what care or treatment is necessary for the children, if any. 17. Denied as to Paragraph 17 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. By way of further response, Father in fact has wanted to exercise his period of custody as per the custody Order, including the recent Thanksgiving holiday weekend and further have the children outside the assigned parenting time set forth in the Order, but Mother has denied allowing Father to see the children and has refused to bring them to his residence as per this Court's Order. 18. Denied as to Paragraph 18 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. By way of further answer, Mother did not contact Father. Father contacted Mother and she refused to allow the children to go to Father's residence. 19. Denied as to Paragraph 19 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. 20. Plaintiff/Respondent hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-19 by reference as if fully set forth herein. 21. Denied as to Paragraph 21 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. 22. Denied, including all allegations set forth in sub-paragraphs a-d of Paragraph 22. 23. Denied as to Paragraph 23 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. 24. The Plaintiff/Respondent denies any and all allegations set forth in the Defendant/Petitioner's WHEREFORE clause in her Motion to Modify, and asks that this Court Deny any and all relief requested therein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Respondent Brandon E. Rowe respectfully requests that the Court Deny the Defendant/Petitioner's Motion to Modify for the reasons set forth above. Plaintiff/Defendant further seeks whatever additional relief the Court deems just and proper. 25. Plaintiff/Respondent hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-24 by reference as if fully set forth herein. 26. Admit as to Paragraph 25 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. 27. Denied as to Paragraph 26 of Defendant/Petitioner's Motion. 28. The Plaintiff/Respondent denies any and all allegations set forth in the Defendant/Petitioner's WHEREFORE clause in her Motion for Contempt, and asks that this Court Deny any and all relief requested therein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Respondent Brandon E. Rowe respectfully requests that the Court Deny the Defendant/Petitioner's Motion for Contempt for the reasons set forth above. Plaintiff/Defendant further seeks whatever additional relief the Court deems just and proper. COUNTER-MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff/Respondent Brandon E. Rowe, by and through his attorney, Todd Sponseller, Esquire and for his MOTION FOR CONTEMPT does hereby aver as follows: 29. Plaintiff/Respondent hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-24 by reference as if fully set forth herein. 30. On or about October 16, 2010 Plaintiff/Respondent's father allegedly shot and killed his son, Plaintiff/Respondent's brother. 31. The incident has received an enormous amount of media attention owing to the arrests of Plaintiff/Respondent"s father, the manner of the arrests, and the subsequent litigation. 32. Plaintiff /Respondent told Defendant/Petitioner about the incident the day after it happened. 33. Plaintiff/Respondent has also informed Defendant/Petitioner numerous times and on several occasions that their children were not involved in the incident in any way, nor were they present when the incident occurred. 34. Nevertheless, Defendant/Petitioner has used this unfortunate event as a weapon against Plaintiff/Respondent in keeping him from his children. 35. The Court's Order states at Paragraph 2 that Father shall have physical custody of the children on alternating weekends. Defendant/Petitioner has violated this Court's Order in failing and refusing to allow Plaintiff/Respondent to exercise his physical custody periods since October 17, 2010. 36. Moreover, this Court's Order states in Paragraph 3A that Father shall have the children for the Thanksgiving holiday on even numbered years. Defendant/Petitioner has violated this Court's Order in failing to comply with Paragraph 3A by not allowing Plaintiff/Respondent to exercise his physical custody period over the 2010 Thanksgiving holiday. 37. Further, this Court's Order states at Paragraph 4 that "Mother will transport the children to Father's home at the beginning of Father's period of partial physical custody". Defendant/Petitioner has violated this Court's Order by failing to transport the children to Plaintiff/Respondent's home at the beginning of his period of partial physical custody on at least 3 occasions by the time of the filing of this Response and Motion. 38. Finally, Defendant/Petitioner has, upon information and belief violated Paragraph 5 of this Court's Order by engaging in conduct to estrange the children from the Plaintiff/Respondent, injuring the children's opinion Plaintiff/Respondent and by hampering the free and natural development of the children's love and respect for Plaintiff/Respondent. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Respondent and Father respectfully requests that this Court: A. Enter an Order finding Defendant/Petitioner and Mother in contempt of the September 8, 2010 Court order; B. That Mother be assessed a $500.00 penalty for contempt of the Court's Custody Order pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 4346; C. That Plaintiff/Respondent and Father's Motion for Contempt be addressed at a hearing before the Court; D. That the current Order be modified to Grant Plaintiff/Respondent and Father primary periods of physical custody while giving Defendant/Petitioner and Mother partial periods of physical custody as the parties are able to agree; E. Order that the Defendant/Respondent and Mother pay Plaintiff/Respondent and Father's reasonable attorney's fees in connection with this litigation; and F. Any and all other relief as the Court deems just and proper. MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff/Respondent Brandon E. Rowe, by and through his attorney, Todd Sponseller, Esquire and for his MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY does hereby aver as follows: 39. Plaintiff/Respondent hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-38 by reference as if fully set forth herein. 40. Plaintiff/Respondent and Father would like to modify the current Custody Order to grant him primary custody of the children while granting partial physical custody of the children to the Defendant/Petitioner and Mother as the parties are able to mutually agree until the Defendant/Petitioner and Mother has demonstrated her willingness and ability to comply with this Court's Orders. 41. Plaintiff/Respondent and Father believes that this request for a modification of the current Custody Order is appropriate for the following reasons: A. Defendant/Petitioner and Mother has purposefully used the unfortunate events of October 16, 2010, with which Plaintiff/Respondent and Father has had no involvement whatsoever against Plaintiff/Respondent and Father for purposes of keeping him from exercising his Court-Ordered periods of partial physical custody. B. Defendant/Petitioner and Mother has proven herself unreliable and unable to comply with this Court's Order as set forth above. C. Plaintiff/Respondent and Father is able to provide the children with a stable, nurturing and comfortable environment in which they can thrive, grow and mature. D. Upon information and belief, Defendant/Petitioner and Mother has undertaken to unjustly alienate the children from Plaintiff/Respondent and Father. E. The proposed modification as set forth below will be in the children's best interest. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Respondent and Father respectfully requests that Paragraph 2 of the current Custody Order be modified to read as follows: A. Father shall have primary physical custody of the children. B. Mother shall have partial physical custody of the children as the parties can mutually agree until such time as Mother can demonstrate her willingness and ability to comply with this Court's Orders and resume partial physical custody on a regular basis. Date Todd Sponseller I Attorne PA ID 308232 223 Lincoln Way East Suite A Chambersburg, PA 17201 717.446.0868 Respectfully submitted, 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. § 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. ?o Date ran on E. Rowe BRANDON E. ROWE, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 10-1237 CIVIL V. JENNIFER R. REATH, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 8th day of September 2010, after hearing in this matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. Legal Custody: The parties, Brandon Rowe and Jennifer Reath, shall have shared legal custody of the minor children, Myles E. Rowe, dob: January16, 2006 and Rayne B. Rowe, dob: April 1, 2008. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all major non-emergency decisions affecting the children's general well-being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion. Pursuant to the terms of 23 Pa.C.S. §5309, each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the children including, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious or school records (to include report cards), and the residence address of the children and of the other parent. Each parent shall keep the other informed of any changes to the children's medication schedule and of all doctor appointments. To the extent one parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent. All decisions affecting the children's growth and development including medical and dental treatment;, psychotherapy, or like treatment; decisions relating to actual or potential litigation involving the children directly or as a beneficiary, other than custody litigation; education, both secular and religious; scholastic athletic pursuits and other extracurricular activities; shall be considered major decisions and shall be made with the parents jointly, after discussion and consultation with each other and with a view toward obtaining the following harmonious policy in the children's best interest. 2. Physical Custody: A. Mother shall have primary physical custody the children. B. Father shall have partial physical custody on alternating weekends beginning the weekend of September 17, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. on Friday until 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. 