Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-3837RAYMOND A. MILLER : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. . NO. ~~ - ~8 3 ~ c ~.r~ l c> ° HOLLY C. MILLER :CIVIL ACTION -LAW ~ Defendant ~~~~' :CUSTODY ~ .: ' ` ~ ~~ {-- . s `_ ~- m "" ca ~~,t, , := o ~xy ; j _ ~. COMPLAINT °.p, c' -, `- ~~ ~' ~ V~ AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Raymond A. Miller, by and through his attorney, James W . Abraham, Esquire, Abraham Law Offices, LLC, Hummelstown, Pennsylvania, and files the following: 1. Plaintiff, Raymond A. Miller (hereinafter "Father") is an adult individual who resides at 107 Oneida Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Holly C. Miller (hereinafter "Mother") is an adult individual who resides at 38 Kensington Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Father and Mother are the natural parents of the following child: Madison June Miller, born November 22, 2004. 4. The child has resided with the following persons at the following locations for the past five (5) years: A. From on or about May, 2005 through January, 2008, with Father and Mother and Mother's four (4) older children from a prior marriage at Father's aforesaid address. B. From on or about January, 2008 through the present primarily with Mother and Mother's four (4) older children from a prior marriage. x'179.-00 P1 ~~' x.10( ~-'~~-y3 ~'~ 9' 5. Father has not participated as a party or witness, or in any other capacity, in any other litigation regarding the custody of the child in this or any other court. 6. Father does not know of any person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the child or claims to have custodial or visitation rights with respect to the child. 7. The best interests and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting Father and Mother shared legal custody as to all major decisions regarding the child's general health, education and welfare. 8. T'he best interests and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting Father primary physical custody of the child and granting Mother partial custody in that: A. Unless Father was working, Father was a full time caretaker of the child as much as Mother throughout the child's life prior to the parties' separation in January, 2008. B. Father has always been extremely active and involved in every aspect of the child's life on a daily basis, including but not limited to, the child's education and attending to the special needs of the child and adapting his home to accommodate the child's special needs. C. Father remains at the marital residence which is the place most familiar to the child as it is where the child has resided for most of her life. D. Father can provide a more stable and secure environment for the child as compared to Mother as Father lives alone and can provide the child with one hundred (100%) percent attention and care, which Mother cannot do as Mother has four (4) other children to care for from a prior marriage and Mother resides alone at the present time. E. As a special needs child, the child needs extra attention and individual care and Father can better provide said extra. attention and care as compared to Mother as Mother has four (4) other children to care for and attend to. F. Father believes and therefore avers that Mother has a boyfriend who stays overnight at Mother's residence on a regular basis and said situation is disruptive for the child. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Raymond A. Miller, respectfully requests Your Honorable Court to grant Father and Mother shared legal custody and to grant Father primary physical custody and Mother partial physical custody of the child. Respectfully submitted: James W. Abraham, Esquire Abraham Law Offices 45 East Main Street Hummelstown, PA 17036 (717) 566-9380 Attorney for Plaintiff, Raymond A. Miller DATE: 6110/10 VERIFICATION I, Raymond A. Miller the undersigned, hereby verify and confirm that the foregoing document and the statements made therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. T further understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of Title 18 Fa.C.S.A. Section 404 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: S ~ ~ r0 C- V~,~ ~ y~ Zo ~ o CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James W. Abraham, Esquire, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by certified mail upon the following person(s) at the following address(es) on the date stated below: Holly C. Miller 38 Kensington Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 DATE: 6/10/10 James W. Abraham, Esquire 0 RAYMOND A. MILLER PI_,-'~INTIFF b' . FIOLLY C. MILLER DI~;FF:NDANT <<1Ni) N()W. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PF,NNSYLVANIA 2010-3837 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT Monda~June_14, 2010 upon consideration of the attached Coml~~laint, it is hcreb~~ directed that parties and their respective. counsel appear before Dawn S. Sunday, Esq. ,the conciliator, at 39 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 _ on Thursday, July 22, 2010 ___ at 10:30 AM for aPre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute.; or if this can~~ot he accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to he heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief' orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: _ /s/ Dawn S. Sunday, Esq. ,~ Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of C'tunberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans ~~ith 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 he made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled COnff°l"C11Ce OI" hull"lllg. YOU SHOUL.,f.) "TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NO'h [-LAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE O~FIC~SET FOR"1~~~E-1 BELOW TO FIND OUT WI-iERE YOiJ CAN GET LEGAL I~iELP. c~ `~ <.', ~ '~ Cumberland County Bar Associar~nn ~ .. "{ ~ •!S , ~ e~~ ~ ~~'` le~ 32 South Bedford Street ~'~CY0.~C.eM ~-Lt~.J ~r11Cl~:arlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 (o•IS•~o ~ rna.:kd-lo ~ sLLnda,~. ~ x: _ r _ L _ -~ - - c G-; ,~ AUG 0 4 2010 RAYMOND A. MILLER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 2010-3837 CIVIL ACTION LAW ~r~. ~- HOLLY C. MILLER C~ ~:p ' ` ~_:~; Defendant IN CUSTODY ~ =y - O 4_'.: ._. ~ -__ ~ .. y.- .~, ~ . _, p ~ , _' ~ q ... ORDER OF COURT 1,j AND NOW, this 9~ day of ~~~,,o ~' 2010, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The Father, Raymond A. Miller, and the Mother, Holly C. Miller, shall have shared legal custody of Madison J. Miller, born November 22, 2004. Major decisions concerning the Child including, but not necessarily limited to, her health, welfare, education, religious training and upbringing shall be made jointly by the parties after discussion and consultation with a view toward obtaining and following a harmonious policy in the Child's best interest. Neither party shall impair the other party's rights to shared legal custody of the Child. Neither party shall attempt to alienate the affections of the Child from the other party. Each party shall notify the other of any activity or circumstance concerning the Child that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to the other. Day to day decisions shall be the responsibility of the parent then having physical custody. With regard to any emergency decisions which must be made, the parent having physical custody of the Child at the time of the emergency shall be permitted to make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby. However, that parent shall inform the other of the emergency and consult with him or her as soon as possible. In accordance with 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5309, each party shall be entitled to complete and full information from any doctor, dentist, teacher, professional or authority and to have copies of any reports or information given to either party as a parent as authorized by statute. 2. The parties shall engage in a course of therapeutic family counseling with a professional to be selected by agreement between the parties. The purpose of the counseling shall be to assist the parties in establishing sufficient communication and cooperation to enable them to effectively co- parent their Child. The parties shall participate in a minimum of four joint counseling sessions unless recommended otherwise by the counselor. The parties shall select the counselor within 10 days of the date of this Order and a counselor participating in the Father's insurance plan shall be selected if possible. The parties shall contact the selected counselor's office within 14 days of the date of this Order to schedule the initial sessions. Any costs of counseling which are not covered by insurance shall be apportioned with 80% being paid by the Father and 20% being paid by the Mother. 3. Pending further agreement of the parties or Order of Court, the Mother shall have primary physical custody of the Child and the Father shall have partial custody on alternating weekends from Friday at 5:30 p.m. through Sunday at 7:30 p.m., every Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. through Thursday at 8:30 a.m. or before school, and during weeks following the Mother's weekend periods of custody from Monday at 5:30 p.m. through Tuesday at 8:30 a.m. or before school. 4. The non-custodial parent shall be entitled to have reasonable liberal telephone contact with the Child. During the Mother's periods of custody, the parties agree that the Father may contact the Child by telephone up to two times per day. 5. The parties shall share having custody of the Child on holidays as follows: A. Christmas: The Christmas holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from Christmas Eve at 9:00 a.m. through Christmas Day at 9:00 a.m., and Segment B, which shall run from Christmas Day at 9:00 a.m. through December 26 at 9:00 a.m. In even numbered years, the Mother shall have custody of the Child during Segment A and the Father shall have custody during Segment B. In odd numbered years, the Father shall have custody of the Child during Segment A and the Mother shall have custody during Segment B. B. Alternating Holidays: The parties shall alternate having custody of the Child from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. on New Year's Day, Easter Sunday, Memorial Day, Independence Day (observed), Labor Day and Thanksgiving Day. In even numbered years, the Mother shall have custody of the Child on New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving Day and the Father shall have custody on Easter Sunday and Independence Day (observed). In odd numbered years, the Father shall have custody of the Child on New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving and the Mother shall have custody on Easter Sunday and Independence Day (observed). C. Mother's Dav/Father's Dav: In every year, the Mother shall have custody of the Child for Mother's Day and the Father shall have custody on Father's Day from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. D. The holiday custody schedule shall supersede and take precedence over the regular custody schedule. 6. Each parent shall be entitled to have custody of the Child for vacation every summer for two uninterrupted weeks, to be scheduled nonconsecutively unless otherwise agreed between the parties. Vacation periods of custody shall be scheduled to include that parent's regular weekend period of custody unless otherwise agreed. The parties shall provide each other with at least 30 days advance notice of a period of vacation custody. The parent providing notice first shall be entitled to preference on his or her selection of vacation dates. In the event a parent intends to remove the Child from the local area for a vacation period of custody, that parent shall notify the other parent in advance of the address and telephone number where the Child can be contacted. 7. After the parties have completed the course of co-parenting counseling as provided in this Order, counsel for either party may contact the conciliator to schedule an additional custody conciliation conference, if necessary to further address the custodial issues addressed at the initial custody conciliation conference. 8. Neither party shall do or say anything which may estrange the Child from the other parent, injure the opinion of the Child as to the other parent, or hamper the free and natural development of the Child's love and respect for the other parent. Both parties shall ensure that third parties having contact with the Child comply with this provision. 9. This Order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a custody conciliation conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. cc: ~ James W. Abraham, Esquire -Counsel for Father ~ Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire -Counsel for Mother ~pr~5 /wa•r`Gd '~~/0~10 ,e/GC BY THE COURT, RAYMOND A. MILLER Plaintiff vs. HOLLY C. MILLER IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2010-3837 CIVIL ACTION LAW Defendant IN CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT 1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Madison J. Miller November 22, 2004 Mother 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on July 22, 2010, with the following individuals in attendance: the Father, Raymond A. Miller, with his counsel, James W. Abraham, Esquire, and the Mother, Holly C. Miller, with her counsel, Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. ~°lCL- Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN CUSTODY COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT REGARDING RELOCATION 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337 (d)(1) This proposal of relocation involves the following child/children: C? <a ?Q --s --+ MW ="" rw ??? CHILD'S NAME CHILD'S AGE CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: Madison J. Miller 7 38 Kensington Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 I have received a notice of proposed relocation and: 1. 1 do not object to the relocation and I do not object to the modification of the custody order consistent with the proposal for revised custody schedule as attached to the notice. 2. 1 do not object to the relocation, but I do object to modification of the custody order, and I request that a hearing be scheduled: El a. Prior to allowing (name of child/children) to relocate. F-i b. After the child/children relocate. 3. 1 do object to the relocation and I do object to the modification of the custody order, and I further request that a hearing be held on both matters prior to the relocation taking place. I understand that in addition to checking (2) or (3) above, I must also file this notice with the court in writing and serve it on the other party by certified mail, return receipt requested. If I fail to do so within 30 days of my receipt of the proposed relocation notice, I shall be foreclosed from objecting to the relocation. HOLLY C. MILLER, V. Plaintiff NO. 10-3837 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW RAYMOND A. MILLER, Defendant i r I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document 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. Date: A-rt?T-? \ 1 lQ . Zo. Z _ w RAY D A. MILLER Y IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HOLLY C. MILLER, Plaintiff V. RAYMOND A. MILLER, Defendant NO. 09-2081 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY C-) N t.9 t-a m ? rV t 3> ? .d ORDER OF COURT RE: Plaintiffs Proposed Relocation 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337 AND NOW, this A&-t? day of , 2012 upon Motion of Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff, Holly C. Miller, and pursuant to the provisions of 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(g)(1), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that an expedited hearing on Plaintiffs Proposed Relocation is scheduled for the 30V4 day of 2012 at 3d o'clock m. in Courtroom of the Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, PA 17013. BY THE COURT: KEVIN A. HESS, P.J. Distribution to: Attorney for Plaintiff: Attorney for Defendant: /Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire /James W. Abraham, Esquire 3448 Trindle Road 45 East Main Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Hummelstown, PA 17036 eO?,e--s ,wa.W q1a&11,1- fell 6 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HOLLY CATHLEEN LUCENTE, now known as, HOLLY C. MILLER, Plaintiff V. RAYMOND A. MILLER, Defendant NO. 09-2081 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT RE: Plaintiff's Proposed Relocation 23 Pa.C.S.A. , 5337 C'7 G r1i zM :Z;o U.)r- C C X CD C rv -c N W c.n 0 AND NOW, this 2 day of rn!!±7 , 2012 the expedited hearing on Plaintiff's Proposed Relocation scheduled for May 30, 2012 is rescheduled for the 25th day of May, 2012 at 2:00 o'clock p.m. in Courtroom 4 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, PA 17013. Distribution to: BY THE COURT: KEVI A. HESS, P.J. "i rn-- C) Attorney for Plaintiff: Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant: Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 P P, 0 -f HO RAYMOND A. MILER, Plaintiff 2012 it iTAk IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA iS A?`Y : NO. 103837 CIVIL P SYLVANIA k-= HOLLY C. MILLER, (- Defendant IN CUSTODY cnr-- -- -<m PRAECIP'E FOR WITHbYtAW OF APPEARA -a TO THE PROTHONOTARY:' .- L Please withdraw the appearance of James W. Abraham, Esquire, 45 East Main Street, Hummelstown, PA 17036, as counsel of record on behalf of Defendant, Raymond A. Miller in the above captioned action. Respectfully submitted, JAMES W. ADYAHAM, ESQL E DATE: F-02 90 / 2, James W. Abraham, Esquire 45 East Main Street Hummelstown, PA 17036 (717)566-9380 PRAECIPE TO EWER E TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance to represent Defendant, Raymond A. Miller, in the above captioned action. DATE: 5-- ? - 2,0 1 Z' Respectfully submitted, Joanne Hkaison [:lough, Attorney ID No.: 36461 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 ZO/ZO 39Cd H9n0-10 3NNVOr Z689LELLTL 9Z:IZ ZLOZ/6Z/b0 A r r HOLLY C. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER, : Defendant : NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM n47 XM -? ?ry ?? Ti i I RAYMOND A. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF =:0 CO> -c -0 C;: Do Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIr6::o : , _o V. : CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, Defendant : NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT IN RE: CONSOLIDATION AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2012, upon consideration of the Notice of Proposed Relocation filed by Plaintiff Holly C. Miller at No. 2009,7M I Civil Term (divorce action), and the Counter-Affidavit Regarding Relocation filed by Plaintiff Raymond A. Miller at No. 2010-3837 Civil Term (custody action), with respect to the proposal of Holly C. Miller to relocate with the parties' child, Madison J. Miller (d.o.b. November 22, 2904), the above-captioned cases are consolidated sua spon to by the court for purposes of consideration of the custody relocation issue. BY THE COURT, ?L44 V Wesley O 1'r., S.J. Harrison Joswe Clough, Esq. 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Raymond A. Miller v Diane G. RadcW Esq. 3448 Tribe Road Cam Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Holly C. Miller Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esq. Turner and O'Connell 4701 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Courtesy Copy Attorney for Richard Vincent Lucente at No. 02-5647 Civil Term 4"es ^a • l e-d A"- 1 a r i c J t ?' r' +. 11 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HOLLY C. MILLER, Plaintiff V. RAYMOND A. MILLER, Defendant NO. 09-2081 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW DIVORCE/CUSTODY NOTICE OF PROPOSED RELOCATION 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337 Submitted by: Holly C. Miller, Plaintiff PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED JUDGE The Honorable Kevin A. Hess, P.J. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire (Supreme Court ID No 32112) 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 737-0100 Facsimile: (717) 975-0697 Email: dianeradcliffCa)-comcast.net PRIOR ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: James W. Abraham, Esquire 45 East Main Street Hummelstown, PA 17036 Telephone: 717-566-9380 Facsimile: 717-566-9385 Email: abelaw comcast.net DEFENDANT: Raymond A. Miller 107 Oneida Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Cell Phone: (717) 319-6394 Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire Supreme Court ID Number 32112 3348 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: 717.737.0100 • Fax: 717.975.0697 • Email: dianeradcliff(aD-comcast. net Attorney for Holly C. Miller IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HOLLY C. MILLER, Plaintiff NO. 10-3837 CIVIL V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW RAYMOND A. MILLER, IN CUSTODY Defendant PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF PROPOSED RELOCATION 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337 1. The address of the intended new residence: • 14903 East 15th Spokane Valley, WA 99037 2. The mailing address, if not the same as the address of the intended new residence: • Same 3. Names and ages of the individuals in the new residence, including individuals who intend to live in the new residence: -2- Persons in the New Residence 4 5 Name Age Current or Intended • Anthony Anderman 45 Current • Natalie Anderman 17 Current • Kylie Anderman 15 Current • Anthony Anderman 11 Current • Holly C. Miller 43 Intended • Gabrielle B. Lucente 16 Intended • Dominique P. Lucente 15 Intended • Vincent R. Lucente 13 Intended • Gino R. Lucente 11 Intended • Madison J. Miller 7 Intended Full or Part Time Alternating Weekends Alternating Weekends Alternating Weekends Full Time Full Time Full Time Full Time Full Time Full Time The home telephone number of the intended new residence, if available: • (509) 844-6229 The name of the new school district and school(s): New School District and School(s) • Central Valley School District • Central Valley High School for Gabrielle and Dominique • Evergreen Middle School for Vincent and Gino • Adams Elementary School for Madison -3- 6. The date of the proposed relocation: • June 30, 2012 7. The reasons for the proposed relocation: (A) Financial Current Situation - I am provided Child Support from both fathers and I babysit on a part-time basis. With this income and the economic times, I cannot guarantee a stable income. In addition, the parents are not consistent with payment, and in some cases, checks are considered non efficient funding and I cover those costs. Due to my low income, I receive State assistance (Medical Insurance, Food Stamps, School Lunch assistance). I have submitted an application for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Due to my recent divorce; I have been placed in a financial situation that has placed in a stressful situation to provide for my children. Future Opportunity - The move will give me an opportunity and help me become finically free of debt (over-time). By not having the amount of debt, I will be able to provide for my children more easily without the stress of worrying about where I will receive the finances to assist with their growing needs. Moreover, I will be able to free myself of State Assistance. (B) Career Current Situation - Since my divorces and the amount of time I work with babysitting, I have been unable to attend higher education to glean further knowledge, skills, and abilities to further my career. Future Opportunity - My goal and passion will be to continue the education in civil service and assist others; in example, the elderly and children with special needs who cannot provide for themselves. I have, in the past, received numurouse certification classes in child development with special needs and provided care for the elderly. With my past experience, I will attend further certification classes and in higher education settings to enhance my skills, knowledge, and abilities to pursue my passion to help other. With this, I will be able to be employable. By obtaining a job, I will be -4- able to attain social security, retirement benefits, medical and dental. By procuring these benefits and an enhanced monthly wage, it will assist me in providing for my children's needs and future. (C) Extended Family Current Situation - I was raised in Lake Stevens Washington; therefor, my family (i.e., Mother, four brothers, and one sister) have lived in Washington State for approximately 40 years. I moved from Washington to pursue my first husband career. With this move, my family has been fragmented. I have been unable to spend quality time with them and my children have been unable to shape a relationship with my mom, brothers, sister, cousins and their families. In addition, my mom recently suffered a stroke. This is concerning, due to my distance from her and my children's relationship with her. Future Opportunity - By moving closer to my family, I will be able to reestablish a relationship with my mother, brothers, and sister. My children will be able begin establishing family relationship and to have a better understanding my family values (i.e., family gatherings, church, culture etc.). (D) Future Opportunity - By moving to Washington and living with my fiance Anthony Alan Anderman, this will give me an opportunity to live a healthy and stable life. Anthony and I have known each other for approximately 25 year. Anthony works for the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission. He educates Law Enforcement officers and Corrections officers in basic and advanced skills, knowledge, and abilities. He is well respected among his peers, supervisors, and Chief's and Sheriff's in the State of Washington. He teaches part-time as an adjunct professor for Webster University at Fairchild AFB. He has earned his Bachelors and Master of Science in the Adult education from Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. He began his career working in a facility that housed Juvenile Offenders as a supervisors and a mentor. He also is a part-time consultant for a company contracted through the Department of Justice and works with military and law enforcement officers worldwide. He is divorced and has three children. Honorably, he served in the United States Marine Corp and is a veteran of the Golf War. -5- My children have established a quality, trustworthy, secure relationship with Anthony. They call him by Tony and enjoy Tony's presence and always look forward to his visits he makes to Pennsylvania, phone calls, and Skype sessions. Tony has successfully, overthe lastthree years, built a relationship of mentorship and friendship with them. He has not taken the father role and has made it very clear, that he is there to support their mom, and to be a sounding board for life inquisitions. My two boys and Tony's son interact via Xbox Live. Tony brings with him maturity, life goals, and family values. He believes in educations, ethics, and fairness. By moving to Spokane, I will not have worry about rent and other bills that come with renting or owning a home. Tony is competent in this area and believes in financial freedom and in paying off debt fully and living life for the family. By being with Tony, this will give me the chance to move closer to my passion and working with those in need, developing a stable career for myself so that I can better provide for my children growing needs. 