3. Holidays: A. Thanksgiving - The mother shall have custody of the children for Thanksgiving in odd numbered years. The father will have custody of the children in even numbered years. The Thanksgiving Holiday shall run from 6:00 p.m. the Wednesday before Thanksgiving to 6:00 p.m. the Friday following Thanksgiving. B. Christmas- In 2010, the Christmas holiday shall be divided in Segment A which shall run from December 23, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. through December 25, 2010, at 3:00 p.m., and Segment B which shall run from December 25, 2010, at 3:00 p.m. through December 27, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. In even numbered years, mother shall have custody of the children for Segment A and father shall have custody for Segment B. In odd numbered years, mother shall have custody of the children for Segment B and father shall have custody during Segment A. 2 C. Mother's Day - Mother shall have custody of the children from 6:00 p.m. the evening before Mother's Day to 6:00 p.m. on Mother's Day. D. Father's Day - Father shall have custody of the children from 6:00 p.m. the evening before Father's Day to 6:00 p.m. on Father's Day. E. Myles E. Rowe's Birthday - Mother shall have custody of Myles Rowe on his birthday in even numbered years. Father shall have partial custody of Myles Rowe on his birthday in odd numbered years. The custody period for the child's birthday is from 6:00 p.m. the evening before the birthday to 6:00 p.m. the evening of the birthday. F. Rayne B. Rowe's Birthday - Father shall have partial custody of Rayne Rowe on his birthday in even numbered years. Mother shall have custody of Rayne Rowe on his birthday in odd numbered years. The custody period for the child's birthday is from 6:00 p.m. the evening before the birthday to 6:00 p.m. the evening of the birthday. 4. Transportation: The parties shall share transportation of the children. Mother will transport the children to Father's home at the beginning of Father's period of partial physical custody. Father will transport the children to the Mother's home at the conclusion of his period of partial physical custody. 5. Nonalienation: Neither parent shall do or say anything which may estrange the children from the other parent, injure the opinion of the children as to the other parent or hamper the free and natural development of the children's love and respect for the other parent. 3 6. Telephonic Contact: Both parents shall have liberal and reasonable contact with the children while the children are in the custody of the other parent. In the event that either party has a change in their telephone number or terminates telephone service, they will inform the other party within 24 hours of the change. 7. No Usage of Alcohol, Controlled Substances, and Corporal Punishment: Neither party shall use illegal controlled substances or be under the influence of alcohol when the children are in their custody. Neither parent will allow third parties to use illegal controlled substances or be under the influence of alcohol in the presence of the children. Neither party will allow third parties to use corporal punishment on said children. 8. Modification: The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual agreement in writing. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. Brandon Rowe, Pro Se Plaintiff Shari Coover, Esquire Attorney For Defendant M. L. Ebert, Jr., Judge TRUE COPY FROM RECORD M Testimony whereof, 1 here Unto set my hand and the a of said rr at Carlisle, Pa'.!, This ay of CAF , 20 nl )r Protha oW ? 4 By the Court: s BRANDON E. ROWE, PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT V. JENNIFER R. REATH, DEFENDANT/PETITIONER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 10-1237 IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Todd Sponseller, Esquire hereby certify that on December, 2010 I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to the following address: Sheri D. Coover, Esquire 44 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Service by: Personal Service via hand delivery Service by First Class United States Mail, postage pre-paid, mailed at Chambersburg, PA 17201 Overnight Delivery Certified/Registered Mail Todd Xonseller Todd Sponseller I Attorney PA ID 308232 223 Lincoln Way East Suite A Chambersburg, PA 17201 717.446.0868 DEC 2 2 2010 BRANDON E. ROWE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V : NO. 2010-1237 CIVIL ACTION - LAW . C__ N ° JENNIFER R. REATH, zrn rn Defendant . IN CUSTODY =;:o c-) r ,,{ Z' _j Z C) ORDER OF COURT zo = DZ o t AND NOW, this day of b G.CG M htr , 2010, upon V consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: Both parties hereby withdraw their Motions for Contempt and Modification. 2. The prior Order of Court dated September 8, 2010 shall remain in full force and effect with the following modifications and additions. 3. The parties shall cooperate with co-parenting counseling. Counsel for the parties shall agree on the counselor. The parties shall share the cost of the counseling equally. To promote civility among the parties, they shall not use profanity in the presence of the children. 4. The parties shall cooperate with counseling for the children to address any lingering anxiety they may have over the murder of their paternal uncle by their paternal grandfather. The parties shall share the cost of this counseling equally. 5. Paternal grandmother shall not have unsupervised contact with the children until the children's counselor opines otherwise. 6. Father shall be entitled to two extra weekends, from Friday to Sunday, one each during the month of February and March, 2011. Mother shall pick said weekends and give Father 30-days notice of the weekends that she selects. 7. Each party shall be entitled to two non-consecutive weeks in the summer provided they give the other party 30-days prior notice. 0 m M;= ,f Q#1 $- -C Z___1 8. 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, M. L. Ebert Jr., 1 J• cc Sheri D. Coover, Esquire, Counsel for Mother vTodd Sponseller, Esquire, Counsel for Father Mo?ow CoPieg tval h o DKS BRANDON E. ROWE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 2010-1237 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JENNIFER R. REATH, Defendant : IN CUSTODY PRIOR JUDGE: M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Myles E. Rowe January 16, 2006 Mother Rayne B. Rowe January 1, 2008 Mother 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on December 21, 2010 with the following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Jennifer R. Reath, with her counsel, Sheri Coover, Esquire and the Father, Brandon E. Rowe, with his counsel, Todd Sponseller, Esquire. 3. The Honorable M. L. Ebert, Jr. previously entered an Order of Court dated September 8, 2010 providing for shared legal custody, Mother having primary physical custody and Father having alternating weekends, Friday to Sunday. 4. Both parties have filed Motions for Contempt and Modification. The parties agreed to an Order in the form as attached. Date acq line M.. Verney, Esquire Custody Conciliator . 1 BRANDON E. ROWE, Plaintiff/Respondent V. JENNIFER R. REATH, Defendant/Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS = -+ CUMBERLAND COUNTY, r" ran r*rnr: ? PENNSYLVANIA CASE NO. 10-1237 _. . IN CUSTODY : - MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDERNOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, comes Defendant/Petitioner Jennifer R. Reath, by and through her attorney, Sheri D. Coover, Esquire and files the following MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY/MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDER and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. After a conciliation conference, this Court issued an Order which granted Mother primary physical custody of the minor children Myles E. Rowe (dob 1/16/2006) and Rayne B. Rowe (dob 4/1/2008) and granted Father periods of partial custody of the minor child. (A true and correct copy of the Custody Order is hereby attached as Exhibit 1). 2. At the conciliation conference, Mother expressed concerns regarding Father's alcohol use around the children. 3. Father denied that he used alcohol to excess during his periods of custody. 4. On January 8, 2011, Father was arrested for DUI approximately one hour prior to the time that he was to meet Mother for the custody exchange. 5. Mother has concerns regarding Father's alcohol use during his periods of custody of the children. f1l #7G a Ax/ j Lt,V t14?3 6. Pursuant to §5329, the Court must make an assessment regarding the safety of the children in making an award of custody to an individual who has been convicted of the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. 7. Although Father has not yet been convicted of this offense as of the date of the filing of this document, Mother believes that it is in the children's best interest for the Court to modify the custody order as Father would have driven with the children in the car despite the fact that he was under the influence of alcohol at that time. 8. Mother has concerns about the safety of the children when in Father's care. 9. Father refuses to communicate with Mother of cooperate with her in any manner regarding the custody of the children. 10. The last custody Order stated that the children were to cooperate with counseling to determine if the children have any psychological affect from their uncle being murdered by their paternal grandfather. 11. Father refuses to cooperate with Mother regarding scheduling the counseling. 12. Mother would like to modify the current custody order to grant her primary physical custody of the minor children and allow Father to have periods of partial custody as the parties mutually agree until it is determined by a medical and/or psychological professional that it is in the children's best interest and until it has been determined by a Court that being in Father's custody does not pose a threat to the children pursuant to §5329. 