8. A proposal for a revised custody schedule: The Plaintiff's proposed revised custody schedule is attached hereto, marked Exhibit 1 and made a part hereof. 9. Any other information which the party proposing the relocation deems appropriate: • The school calendar and information regarding the schools is attached hereto, marked Exhibit 2 and made a part hereof • There is a chapter of Little People of America in the vicinity of my proposed residence. 10. A counter-affidavit in the form provided under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337 subsection (d)(1) which can be used to object to the proposed relocation and the modification of a custody order is attached hereto marked Exhibit and made a part hereof. 11. The non-relocating party is advised that if the non-relocating party does not file with the court an objection to the proposed relocation within 30 days after receipt of the notice, that party shall be foreclosed from objecting to the relocation. 12. If any of the information required by 23 Pa.C.S.A. is not known when this notice is sent but is later made known to the party proposing the relocation, then that party -6- shall promptly inform every individual who received notice under this subsection. Dated: April 5, 2012 Respectfully submitted, DI E G. DCLIFF, QUIRE Sup a Court ID #32112 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: (717) 737-0100 Attorney for Plaintiff, Holly C. Miller -7- VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document 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. Date: 12- HOLLY C. MILLER CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire, hereby certify that on April 5, 2012, 1 am serving a copy of the foregoing pleading upon the following persons by mailing same by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: James W. Abraham, Esquire 45 East Main Street Hummelstown, PA 17036 (Attorney for Defendant) Raymond A. Miller 107 Oneida Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Defendant) Dated: April 5, 2012 BQANE G. DCLIFP;`ESQUIRE I Supre ourt ID #32112 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: (717) 737-0100 Attorney for Plaintiff, Holly C, Miller -9- EXHIBIT 1 PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED REVISED CUSTODY SCHEDULE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HOLLY C. MILLER, V. Plaintiff : NO. 09-2081 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW RAYMOND A. MILLER, DIVORCE/CUSTODY Defendant This Order is entered regarding Plaintiff, Holly C. Miller ((hereinafter referred to as "Mother") and Raymond A. Miller (hereinafter referred to as "Father") and their child, Madison J. Miller, age 7, born on October 22, 2004, (hereinafter referred to as the "Child"). 2. The parents shall share and have joint legal custody of the child. Joint legal custody means the right of both parents to control and to share in making decisions of importance in the life of their child, including educational, medical, and religious decisions. Both parents shall be entitled to equal access to the child's school, medical, dental and other important records. As soon as practical after the receipt by a parent, copies of the child's school schedules, special events notifications, report cards, and similar items shall be provided to the other parent. Despite this Order, if any service provider or professional still requires a release of a parent to access the child's educational, religious or medical information, both parents shall execute a release within ten (10) days of any written request by a parent or his or her counsel. Notwithstanding that both parents share legal custody, non-major decisions involving the child's day to day living shall be made by the parent then having custody, consistent with the other provisions of this Order. 3. Mother will have primary physical custody of the child, Madison J. Miller, and is allowed to move with the child to Spokane Washington on June 30, 2012. 4. Until June 30, 2012, Father will have partial physical custody in accordance with the schedule as set forth in the August 9, 2010 Order of Court. 5. Effective June 30, 2012, Father shall have periods of partial physical custody as follows: (A) In the summer of 2012, from June 30, 2012 until fourteen (14) days preceding the first day of school for the child in the fall. Mother shall be entitled to exercise a three (3) consecutive day visit with the child in Pennsylvania during the month of July, provided she notifies Father of her intention to do so at least four (4) weeks in advance of the visit. (B) Starting with the summer of 2013 and in summers thereafter, from the 7th day following the last day of school until fourteen (14) days preceding the first day of school for the child in the fall. (C) During each Easter/Spring school break, (or the longer of the two if exercised separately) from the first full day off school to the last day off school. (D) During Thanksgiving from the first day off school until the last day off school. (E) Christmas, in 2012, from December 26th through January 1 and each and every even year thereafter. In odd years, from December 23 Id through January 1St (F) During each school year, Father may exercise custody for one (1) weekend per month in Spokane, Washington from 6:00 p.m. Friday through 6:00 p.m. Sunday, provided he gives Mother four (4) weeks advanced notice before traveling to Spokane. Father shall not exercise his monthly weekends on the weekend immediately preceding Thanksgiving Day or on the weekend prior to the first day the child have off school preceding Christmas so that Mother may use those weekends to celebrate the holidays with the child. 6. Unless otherwise agreed between the parties, Mother shall pay for the child's airline tickets to return child to Father at the beginning of each holiday or summer vacation and Father shall pay for the child's airline tickets to return the child to Mother's custody 7. Father shall be entitled to contact his child daily by either placing a telephone call at 5:00 p.m. PST (8:00 p.m. EST), or initiating a Skype session at 5:00 p.m., PST (8:00 p.m. EST), or such other time as the parties shall mutually agree. Father shall give Mother at least three (3)days advanced notice before each Skype session so that Mother knows to make her computer available for the sessions. Mother shall have reasonable and regular telephone and/or email access to the child during the summer and holiday custody periods with Father, with special emphasis on Mother having a telephone call with the child on Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. EXHIBIT 2 SCHOOL CALENDAR AND SCHOOL INFORMATION Centra'V'alley School District2012-2013 Calendar September M T W T F= 10 17 24 4 11 18 25 6 7 1? C 13 14 19 20 21 26 27 28 (18) October M T W T F 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 22 e 23 a 24 * 25, * 26, 29 30 31 (23) November M T W T F 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 19 20 •21 26 27 28 29 t 30 (19) December M T W T F 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 (12) r FM SEPTEMBER September 3 ..................................... Labor Day September 4............ Employee Orientation Day September5 ................................School Begins September 13 ..... Late Start Collaboration Begins OCTOBER October 23-26 .......Middle School Conferences NOVEMBER November 12 .............. Veterans Day Observed November 14-20 .........Elementary Conferences November 21 ................................Early Release November 22-23 .................Thanksgiving Break November 30 ..................... First Trimester Ends DECEMBER December 3 ................ Second Trimester Begins December 19-January 1 ............... Winter Break JANUARY January 1 ..................................New Year's Day January 2 ................................. School Resumes January 21 ................... Martin Luther King Day January 25 ..........................First Semester Ends January 28 ................... Second Semester Begins FEBRUARY February 15 ........................Snow Make-up Day February 18 .............................. Presidents' Day February 20-22........ Middle School Conferences MARCH March 13 ....................... Second Trimester Ends March 14 ....................... Third Trimester Begins March 22- 29 ...............Elementary Conferences APRIL April 1-5 ....................................... Spring Break MAY May 24 ............................... Snow Make-up Day May 27 ....................................... Memorial Day JUNE June 6........ Barker High School Graduation Day June 8 .......................................Graduation Day June 14 ...........................................School Ends June 24 .......................... Summer School Begins JULY July 4 ....................................Independence Day July 4,5 ................................No Summer School July 26 .............................. Summer School Ends January E M T W T F G E 2 3 4 N 7 8 9 10 11 D 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 `25 ? 28 29 30 31 (21) July M T W T F 1 2 3' 8 9 10 11 12 isit cmd org for required 15 16 17 18 19 state testing dates. 22 23 24 25 X 26 29 30 31 • Employee Orientation Day IL School Begins & Ends No School m- Beginning of Trimester Grading Period 21 End of Trimester Grading Period • Early Release E Semester Ends ? Semester Begins No $Oooaf,oiless Snow Matte-up Day O Late Start Collaboration Begins Se Elementary Conferences • Middle School Conferences Summer School Begins X Summer School Ends February M T W 1 T F 1 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 19 e 20 21 e22 25 26 27 28 (18) March M T W T F 1 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 -/M13 '; 14 15 18 19 20 21 to 22 25 26 !!27 28 1c 29 (21) April M T W T F 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 May M T (17) W T F 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 1111111111 D E 29 30 31 (21) June M T W T F 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 "•14 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 t IV) August M T W T F i I 1 11 2 5 6 7' 81 9 12 13 14 15 16 1911 20 21 ' 22 23 26?_ 27 281 29 30 Al-ch 1, 2011 Ytrulia Greenacres, WA LOCAL ? Buy Rent Advice Mortgage Loci Don._. t Forget to Check Your 3 2012 Credit Scores - Start Your Trial Central Valley School District 356 School District Overview Address Profile 19307 E Cataldo Ave Grades: PK-12 Greenacres, WA 99016 Schools: 22 (509) 228-5400 Students: 12,342 District Website District type: Public View maa Parent Reviews (more info) View homes in this district Central Valley School District 356 22 Public Schools Private and Catholic schools are not administered by this school district. We have included other nearby schools to help you find schools in this area. Elementary Middle High SCHOOL NAME TYPE CLASS SIZE PARENT REVIEWS Sunrise Elementary School Public 21 Liberty Lake Elementary School Public 18 Chester Elementary School Public 22 Ponderosa Elementary School Public 19 Summit School Public 15 South Pines Elementary School Public 17 Greenacres Elementary School Public 18 Opportunity Elementary School Public 18 University Elementary School Public 14 Adams Elementary School Public 17 Mcdonald Elementary School Public 15 Progress Elementary School Public 21 http://www.trulia.comischool-districtlWA-Spokane_CountylCentra]_Valley_School_District 356/ 1/27/2012 SCHOOL NAME TYPE CLASS SIZE PARENT REVIEWS < Prev C1 2 3 4 Next > Test Scores for Central Valley School District 366 Central Valley School [district 366 ,HSPE Scores (2010 - Grade 10) 4 100 C 90 80 o 70 c 'v 80 50 40 30 v 10 E o ag HSPE' Test Scores Grade Level: 10 Test Year: 2010 kQ) Central Valley School District 356 ) Washington (L * In 2009-2010 Washington used the High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE) to test students in reading, math, writing and science in grade 10. The HSPE is a standards-based test, which means it measures how well students are mastering specific skills defined for each grade by the state of Washington. The grade 10 HSPE is a high school graduation requirement. The goal is for all students to score at or above the state standard. http://www.trulia.com/school-districtlWA-Spokane_County/Central_Valley_School_District 356/ 1/27/2012 School Profile for Evergreen Middle School Test scores Enrollment Programs Resources 6. c a Y K 4 c Evergreen Middle School Scores (2010 - Grade B) 100 u E e 90 00 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 MSP* Test Scores Grade Level: $ Test Year: 2010 d)Evergreen Middle School ILO) Central Valley School District 356 ?W I Washington School Profile for Adams Elementary School Test scores Enrollment Programs Resources Adams Elementary School Scores (1010 - Grade 3) 0 100 90- co 80- 70 60 u 50 w 40 o IM _c 20 10 ;x 0 MSP* Test Scores Grade Level: s Test Year: 2010 Q%Adams Elementary School MCentral Valley School District 356 L Washington EXHIBIT 3 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337 (d)(1) COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HOLLY C. MILLER, Plaintiff NO. 10-3837 CIVIL V. RAYMOND A. MILLER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT REGARDING RELOCATION 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337 (d)(1) This proposal of relocation involves the following child/children: CHILD'S NAME CHILD'S AGE CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: Madison J. Miller 7 38 Kensington Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 I have received a notice of proposed relocation and: 1. 1 do not object to the relocation and I do not object to the modification of the custody order consistent with the proposal for revised custody schedule as attached to the notice. 2. 1 do not object to the relocation, but I do object to modification of the custody order, and I request that a hearing be scheduled: El a. Prior to allowing (name of child/children) to relocate. b. After the child/children relocate. 3. 1 do object to the relocation and I do object to the modification of the custody order, and I further request that a hearing be held on both matters prior to the relocation taking place. I understand that in addition to checking (2) or (3) above, I must also file this notice with the court in writing and serve it on the other party by certified mail, return receipt requested. If I fail to do so within 30 days of my receipt of the proposed relocation notice, I shall be foreclosed from objecting to the relocation. I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document 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. Date: RAYMOND A. MILLER HOLLY C. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER, : -?, Defendant : NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM rZ x-C: o CD ¢? RAYMOND A. MILLER : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF , Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA M` V. : CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, Defendant : NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT IN RE: CONSMIDA11M AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2012, upon consideration of the Notice of Proposed Relocation fled by Plaintiff Holly C. Miller at No. 2009-2081 Civil Term (divorce action), and the Counter-Affidavit Regarding Relocation filed by Plaintiff Raymond A. Miller at No. 2010-3837 Civil Term (custody action), with respect to the proposal of Holly C. Miller to relocate with the parties' child, Madison J. Miller (d.o.b. November 22, 2004), the above-captioned cases are consolidated sua slponte by the court for purposes of consideration of the custody relocation issue. BY THE COURT, A.] .lr., . . ? Joanne Harrison Clow, Esq. 3820 Market Street Camp hilt, PA 17011 Athmney for Raymond A. Miller c/Diam G. Radcliff Esq. 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attmwy for Holly C. Miller ? Johouna. H. Rump, Esq. Ting and 4'Comell 4701 North Front Street Hwfisbur& PA 17110 Coufesy Copy Attorney for Richard Vincent Lucente at No. 02-5647 Civil Tenn. iteq/ s?a3/ia i HOLLY C. MILLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER, NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM Defendant : RAYMOND A. MILLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM Defendant : HOLLY CATHLEEN LUCENTE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS NO. 02-5647 CIVIL TERM RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant IN DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of May, 2012, upon consideration of the relocation requests in the above-captioned cases and following an initial period of hearing which has not yet been completed, the record shall remain open. It is noted that at the time of adjournment on today's date Respondent Lucente had presented (out of order) the testimony of a psychotherapist, Mary Jo Devlin, and that Petitioner had secured the admission of two exhibits, Petitioner's Exhibit 1 (letter) and Petitioner's Exhibit 2 (e-mail). No other witnesses had been called, and no other exhibits have been identified or admitted. Counsel are requested to contact the Court's secretary for purposes of scheduling additional periods of hearing in these cases. By the Court, J. esley Old Jr. (,SS%J. 1' Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 For Holly C. Miller r? Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 For Raymond A. Miller 'Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esquire Turner and O'Connell 4701 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 For Richard Vincent Lucente cn mlc Cones tka. led kllel/.) 4" HOLLY C. MILLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER, Defendant NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM RAYMOND A. MILLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, Defendant NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM HOLLY CATHLEEN LUCENTE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, Defendant NO. 02-5647 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 21st day of June, 2012, upon consideration of the request to relocate in the above captioned cases, and following a third day of hearing which has not yet been completed, the record shall remain open. A final day of hearing in this case is scheduled for Monday, June 25, 2012, commencing at 9:30 a.m., in the courtroom in the Old Courthouse, Carlisle, Cumberland County, 3 t;, -•? Pennsylvania. - aa = By the Court, C.1 -fro a =0 3 J. Wesley 04,,e+r, J2!., S. J. Ln ?' -? ILA . H. MILLER v. R. MILLER, R. MILLER v. H. MILLER, MILLER v. LUCENTE Y Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire For Holly C. Miller v Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire For Raymond A. Miller I/ Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esquire For Richard Vincent Lucente (/ Court Administration vae Cppl e.5 Aw . `Ie I-O/a(Ol/'i, ?L. HOLLY C. MILLER, Plaintiff V. RAYMOND A. MILLER, Defendant RAYMOND A. MILLER, Plaintiff V. HOLLY MILLER, Defendant HOLLY CATHLEEN LUCENTE, Plaintiff V. RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM V IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) NO. 02-5647 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of the relocation request in the above captioned cases, and following a fourth day of hearing which has not yet been completed, the record shall remain open. The Court will resume on Tuesday, June 26, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in the hearing room on the fifth floor of the courthouse in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By the Court, J W sley Ole,r' Jr. , Diane G. Radcliff Esquire n - im N For Holly C. Miller q v Joanne H. Clough, Esquire ?x ?` LA tV For Raymond A. Miller -<3> - ic:) Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esquire 12 a' E r mC-) s ' For Richard Vincent Lucente =? N ?__, b c n Court Administrator :vae HOLLY C. MILLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER, NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM Defendant RAYMOND A. MILLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM Defendant : HOLLY CATHLEEN LUCENTE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS NO. 02-5647 CIVIL TERM RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant IN DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of the requests for relocation of children in these cases, the record is declared closed and the matter is taken under advisement. Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire For Holly C. Miller Y""Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire C For Raymond A. Miller - c- C n rn - V Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esquire F Ri h or c ard Vincent Lucente -E 00 CS, mlc ! _ evP. e3 N?lA I-l ed ?C ss Z By the Court. RAYMOND A. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF c ;9 C' Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN IA o= =-n ?= ro c:) v : CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) . : r <a -o -n HOLLY MILLER, ?? :3c ` ' o?' Defendant : NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM •" 4 C?n 77 IN RE: CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2012, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. This Order is entered regarding Plaintiff, Holly [C.] Miller (hereinafter referred to as Mother), and Raymond A. Miller (hereinafter referred to as Father) and their child, Madison J. Miller, born November 22, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as Child), and shall supersede all prior custody orders. 2. The parents shall share and have joint legal custody of the child. Joint legal custody means the right of both parents to control and to share in making decisions of importance in the life of their child, including educational, medical, and religious decisions. Both parents shall be entitled to equal access to the child's school, medical, dental and other important records. As soon as practical after the receipt by a parent, copies of the child's school schedules, special events notifications, report cards, and similar items shall be provided to the other parent. Despite this provision, if any service provider or professional still requires a release of a parent to access the child's educational, religious or medical information, both parents shall execute a release within ten days of any written request by a parent or his or her counsel. { Notwithstanding that both parents share legal custody, non-major decisions involving the child's day to day living shall be made by the parent then having custody, consistent with the other provisions of this Order. 3. Mother shall have primary physical custody of the child. 4. Father shall have periods of partial physical custody as follows: (A) in the summer of 2012, from June 29, 2012, until fourteen days preceding the first day of school for the child in the fall (being the first school day for any of Mother's children). Mother shall be entitled to exercise a three consecutive day visit with the child in Pennsylvania during the month of July. (B) Starting with the summer of 2013 and in the summers thereafter, from the 7th day following the last day of school (being the last day of school for any of Mother's children) until fourteen days preceding the first day of school for the child in the fall (being the first day of school for any of Mother's children); provided, that Mother shall be entitled to exercise a three consecutive day visit with the child in Pennsylvania during the month of July, if she notifies Father of her intention to do so at least four weeks in advance of the visit. (C) During each Easter/Spring school break (or the longer of the two if exercised separately) from the first full day off school to the last day off school. (D) During each Christmas school break, from the first full day off school to the last day off school; provided, that the period in the forthcoming 2012-13 season shall extend to January 3, 2013. (E) At such times as Father is visiting in the Spokane Valley, Washington, vicinity. 4. Mother shall bear the full cost, including transportation expenses, of custody exchanges. 5. The noncustodial parent shall be entitled to contact his or her child at least daily, by the means of his or her choice, and at the tunes of his or her choice, said means and times to be noticed at least a week in advance; the child shall be permitted to contact the noncustodial parent at any time, by any means. 6. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the parties from deviating from the terms of this order by mutual consent. Diane G. Radcliff, Esq. 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Holly C. Miller Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Raymond A. Miller ??d 041e-% ?a a oti ? pb(,? le C r-I t. s C r t?11? N ?G ?d Cyr- --i 7j BY THE COURT,, HOLLY CATHLEEN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUCENTE, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) V. ; RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, Defendant : NO. 2002-5647 CIVIL TERM HOLLY C. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER, Defendant : NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM RAYMOND A. MILLER, Plaintiff V. HOLLY MILLER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY RELOCATION BEFORE OLER, S.J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of the Notices of Proposed Relocation filed by Holly C. Miller (formerly Lucente), and of the Counter- Affidavits Regarding Relocation filed by Richard Vincent Lucente and Raymond A. Miller, following a hearing held on May 25, June 20-21, and June 25-26, 2012, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the proposed relocations of the parties' children to Spokane Valley, Washington, are authorized. Revised custody orders in the forms attached to the accompanying opinion will be entered of even date herewith. A FURTHER HEARING is scheduled to determine whether the terms of the revised orders should be continued or modified based upon the circumstances then existing on Wednesday, January 2, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. J. Diane G. Radcliff, Esq. 3448 Trindle Road 4, 090A Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Holly C. Miller (formerly Lucente) Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esq. Turner and O'Connell 4701 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Richard Vincent Lucente J Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Raymond A. Miller c-) . .?3 N ? --4 In r~ C -NCB'` ',*.3 73 3° r CM - C1 C) E, cn BY THE COURT, HOLLY CATHLEEN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUCENTE, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) V. RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, Defendant : NO. 2002-5647 CIVIL TERM HOLLY C. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER, Defendant : NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM RAYMOND A. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ZV. : CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, Defendant : NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY RELOCATION BEFORE OLER, S.J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, S.J., June 29, 2012. These custody relocation cases illustrate the dilemma posed when a parent wishes to relocate with his or her children and (a) it is clearly in the children's best interest to remain together and in the primary custody of that parent, (b) a separation of the children from the other parent will nevertheless have a detrimental effect upon them, and (c) the 1 Parent who seeks authorization to relocate the children will be moving regardless of whether the court permits the relocation of the children. Specifically, herein, the mother of four children by one respondent and of one child by a second respondent, both of whom are exemplary fathers, has filed notices of proposed relocation from Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, to Spokane Valley, Washington,' in order to reside with her fianc6, to improve what she regards as an untenable financial situation, to utilize the relative independence thus achieved to obtain part-time employment and further her education, and to benefit from the association with members of her family who live in Washington State, and has credibly represented that she will be moving regardless of whether the relocation of the children is authorized. A five-day hearing was held in this matter on May 25, June 20-21, and June 25-26, 2012. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the relocation of the children will be approved, subject to a further hearing in January of 2013, to determine, inter alia, whether Petitioner's marital, educational, occupational, financial, and housing representations have been carried out. STATEMENT OF FACTS Petitioner is Holly C. Miller (formerly Lucente), 43, who currently resides in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Respondent Richard Vincent Lucente, 46, resides in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Respondent Raymond A. Miller, 54, resides in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. All three Cumberland County residences are within a few miles of each other and in the same school district. ' Notice of Proposed Relocation, No. 2002-5647 Civil Term, filed April 5, 2012; Notice of Proposed Relocation, No. 2009-2081 Civil Term, filed April 5, 2012. The latter Notice of Proposed filed at a divorce action between the mother and father, and the d's b to the relocation was filed at the parties' custody action. Counter-Affidavit 3837 Civil Tenn, filed Regarding Relocation, No. 2010- rm, April 18, 2012. The court has consolidated the custody and divorce actions for purposes of the relocation issue. Order of Court, Nos. 2009-2081 Civil Term (in divorce) and 2010-3837 Civil Term (in custody), May 23, 2012. 2 Petitioner was married on December 11, 1992, to Respondent Lucente. Four children were born of the marriage: Gabriele B. Lucente (d.o.b. April 14, 1995); Dominique P. Lucente (d.o.b. August 12, 1996); Vincent R. Lucente (d.o.b. July 16, 1998); and Gino R. Lucente (d. o. b. March 11, 2000). Petitioner and Respondent Lucente separated in November of 2002, and were divorced on May 30, 2003. Following her divorce from Respondent Lucente, Petitioner married Respondent Miller on July 31, 2004. One child was born of the marriage: Madison J. Miller (d.o.b. November 22, 2004). Petitioner and Respondent Miller separated in January of 2008 and were divorced on February 23, 2011. Petitioner is currently engaged to Anthony Anderman, 45, whom she knew in high school and who resides in Spokane Valley, Washington. He has three children who are in his partial custody on alternating weekends. As of June 30, 2012, Petitioner will have relocated her residence to that of Mr. Anderman in the State of Washington. With respect to custody of the four Lucente children, the existing 2003 custody order provides for shared legal custody, primary physical custody in the mother, and partial physical custody in the father on alternating weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Monday at 8:00 p.m., each Wednesday from 6:00 p.m. until Thursday at 8:00 p.m., on certain holidays, and for an additional period of two non-consecutive weeks during the summer.2 In practice, Respondent Lucente's periods of partial physical custody until recently included an additional overnight every two weeks, resulting in his having 150- 160 overnights per year, but Petitioner terminated these unmandated periods of partial physical custody. With respect to custody of the Miller child, the existing 2010 custody order provides for shared legal custody, primary physical custody in the mother, and partial physical custody in the father on alternating weekends from Friday at 5:30 p.m. to Sunday at 7:30 p.m., every Wednesday from 5:30 p.m. to Thursday at 8:30 a.m., every z Custody Order, May 28, 2003, No. 2002-5647 Civil Term. 3 other week from Monday at 5:30 p.m. to Tuesday at 8:30 a.m., and on certain holidays.3 In practice, Respondent Miller's periods of partial physical custody have included an occasional additional hour, and his overnights total about 143 per year. Petitioner mother, who is a high school graduate, was until recently self-employed in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, as a day-care provider, but the business proved financially unsustainable. Respondent Lucente, who has a bachelor of science degree, has been employed as a "development engineer" with a company known as T.E. Connectivity for 14 years and lives in a three-bedroom house, which he rents. Respondent Miller, who has a bachelor of arts degree, has been employed since 2002 in the computer division of PHEAA (Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency), "with third party oversight," and lives in a three-bedroom house, which he owns. Petitioner's fiance, who has bachelor of science and master of science degrees, is employed by the State of Washington and performs periodic contractual work for the Defense Department, earns about $110,000.00 a year, and lives in a three-bedroom house, which he rents; however, in the event the relocation of the children is approved he and Petitioner will be purchasing a larger home to accommodate the expanded household. Petitioner received a discharge in bankruptcy from debts totaling about $18,000.00 in 2004; since then she has accumulated new debt in the amount of $28,000.00 and her monthly expenses far exceed her income. Respondent Lucente is $40,000.00 in debt, but appears to be able to remain current on the minimum payments on the debt as a result of his employment. Respondent Miller is financially solvent. Both respondents are current on their child support obligations. The finality of Petitioner's decision to move to the home of her fiance in Washington, whether or not she retains primary physical custody of her children, has been evidenced by her commitment to her fiance, the termination of the lease on her present residence as of June 30, 2012, and her disposal of household furnishings. In its capacity as trier-of-fact, the court is, unfortunately, convinced of her resolve in this 3 Custody Order, August 9, 2010, No. 2010-3837 Civil Term. 4 regard. The court has also found credible her explanation for the decision, as summarized at the beginning of this opinion. Significantly, the consensus of the children is that Petitioner's decision to move to Washington is her best option under the circumstances, and they are not uncomfortable with the prospect of Mr. Anderman's being their step- father. Petitioner has been the primary custodian of all of the children since their birth. The children are extremely close to their mother and to each other. Each child is performing satisfactorily, or better than satisfactorily, in school, and each has impressed the court with his or her poise, intelligence, and maturity under very stressful conditions. However, three of the children of Petitioner and Respondent Lucente have suffered from, and been treated for, depression. Madison, the seven-year-old daughter of Petitioner and Respondent Miller, and youngest of the siblings, has a condition known as achondroplasia. Both Petitioner and Respondent Miller have been active on her behalf in the organization known as Little People of America. She is a dear, precocious child, articulate beyond her years, who sleeps with her mother and is lovingly nurtured by her siblings. It would, in the court's view, be devastating to her to separate her from the household in which her mother lives and from her brothers and sisters. As noted, both respondents are exemplary fathers. A recitation of their activities in connection with the children only weakly conveys the importance of their roles in the lives of the children. Respondent Lucente was instrumental in securing therapy for his oldest daughters, terminated a romantic relationship in which he was involved because he felt it was interfering with his responsibilities as a father, has continued to meet his financial obligations to his children through stable employment, works part-time at the YMCA to provide a family membership for his children, is better able to help the children with their homework than Petitioner, has offered Petitioner an opportunity to move back into his home with the children, and does much more. 5 Respondent Miller has renovated his home to accommodate the needs of his daughter, has provided an oxygen system to ameliorate her condition of sleep apnea, gardens, plays and shops with her, looks in on her several tunes a night when she is with him to be sure that she is all right, serves as a "room mom" and "secret reader" at her school, supports her financially, and admittedly "spoils" her. Madison is, quite simply, "the joy of [his] life." Petitioner's fiances, who testified at the hearing on behalf of Petitioner, impressed the court as sincere in his expression of love for Petitioner, personally responsible and realistic, and compatible with the children. More than one child described him as "cool." Petitioner's case for relocation, while sincerely based, is not without arguable flaws, in addition to the detriment of diminished contact with the respondents which it would necessarily entail. Petitioner's reattachment to her fiance is relatively recent, has not produced a date for a wedding, is coincident with financial necessity on the part of Petitioner, and may or may not prove more durable than her prior marriages. The children are not well-acquainted with their prospective step-father or his children. Petitioner's family members in Washington are no closer than two hours from the relocation residence in Spokane Valley, and Petitioner's recent contact with them has been minimal. The facilitation of frequent personal contact between the children and their fathers at the distances occasioned by the relocation would be an expensive proposition. Finally, Petitioner's decision to relocate, with or without the children, belies her contention that "[her] children are [her] life," and is subversive to the policy underlying the Commonwealth's custody relocation doctrine. With all of this said, the court has reached the conclusion that the best interests of these closely-bonded children depend upon their continued primary residence in a common household, with each other and with their mother, and that a denial of relocation in this unique case would thwart those interests, with irreparable harm to at least one of the children and, on balance, overall detriment to the others. 6 DISCUSSION The law with respect to custody relocation cases has been codified effective January 24, 2011, at 23 Pa. C.S. §5337. With respect to the burden of proof, the statute provides as follows: (1) The party proposing the relocation has the burden of establishing that the relocation will serve the best interest of the child as shown under the factors set forth [below]. (2) Each party has the burden of establishing the integrity of that party's motives in either seeking the relocation or seeking to prevent the relocation a With respect to the effect of a unilateral relocation in the absence of a judicial resolution of the issue, the statute provides that, "[i]f a party relocates with the child prior to a full expedited hearing, the court shall not confer any presumption in favor of the relocation."s Finally, with respect to the factors to be considered by a court in ruling upon the issue of relocation, the statute provides as follows: In determining whether to gram a proposed relocation, the court shall consider the following factors, giving weighted consideration to the factors which affect the safety of the child: (1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement and duration of the child's relationship with the party proposing to relocate and with the nonrelocating party, siblings and other significant persons in the child's life. (2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical, educational and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child. (3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating party and the child through suitable custody arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties. (4) The child's preference, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child. 4 23 Pa. C.S. §5337(i) (burden of proof). s 23 Pa. C.S. §5337(1) (effect of relocation prior to hearing). 7 (5) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of either party to promote or thwart the relationship of the child and the other party. (6) Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for the party seeking the relocation, including, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity. (7) Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for the child, including, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity. (8) The reasons and motivation of each party for seeking or opposing the relocation. (9) The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of the party's household and whether there is a continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party. (10) Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child.6 In the present case, the court has concluded that the motives of the parties in seeking and opposing relocation are sincere and reasonable, that the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for Petitioner, that by extension and for the other reasons stated above the best interests of the children will be served by their relocation with Petitioner, and that feasible alternatives can be made to preserve the relationship between the nonrelocating parties and their respective children. In reaching this conclusion, the court is aware that the maxim "hard cases make bad law" is an admonition and not a precept, but has been constrained under the unique circumstances of the present case to strive to avoid a resolution inimical to the best interests of the children. Based upon the foregoing, and upon consideration of all of the factors enumerated in Section 5337(h) of the Domestic Relations Code, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of the Notices of Proposed Relocation filed by Holly C. Miller (formerly Lucente), and of the Counter- Affidavits Regarding Relocation filed by Richard Vincent Lucente and Raymond A. Miller, following a hearing held on May 25, June 20-21, and June 25-26, 2012, and for 6 23 Pa. C.S. §5337(h). 8 the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the proposed relocations of the parties' children to Spokane Valley, Washington, are authorized. Revised custody orders in the forms attached to the accompanying opinion will be entered of even date herewith. A FURTHER HEARING is scheduled to determine whether the terms of the revised orders should be continued or modified based upon the circumstances then existing on Wednesday, January 2, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT, j? J esley Ol Jr., S:J. Diane G. Radcliff Esq. 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Holly C. Miller (formerly Lucente) Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esq. Turner and O'Connell 4701 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Richard Vincent Lucente Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Raymond A. Miller 9 HOLLY CATHLEEN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUCENTE, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) V. RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, Defendant : NO. 2002-5647 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2012, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. This Order is entered regarding Plaintiff, Holly Cathleen Lucente, now Holly C. Miller (hereinafter referred to as Mother), and Richard Vincent Lucente (hereinafter referred to as Father) and their children, Gabrielle B. Lucente, born on April 14, 1995, Dominique P. Lucente, born on August 12, 1996, Vincente R. Lucente, born on July 16, 1998, and Gino R. Lucente, born on March 11, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Children), and shall supersede all prior custody orders. 2. The parents shall share and have joint legal custody of the children. Joint legal custody means the right of both parents to control and to share in making decisions of importance in the lives of their children, including educational, medical, and religious decisions. Both parents shall be entitled to equal access to the children's school, medical, dental and other important records. As soon as practical after the receipt by a parent, copies of the children's school schedules, special events notifications, report cards, and similar items shall be provided to the other parent. Despite this provision, if any service provider or professional still requires a release of a parent to access the children's educational, religious or medical information, both parents shall execute a release within ten days of any written request by a parent or his or her counsel. Notwithstanding that both parents share legal custody, non-major decisions involving the children's day to day living shall be made by the parent then having custody, consistent with the other provisions of this Order. 3. Mother shall have primary physical custody of the children. 4. Father shall have periods of partial physical custody as follows: (A) In the summer of 2012, from June 29, 2012, until fourteen days preceding the first day of school for the children in the fall (being the first school day for any of Mother's children). Mother shall be entitled to exercise a three consecutive day visit with the children in Pennsylvania during the month of July. (B) Starting with the summer of 2013 and in the summers thereafter, from the 7th day following the last day of school (being the last day of school for any of Mother's children) until fourteen days preceding the first day of school for the children in the fall (being the first day of school for any of Mother's children; provided, that Mother shall be entitled to exercise a three consecutive day visit with the children in Pennsylvania during the month of July, if she notifies father of her intention to do so at least four weeks in advance of the visit. (C) During each Easter/Spring school break (or the longer of the two if exercised separately) from the first full day off school to the last day off school. (D) During each Christmas school break, from the first full day off school to the last day off school; provided, that the period in the forthcoming 2012-13 season shall extend to January 3, 2013. (E) At such times as Father is visiting in the Spokane Valley, Washington, vicinity. 4. Mother shall bear the full cost, including transportation expenses, of custody exchanges. 5. The noncustodial parent shall be entitled to contact his or her children at least daily, by the means of his or her choice, and at the times of his or her choice, said means and times to be noticed at least a week in advance; the children shall be permitted to contact the noncustodial parent at any time, by any means. 6. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the parties from deviating from the terms of this order by mutual consent. BY THE COURT, J. Wesley Oler, Jr., S.J. Diane G. Radcliff, Esq. 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Holly C. Miller Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esq. Turner and O'Connell 4701 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Richard Vincente Lucente RAYMOND A. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, Defendant : NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2012, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. This Order is entered regarding Plaintiff, Holly [C.] Miller (hereinafter referred to as Mother), and Raymond A. Miller (hereinafter referred to as Father) and their child, Madison J. Miller, born November 22, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as Child), and shall supersede all prior custody orders. 2. The parents shall share and have joint legal custody of the child. Joint legal custody means the right of both parents to control and to share in making decisions of importance in the life of their child, including educational, medical, and religious decisions. Both parents shall be entitled to equal access to the child's school, medical, dental and other important records. As soon as practical after the receipt by a parent, copies of the child's school schedules, special events notifications, report cards, and similar items shall be provided to the other parent. Despite this provision, if any service provider or professional still requires a release of a parent to access the child's educational, religious or medical information, both parents shall execute a release within ten days of any written request by a parent or his or her counsel. Notwithstanding that both parents share legal custody, non-major decisions involving the child's day to day living shall be made by the parent then having custody, consistent with the other provisions of this Order. 3. Mother shall have primary physical custody of the child. 4. Father shall have periods of partial physical custody as follows: (A) In the summer of 2012, from June 29, 2012, until fourteen days preceding the first day of school for the child in the fall (being the first school day for any of Mother's children). Mother shall be entitled to exercise a three consecutive day visit with the child in Pennsylvania during the month of July. (B) Starting with the summer of 2013 and in the summers thereafter, from the 7th day following the last day of school (being the last day of school for any of Mother's children) until fourteen days preceding the first day of school for the child in the fall (being the first day of school for any of Mother's children); provided, that Mother shall be entitled to exercise a three consecutive day visit with the child in Pennsylvania during the month of July, if she notifies Father of her intention to do so at least four weeks in advance of the visit. (C) During each Easter/Spring school break (or the longer of the two if exercised separately) from the first full day off school to the last day off school. (D) During each Christmas school break, from the first full day off school to the last day off school; provided, that the period in the forthcoming 2012-13 season shall extend to January 3, 2013. (E) At such times as Father is visiting in the Spokane Valley, Washington, vicinity. 4. Mother shall bear the full cost, including transportation expenses, of custody exchanges. 5. The noncustodial parent shall be entitled to contact his or her child at least daily, by the means of his or her choice, and at the times of his or her choice, said means and times to be noticed at least a week in advance; the child shall be permitted to contact the noncustodial parent at any time, by any means. 6. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the parties from deviating from the terms of this order by mutual consent. BY THE COURT, J. Wesley Oler, Jr., S.J. Diane G. Radcliff Esq. 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Holly C. Miller Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. 3 820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Raymond A. Miller HOLLY CATHLEEN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUCENTE, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff . ro CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) V. RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, _ z;z a Defendant : NO. 2002-5647 CIVIL TERM HOLLY C. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER Defendant NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM RAYMOND A. MILLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM tl? Defendant NOTICE OF APPEAL OF RICHARD V. LUCENTE Notice is hereby given that Richard V. Lucente, Defendant, above named, hereby appeals the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the Order entered in this matter on the 29`h day of June 20 This Order has been entered in the Docket as evidenced by the attached copy of the Docket THIS IS A CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL Respectfully submitted, *oannaH. Rehkamp, Esquire ID. NO. 206589 Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 *57• oo D A-my Tele: (717) 232-4551 0-*?3837 Counsel for Defendant Richard V. Lucente?-*617$1 mwle? Flo , 0,0* CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of the foregoing document by United States First Class Mail to the following individual set forth The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. S.J. Cumberland Count Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Joanna Harrison Clough, Esquire 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Date: q I Z Manna H. Rehkamp, Esquire Att rney ID No. 206589 4791 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-4551 Attorney for Richard V. Lucente RAYMOND A. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF c Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIAp3 rn w c, -n 2r*i C= rn v. : CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) 0 0 r- x --i o x _n HOLLY MILLER, X z Defendant : NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM ?c °m > IN RE: CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2012, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. This Order is entered regarding Plaintiff, Holly [C] Miller (hereinafter referred to as Mother), and Raymond A. Miller (hereinafter referred to as Father) and their child, Madison J. Miller, born November 22, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as Child), and shall supersede all prior custody orders. 2. The parents shall share and have joint legal custody of the child. Joint legal custody means the right of both parents to control and to share in making decisions of importance in the life of their child, including educational, medical, and religious decisions. Both parents shall be entitled to equal access to the child's school, medical, dental and other important records. As soon as practical after the receipt by a parent, copies of the child's school schedules, special events notifications, report cards, and similar items shall be provided to the other parent. Despite this provision, if any service provider or professional still requires a release of a parent to access the child's educational, religious or medical information, both parents shall execute a release within ten days of any written request by a parent or his or her counsel Notwithstanding that both parents share legal custody, non-major decisions involving the child's day to day living shall be made by the parent then having custody, consistent with the other provisions of this Order. 3. Mother shall have primary physical custody of the child. 4. Father shall have periods of partial physical custody as follows: (A) In the summer of 2012, from June 29, 2012, until fourteen days preceding the first day of school for the child in the fall (being the first school day for any of Mother's children). Mother shall be entitled to exercise a three consecutive day visit with the child in Pennsylvania during the month of July. (B) Starting with the summer of 2013 and in the summers thereafter, from the 7th day following the last day of school (being the last day of school for any of Mother's children) until fourteen days preceding the first day of school for the child in the fall (being the first day of school for any of Mother's children); provided, that Mother shall be entitled to exercise a three consecutive day visit with the child in Pennsylvania during the month of July, if she notifies Father of her intention to do so at least four weeks in advance of the visit. (C) During each Easter/Spring school break (or the longer of the two if exercised separately) from the first full day off school to the last day off school. (D) During each Christmas school break, from the first full day off school to the last day off school; provided, that the period in the forthcoming 2012-13 season shall extend to January 3, 2013. (E) At such times as Father is visiting in the Spokane Valley, Washington, vicinity. 4. Mother shall bear the full cost, including transportation expenses, of custody exchanges. 5. The noncustodial parent shall be entitled to contact his or her child at least daily, by the means of his or her choice, and at the times of his or her choice, said means and times to be noticed at least a week in advance; the child shall be permitted to contact the noncustodial parent at any time, by any means. 6. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the parties from deviating from the terms of this order by mutual consent. BY THE COURT,, esley QW, Jr., Diane G. Radcliff Esq. 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Holly C. Miller Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Raymond A. Miller ati ? p? TRIBE COPY FROM RECORD in Testimony whereof, ! here unto set my hand and t.`ie set of said Co rt t Cariisie, Pa. This yY'? daw of , 20 Io"L_ ell 7 - Prothonotary V c= ° 3 MW N ?- r M-? ? x CII? N err O G7 O C t HOLLY CATHLEEN LUCENTE, : Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) V. : RICHARD VINCENT : LUCENTE, : Defendant : NO. 2002-5647 CIVIL TERM HOLLY C. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER, : Defendant : NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM RAYMOND A. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, : Defendant : NO. 2019-3837 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY RELOCATION BEFORE OLER, S.J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of the Notices of Proposed Relocation filed by Holly C. Miller (formerly Lucente), and of the Counter- Affidavits Regarding Relocation filed by Richard Vincent Lucente and Raymond A. Miller, following a hearing held on May 25, June 20-21, and June 25-26, 2012, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the proposed relocations of the parties' children to Spokane Valley, Washington, are authorized. Revised custody orders in the forms attached to the accompanying opinion will be entered of even date herewith. A FURTHER HEARING is scheduled to determine whether the terms of the revised orders should be continued or modified based upon the circumstances then existing on Wednesday, January 2, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT, J. /Wesley 01 Diane G. Radcliff, Esq. 3448 Trindle Road ?g Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Holly C. Miller (formerly Lucente) j Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esq. Turner and O'Connell 4701 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 f R h Att d V ?p? ?? I I ?-, a ? ? c c+ or ic orney ar incent Lucente C -ti3 ?.? / ? M J Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. N Q 3820 Market Street r? ° ' =jo Camp Hill, PA 17011 C) n Attorney for Raymond A. Miller TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof, I here unto set my hand and the seal of said ;Crntat Carlisle, Pa. Zhisi `4dayof ro20 thonl ry P HOLLY CATHLEEN LUCENTE, Plaintiff V. RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) Defendant : NO. 2002-5647 CIVIL TERM HOLLY C. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER., : Defendant : NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM RAYMOND A. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ; CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) /HOLLY MILLER, Defendant ; NO, 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY RELOCATION BEFORE OLER, S.J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, S.J., June 29, 2012. These custody relocation cases illustrate the dilemma posed when a parent wishes to relocate with his or her children and (a) it is clearly in the children's best interest to remain together and in the primary custody of that parent, (b) a separation of the children from the other parent will nevertheless have a detrimental effect upon them, and (c) the 1 parent who seeks authorization to relocate the children will be moving regardless of whether the court permits the relocation of the children. Specifically, herein, the mother of four children by one respondent and of one child by a second respondent, both of whom are exemplary fathers, has filed notices of proposed relocation from Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, to Spokane Valley, Washington,' in order to reside with her fiance, to improve what she regards as an untenable financial situation, to utilize the relative independence thus achieved to obtain part-time employment and further her education, and to benefit from the association with members of her family who live in Washington State, and has credibly represented that she will be moving regardless of whether the relocation of the children is authorized. A five-day hearing was held in this matter on May 25, June 20-21, and June 25-26, 2012. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the relocation of the children will be approved, subject to a further hearing in January of 2013, to determine, inter alia, whether Petitioner's marital, educational, occupational, financial, and housing representations have been carried out, STATEMENT OF FACTS Petitioner is Holly C, miller (formerly Lucente), 43, who currently resides in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Respondent Richard Vincent Lucente, 46, resides in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Respondent Raymond A. Miller, 54, resides in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. All three Cumberland County residences are within a few miles of each other and in the same school district. ` Notice of Proposed Relocation, No. 2002-5647 Civil Term, filed April 5, 2012; Notice of Proposed Relocation, No. 2009-2081 Civil Term, filed April 5, 2012. The latter Notice of Proposed Relocation was inadvertently filed at a divorce action between the mother and father, and the father's objection to the relocation was filed at the parties' custody action. Counter-Affidavit Regarding Relocation, No. 2010- 3837 Civil Term, filed April 18, 2012. The court has consolidated the custody and divorce actions for purposes of the relocation issue. Order of Court, Nos. 2009-2081 Civil Term (in divorce) and 2010-3837 Civil Term (in custody), May 23, 2012. 2 Petitioner was married on December 11, 1992, to Respondent Lucente. Four children were bom of the marriage: Gabriele B. Lucente (d.o.b. April 14, 1995); Dominique P. Lucente (d.o.b. August 12, 1996); Vincent R. Lucente (d.o.b. July 16, 1998); and Gino R. Lucente (d.o.b. March 11, 2000). Petitioner and Respondent Lucente separated in November of 2002, and were divorced on May 30, 2003. Following her divorce from Respondent Lucente, Petitioner married Respondent Miller on July 31, 2004. One child was born of the marriage. Madison J. Miller (d.o.b. November 22, 2004). Petitioner and Respondent Miller separated in January of 2008 and were divorced on February 23, 2011. Petitioner is currently engaged to Anthony Anderman, 45, whom she knew in high school and who resides in Spokane Valley, Washington. He has three children who are in his partial custody on alternating weekends. As of June 30, 2012, Petitioner will have relocated her residence to that of Mr. Anderman in the State of Washington. With respect to custody of the four Lucente children., the existing 2003 custody order provides for shared legal custody, primary physical custody in the mother, and partial physical custody in the father on alternating weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Monday at 8:00 p.m., each Wednesday from 6:00 p.m. until Thursday at 8:00 p.m., on certain holidays, and for an additional period of two non-consecutive weeks during the summer.2 In practice, Respondent Lucente's periods of partial physical custody until recently included an additional overnight every two weeks, resulting in his having 150- 160 overnights per year, but Petitioner terminated these unmandated periods of partial physical custody. With respect to custody of the Miller child, the existing 2010 custody order provides for shared legal custody, primary physical custody in the mother, and partial physical custody in the father on alternating weekends from Friday at 5:30 p.m. to Sunday at 7:30 p.m., every Wednesday from 5:30 p.m. to Thursday at 8:30 a.m., every Custody Order, May 28, 2003, No. 2002-5647 Civil Term. 3 other week from Monday at 5:30 p.m. to Tuesday at 8.30 a.m., and on certain holidays.3 In practice, Respondent Miller's periods of partial physical custody have included an occasional additional hour, and his overnights total about 143 per year. Petitioner mother, who is a high school graduate, was until recently self-employed in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, as a day-care provider, but the business proved financially unsustainable. Respondent Lucente, who has a bachelor of science degree, has been employed as a "development engineer" with a company known as T.E. Connectivity for 14 years and lives in a three-bedroom house, which he rents. Respondent Miller, who has a bachelor of arts degree, has been employed since 2002 in the computer division of PHEAA (Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency), "with third party oversight," and lives in a three-bedroom house, which he owns. Petitioner's fiance, who has bachelor of science and master of science degrees, is employed by the State of Washington and performs periodic contractual work for the Defense Department, earns about $110,000.00 a year, and lives in a three-bedroom house, which he rents; however, in the event the relocation of the children is approved he and Petitioner will be purchasing a larger home to accommodate the expanded household. Petitioner received a discharge in bankruptcy from debts totaling about $18,000.00 in 2004; since then she has accumulated new debt in the amount of $28,000.00 and her monthly expenses far exceed her income. Respondent Lucente is $40,000.00 in debt, but appears to be able to remain current on the minimum payments on the debt as a result of his employment. Respondent Miller is financially solvent. Both respondents are current on their child support obligations. The finality of Petitioner's decision to move to the home of her fiance in Washington, whether or not she retains primary physical custody of her children, has been evidenced by her commitment to her fiance, the termination of the lease on her present residence as of June 30, 2012, and her disposal of household furnishings. In its capacity as trier-of-fact, the court is, unfortunately, convinced of her resolve in this 3 Custody Order, August 9, 2010, No. 2010-3837 Civil Term. 4 regard. The court has also found credible her explanation for the decision, as summarized at the beginning of this opinion. Significantly, the consensus of the children is that Petitioner's decision to move to Washington is her best option under the circumstances, and they are not uncomfortable with the prospect of Mr. Anderman's being their step- father. Petitioner has been the primary custodian of all of the children since their birth. The children are extremely close to their mother and to each other. Each child is performing satisfactorily, or better than satisfactorily, in school, and each has impressed the court with his or her poise, intelligence, and maturity under very stressful conditions. However, three of the children of Petitioner and Respondent Lucente have suffered from, and been treated for, depression. Madison, the seven-year-old daughter of Petitioner and Respondent Miller, and youngest of the siblings, has a condition known as achondroplasia. Both Petitioner and Respondent Miller have been active on her behalf in the organization known as Little People of America. She is a dear, precocious child, articulate beyond her years, who sleeps with her mother and is lovingly nurtured by her siblings. It would, in the court's view, be devastating to her to separate her from the household in which her mother lives and from her brothers and sisters. As noted, both respondents are exemplary fathers. A recitation of their activities in connection with the children only weakly conveys the importance of their roles in the lives of the children. Respondent Lucente was instrumental in securing therapy for his oldest daughters, terminated a romantic relationship in which he was involved because he felt it was interfering with his responsibilities as a father, has continued to meet his financial obligations to his children through stable employment, works part-time at the YMCA to provide a family membership for his children, is better able to help the children with their homework than Petitioner, has offered Petitioner an opportunity to move back into his home with the children, and does much more. 5 Respondent Miller has renovated his home to accommodate the needs of his daughter, has provided an oxygen system to ameliorate her condition of sleep apnea, gardens, plays and shops with her, looks in on her several times a night when she is with him to be sure that she is all right, serves as a "room mom" and "secret reader" at her school, supports her financially, and admittedly "spoils" her. Madison is, quite simply, "the joy of [his] life." Petitioner's fiance, who testified at the hearing on behalf of Petitioner, impressed the court as sincere in his expression of love for Petitioner, personally responsible and realistic, and compatible with the children. More than one child described him as "cool." Petitioner's case for relocation, while sincerely based, is not without arguable flaws, in addition to the detriment of diminished contact with the respondents which it would necessarily entail. Petitioner's reattachment to her fiance is relatively recent, has not produced a date for a wedding, is coincident with financial necessity on the part of Petitioner, and may or may not prove more durable than her prior marriages. The children are not well-acquainted with their prospective step-father or his children. Petitioner's family members in Washington are no closer than two hours from the relocation residence in Spokane Valley, and Petitioner's recent contact with them has been minimal. The facilitation of frequent personal contact between the children and their fathers at the distances occasioned by the relocation would be an expensive proposition. Finally, Petitioner's decision to relocate, with or without the children, belies her contention that "[her] children are [her] life," and is subversive to the policy underlying the Commonwealth's custody relocation doctrine. With all of this said, the court has reached the conclusion that the best interests of these closely-bonded children depend upon their continued primary residence in a common household, with each other and with their mother, and that a denial of relocation in this unique case would thwart those interests, with irreparable harm to at least one of the children and, on balance, overall detriment to the others. 6 DISCUSSION The law with respect to custody relocation cases has been codified effective January 24, 2011, at 23 Pa. C.S. §5337. With respect to the burden of proof, the statute provides as follows: (1) The party proposing the relocation has the burden of establishing that the relocation will serve the best interest of the child as shown under the factors set forth [below]. (2) Each party has the burden of establishing the integrity of that party's motives in either seeking the relocation or seeking to prevent the relocation.4 With respect to the effect of a unilateral relocation in the absence of a judicial resolution of the issue, the statute provides that, "[i]f a party relocates with the child prior to a full expedited hearing, the court shall not confer any presumption in favor of the relocation."5 Finally, with respect to the factors to be considered by a court in ruling upon the issue of relocation, the statute provides as follows: In determining whether to grant a proposed relocation, the court shall consider the following factors, giving weighted consideration to the factors which affect the safety of the child: (1) The nature, quality, cadent of involvement and duration of the child's relationship with the party proposing to relocate and with the nonrelocating party, siblings and other significant persons in the child's life. (2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical, educational and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child. (3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating party and the child through suitable custody arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties, (4) The child's preference, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child. ' 23 Pa. C.S. §5337(1) (burden of proof). 5 23 Pa. C.S. ¢5337(1) (effect of relocation prior to hearing). 7 (5) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of either party to promote or thwart the relationship of the child and the other party. (6) Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for the party seeking the relocation, including, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity. (7) Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for the child, including, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity. (8) The reasons and motivation of each party for seeking or opposing the relocation. (9) The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of the party's household and whether there is a continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party. (10) Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child.' In the present case, the court has concluded that the motives of the parties in seeking and opposing relocation are sincere and reasonable, that the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for Petitioner, that by extension and for the other reasons stated above the best interests of the children will be served by their relocation with Petitioner, and that feasible alternatives can be made to preserve the relationship between the nonrelocating parties and their respective children. In reaching this conclusion, the court is aware that the maxim "hard cases make bad lave" is an admonition and not a precept, but has been constrained under the unique circumstances of the present case to strive to avoid a resolution inimical to the best interests of the children. Based upon the foregoing, and upon consideration of all of the factors enumerated in Section 5337(h) of the Domestic Relations Code, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of the Notices of Proposed Relocation filed by Holly C. Miller (formerly Lucente), and of the Counter- Affidavits Regarding Relocation filed by Richard Vincent Lucente and Raymond A. Miller, following a hearing held on May 25, June 20-21, and June 25-26, 2012, and for '23 Pa. C.S. §5337(h). 8 the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the proposed relocations of the parties' children to Spokane Valley, Washington, are authorized. Revised custody orders in the forms attached to the accompanying opinion will be entered of even date herewith. A FURTHER HEARING is scheduled to determine whether the terms of the revised orders should be continued or modified based upon the circumstances then existing on Wednesday, January 2, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Diane G. Radcliff, Esq. 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Holly C. Miller (formerly Lucente) Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esq. Turner and O'Connell 4701 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Richard Vincent Lucente Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Raymond A. Miller BY THE COURT, J esley Ol Jr., S !J. TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In'restimony whereof, I here unto set my hand and the se of said Cou a arlisle, P'a. Thi day of 201?- e Prothonotary 9 PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 1 Civil Case Print 2009-02081 MILLER HOLLY C (vs) MILLER RAYMOND A Reference No... Filed......... 