13. Mother believes that her request for modification of the September 8, 2010 Custody Order is appropriate for the following reasons: a). The children have possibly experienced a traumatic event for which medical and/or psychological help may be appropriate; b). Although the children are of a young age and cannot completely articulate their feelings and emotions, the children have expressed that they are fearful of going with Father and do not want to go with him; c). The children feel comfortable with Mother and Mother is able to provide them a stable environment and calming surroundings while the children are dealing with emotions that they may be experiencing as a result of the traumatic event; d). Mother has concerns regarding Father's alcohol abuse around the children. Despite the fact that Father denies the abuse of alcohol, he was charged with driving under the influence on the way to pick the children up for his period of custody on January 8, 2011. WHEREFORE, Mother requests that this Court to modify the custody order to grant her primary physical custody of the minor children and to grant Father periods of partial custody as the parties mutually agree. lly submitted, 51'eri D. Coover, Esquire Attorney ID 93285 44 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 BRANDON E. ROWE, Plaintiff/Respondent V. JENNIFER R. REATH, Defendant/Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CASE NO. 10-1237 IN CUSTODY VERIFICATION I, Jennifer Reath, Esquire hereby certify that I have reviewed the statements contained in the foregoing MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER and hereby verify that she has indicated that the statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. I have made my client understand that I can be subject to the penalties of perjury, both civilly and criminally under federal and Pennsylvania law for any false statements contained herein. D to BRANDON E. ROWE, Plaintiff/Respondent V. JENNIFER R. REATH, Defendant/Petitioner : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA CASE NO. 10-1237 IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sheri D. Coover, Esquire hereby certify that on thi#Zb day of February, 2011, 1 caused the foregoing DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY/MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF CUSTODY ORDER to be served upon Respondent via United States First Class mail addressed as follows: Todd Sponseller, Esquire 223 Lincoln Way East, Suite A Chambersburg, PA 17201 Sheri D. Coover, Esquire Attorney ID 93285 44 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 BRANDON E. ROWE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PL..AINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA- V. 2010-1237 CIVIL ACTION LAW' ` r JENNIFER R. REATH IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT 4 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, _ Friday, Februar y 25, 2011 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Jacqueline M. Verney, Esq. , the conciliator, at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 10:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: /s/ acqueline M. Verney, Esq.ij V1 _ Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. 44 Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 i r y? U BRANDON E. ROWE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JENNIFER R. REATH, - DEFENDANT/PETITIONER NO. 10-1237 IN CUSTODY RESPONSE TO MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER AND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff/Respondent Brandon E. Rowe, by and through his attorney, Todd Sponseller, Esquire and for his response to the Defendant/Petitioner's MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER AND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF CUSTODY ORDER does hereby aver as follows: 1. Admit as to Paragraph 1 of Mother's Motion. 2. Admit as to Paragraph 2 of the Motion. 3. Admit as to Paragraph 3 of the Motion. 4. Admit as to Paragraph 4 of the Motion. 5. In response to Paragraph 5 of the Motion, Father is without sufficient knowledge as to the assertions contained therein and can neither admit nor deny. 6. In response to Paragraph 6 of the Motion, the same is a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, Father admits the same. 7. In response to Paragraph 7 of the Motion, Father has no knowledge as to Mother's beliefs, but states that he would not have been driving with the children in the car after having imbibed alcohol. According to the September 8, 2010 Order and as discussed at the conciliation, Mother was to provide transportation at the inception of the Father's custody period, as she was Ordered to have the children at the Father's house in Fayetteville, Pennsylvania by 6:00pm. therefore, Mother's assertion that Father would have driven with the children in the car is false. 8. In response to Paragraph 8 of the Motion, Father has no knowledge as to Mother's state of mind, but states affirmatively that the children are not in danger when they are in his care. 9. Denied as to Paragraph 9 of the Motion. Father has attempted to communicate with Mother regarding custody issues. However, as before, she continued to barrage him with phone calls and text messages regarding irrelevant or insignificant matters, and could not seem to keep to herself. Father finally had Mother's cell phone number blocked from his so that she could no longer continuously text and call him. At that point, Father's text message usage on his cell phone dropped by over 500 text messages per month, clearly evidencing Mother's harassment of Father. Father further states affirmatively that he has attempted to abide by the two Orders in this matter, but Mother refuses to cooperate with him. Father maintains a land line at his residence and therefore Mother may still contact him. 10. In response to Paragraph 10 of the Motion, Father admits that he and Mother were to cooperate on obtaining counseling for the children. Father specifically denies the remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 of the Motion. 