4/02/2009 Case Typpe..... : COMPLAINT - DIVORCE Judgment......: .00 Time.........: Execution Date 2:32 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: OLER J WESLEY JR Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: GRANTED Disposed Date. 2/23/2011 ------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: ************************************************* ******************************* General Index Attorney Info MILLER HOLLY C PLAINTIFF RADCLIFF DIANE G 38 KENSINGTON DRIVE CAMP HILL PA 17011 MILLER RAYMOND A DEFENDANT 107 ONEIDA ROAD CAMP HILL PA 17011 ******************************************************************************** * Date Entries ******************************************************************************** - - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4/02/2009 COMPLAINT - DIVORCE - 3 ADDL COUNTS - EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION - ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE ALIMONY - COUNSEL FEES COSTS AND EXPENSES FILED BY DIANE G RADCLIFF ESQ FOR PLFF ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/02/2009 PETITION FOR ORDER FOR ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/06/2009 ORDER OF COURT - 4/3/09 IN RE: APL - CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 4/27/09AT 1:30 PM - BY R J SHADDAY APL COORDINATOR ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/15/2009 ORDER OF COURT - RESCHEDULE A CONFERENCE - HEARING ON 4/29/09 1:30 PM - BY R J SHADDAY CONFERENCE OFFICER ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/17/2009 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE - COMPLAINT IN DIVORCE - BY PATRICK F LAUER JR ESQ ON BEHALF OF DEFT ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/30/2009 ORDER OF COURT - 4/29/09 IN RE: APL - BY M L EBERT JR J ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5/04/2009 ORDER/NOTICE TO WITHHOLD INCOME FOR SUPPORT - DATED 5/4/09 - BY M L EBERT JR J ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/05/2010 DEFENDANT'S INVENTORY - BY JAMES W ABRAHAM ESQ FOR DEFT ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/05/2010 DEFENDANT'S INCOME & EXPENSE STATEMENT - BY JAMES W ABRAHAM ESQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5/14/2010 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF MASTER - BY JAMES W ABRAHAM ATTY FOR DEFT ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5/17/2010 ORDER APPOINTING MASTER DATED 5/17/10 - E ROBERT ELICKER II ESQ IS APPOINTED MASTER WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIMS LISTED - BY KEVIN A HESS PJ - COPIES MAILED 5/18/10 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/26/2010 REVISED CERTIFICATION OF OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY - BY DIANE G RADCLIFF ATTY FOR DEFT ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/12/2010 INVENTORY OF HOLLY C MILLER - BY DIANE G RADCLIFFE ATTY FOR PLFF ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/12/2010 INCOME AND EXPENSE STATEMENT OF HOLLY C MILLER - BY DIANE G RADCLIFFE ATTY FOR PLFF ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/27/2010 PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT RAYMOND A MILLER - JAMES W ABRAHAM ATTY FOR DEF ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/31/2010 PLAINTIFF'S PRETRIAL STATEMENT - BY DIANE G RADCLIFF ATTY FOR PLFF ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/01/2011 ORDER OF COURT - 2/1/11 - IN RE: DRO - BY M L EBERT JR J ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/02/2011 ORDER/NOTICE TO WITHHOLD INCOME FOR SUPPORT - DATED 2/2/11 - BY M L EBERT JR J ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/07/2011 ORDER OF COURT - 2/4/11 - THE APPOINTMENT,&jjdM%R&dfij5 - Testimony whereof, I here unto set my hand nd thq seal of said Co rt at Carlisle, Pa. This I day of , 20 1 a jit ^_ rothonotIP, PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 2 Civil Case Print 2009-02081 MILLER HOLLY C (vs) MILLER RAYMOND A Reference No..: Filed........: 4/02/2009 Case Ty e.....: COMPLAINT - DIVORCE Time.........: 2:32 Judgment ......: .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Jude Assigned: OLER J WESLEY JR Jury Trial... Disposed Desc.: GRANTED Disposed Date. 2/23/2011 ------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: BY KEVIN A HESS PJ - COPIES MAILED 2/7/11 Higher Crt 2.: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/07/2011 MARITAL AGREEMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/10/2011 AFFIDAVIT OF CONSENT - PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/10/2011 WAIVER OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REQUEST ENTRY OF A DIV DECREE-PLFF ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/10/2011 AFFIDAVIT OF CONSENT - DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/10/2011 WAIVER OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REQUEST ENTRY OF A DIV DECREE-DEFT ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/17/2011 PRAECIPE TO TRANSMIT RECORD BY DINAE G RADCLIFF ATTY FOR PLFF ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/23/2011 DIVORCE DECREE GRANTED BY JUDGE M L EBERT JR NOTICE MAILED 2/24/2011 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/16/2011 STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER - BY HOLLY MILLER PLFF AND RAYMOND MILLER DEF ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/18/2011 DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER - 3/18/11 IN RE: STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER - BY KEVIN A HESS PJ - COPIES MAILED 3/18/11 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/10/2011 AMENDEDPDOMESTIC RELAIIONS6/RDER1- 6/10/11 - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS - COPIES 10/1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/11/2011 QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS101jDER - 8/11/11 - BY TEH COURT KEVIN A HESS PJ - COPIES MAILED 8/11 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/05/2012 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF PROPOSED RELOCATION - BY DIANE G RADCLIFF ATTY FOR PLFF ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/25/2012 MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED RELOCATION - BY DIANE G RADCLIFF ATTY FOR PLFF ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/26/2012 ORDER OF COURT DATED 4-26-12 IN RE PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED RELOCATION 23 PACSA S 5337 - HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 30 2012 AT 1 30 PM IN CR 4 - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS PJ - COPIES MAILED 4-26-12 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5/02/2012 ORDER OF COURT - 52/12 - IN RE: PLFF'S PROPOSED RELOCATION - HEARING SCHEDULED OR 5/30/12 IS RESCHEDULED FOR 5/25/12 @ 2:00 PM IN CR 4 CUMB CO COURTHOUSE - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS PJ COPIES MAILED 5/2/1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5/23/2012 ORDER OF COURT IN RE CONSOLIDATION DATED 5-23-12 - BY THE COURT J WESLEY OLER JR SJ - COPIES MAILED 5-23-12 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/06/2012 ORDER OF COURT DATED 5-25-12 IN RE RELOCATION- COUNSEL REQUESTED TO CONTACT SECRETARY FOR SCHEDULING PURPOSES - BY THE COURT J WESLEY OLER JR SJ - COPIES MAILED 6-6-12 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/20/2012 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - 5/25/12 - BEFORE THE HONORABLE J WESLEY OLER JR S J ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/26/2012 ORDER OF COURT - 6/21/12 - IN RE: A FINAL DAY OF HEARING IN THIS CASE SCEDULED FOR 6/25/12 COMMENCING @ 9:30 AM IN COURTROOM ON 2ND FLR OLD COURTHOUSE - BY THE COURT J WESLEY OLER JR S J COPIES MAILED 6/26/12 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/26/2012 OILLRRESUMEU6/26/122@/9:30 AM IN HEARING ROOMLONE5THNFOLRECUMBCOOORT COURTHOUSE - BY THE COURT J WESLEY OLER J SR J COPIES MAILED 6/26/12 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/28/2012 ORDER OF COURT - 6/26/12 - IN RE: REQUESTS FOR RELOCATION OF CHILDREN - RECORD IS DECLARED CLOSED AND MATTER IS TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT - BY THE COURT J WESLEY OLER JRTRVE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof. I here unto set my hand and the sgal of said urt at cadis12 Pa- 2 This _ j,__day of PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Civil Case Print 2009-02081 MILLER HOLLY C (vs) MILLER RAYMOND A Page 3 Reference No..: Filed........: 4/02/2009 Case Ty e Judgment. .....: COMPLAINT - DIVORCE .....: .00 Time.........: Execution Date 2:32 0/00/0000 Judge Ass Disposed igned: OLER J WESLEY JR Desc.: GRANTED Jury Trial.... Disposed Date. 2/23/2011 --------- --- Case Comments ------------ - Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: COPIES MAILED 6/28/12 ----------------- ----------- 6/29/2012 --------------------------- OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT ------------ - 6/29/12 - IN RE: CUSTODY RE LOCATION - AUTHORIZED - HEARING SCHEDULED 1/2/13 @ 9:30 AM IN CUMB SLEY OLER JR J COUNTY SJ - COURTHOUSE CARLISLE PA - BY THE COURT J WE COPIES MAILED 6/29/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ******************************************************************************** * Escrow Information * Fees & Debits Bw*Bal*** mts/Adj End Bal ***********************************P ****** ******************************* DIVORCE 55.00 55.00 .00 TAX ON CMPLT .50 .50 .00 SETTLEMENT 8.00 8.00 .00 MASTER'S FEE 250.00 250.00 .00 DIV PA SURCHG 10.00 10.00 .00 AUTOMATION FEE 5.00 5.00 .00 JCP FEE 10.00 10.00 .00 ADD'L COUNTS 16.00 16.00 .00 JCP FEE 10.00 10.00 .00 ADD'L COUNTS 16.00 16.00 .00 JCP FEE 10.00 10.00 .00 ADD'L COUNTS 16.00 16.00 .00 JCP FEE 10.00 -- 10.00 ---------- --- .00 --------- ------------ 416.50 416.50 .00 ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Information ******************************************************************************** TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof, l here unto set my hand and the seal of said C urt at Carlisle, Pa. This__._L1_1d 20 _ ay of ?? ? ?roth rY ? Y C: C 'L HOLLY CATHLEEN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEE? LUCENTE, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNS IAt- Plaintiff rte- x CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) ? V. - - RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, Defendant NO. 2002-5647 CIVIL TERM HOLLY C. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER Defendant NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM RAYMOND A. MILLER : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM Defendant DEFENDANT RICHARD V. LUCENTE'S AND NOW, this day of July, 2012, comes the Defendant, Richard V. and through his attorney, Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esquire, and files this Concise Errors Complained of on Appeal as follows: 1. The trial Court erred by determining that feasible alternatives can be preserve the relationship between the non-relocating party and his children. 2. The trial Court erred in concluding the Relocation Custody Order provides r° by of to with suitable alternative custody arrangements available to preserve Defendant Fathers' relationship with his children if she relocates from Camp Hill, Pennsylvania to Spokane V lley, Washington when he presently has custody six (6) overnights out of every fourteen (14) d :s and other periods of custody totaling a minimum of 150 to 160 overnights a year and the relocation reduces his weekly contact to custody approximately 72 days a year with contact only d g Christmas and spring vacation and seven or eight weeks in the summer months of the year 3. The trial Court erred in determining there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for the mother relocation including but not limited to a finding that Plaintiff Mother will have a benefit, emotional benefit or educational benefit where the record is devoid of any date for Mother to marry, where Mother has not even looked for employment, and where Moter has not made any effort to enroll in an educational program or even submitted plans to do so,j and in fact quit her self employment in order to move, and where Mother's only income support. 4. The trial Court erred in relying on "the consensus of the children child ... that Petitioner's (Mother) decision to move to Washington is her best option under the circumstances" and/or erred in considering the personal happiness of Mother as a basis tol permit relocation. 5. The trial Court erred in determining that relocating the minor children o*er two thousand miles away from Defendant Father and reducing his regular periods of custody to less than half his current custody to two annual holiday visits and custody 3/4 of the constitutes realistic, substitute visitation arrangements which will adequately foster an 2 relationship between the children and the non custodial parent will have on their with their father. 6. The trial Court erred in failing to appropriately consider the fact that the Father is the parent who is actively involved with the children's school and will no longer be able tolhelp the children with their homework or participate in parent teacher conferences, individuali educational programs or extracurricular activities. Defendant has a bachelor of science and has been employed as a development engineer with a company known as T.E. for 14 years whereas Plaintiff has a high school diploma and has been self-employed as a care provider. The trial Court admitted that defendant "is better able to help the children their homework than Petitioner." 7. The trial Court erred in failing to structure a custody schedule that preser+es the relationship between the non-relocating party and the children through suitable custody arrangements and erred in failing to recognize the relocation that having the living two thousand miles away from Defendant Father, for 9 'h months of the calendar year, may irreparably harm Father's ability to preserve the current close loving relationship he has with his minor children and erred in determining that contact with the non custodial parent via daily communication by Skype, telephone or other technology is sufficient to constitute a realistic substitute arrangement for Father to have visitation that would adequately foster the on going close relationship that Father currently has with the minor children. 8. The trial Court erred in failing to appropriately consider the fact that Father has physical custody of the minor children over 40% of the calendar year and at lest 150 to 160 overnights per year and that the minor children was already not living with their half 3 sibling over 40% of the year and the trial Court erred by placing more weight on preserving the children's contact with their half siblings than preserving their physical custodial with their Father. 9. The trial Court erred in failing to consider that the minor children of the?e two families would still have significant contact with each other if the relocation was deniod and Defendant Lucente's minor children would continue to reside in the residence wher§ they currently live with their Father over 40% of the time, and their half sibling would continue to reside in the same residence where she currently lives with their Father more than 40%I of the time, and failed to consider the Fathers' homes are less than five (5) miles apart and the are able to see each other every week if they do not relocate. 10. The trial Court erred in failing to follow appellate case law when dete*ini whether Mother met her burden of proof in establishing the proposed relocation will enha*ce the general quality of life for Mother and the trial Court erred in failing to follow appellate low and erred in assessing the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the and the children and/or erred in determining there is a suitable alternative custody available to preserve Father's custodial relationship with his children given the si regularly weekly custodial contact Father has with his children. 11. The trial Court erred in failing to follow Gruber and other appellate cues to determine and appropriately assess and consider whether the relocation will improve the quality of life for the custodial parent and minor children. 12. The trial Court erred in determining the move would be better for the when Mother's main motivation to relocate was to pursue a romantic relationship that she 4 rekindled over the internet with a man she dated twenty-five years ago in high school Mother has never spent more than seven consecutive days with in the past three years th have been long distance dating and where the children have never spent more than three days ith her paramour/fiance. 13. The trial Court erred in repeatedly acknowledging risks and inconsistencies in Mother's stated reasons for relocating and the fragileness of the lack of specificity in he? future economic, financial and emotional plans, but permitting her to relocate the children. 14. The trial Court erred in failing to properly consider the nature, quality and extent of involvement of Father in the children's lives and erred in considering the children's relationship with their half sibling more important than their relationship with their Father 15. The trial Court erred in determining the relocation was proper where 4 is an undisputed fact that the minor children and their half sibling have never even physically met Mother's fiance's three children, two of who, will be residing at least part time with Mother, her fiance and Mother's five (5) children in a three bedroom home in Spokane Valley, W 16. The trial Court erred in failing to sufficiently consider the age, stage and needs of the minor children and failed to assess the likely impact a move 2000 away will have on the children's physical, educational and emotional development, and failed to take in to sufficient consideration the special needs of defendant Lucente's two oldest who have been diagnosed with depression and have been in counseling with Mary Jo Dev LCSW; MSW, for several years. Defendant Lucente has been the party primarily responsible for taking the children to their appointments as well as participating at the end of the 5 17. The trial Court erred in failing to consider the testimony of the treating th?rapi for defendant Lucente's two oldest children that the relocation would be detrimental I to the children and in failing to consider her un-refuted testimony that a third blended family relationship attempt by twice divorced Mother was less than 20% likely to succeed under the circumstances where Mother has spent less than 50 total days with her paramour in three years, in three to seven (3-7) day increments, where the children have not even met his three children who will be living with them under his partial custody schedule in his three bedroom hom . 18. The trial Court erred in determining there was sufficient basis for Mother t move five children from the area where they have resided for more than ten years, from their two exemplary Fathers who each have physical custody of their children in excess of 40% of e year and see the children on a weekly basis, from their schools, doctors, churches, friends and activities, where they are leaving the certainty of a community and custodial schedules th t were working to the absolute uncertainty of Mother's proposed new life 2000 miles away where she has no job, no income, no educational plan, no marriage planned, and no relatives within two hours and where Mother is 100% financially dependent on her fiance with whom she d the children have never resided. 19. The trial Court erred in permitting Mother's request for relocation based on her claim the move was financially necessary where Mother made no attempt to see other employment, education or reduced housing expenses, but instead, decided to move 200p miles away where she has sought no job or educational program and will no longer have ?er self employment income was her only option. 6 20. The trial Court erred by ruling the Mother can relocate with the children ere it found the separation of the children from the other parent will have a detrimental effect o them and committed error by permitting relocation in part because Mother was moving regar ess of whether the Court permitted her to take the children. 21. The trial Court erred by applying primary custody standards, instead of standards in reaching its determination. Respectfully submitted, h *a H. Rehkamp, Esqui* #Y. mey for the Defendant ID. NO. 206589 4701 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tele: (717) 232-4551 Counsel for Defendant Richard V. Lucente 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this date I served a foregoing document by United States First Class Mail to the following individual set forth below: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. S.J. Cumberland Count Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Date: (J&anna?-UH. Rrney ID N. 206589 4701 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-4551 Attorney for Richard V. Lucente the 8 HOLLY CATHLEEN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUCENTE, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) c , V. cnr ?. r- U ,] L RICHARD VINCENT , _ LUCENTE, - t Defendant NO. 2002-5647 CIVIL TERM E . c HOLLY C. MILLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER ? Defendant ? : NO RAYMOND A. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM Defendant JOINT MOTION FOR SUPERSEDES O STAY ORDER PERMITTING CHILDREN TO RELOCATE TO SPOKANE VA LE WASHINGTON PENDING CHILD FAST TRACK SUPERIOR COURT APPEAL AND NOW, this )q A day of July, 2012, come Defendant/Petitioner Raymond A. Mi ler, by and through his attorney, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire and Petitioner Richard Vincent L by and through his attorney, Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esquire, and respectfully files this Motion Supersedes and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Mother Holly C. Miller filed a Notice of Proposed Relocation which was opposed by both Defendant Fathers and hearings on the Motion where held on May 25, 2012, June 20th, 21?% 25th, and 26 th 2012. 2. An Order was entered on June 29, 2012 authorizing the proposed relocation. However, three pages of the Order of Court were inadvertently not filed with the Court on June 29, 2( 12 or served upon the parties. 3. The Custody Order permitting the relocation directs that the children shall go to Valley, Washington fourteen days proceeding the first day of school in August of 2012. 4. The parties have simultaneously filed a Notice of Appeal to Superior Court of Pennsylvania designating the Appeal a Child Fast Track Appeal Case and simultaneously filed their Concise Statement of Errors Complained on Appeal. 5. Petitioner/Defendant Fathers are of the belief and therefore aver that it is in t4e best interest and permanent welfare of the five (5) minor children that a Supersedes and Stay be and that the children remain in Pennsylvania in the custody of their fathers while the Child Fas# Track Appeal is entertained by Pennsylvania Superior Court for the following reasons: a. In the event Fathers do not prevail on Appeal, the children can relocate to Spokane Valley, Washington and will not suffer any harm while they remai in the custody of their Fathers pending the Appeal; b. In the event Defendant Fathers are successful on the Appeal and the trial C+urt's Relocation Order is reversed, it would not be in the best interest of the children to withdraw from West Shore School District, relocate to Spokane Valley Washington, and then have to withdraw from school, and move back to Hill, Pennsylvania, if the trial Court's Relocation decision is overturned. 6. The trial Court in its own opinion emphasized the difficulty the Court had in reading its determination and also raised serious concerns about Mother's relocation plans to the extent the trial Court has already scheduled a hearing for January 2, 2013 "to determine whether the term of the revised Order should be continued or modified based upon the circumstances then exi Wednesday, January 2, 2013". WHEREFORE, Petitioner/Defendant Raymond A. Miller and Richard Vincent respectfully request the Honorable Court grant this Motion for Supersedes and Stay and minor children remain in the primary physical custody of their respective Fathers during the 2013 school calendar year until Superior Court rules on this Child Fast Track Appeal Case any appropriate modification to the custody schedule so Mother may exercise periods of cu the minor children. Joanne Harrison Clough, ENq ATTY. ID. NO. 36461 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tele: 717-737-5890 Counsel for Raymond Miller Respectfully submitted, ,Yo anna H. Rehkamp, Esquil Vol TY. ID. NO. 206589 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tele: 717-232-4551 Counsel for Richard Lucente on ,ct the 2012- 2 grant v with VERIFICATION I, Raymond A. Miller, hereby verify and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn verification to authorities. DATE--I,- 119 2 C, r A. Miller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Connie Lee, Limric, secretary to Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of the foregoing document by United States First Class Mail to the individual set forth below: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Connie Lee Li ? 'c, secr to Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire Attorney ID No. 36461 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Raymond A. Miller -' THE PR HVN1L t„ HOLLY CATHLEEN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUCENTE, : CUMBERLAND COUNT F1E ST9V ? : 05 Plaintiff 2 CIVIL ACTION (IN CUS€P9RIERLAND COUNTY V. PENNSYLVANIA RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, Defendant NO. 2002-5647 CIVIL TERM HOLLY C. MILLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER Defendant NO. wwnwm?"' RAYMOND A. MILLER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM Defendant MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS AND NOW comes Defendant Raymond A. Miller, by and through his attorney, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, and files the Motion for Transcripts and requests the Transcripts for the hearings in the above captioned matter held on the following dates: 1. A hearing was held on May 25, 2012 (this transcript has been completed) 2. A second day of hearing was held on June 20, 2012. 3. A third day of hearing was held on June 21, 2012 4.. A fourth day of hearing was held on this matter on June 25, 2012 5. A fifth day of hearing was held on this matter on June 26, 2012. WHEREFORE, Defendant Raymond A. Miller respectfully requests this Court grant this Motion for Transcripts and issue an Order directing an original of each transcript to be filed with the Court and copy of each of the aforementioned hearings held in this matter be provided to the undersigned. Respectfully Submitted, JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH, PC Dated: 1 - Joanne Harrison Mi ll h, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 3 61 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 Attorney for the Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Connie Lee, Limric, secretary to Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of the foregoing document by United States First Class Mail to the following individual set forth below: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. S.J Cumberland Count Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Vicki Ebersole, Court Reporter Mandy Cortez, Court Reporter Cumberland County Courthouse, Ste 400 One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esquire Turner and O'Connell 4701 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dater Connie L imric, retary to Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire Attorney ID No. 36461 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Raymond A. Miller HOLLY CATHLEEN LUCENTE, Plaintiff V. RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) NO. 2002-5647 CIVIL TERM c:_- N HOLLY C. MILLER, Plaintiff RAYMOND A. MILLER Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS c OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN§4S` c;? CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM RAYMOND A. MILLER, Plaintiff HOLLY MILLER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL. ACTION (IN CUSTODY) NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this _jjt? day of _j v , 2012, a Rule to Show Cause is here issued against Respondent Mother Holly Miller to show cause, if any, why Petitioner/Defendant Father's Motion for Supersedes and Stay of Relocation Custody Order should not be granted. Rule Returnable within -11 days of date of Service. BY THE jVQURT, / L, )./'" L S J. Distribution: Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire, 3448 Trine Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011 `Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, 3820 Market Street, Camp Hill, PA 17 L Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esquire, 4701 North Front Street, Harrisburg PA 17110 eoP;Csl?d ca-; f. i1%10? HOLLY CATHLEEN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUCENTE, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) V. RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, Defendant : NO. 2002-5647 CIVIL TERM HOLLY C. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER, : Defendant : NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM RAYMOND A. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) -" HOLLY MILLER, V1- Defendant : NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 OLER, S.J., July 26, 2012. In these custody relocation cases the mother of four children by one respondent and of one child by a second respondent has been permitted, following a five-day hearing, to relocate the children from Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, to 1 Spokane Valley, Washington. i The counter-proposal of each respondent was that primary physical custody of his children or his child be transferred to him. From the orders authorizing the relocation, which included a provision for a judicial review of the efficacy of the new custody arrangement in six months, both respondents have filed appeals to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.2 Similar statements of errors complained of on appeal have been filed by both respondents. Respondent Lucente's statement of errors complained of reads as follows: 1. The trial Court erred by determining that feasible alternatives can be made to preserve the relationship between the non-relocating party and his children. 2. The trial Court erred in concluding the Relocation Custody Order provides Father with suitable alternative custody arrangements available to preserve Defendant Fatherf's] relationship with his children if she relocates from Camp Hill, Pennsylvania to Spokane Valley, Washington when he presently has six (6) overnights out of every fourteen (14) days and other periods of custody totaling a minimum of 150 to 160 overnights a year and the relocation reduces his weekly contact to custody approximately 72 days a year with contact only during Christmas and spring vacation and seven or eight weeks in the summer months of the year. 3. The trial Court erred in determining there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for the mother seeking relocation including but not limited to a finding that Plaintiff Mother will have a financial benefit, emotional benefit or educational benefit where the record is devoid of any date certain for Mother to marry, where Mother has not even looked for employment, and where Mother has not made any effort to enroll in an educational program or even submitted plans to do so, and in fact quit her self employment in order to move, and where Mother's only income is child support. 4. The trial Court erred in relying on "the consensus of the children ... that Petitioner's (Mother) decision to move to Washington is her best option under the circumstances" and/or erred in considering the personal happiness of Mother as a basis to permit relocation. 5. The trial Court erred in determining that relocating the minor children over two thousand miles away from Defendant Father and reducing his regular periods of custody to less than half his current custody to two annual holiday visits and custody'/ of the summer constitutes realistic, substitute visitation arrangements which will adequately foster an ongoing relationship between the children and the non custodial parent will have on their relationship with their father. 6. The trial Court erred in failing to appropriately consider the fact that the Father is the parent who is actively involved with the children's school and will no longer be ' Orders of Court, June 29, 2012. z Notice of Appeal filed by Richard V. Lucente, July 19, 2012; Notice of Appeal filed by Raymond A. Miller, July 19, 2012. 2 able to help the children with their homework or participate in parent teacher conferences, individualized educational programs or extracurricular activities. Defendant has a bachelor of science degree and has been employed as a development engineer with a company known as T.E. Connectivity for 14 years whereas Plaintiff has a high school diploma and has been self-employed as a day-care provider. The trial Court admitted that defendant "is better able to help the children with their homework than Petitioner." 7. The trial court erred in failing to structure a custody schedule that preserves the relationship between the non-relocating party and the children through suitable alternative custody arrangements and erred in failing to recognize the relocation that having the children living two thousand miles away from Defendant Father, for 9 '/2 months of the calendar year, may irreparably harm Father's ability to preserve the current close loving relationship he has with his minor children and erred in determining that contact with the non custodial parent via daily communication by Skype, telephone or other technology is sufficient to constitute a realistic substitute arrangement for Father to have visitation that would adequately foster the on going close relationship that Father currently has with the minor children. 8. The trial Court erred in failing to appropriately consider the fact that Defendant Father has physical custody of the minor children over 40% of the calendar year and at least 150 to 160 overnights per year and that the minor children [were] already not living with their half sibling over 40% of the year and the trial Court erred by placing more weight on preserving the children's contact with their half siblings than preserving their physical custodial relationship with the Father. 9. The trial Court erred in failing to consider that the minor children of these two families would still have significant contact with each other if the relocation was denied and Defendant Lucent's minor children would continue to reside in the residence where they currently live with their Father over 40% of the time, and their half sibling would continue to reside in the same residence where she currently lives with [her] Father more than 40% of the time, and failed to consider the Fathers' homes are less than five (5) miles apart and the children are able to see each other every week if they do not relocate. 10. The trial Court erred in failing to follow appellate case law when determining whether Mother met her burden of proof in establishing the proposed relocation will enhance the general quality of life for Mother and the trial Court erred in failing to follow appellate law and erred in assessing the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and the children and/or erred in determining there is a suitable alternative custody arrangement available to preserve Father's custodial relationship with his children given the significant regular[] weekly custodial contact Father has with his children. 11. The trial Court erred in failing to follow Gruber and other appellate cases to determine and appropriately assess and consider whether the relocation will substantially improve the quality of life for the custodial parent and minor children. 12. The trial Court erred in determining the move would be better for the children when Mother's main motivation to relocate was to pursue a romantic relationship that she rekindled over the internet with a man she dated twenty-five years ago in high school with whom Mother has never spent more than seven consecutive days ... in the past three years they have been long distance dating and where the children have never spent more than three days with her paramour/fiance. 3 ti 13. The trial Court erred in repeatedly acknowledging risks and inconsistencies in mother's stated reasons for relocating and the fragileness of the lack of specificity in her future economic, financial and emotional plans, but permitting her to relocate the children. 14. The trial Court erred in failing to properly consider the nature, quality and extent of involvement of Father in the children's lives and erred in considering the children's relationship with their half sibling more important than their relationship with their Father. 15. The trial court erred in determining the relocation was proper where it is an undisputed fact that the minor children and their half sibling have never even physically met Mother's fiance's three children, two of who, will be residing at least part time with Mother, her fiance and Mother's five (5) children in a three bedroom home in Spokane Valley, Washington. 16. The trial Court erred in failing to sufficiently consider the age, developmental stage and needs of the minor children and failed to assess the likely impact a move 2000 miles away will have on the children's physical, educational and emotional development, and failed to take in to sufficient consideration the special needs of defendant Lucent's two oldest children who have been diagnosed with depression and have been in counseling with Mary Jo Devlin, LCSW; MSW, for several years. Defendant Lucente has been the party primarily responsible for ,taking the children to their appointments as well as participating at the end of the sessions. 17. The trial Court erred in failing to consider the testimony of the treating therapist for defendant Lucente's two oldest children that the relocation would be detrimental to the children and in failing to consider her un-refuted testimony that a third blended family relationship attempt by twice divorced Mother was less than 20% likely to succeed under the circumstances where Mother has spent less than 50 total days with her paramour in three years, in three to seven (3-7) day increments, where the children have not even met his three children who will be living with them under his partial custody schedule in his three bedroom home. 18. The trial Court erred in determining there was sufficient basis for Mother to move five children from the area where they have resided for more than ten years, from their two exemplary Fathers who each have physical custody of their children in excess of 40% of the year and see the children on a weekly basis, from their schools, doctors, churches, friends and activities, where they are leaving the certainty of a community and custodial schedules that were working to the absolute uncertainty of Mother's proposed new life 2000 miles away where she has no job, no income, no educational plans, no marriage planned, and no relatives within two hours and where Mother is 100% financially dependent on her fiance with whom she and the children have never resided. 19. The trial Court erred in permitting Mother's request for relocation based on her claim the move was financially necessary where Mother made no attempt to seek other employment, education or reduced housing expenses, but instead, decided to move 2000 miles away where she has sought no job or educational program and will no longer have her self employment income was her only option. 20. The trial Court erred by ruling the Mother can relocate with the children where it found the separation of the children from the other parent will have a detrimental effect on them and committed error by permitting relocation in part because Mother was moving regardless of whether the Court permitted her to take the children. 4 21. The trial Court erred by applying primary custody standards, instead of relocation standards in reaching its determination.' Respondent Miller's statement of errors complained of reads as follows. 1. The trial Court erred by determining that feasible alternatives can be made to preserve the relationship between the non-relocating party and his child. 2. The trial Court erred in concluding the Relocation Custody Order provides Father with suitable alternative custody arrangements available to preserve Defendant Fatherf's) relationship with his child if she relocates from Camp Hill, Pennsylvania to Spokane Valley, Washington when he presently has custody five (5) overnights out of every fourteen (14) days and other periods of custody totaling a minimum of 143 overnights a year and the relocation reduces his weekly contact to custody approximately 72 days a year with contact only during Christmas and spring vacation and seven or eight weeks in the summer months of the year. 3. The trial Court erred in determining there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for the mother seeking relocation including but not limited to a finding that Plaintiff Mother will have a financial benefit, emotional benefit or educational benefit where the record is devoid of any date certain for Mother to marry, where Mother has not even looked for employment, and where Mother has not made any effort to enroll in an educational program or even submitted plans to do so, and in fact quit her self employment in order to move, and where Mother's only income is child support. 4. The trial Court erred in relying on "the consensus of the children ... that Petitioner's (Mother) decision to move to Washington is her best option under the circumstances" and/or erred in considering the personal happiness of Mother as a basis to permit relocation. 5. The trial Court erred in determining that relocating the minor child over two thousand miles away from Defendant Father and reducing his regular periods of custody to less than half his current custody in two annual holiday visits and custody 3/4 of the summer constitutes realistic, substitute visitation arrangements which will adequately foster an ongoing relationship between the child and the non custodial parent and will have a devastating effect on their relationship with her father. 6. The trial Court erred in failing to appropriately consider the fact that the Father is the parent who is actively involved with the child's school and will no longer be able to be actually involved as a classroom mom, secret reader and PTO officer if the child relocates. 7. The trial court erred in failing to structure a custody schedule that preserves the relationship between the non-relocating party and the children through suitable alternative custody arrangements and erred in failing to recognize that having the child living two thousand miles away from Defendant Father, for 9 % months of the calendar year, may irreparably harm Father's ability to preserve the current close loving relationship he has with his minor daughter and erred in determining that contact with the non custodial parent via daily communication by Skype, telephone or other technology is 3 Defendant Richard V. Lucente's Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, filed July 19, 2012. 5 sufficient to constitute a realistic substitute arrangement for Father to have visitation that would adequately foster the on going close relationship that Father currently has with the minor child. 8. The trial Court erred in failing to appropriately consider the fact that Defendant has physical custody of the minor child over 40% of the calendar year and at least 143 overnights during which time the minor child was not living with her siblings and the trial Court erred by placing more weight on preserving the child's contact with her half siblings than preserving her physical custodial relationship with her Father. 9. The trial Court erred in failing to consider that the minor children of these two families would still have significant contact with each other if the relocation was denied and Defendant Miller's minor child would continue to reside in the residence where she currently lives with her Father over 40% of the time, and her half siblings would continue to reside in the same residence where they currently live with their Father more than 40% of the time, and failed to consider the Fathers[`] homes are less than five (5) miles apart and the children are able to see each other every week if they do not relocate. 10. The trial Court erred in failing to follow appellate case law when determining whether Mother met her burden of proof in establishing the proposed relocation will enhance the general quality of life for Mother and the trial Court erred in failing to follow appellate law and erred in assessing the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and the child and/or erred in determining there is a suitable alternative custody arrangement available to preserve Father's custodial relationship with his daughter given the significant regular[] weekly custodial contact Father has with his child. 11. The trial Court erred in failing to follow Gruber and other appellate cases to determine and appropriately assess and consider whether the relocation will substantially improve the quality of life for the custodial parent and minor child. 12. The trial Court erred in determining the move would be better for the children when Mother's main motivation to relocate was to pursue a romantic relationship that she rekindled over the internet with a man she dated twenty-five years ago in high school with whom Mother has never spent more than seven consecutive days ... in the past three years they have been long distance dating and where the children have never spent more than three days with her paramour/fiance. 13. The trial Court erred in failing to consider the negative impact of Mother's animosity for Father Miller, and how the impact of that animosity will further weaken and harm the child's relationship with Father if the child relocates 2000 miles away from Father and loses her regular[] weekly contact with Father, and loses spending more than 40% of her custodial time with her Father. 14. The trial Court erred in repeatedly acknowledging risks and inconsistencies in mother's stated reasons for relocating and the fragileness of the lack of specificity in her future economic, financial and emotional plans, but permitting her to relocate the children. 15. The trial Court erred in failing to properly consider the nature, quality and extent of involvement of Father in the child's life and erred in considering the child's relationship with her half siblings more important than her relationship with her Father. 16. The trial Court erred in determining the relocation was proper where it is an undisputed fact that the minor child and her four (4) half siblings have never even 6 physically met Mother's fiance's three children, two of who, will be residing at least part time with Mother, her fiance and Mother's five (5) children in a three bedroom home in Spokane Valley, Washington. 17. The trial Court erred in failing to sufficiently consider the age, developmental stage, needs of the minor child and failed to assess the likely impact a move 2000 miles away will have on the child's physical, educational and emotional development, and failed to take in to sufficient consideration the special needs of the child who has achondroplasia dwarfism and several related medical issues or that the child has been medically supervised from birth to age 7 with numerous physicians and specialist all in the vicinity of her present residence, and Father has always participated in said treatment and the relocation will prohibit Father's continued involvement. 18. The trial Court erred in failing to consider the testimony of the treating licensed family therapist for two of her half siblings that the relocation was not in the best interest of the children and in failing to consider her un-refirted testimony that a third blended family relationship attempt by twice divorced Mother was less than 20% likely to succeed under the circumstances where Mother has spent less than 50 total days with her paramour in three years, in three to seven (3-7) day increments, where the children have not even met his three children who will be living with them under his partial custody schedule in his three bedroom home. 19. The trial Court erred in determining there was sufficient basis for Mother to move five children from the area where they have resided for more than ten years, from their two exemplary Fathers who each have physical custody of their children in excess of 40% of the year and see the children on a weekly basis, from their schools, doctors, churches, friends and activities, []where they are leaving the certainty of a community and custodial schedules that were working to the absolute uncertainty of Mother's proposed new life 2000 miles away where she has no job, no income, no educational plans, no marriage planned, and no relatives within two hours and where Mother is 100% financially dependent on her fiance with whom she and the children have never resided. 20. The trial Court erred in permitting Mother's request for relocation based on her claim the move was financially necessary where Mother made no attempt to seek other employment, education or reduced housing expenses, but instead, decided to move 2000 miles away where she has sought no job or educational program and will no longer have her self employment income. 21. The trial Court erred by ruling the Mother can relocate with the children where it found the separation of the children from the other parent will have a detrimental effect on them and committed error by permitting relocation in part because Mother was moving regardless of whether the Court permitted her to take the children. 22. The trial Court erred by applying primary custody standards, instead of relocation standards in reaching its determination. 23. The trial Court erred in permitting the relocation when the Court ordered and scheduled a hearing January 2, 2013 "to determine, inter alia, whether Petitioner's marital, educational, occupational, financial, and housing representations have been carried out." 24. The trial Court erred by permitting the relocation when it factually determined "Petitioner's decision to relocate, with or without the children, belies her 7 contention that `[her] children are [her] life' and is subversive to the policy underlying the Commonwealth's custody relocation doctrine. "4 The rationale for this court's orders permitting the relocation of the children is contained in an opinion which accompanied the orders and which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. The main thrust of respondents' appeals, from a legal standpoint, is that the court, in authorizing the relocation, misapprehended the distinction between custody relocation cases and ordinary custody cases, ultimately permitting a relocation that represented a less ideal arrangement from the standpoint of the children's best interests than was in existence. The very difficult nature of these cases is evident from the court's opinion, and the benefit of appellate review is equally obvious in such cases. in reaching its decision, this court was, of course, aware of the unique aspects of custody relocation cases, but was not willing to construe the Gruber doctrine as requiring adoption of the custody arrangement least conducive to the children's best interests from those available, notwithstanding that the relocation would deprive them of the most ideal arrangement. Cf. Collins v. Collins, 2006 PA Super 53, ¶16, 897 A.2d 466, 471 (2006) ("With any child custody case, the paramount concern is the best interests of the child.") (lower court's order denying relocation and awarding primary custody in first instance to non-relocating parent reversed), allocatur refused, 588 Pa. 762, 903 A.2d 1232 (2006). BY THE COURT, L? J esley Oler , S.J. Diane G. Radcliff, Esq. 3448 Trindle Road ` - -t:) rT, Camp Hill, PA 17011>" Attorney for Holly C. Miller (formerly Lucente)4 i ' C-) - G ? o 4 Defendant Raymond A. Miller's Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, filed July 19, 2012. 8 v' Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esq. Turner and O'Connell 4701 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Richard Vincent Lucents Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Raymond A. Miller 6 r`'S lttCc,?,.? 