11. Denied as to Paragraph 11 of the Motion. By way of further response, Father asserts that Mother failed to cooperate in obtaining counseling for the children and that she finally admitted to him that as the children were not present at the time of the shooting, they would have no psychological affect therefrom. This exchange took place less than an hour after the December 21, 2010 conciliation when Mother called Father on his cell phone and admitted to him that she knew the children were not present at the time of the shooting and that there was no need for an evaluation and counseling. 12. In response to paragraph 12, Mother already has primary physical custody of the children with Father having partial custody every other weekend. Father will agree to a continuation of this custody arrangement. Father has already agreed to counseling for the children as well as co-parenting counseling, but Mother has failed to agree to same. Father maintains his denial that the children are threatened by being in his custody. Finally, appurtenant to his anticipated DUI plea, Father will receive a drug and alcohol abuse evaluation, participate in drug and alcohol abuse counseling/classes and will be monitored for drug and alcohol use as part of the terms of his probation. 13. Father responds to Paragraph 13 and its sub-paragraphs a) - d) as follows: a) Father denies again that the children were present at their grandparents' house on the night that their uncle was shot and killed by their grandfather. In spite of now two pleadings having been filed on this issue, Mother has failed to present any competent evidence to the contrary. Father maintains that on the night in question, the children were at his residence, at home and in bed. Further, as asserted before, if Mother genuinely believed that the children were traumatized by this experience or circumstances, she could have taken them to their pediatrician herself for an evaluation. Finally, as set forth above, less than an hour after the December 21, 2010 conciliation, Mother contacted Father and admitted to him that she was aware that the children were not present at the time of the shooting and that therefore she was of the opinion that there was no need for counseling. b) Father denies sub-paragraph b. When the children are with him, they are happy and well behaved. The children enjoy their time with Father. If the children are fearful of Father, it is because of what Mother says to them and not because of any action on the part of Father. C) Father again denies any traumatic event. The idea that the children witnessed this unfortunate incident is wholly Mother's concoction. If the children have any knowledge of the event or continually dwell on the event it is because Mother continues to bring it up to them. This hardly seems like "calming surroundings". d) Father denies abusing alcohol in the children's presence. Further, Father was not charged with driving under the influence while on his way to pick up the children; he was on his way home. It was Mother's responsibility under the Order to bring the children to father's house so therefore he could not have been on his way to pick up the children as Mother alleges. WHEREFORE, Father prays and requests that this Court Deny Mother's Motion for contempt and to modify and enforce the two custody Orders already in place. Father seeks whatever further justice this court deems necessary. COUNTER-MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff/Respondent Brandon E. Rowe, by and through his attorney, Todd Sponseller, Esquire and for his COUNTER-MOTION FOR CONTEMPT does hereby aver as follows: 14. Plaintiff/Respondent hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-13 by reference as if fully set forth herein. 15. Mother has violated this Court's Order of December 27, 2010 in the following ways: a) Mother has failed to cooperate with Father in order to obtain co-parenting counseling as directed in Paragraph 3 of the December 27, 2010 Order. b) Mother has failed to cooperate to obtain counseling and evaluation for the children as directed in Paragraph 4 of the December 27, 2010 Order. Mother has admitted to Father that she does not believe that the children need counseling because they were not present on the night of the shooting. C) Mother has failed to pick make-up weekends for Father and provide him with 30 days' notice of the make-up weekends as directed in Paragraph 6 of the December 27, 2010 Order. Although Mother has offered make up weekends, they have been with mere hours' notice which she knows that Father cannot accept. This happened on one occasion. Mother continues to violate this provision. 