7/ 9 APPENDIX HOLLY CATHLEEN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUCENTE, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) V. RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, Defendant : NO. 2002-5647 CIVIL TERM HOLLY C. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER, : Defendant : NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM RAYMOND A. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, n=3 " Defendant : NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY RELOCATION BEFORE OLER, S.J.' ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of the Notices ?of Proposed Relocation filed by Holly C. Miller (formerly Lucente), and of the Counter- Affidavits Regarding Relocation filed by Richard Vincent Lucente and Raymond A. Miller, following a hearing held on May 25, June 20-21, and June 25-26, 2012, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the proposed relocations of the parties' children to Spokane Valley, Washington, are authorized. Revised custody orders in the forms attached to the accompanying opinion will be entered of even date herewith. A FURTHER HEARING is scheduled to determine whether the terms of the revised orders should be continued or modified based upon the circumstances then existing on Wednesday, January 2, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT, J.(Wesley Ole S.J. Diane G. Radcliff, Esq. 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Holly C. Miller (formerly Lucente) Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esq. Turner and O'Connell 4701 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Richard Vincent Lucente Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Raymond A. Miller HOLLY CATHLEEN LUCENTE, Plaintiff V. RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) Defendant : NO. 2002-5647 CIVIL TERM HOLLY C. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER, Defendant : NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM RAYMOND A. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HOLLY MILLER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) : NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY RELOCATION BEFORE OLER, S.J. OLER, S. J., June 29, 2012. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT These custody relocation cases illustrate the dilemma posed when a parent wishes to relocate with his or her children and (a) it is clearly in the children's best interest to remain together and in the primary custody of that parent, (b) a separation of the children from the other parent will nevertheless have a detrimental effect upon them, and (c) the 1 parent who seeks authorization to relocate the children will be moving regardless of whether the court permits the relocation of the children. Specifically, herein, the mother of four children by one respondent and of one child by a second respondent, both of whom are exemplary fathers, has filed notices of proposed relocation from Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, to Spokane Valley, Washington,' in order to reside with her fiance, to improve what she regards as an untenable financial situation, to utilize the relative independence thus achieved to obtain part-tune employment and further her education, and to benefit from the association with members of her family who live in Washington State, and has credibly represented that she will be moving regardless of whether the relocation of the children is authorized. A five-day hearing was held in this matter on May 25, June 20-21, and June 25-26, 2012. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the relocation of the children will be approved, subject to a further hearing in January of 2013, to determine, inter alia, whether Petitioner's marital, educational, occupational, financial, and housing representations have been carried out. STATEMENT OF FACTS Petitioner is Holly C. Miller (formerly Lucente), 43, who currently resides in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Respondent Richard Vincent Lucente, 46, resides in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Respondent Raymond A. Miller, 54, resides in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. All three Cumberland County residences are within a few miles of each other and in the same school district. ' Notice of Proposed Relocation, No. 2002-5647 Civil Term, filed April 5, 2012; Notice of Proposed Relocation, No. 2009-2081 Civil Term, filed April 5, 2012. The latter Notice of Proposed Relocation was inadvertently filed at a divorce action between the mother and father, and the father's objection to the relocation was filed at the parties' custody action. Counter-Affidavit Regarding Relocation, No. 2010- 3837 Civil Term, filed April 18, 2012. The court has consolidated the custody and divorce actions for purposes of the relocation issue. Order of Court, Nos. 2009-2081 Civil Term (in divorce) and 2010-3837 Civil Terns (in custody), May 23, 2012. 2 Petitioner was married on December 11, 1992, to Respondent Lucente. Four children were born of the marriage: Gabriele B. Lucente (d.o.b. April 14, 1995); Dominique P. Lucente (d.o.b. August 12, 1996); Vincent R. Lucente (d.o.b. July 16, 1998); and Gino R. Lucente (d.o.b. March 11, 2000). Petitioner and Respondent Lucente separated in November of 2002, and were divorced on May 30, 2003. Following her divorce from Respondent Lucente, Petitioner married Respondent Miller on July 31, 2004. One child was born of the marriage: Madison J. Miller (d.o.b. November 22, 2004). Petitioner and Respondent Miller separated in January of 2008 and were divorced on February 23, 2011. Petitioner is currently engaged to Anthony Anderman, 45, whom she knew in high school and who resides in Spokane Valley, Washington. He has three children who are in his partial custody on alternating weekends. As of June 30, 2012, Petitioner will have relocated her residence to that of Mr. Anderman in the State of Washington. With respect to custody of the four Lucente children, the existing 2003 custody order provides for shared legal custody, primary physical custody in the mother, and partial physical custody in the father on alternating weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Monday at 8:00 p.m., each Wednesday from 6:00 p.m. until Thursday at 8:00 p.m., on certain holidays, and for an additional period of two non-consecutive weeks during the summer.2 In practice, Respondent Lucente's periods of partial physical custody until recently included an additional overnight every two weeks, resulting in his having 150- 160 overnights per year, but Petitioner terminated these unmandated periods of partial physical custody. With respect to custody of the Miller child, the existing 2010 custody order provides for shared legal custody, primary physical custody in the mother, and partial physical custody in the father on alternating weekends from Friday at 5:30 p.m. to Sunday at 7:30 p.m., every Wednesday from 5:30 p.m. to Thursday at 8:30 a.m., every 2 Custody Order, May 28, 2003, No. 2002-5647 Civil Term. 3 other week from Monday at 5:30 p.m. to Tuesday at 8:30 a.m., and on certain holidays.3 In practice, Respondent Miller's periods of partial physical custody have included an occasional additional hour, and his overnights total about 143 per year. Petitioner mother, who is a high, school graduate, was until recently self-employed in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, as a day-care provider, but the business proved financially unsustainable. Respondent Lucente, who has a bachelor of science degree, has been employed as a "development engineer" with a company known as T.E. Connectivity for 14 years and lives in a three-bedroom house, which he rents. Respondent Miller, who has a bachelor of arts degree, has been employed since 2002 in the computer division of PHEAA (Pennsylvania :Higher Education Assistance Agency), "with third party oversight," and lives in a three-bedroom house, which he owns. Petitioner's fiance, who has bachelor of science and master of science degrees, is employed by the State of Washington and performs periodic contractual work for the Defense Department, earns about $110,000.00 a year, and lives in a three-bedroom house, which he rents; however, in the event the relocation of the children is approved he and Petitioner will be purchasing a larger home to accommodate the expanded household. Petitioner received a discharge in bankruptcy from debts totaling about $18,000.00 in 2004; since then she has accumulated new debt in the amount of $28,000.00 and her monthly expenses far exceed her income. Respondent Lucente is $40,000.00 in debt, but appears to be able to remain current on the minimum payments on the debt as a result of his employment. Respondent Miller is financially solvent. Both respondents are current on their child support obligations. The finality of Petitioner's decision to move to the home of her fiance in Washington, whether or not she retains primary physical custody of her children, has been evidenced by her commitment to her fiance, the termination of the lease on her present residence as of June 30, 2012, and her disposal of household furnishings. In its capacity as trier-of-fact, the court is, unfortunately, convinced of her resolve in this s Custody Order, August 9, 2010, No. 2010-3837 Civil Term. 4 regard. The court has also found credible her explanation for the decision, as summarized at the beginning of this opinion. Significantly, the consensus of the children is that Petitioner's decision to move to Washington is her best option under the circumstances, and they are not uncomfortable with the prospect of Mr. Anderman's being their step- father. Petitioner has been the primary custodian of all of the children since their birth. The children are extremely close to their mother and to each other. Each child is performing satisfactorily, or better than satisfactorily, in school, and each has impressed the court with his or her poise, intelligence, and maturity under very stressful conditions. However, three of the children of Petitioner and Respondent Lucente have suffered from, and been treated for, depression. Madison, the seven-year-old daughter of Petitioner and Respondent Miller, and youngest of the siblings, has a condition known as achondroplasia. Both Petitioner and Respondent Miller have been active on her behalf in the organization known as Little :People of America. She Is a dear, precocious child, articulate beyond her years, who sleeps with her mother and is lovingly nurtured by her siblings. It would, in the court's view, be devastating to her to separate her from the household in which her mother lives and from her brothers and sisters. As noted, both respondents are exemplary fathers. A recitation of their activities in connection with the children only weakly conveys the importance of their roles in the lives of the children. Respondent Lucente was instrumental in securing therapy for his oldest daughters, terminated a romantic relationship in which he was involved because he felt it was interfering with his responsibilities as a father, has continued to meet his financial obligations to his children through stable employment, works part-time at the YMCA to provide a family membership for his children, is better able to help the children with their homework than Petitioner, has offered Petitioner an opportunity to move back into his home with the children, and does much more. 5 Respondent Miller has renovated his home to accommodate the needs of his daughter, has provided an oxygen system to ameliorate her condition of sleep apnea, gardens, plays and shops with her, looks in on her several times a night when she is with him to be sure that she is all right, serves as a "room mom" and "secret reader" at her school, supports her financially, and admittedly "spoils" her. Madison is, quite simply, "the joy of [his] life." Petitioner's fianc6; who testified at the hearing on behalf of Petitioner, impressed the court as sincere in his expression of love for Petitioner, personally responsible and realistic, and compatible with the children. More than one child described him as "cool." Petitioner's case for relocation, while sincerely based, is not without arguable flaws, in addition to the detriment of diminished contact with the respondents which it would necessarily entail. Petitioner's reattachment to her fianc6 is relatively recent, has not produced a date for a wedding, is coincident with financial necessity on the part of Petitioner, and may or may not prove more durable than her prior marriages. The children are not well-acquainted with their prospective step-father or his children. Petitioner's family members in Washington are no closer than two hours from the relocation residence in Spokane Valley, and Petitioner's recent contact with them has been minimal. The facilitation of frequent personal contact between the children and their fathers at the distances occasioned by the relocation would be an expensive proposition. Finally, Petitioner's decision to relocate, with or without the children, belies her contention that "[her] children are [her] life," and is subversive to the policy underlying the Commonwealth's custody relocation doctrine. With all of this said, the court has reached the conclusion that the best interests of these closely-bonded children depend upon their continued primary residence in a common household, with each other and with their mother, and that a denial of relocation in this unique case would thwart those interests, with irreparable harm to at least one of the children and, on balance, overall detriment to the others. 6 DISCUSSION The law with respect to custody relocation cases has been codified effective January 24, 2011, at 23 Pa. C.S. §5337. With respect to the burden of proof, the statute provides as follows: (1) The party proposing the relocation has the burden of establishing that the relocation will serve the best interest of the child as shown under the factors set forth [below]. (2) Each party has the burden of establishing the integrity of that party's motives in either seeking the relocation or seeking to prevent the relocation.4 With respect to the effect of a unilateral relocation in the absence of a judicial resolution of the issue, the statute provides that, "[i]f a party relocates with the child prior to a full expedited hearing, the court shall not confer any presumption in favor of the relocation."5 Finally, with respect to the factors to be considered by a court in ruling upon the issue of relocation, the statute provides as follows: In determining whether to grant a proposed relocation, the court shall consider the following factors, giving weighted consideration to the factors which affect the safety of the child: (1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement and duration of the child's relationship with the party proposing to relocate and with the nonrelocating party, siblings and other significant persons in the child's life. (2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical, educational and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child. (3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating party and the child through suitable custody arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties. (4) The child's preference, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child. 4 23 Pa. C.S. §5337(i) (burden of proof). 5 23 Pa. C.S. §5337(1) (effect of relocation prior to hearing). 7 (5) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of either party to promote or thwart the relationship of the child and the other party. (6) Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for the party seeking the relocation, including, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity. (7) Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for the child, including, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity. (S) The reasons and motivation of each party for seeking or opposing the relocation. (9) The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of the party's household and whether there is a continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party. (10) Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child.6 In the present case, the court has concluded that the motives of the parties in seeking and opposing relocation are sincere and reasonable, that the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for Petitioner, that by extension and for the other reasons stated above the best interests of the children will be served by their relocation with Petitioner, and that feasible alternatives can be made to preserve the relationship between the nonrelocating parties and their respective children. In reaching this conclusion., the court is aware that the maxim "hard cases make bad law" is an admonition and not a precept, but has been constrained under the unique circumstances of the present case to strive to avoid a resolution inimical to the best interests of the children. Based upon the foregoing, and upon consideration of all of the factors enumerated in Section 5337(h) of the Domestic Relations Code, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of the Notices of Proposed Relocation filed by Holly C. Miller (formerly Lucente), and of the Counter- Affidavits Regarding Relocation filed by Richard Vincent Lucente and Raymond A. Miller, following a hearing held on May 25, June 20-21, and June 25-26, 2012, and for 6 23 Pa. C.S. §5337(h). 8 the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the proposed relocations of the parties' children to Spokane Valley, Washington, are authorized. Revised custody orders in the forms attached to the accompanying opinion will be entered of even date herewith. A FURTHER HEARING is scheduled to determine whether the terms of the revised orders should be continued or modified based upon the circumstances then existing on Wednesday, January 2, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Diane G. Radcliff, Esq. 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Holly C. Miller (formerly Lucente) Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esq. Turner and O'Connell 4701 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Richard Vincent Lucente Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Raymond A. Miller 9 BY THE COURT, HOLLY CATHLEEN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUCENTE, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) V. RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, Defendant : NO. 2002-5647 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2012, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. This Order is entered regarding Plaintiff, Holly Cathleen Lucente, now Holly C. Miller (hereinafter referred to as Mother), and Richard Vincent Lucente (hereinafter referred to as Father) and their children, Gabrielle B. Lucente, born on April 14, 1995, Dominique P. Lucente, born on August 12, 1996, Vincente R. Lucente, born on July 16, 1998, and Gino R. Lucente, born on March 11, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Children), and shall supersede all prior custody orders. 2. The parents shall share and have joint legal custody of the children. Joint legal custody means the right of both parents to control and to share in making decisions of importance in the lives of their children, including educational, medical, and religious decisions. Both parents shall be entitled to equal access to the children's school, medical, dental and other important records. As soon as practical after the receipt by a parent, copies of the children's school schedules, special events notifications, report cards, and similar items shall be provided to the other parent. Despite this provision, if any service provider or professional still requires a release of a parent to access the children's educational, religious or medical information, both parents shall execute a release within ten days of any written request by a parent or his or her counsel. Notwithstanding that both parents share legal custody, non-major decisions involving the children's day to day living shall be made by the parent then having custody, consistent with the other provisions of this Order. 3. Mother shall have primary physical custody of the children. 4. Father shall have periods of partial physical custody as follows: (A) In the summer of 2012, from June 29, 2012, until fourteen days preceding the first day of school for the children in the fall (being the first school day for any of Mother's children). Mother shall be entitled to exercise a three consecutive day visit with the children in Pennsylvania during the month of July. (B) Starting with the summer of 2013 and in the summers thereafter, from the 7th day following the last day of school (being the last day of school for any of Mother's children) until fourteen days preceding the first day of school for the children in the fall (being the first day of school for any of Mother's children; provided, that Mother shall be entitled to exercise a three consecutive day visit with the children in Pennsylvania during the month of July, if she notifies father of her intention to do so at least four weeks in advance of the visit. (C) During each Easter/Spring school break (or the longer of the two if exercised separately) from the first full day off school to the last day off school. (D) During each Christmas school break, from the first full day off school to the last day off school; provided, that the period in the forthcoming 2012-13 season shall extend to January 3, 2013. (E) At such times as Father is visiting in the Spokane Valley, Washington, vicinity. 4. Mother shall bear the full cost, including transportation expenses, of custody exchanges. 5. The noncustodial parent shall be entitled to contact his or her children at least daily, by the means of his or her choice, and at the times of his or her choice, said means and times to be noticed at least a week in advance; the children shall be permitted to contact the noncustodial parent at any time, by any means. 6. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the parties from deviating from the terms of this order by mutual consent. BY THE COURT, J. Wesley Oler, Jr., S.J. Diane G. Radcliff, Esq. 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Holly C. Miller Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esq. Turner and O'Connell 4701 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Richard Vincente Lucente RAYMOND A. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, Defendant : NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2012, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. This Order is entered regarding Plaintiff, Holly [C] Miller (hereinafter referred to as Mother), and Raymond A. Miller (hereinafter referred to as Father) and their child, Madison J. Miller, born November 22, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as Child), and shall supersede all prior custody orders. 2. The parents shall share and have joint legal custody of the child. Joint legal custody means the right of both parents to control and to share in making decisions of importance in the life of their child, including educational, medical, and religious decisions. Both parents shall be entitled to equal access to the child's school, medical, dental and other important records. As soon as practical after the receipt by a parent, copies of the child's school schedules, special events notifications, report cards, and similar items shall be provided to the other parent. Despite this provision, if any service provider or professional still requires a release of a parent to access the child's educational, religious or medical information, both parents shall execute a release within ten days of any written request by a parent or his or her counsel. Notwithstanding that both parents share legal custody, non-major decisions involving the child's day to day living shall be made by the parent then having custody, consistent with the other provisions of this Order. 3. Mother shall have primary physical custody of the child. 4. Father shall have periods of partial physical custody as follows: (A) In the summer of 2012, from June 29, 2012, until fourteen days preceding the first day of school for the child in the fall (being the first school day for any of Mother's children). Mother shall be entitled to exercise a three consecutive day visit with the child in Pennsylvania during the month of July. (B) Starting with the summer of 2013 and in the summers thereafter, from the 7th day following the last day of school (being the last day of school for any of Mother's children) until fourteen days preceding the first day of school for the child in the fall (being the first day of school for any of Mother's children); provided, that Mother shall be entitled to exercise a three consecutive day visit with the child in Pennsylvania during the month of July, if she notifies Father of her intention to do so at least four weeks in advance of the visit. (C) During each Easter/Spring school break (or the longer of the two if exercised separately) from the first full day off school to the last day off school. (D) During each Christmas school break, from the first full day off school to the last day off school; provided, that the period in the forthcoming 2012-13 season shall extend to January 3, 2013. (E) At such rimes as Father is visiting in the Spokane Valley, Washington, vicinity. 4. Mother shall bear the full cost, including transportation expenses, of custody exchanges. 5. The noncustodial parent shall be entitled to contact his or her child at least daily, by the means of his or her choice, and at the times of his or her choice, said means and times to be noticed at least a week in advance; the child shall be permitted to contact the noncustodial parent at any time, by any means. 6. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the parties from deviating from the terms of this order by mutual consent. BY THE COURT, J. Wesley Oler, Jr., S.J. Diane G. Radcliff, Esq. 