16. Mother continues to violate this Court's Order of September 8, 2010 by continuing to talk with the children so as to alienate them from their Father, injure the children's opinion of their Father and continue to hamper the free and natural development of the children's love and respect for their Father as based on the following: a) Rayne has told Father "Mommy says you are mean, but I know you are not". b) Rayne has told Father "Mommy says you are a loser, but I know you are not". C) Rayne has told Father "David", Mother's boyfriend called Father a "pussy" in front of the children. d) Myles has indicated to Father that he is reluctant to tell Mother of the activities at Father's house because she will become jealous and angry. e) Mother continues to aggravate and incite the unfortunate incident of the shooting by showing the children pictures of their grandfather's mug shot online. 17. Mother continues to show herself as unable to comply with the Court's Orders in this matter. Further, Mother makes efforts to aggravate the high conflict relationship between her and Father and then subject Father to vexatious litigation at great personal time and expense. WHEREFORE, Father respectfully requests that this Court: A. Enter an Order finding Mother in contempt of the September 8, 2010 Court Order and the December 27, 2010 Court Order; B. That Mother be assessed a $500.00 penalty for contempt of the Court's Custody Order pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 4346; C. That Plaintiff/Respondent and Father's Motion for Contempt be addressed at a hearing before the Court; D. Order that the Defendant/Respondent and Mother pay Plaintiff/Respondent and Father's reasonable attorney's fees in connection with this litigation; E. That Mother and her paramour David be subjected to a criminal background investigation to determine if they should have an evaluation and counseling pursuant to 23 P.C.S. § 5329; and F. That exchanges take place on Friday afternoon at 6:00pm at the Pennsylvania State Police barracks on Franklin Farm Lane in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania and at 6:00pm Sunday afternoon at the Shippensburg Police Department on King Street in Shippensburg. G. Any and all other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 3.14. Zoll Date Respectfully submitted, Todd Sponseller I Attorney PA ID 308232 223 Lincoln Way East Suite A Chambersburg, PA 17201 717.446.0868 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. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ?S ?r1 Date Br n E. Rowe BRANDON E. ROWE, PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JENNIFER R. REATH, DEFENDANT/PETITIONER NO. 10-1237 IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Todd Sponseller, Esquire hereby certify that on March L6, 2011 I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to the following address: Sheri D. Coover, Esquire 44 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Jacqueline M. Verney, Esq. Custody Conciliator 44 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Service by: Personal Service via hand delivery X Service by First Class United States Mail, postage pre-paid, mailed at Chambersburg, PA 17201 Overnight Delivery Certified/Registered Mail d Sponseller Todd Sponseller I Attorney PA ID 308232 223 Lincoln Way East Suite A Chambersburg, PA 17201 717.446.0868 BRANDON E. ROWE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 2010-1237 CIVIL ACTION - LAV c © JENNIFER R. REATH -X3 = -n -+ , rna; Defendant : IN CUSTODY :rrn ? -,r- r- <3' CO rn c° ORDER OF COURT :X N M AND NOW, this C)day of 2011 _ , upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A Hearing is sche uled in Court Room No. , of the Cumb rland County Court House, on the _je_ day of 2011, at o'clock,. M., at which time testimony will b tak For purposes of this Hearing, the Moth r shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for each party shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a Memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list of witnesses who will be expected to testify at the Hearing and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. These Memoranda shall be filed at least five days prior to the Hearing date. 2. The Orders of Court dated September 8, 2010 and December 27, 2010 shall remain in full force and effect with the following modifications and addition. 3. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Order of Court dated December 27, 2010 are hereby deleted. 4. Mother shall provide a soccer schedule to her attorney as soon as she receives it. Counsel shall forward the schedule to opposing counsel. If Father has notice of Myles' soccer games and fails to transport him to one game, Mother thereafter has the option of picking up the child from Father in order to transport the child to soccer. Mother shall be responsible for returning the child to Father immediately after the soccer game. 5. 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, I/' M.L. Ebert, Jr., J. cc: Sheri D. Coover, Esquire, counsel for Mother .-Todd Sponseller, Esquire, Counsel for Father BRANDON E. ROWE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 2010-1237 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JENNIFER R. REATH, Defendant : IN CUSTODY PRIOR JUDGE: M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Myles E. Rowe January 16, 2006 Mother Rayne B. Rowe April 1, 2008 Mother 2. A Conciliation Conference was held March 24, 2011 with the following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Jennifer R. Reath, with her counsel, Sheri D. Coover, Esquire, and the Father, Brandon E. Rowe, with his counsel, Todd Sponseller, Esquire. 3. The Honorable M.L. Ebert, Jr. previously entered Orders of Court dated September 8, 2010 and December 27, 2010 providing for shared legal custody, Mother having primary physical custody with Father having alternating weekends, two make-up weekends and co-parenting counseling and counseling for the children. Mother filed for Modification and Contempt, and Father filed an Answer and Contempt Petition. 4. Mother's position on custody is as follows: Mother seeks shared legal and primary physical custody, with Father having supervised visitation. Mother maintains that Father was intoxicated immediately prior to one of his periods of custody; that he received a DUI charge which is pending. In addition, a PFA Order was entered against Father protecting Mother due to an incident in February, 2011. Mother also claims that Father unreasonable rejected counselors who were suggested. 5. Father's position on custody is as follows: Father seeks to maintain the status quo. With regard to Contempt, Father alleges that Mother failed to provide Father with timely notice of his make-up weeks, which he still has not received. That Mother failed in setting up co-parenting counseling and counseling for the children. Father further alleges that Mother and her boyfriend disparage Father and his family. 6. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached scheduling a Hearing and maintaining the current custody Orders, with modification. It is expected that the Hearing will require one-half day. 3 ,-2N- I/ h" Date Jacq line M. Verney, Esquir Custody Conciliator BRANDON E. ROWE, Plaintiff/Respondent V. JENNIFER R. REATH, Defendant/Petitioner : PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, CASE NO. 10-1237 : IN CUSTODY MOTION TO WITHDRAW PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER O - i[ ) < 17: -q (7 ) ri - ? r. 3 d??,W ? O P - AND NOW, comes Defendant/Petitioner Jennifer R. Reath, by and through her attorney, Sheri D. Coover, Esquire and files the following MOTION TO WITHDRAW PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. On or around February 23, 2011, Defendant/Petitioner Jennifer R. Reath filed a MOTION TO MODIFY THE CURRENT CUSTODY ORDER. 2. The parties were not able to reach an agreement at the conciliation conference that was held on March 24, 2011 and the matter was scheduled for a hearing before the Honorable Judge Ebert to be held on July 6, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. 3. Defendant/Petitioner has expressed that the parties have been able to resolve their custody dispute between themselves and she no longer feels that it is necessary to pursue a hearing on the issues surrounding custody. 4. Undersigned counsel spoke to Father's attorney, Todd Sponseller, and expressed to him Petitioner's intention to withdraw her Petition to Modify Custody. He concurs with the foregoing motion. WHEREFORE, Mother requests that this Court allow her to withdraw her Petition to Modify Custody and cancel the hearing currently scheduled for July 6, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Judge Ebert. Sh¢ri D. Coover, Esquire Attorney ID 93285 44 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 BRANDON E. ROWE, Plaintiff/Respondent V. JENNIFER R. REATH, Defendant/Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CASE NO. 10-1237 IN CUSTODY VERIFICATION I, Sheri D. Coover, Esquire hereby certify that I have reviewed the statements contained in the foregoing PETITION TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ORDER with my client and hereby verify that she has indicated to me that the statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. I have made my client understand that I can be subject to the penalties of perjury, both civilly and criminally under federal and Pennsylvania law for any false statements con 4i ed herein. G-zo-2o11 ', Esquire Date BRANDON E. ROWE, Plaintiff/Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JENNIFER R. REATH, Defendant/Petitioner CASE NO. 10-1237 IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sheri D. Coover, Esquire hereby certify that on thisx}Nay of June, 2011, 1 caused the foregoing DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY/MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF CUSTODY ORDER to be served upon Respondent via United States First Class mail addressed as follows: Todd Sponseller, Esquire 223 Lincoln Way East, Suite A Chambersburg, PA 17201 Ily $Pbmitted, Sh J?li D. Coover, Esquire torneyID 93285 44 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 BRANDON E. ROWE, Plaintiff/Respondent V. JENNIFER R. REATH, Defendant/Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ' C= 7- CASE NO. 10-1237 m `-= IN CUSTODY - -T" ORDER 7 A w nouz _1h,s 100 d., ek 'j-j%` ? 7.611 1 After consideration of Petitioner's Motion to Withdraw Motion to Modify Custody, the Petitioner's Motion is GRANTED and the custody hearing currently scheduled for July 6, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Judge Ebert is hereby cancelled. Distribution List: Todd Sponseller, Esquire (Counsel for Plaintiff/Respondent) Sheri D. Coover, Esquire (Counsel for Defendant/Petitioner) o? O.Pi" 'q.V111 OllA