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Holly C. Miller Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Raymond A. Miller Ouperior Court of enniiylbania Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq. Prothonotary Mary A. Graybill, Esq. Deputy Prothonotary Buell, David D. Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courllhtxm lure Carle, PA 17013 RE: H.C.L v. 20102-5847 (Custody) R.V.L. H.C.M. v. 2009-2081 (Divorce) R.A.M. R.A.M. v. 2010-3837 (Custody) H.C.M. Appeal of: R.V.L., Father 1325 MDA 2012 Trial Court Docket No: 2010-3837 Dear David D. Buell: July 25, 2012 Middle District Pennsylvania judicial Center P.O. Box 2436 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 600 Harrisburg, PA 17106 2435 (717) 772-1294 C') c Cl) D H CU C r-- N -d MID s Enclosed please find a copy of the docket for the above appeal that was recarMy filed in Superior Court. Kindly review the information on this docket and notify this office In writing if 1 believe any corrections are required. r= M1 O XC:) CC), Appellant's counsel is also being sent a Docketing Statement, pursuant to Pa,R.A.P. 35 7, for completion and filing. Please note that Superior Court Dockets are available on the Inter at the Web site address printed at the top of this page. Thank you. Respectfully yours, Mary A. Graybill, Esq. Deputy Prothonotary /vsl Enclosure TO: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler Jr. FROM: The Honorable Correale F. Stevens, President Judge RE: H.C.M. v. R.V.L. 1325 MDA 2012 Trial Court Docket No: 2010-3837 Date: July 25, 2012 The appeal in this case has been designated as a Children's Fast Track appeal accordance with recent amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The amendiner effective for notices of appeal filed on or aft Mich 16, 2009, were irnpiaarer'mu to 9 end treatment to certain types of family cases in an effort to mitigate the harmful effe of such litigation on children. As such, this Court is seeking your help in moving this matt along as expeditiously as possible. To that and, you should be aware that amended Pa.R.A.P. 1925(ar)(2)(i) requires i appellant to file and serve the statement of errors c npkkied of on appeal slinrttsne ly v the filing of the notice of appeal. Amend Pa.R.A.P. 1925(&)(2)(H) mires you, N the reaso for the order do not already appear of record, to fib, within 30 days of react of the notice appeal and 1925 statement, at least a brief opinion of the reasons for the order or for 1 rulings or other errors complained of, which may, but need not, refer to the transcript proceedings. Please also note that amended Pa.R.A.P. 1931 requires the dark to transmit I completed record' to this Court within 30 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. I respectfully ask you to give priority to this matter and complete your opinion or staten pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925 as soon as possible. I also request your assistance in ensu that the record is transmitted as promptly as possible so that a briefing schedule may is promptly from this Court. If the appellant has not requested or made payment for recess transcripts, please notify the staff person below as soon as possible. Under s circxJm , the Court would direct Appellant to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1911(&) or dismissed of the appeal. See P&.IEA.P. 1811(4). If the problem lies with ft court repot this Court would request your indulgence M strictly enforci Pa.R.J.A. 5M.10, which alts for the imposition of sanctions when the request for transrrts is met with reticence. Coui and pro se parties will also be required to do their port in filing, their briefs and other docume timely. Please note that, under the amended Rules, the pairties, have shortened times for fil their briefs. ,,it it this Court's policy that extensions of time in Children's Fast Track appeals be granted only for good cause shown. This Court is very mindful of your enormous work load and we thank you in advance your anticipated cooperation. If all of us do our part to expedite this appeal as quickly possible, hopefully, we can lessen the impact of this litigate on the chi involved. T staff pennon designated below Is responsive for tracing the appeal. While ex pp communication with this Court is forbidden, N you or your chambers have any questic please contact this staff person. Loretta Candelore: (412) 565-7634 Cc: Lower Court Clerk Buell, David D. Diane Gilbert Radcliff, Esq. Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. Johanna Hill Rehkamp, Esq. Court Reporter The Honorable J. Wesley Oler Jr. 3:28 P.M. Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 1325 UDA 2012 Page 1 of 3 July 25, 2012 Superior Court of Secure H.C.L. v. 2002-5647 (Custody) R.V.L. H.C.M. v. 2009-2081 (Divorce) R.A.M. R.A.M. v. 2010-3837 (Custody) H.C.M. Appeal of: R.V.L., father Initiating Document: Notice of Appeal Case Status: Active Case Processing Status: July 23, 2012 Awaiting Original Record Journal Number: Case Category: Domestic Relations Case Type(s): Cus trxWftftbon Children's Fast Track Docket No / Reason Type 1324 MDA 2012 Related Similar Issue(s) Next Event Type: Receive Docketing Statement Next Event Type: Original Record Received Appellont Lucento, Ric hard V. Pro Se: No Appoint Counsel Status: Represented IFP Status: No Attorney: Rehkamp, Johanna Hill Bar No: 206589 Law Firm: Tumor & O'Connell Address: 4701 N Front St Harrisburg, PA 17110 Phone No: (717) 232-4551 Receive Mail: Yes Receive Entail: No Next Event Due Date: Augus 8, 2012 Next Event Due Date. Augus 20, 2012 Fax No: (717) 232-2115 nia 3:28 P.M. Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 1325 UDA 2012 Page 2 of 3 July 25, 2012 Appellee MHIw, Raymond A. Pro Se: No Appoint Counsel Status: Represented IFP Status: Attorney: Radcliff, Diane Gilbert Bar No: 032112 Address: 3448 Trindle Rd Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone No: (717) 737-0100 Receive Mail: Yes Receive EMail: No Superior Court of Secure Fax No: (717) 975-0697 Appellee MINer, Holly C. Pro Se: No Appoint Counsel Status: Represented IFP Status: Attorney: Clough, Joanne Harrison Bar No: 036461 Law Firm: Clough, Joanne Harrison, P.C. Address: 3820 Market St Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone No: (717) 737-5890 Fax No: Receive Mail: Yes Receive Entail: No Fee Dt Fee Name Fee Amt RecW pt Dt Receipt No 07/19/2012 Notice of Appeal 73.50 07123/2012 2012-SPR.M-=7 Court Below: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas County: Cumberland Division: Cumberland County Civil Order Appealed From: June 29, 2012 Judicial District: 09 Documents Received: July 23, 2012 Notice of Appeal Filed: July 19, 2012 Order Type: Order Entered OTN(s): Lower Ct Docket No(s):2010-3837 Lower Ct Judge(s): Oler, J. Wesley, Jr. Senior Judge Original Record Item Filed Date Content Description Dab of Remand of Record: None None NOW OF A 'Ir Filed Date Docket Entry / Reoresentina Partirinant Twr%o 011-A Q.. i Fast Track nsylvania a Amt 73.50 3:28 P.M. Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 1325 UDA 2012 Page 3 of 3 chit n's Fast Track Superior Court of ennsylvania July 25, 2012 Secure Filed Date Docket Entry / Representing Participant Type Filed E July 23, 2012 Notice of Appeal Docketed Appellant R.V.L. July 25, 2012 Docketing Statement Exited (Domestic Relations) Middle District Filing a HOLLY CATHLEEN LUCENTE, Plaintiff V. RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) HOLLY C. MILLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER Defendant NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM RAYMOND A. MILLER : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) rn? M1 C= z- r*} _:. HOLLY MILLER, NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM (i' o Defendants - -; _. ORDER - t AND NOW this _? day of lJ?, 2012, Defendant Richard V`. C0 - Lucente's Motion for Request for Transcripts is Granted. BY THE COURT ` S J Distribution Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire, 3448 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011 ? Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, 3820 Market Street, Camp Hill, PA 17 Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esquire, 4701 North Front Street, Harrisburg PA 17110 Vicki Ebersole, Mandy Cortez, Court Reporters, Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthouse Square, Ste 400, Carlisle, PA 17013 y;l,a.led 1301ja " A06 46 bu-perfor Court of i9ennopCbania Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq. Prothonotary Middle District Mary A. Graybill, Esq. Deputy Prothonotary August 1, 2012 Buell, David D. Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: H.C.M. V. R.A.M. Appellant 1324 MDA 2012 Trial Court Docket No: 2010-3837 Dear David D. Buell: Pennsylvania Judicial P.O. Box 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suit, Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 77; www. superior, court. state 1600 1294 1 0 , no t`? 1 -4 -? t=' ?• c-) m Enclosed please find a copy of the CORRECTED docket for the above appeal that as recently filed in the Superior Court. Kindly review the information on this docket and notify t is office in writing if you believe any corrections are required. Appellant's counsel is also being sent a Docketing Statement, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 3517, for completion and filing. Please note that Superior Court Dockets are available on the Internet at the Web site address printed at the top of this page. Thank you. Respectfully yours, Mary A. Graybill, Esq. Deputy Prothonotary /vsl Enclosure TO: FROM: RE: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler Jr. The Honorable Correale F. Stevens, President Judge H.C.M. v. R.A.M. 1324 MDA 2012 Trial Court Docket No: 2010-3837 Date: August 1, 2012 The appeal in this case has been designated as a Children's Fast Track appeal accordance with recent amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The amendmen effective for notices of appeal filed on or after March 16, 2009, were implemented to gi expedited treatment to certain types of family cases in an effort to mitigate the harmful effe of such litigation on children. As such, this Court is seeking your help in moving this matt along as expeditiously as possible. To that end, you should be aware that amended Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) requires 1 appellant to file and serve the statement of errors complained of on appeal simultaneously v the filing of the notice of appeal. Amended Pa. R.A. P. 1925(a)(2)(ii) requires you, if the reasc for the order do not already appear of record, to file, within 30 days of receipt of the notice appeal and 1925 statement, at least a brief opinion of the reasons for the order or for 1 rulings or other errors complained of, which may, but need not, refer to the transcript proceedings. Please also note that amended Pa.R.A.P. 1931 requires the clerk to transmit 1 completed record to this Court within 30 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. I respectfully ask you to give priority to this matter and complete your opinion or stateme pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925 as soon as possible. I also request your assistance in ensurii that the record is transmitted as promptly as possible so that a briefing schedule may issL promptly from this Court. If the appellant has not requested or made payment for necessa transcripts, please notify the staff person below as soon as possible. Under suc circumstances, this Court would direct appellant to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a) or ri dismissal of the appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d). If the problem lies with the court reporte this Court would request your indulgence in strictly enforcing Pa.R.J.A. 5000.10, which alloy for the imposition of sanctions when the request for transcripts is met with reticence. Couns and pro se parties will also be required to do their part in filing their briefs and other documen timely. Please note that, under the amended Rules, the parties have shortened times for filin their briefs. It is this Court's policy that extensions of time in Children's Fast Track appeals H be granted only for good cause shown. This Court is very mindful of your enormous work load and we thank you in advance your anticipated cooperation. If all of us do our part to expedite this appeal as quickly possible, hopefully, we can lessen the impact of this litigation on the children involved. T staff person designated below is responsible for tracking this appeal. While ex pc, communication with this Court is forbidden, if you or your chambers have any questic please contact this staff person. Loretta Candelore: (412) 565-7634 in Cc: Lower Court Clerk Buell, David D. Diane Gilbert Radcliff, Esq. Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. Court Reporter The Honorable J. Wesley Oler Jr. 2:26 P.M. Chil ren's Fast Track Appeal Docket Sheet Superior Court of Pennsylvania Docket Number: 1324 MDA 2012 Page 1 of 2 August 1, 2012 H.C.M. V. R.A.M. Appellant Initiating Document: Case Status: Case Processing Status: Journal Number: Case Category: Notice of Appeal Active July 23, 2012 Domestic Relations CONS(XWATED CASES Secure CAPTION CASE INFORMATION Awaiting Original Record Case Type(s): Docket No / Reason CustodyNisitation RELATED CASES 1325 MDA 2012 Similar Issue(s) SCHEDULED EVENT Next Event Type: Original Record Received COUNSEL INFORMATION Appellant Miller, Raymond A. Pro Se: No Appoint Counsel Status: Represented IFP Status: No Attorney: Clough, Joanne Harrison Bar No: 036461 Law Firm: Clough, Joanne Harrison, P.C. Address: 3820 Market St Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone No: (717) 737-5890 Fax No: Receive Mail: Yes Receive EMail: No Related Next Event Due Date: f Appellee Miller, Holly C. Pro Se: No Appoint Counsel Status: Represented IFP Status: No Attorney: Radcliff, Diane Gilbert Bar No: 032112 Address: 3448 Trindle Rd Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone No: (717) 737-0100 Fax No: (717) 975-0697 Receive Mail: Yes Receive EMail: Yes EMail Address: dianeradclifflAromcast net 20, 2012 2:26 P.M. Chil ren's Fast Track Appeal Docket Sheet Superior Court of Pennsylvania Docket Number: 1324 MDA 2012 Page 2 of 2 Secure 1* August 1, 2012 FEE INFORMATION 1 Fee Dt Fee Name Fee Amt Receipt Dt Receipt No Receipt Am, 07/19/2012 Notice of Appeal 73.50 07/23/2012 2012-SPR-M-000 11 73.5C AGENCY/TRIAL COURT INFORMATION Court Below: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas County: Cumberland Division: Cumberland County Civi Division Order Appealed From: June 29, 2012 Judicial District: 09 Documents Received: July 23, 2012 Notice of Appeal Filed: July 19, 2012 Order Type: Order OTN(s): Lower Ct Docket No(s) :2010-3837 Lower Ct Judge(s): Oler, J. Wesley, Jr. Senior Judge ORIGINAL' RECORD CONTE14T Original Record Item Filed Date Content Description Date of Remand of Record: BRIEFING SCHEDULE None None DOCKET ENTRY Filed Date Docket Entry / Representing Participant Type Filed By July 23, 2012 Notice of Appeal Docketed Appellant R.A.M. July 24, 2012 Docketing Statement Exited (Domestic Relations) Middle District Filing O ffice July 27, 2012 Docketing Statement Received (Domestic Relations) Appellant R.A.M. July 31, 2012 Order Per Curiam Comment: In the interest of maintaining the confidentiality of names of minors involved in appeals p ending in this Court, the caption for the appeal in this custody matter shall be redacted to reflect only the initials of the child's parents. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI HOLLY CATHLEEN LUCENTE, NO. 02-5647 CIVIL TERM .? Plaintiff. ' 7 CIVIL ACTION-LAW ° vs. CO ( * ., b IN CUSTODY RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE,' Defendant > cl? N ti=w IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI A HOLLY C. MILLER, NO. 10-3837 CIVIL TERM Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION-LAW vs. IN CUSTODY RAYMOND A. MILLER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI HOLLY C. MILLER, Plaintiff vs. RAYMOND A. MILLER, Defendant : NO. 10-3837 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION-LAW IN CUSTODY Plaintifrs Answer and New Matter to Defendants' Motion for Suaercedes and Stay of Relocation Custody Order Submitted by Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire, Attorney for Holly C. Miller, Plaintiff PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED JUDGE: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. For Plaintiff, HCM: For Defendant, RAM For Defendant RVL Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire Joanne H. Clough, Esquire Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esqui 3448 Trindle Road 3820 Market Street Turner and O'Connell Camp Hill, PA 17011 Camp Hill, PA 17011 4701 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HOLLY CATHLEEN LUCENTE, Plaintiff V. RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, Defendant : NO. 02-5647 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION-LAW IN CUSTODY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN HOLLY C. MILLER, Plaintiff V. RAYMOND A. MILLER, Defendant NO. 10-3837 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION-LAW IN CUSTODY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN HOLLY C. MILLER, Plaintiff V. RAYMOND A. MILLER, Defendant : NO. 10-3837 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION-LAW IN CUSTODY PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER IN OPPOSITION JULY 24. 2012 AND SERVED ON JULY 26. 2012 1. Admitted. Plaintiff admits the following averment(s) set forth in Paragraph of Defendant's Joint Motion for Supercedes and Stay of Relocation Custody O der (hereinafter referred to as "Fathers' Stay Motion"): -2- 1. "Mother Holly C Miller filed a Notice of Proposed Relocation Which Was Opposed by both Defendant Fathers and hearings on the Motion where held on May 25, 2012 June 20", 21' 25"' and 261, 2012." 2. Admitted. Plaintiff admits the following averment(s) set forth in Paragraph 2 of Stay Motion: 2. "An Order was entered on June 29 2012 authorizing the proposed relocation However three pages of the Order of Court were inadvertently not filed with the Court on June 29 2012 or served upon the parties." 3. Admitted. Plaintiff admits the following averment(s) set forth in Paragraph 3 of F Stay Motion: 3. "The Custody Order permitting the relocation directs that the children shall go to Spokane Valley, Washington fourteen days proceeding the first day of school in August of 2012." 4. Admitted. Plaintiff admits the following averment(s) set forth In Paragraph 4 of F Stay Motion: 4. "The parties [Fathers] have simultaneously filed a Notice of Appeal to Superior Court of Pennsylvania designating the Appeal a Child Fast Track Appeal Case and simultaneously filed their Concise Statement of Enors Complained on Appeal. " 5. Denied. Plaintiff denies the following averment set forth in Paragraph 5 of Fathers' Motion and by way of further Answer and Opposition to Father's Stay Motion incorpo by reference the averments set forth in paragraphs 7 though 12 of Plaintiffs New N and Defenses in Opposition herein below. rs' 5. "Petitioner/Defendant Fathers are of the belief and therefore aver that it is in the best interest and permanent welfare of the five 5 minor children that a Superse Yes and Stay be granted and that the children remain in Pennsylvania in the custod of their fathers while the Child Fast Track Appeal is entertained by Pennsylvania Superior Court for the following reasons: a. In the event Fathers do not prevail on Appeal the children can relocate to Spokane Valley, Washington and will not suffer any harm while they remain in the custody of their Fathers pending the Appeal. -3- b. In the event Defendant Fathers are successful on the Appeal and the Trial Court's Relocation Order is reversed it would not be in the best interest of the children to withdraw from West Shore School District relocate to Spokane Valley, Washington and then have to withdraw from school and move back to Camp Hill, Pennsylvania if the Trial Court Relocation decision is overturned" 6. Denied. Plaintiff denies the following averment set forth in Paragraph 6 of Fathers' Motion and by way of further Answer and Opposition to Father's Stay Motion incorpo by reference the averments set forth in paragraphs 7 though 12 of Plaintiffs New and Defenses in Opposition herein below: 6. "The Trial Court in its own opinion emphasized the difficulty the Court had in reaching its determination and also raised serious concerns about Mother's relocation plans to the extent the Trial Court has already scheduled a hearing for January 2, 2013 to determine whether the term of the revised Order should be continued ormodifred based upon the circumstances then existing on Wednesday January 2, 2013." PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATTER AND DEFENSES IN OPPOSITION TO FATHERS' STAY MOTION 7. Plaintiff incorporates by referenced Plaintiffs answers and averments set fort in Paragraphs 1 through 6 above. 8. Plaintiff is hereinafter referred to as "Mother HCM". Petitioner/Defendant, Raymo A. Miller, is hereinafter referred to as "Father RAM" and Petitioner/Defendant, Ric and Vincente Lucente, is hereinafter referred to as "Father RVU. "Father RAM and F ther RVL are collectively referred to as "Fathers". 9. For the following reasons, it is not in the best interest of the children for Fathers' Motion to be granted and have the children remain in Pennsylvania in the custody of fathers while the Child Fast Track Appeal is entertained by Pennsylvania Superior C a. Mother has already made plane reservations to fly to from Spokane, W Harrisburg, PA on August 17, 2012 at a cost of $209.40 and to fly with the chil from Baltimore, WA to Spokane, WA on August 22, 2012 at a cost of $1,119 for total flight costs of $1,329.00. A copy of Mother's Flight Itineraries are attac hereto, collectively marked Exhibit "R-1" and made a part hereof. Mother wil be able to change these reservations and will suffer substantial financial to to ren i0., not s if -4- these airline tickets are not used, which financial loss in not in the best i the children. of b. The granting of the Stay Motion would separate prevent the children from livin with the primary custodian, Mother HCM, and each other and would not be in the best interest of the children. The children have been in the custody of Fathers since June 29, 20112 and by the August 22, 2012 date Mother HCM is to pick them up, they will ave been in the Fathers' custody and have not lived with Mother HCM or each other for a period of approximately 53 days. If Fathers' Stay Motion is granted, the next time they will be able t see Mother will be around December 22, 2012, the beginning of the Chris mas holidays. Thus, by that time the children will have been unable tc see Mother or live with Mother and each other for a total period of 175 days (June 30th - December 21St) It is averred by Mother HCM and was specifically found by this Honorable Court, "... the best interest of these closely bonded children depend upon their continued primary residence in a common household, with each ther and with mother." iv. It is averred by Mother HCM and was specifically found by this Honorable Court, "Petitioner has been the primary custodian of all of the children since their birth." It has long been held by the Courts of this Commonwealth that keeping the children with the primary custodian is an important factor in determining the children's best interest. V. It is averred by Mother HCM and was specifically found by this Hono able Court, "It would, in the court's view, be devastating to her [Madison] to separate her from the household in which her mother lives and froher brothers and sisters." vi. Being away from Mother HCM and not being able to live with her and ach other for a period estimated to be at least 153 days is not in the child en's best interests. vii. It is averred by Mother HCM that it is in the best interests of the childre be raised together in a single home, being mother's home, and there ar compelling reasons that would support the separation of the children ?n to no into -5- different households. viii. There is no temporary order granting Mother HCM temporary partial cu tody rights which would offset the detrimental effect on the children by removing them from Mother's custody and being able to live with her and their siblings in the same household. ix. In the event Mother does not prevail on Appeal the children can reloc to to Pennsylvania and will not suffer any harm while they remain in the custody of Mother HCM pending the Appeal. X. The potential of harm to the children by having to change schools is substantially less than the potential harm to the children by not seeing Mother HCM for a period of 174 days and not being able to live with Mother HCM and their siblings for a minimum of 174 days. A. On the contrary, it is not in the children's best interest to prevent the chi from moving to Spokane, making the adjustment resulting from that i and starting their new schools at the beginning of the school year, the time to make such a transition. 10. Plaintiff believes that the Order of Court dated June 29, 2012,is not a "Final Order" as required by Pa.R.A.P. Rule 341, that Defendants/Petitioners' Appeal is interlocutor), and concurrently with the filing of this pleading, Plaintiff is filing a Motion to Quash Defendants/Petitioners' Appeal. See the following cases: a. Kassam v. Kassam, 811 A.2d 1023 (Pa.Super.,2002). Trial court's child cu tody order was interlocutory and, thus, not appealable since court, in its custody rder, expressly retained jurisdiction and scheduled a hearing for review of custody rder. b. G.B. v. M.M.B. , 448 Pa.Super. 133, 670 A.2d 714) (Pa.Super.,1996) Sinc the court contemplated an additional hearing on the ultimate issues in the cas , the appeal is premature C. Sawko v. Sawko, 425 Pa.Super. 450, 625 A.2d 692 (1993), This case involve appeal from an order entered in response to a mother's petition to modify an entered five weeks earlier which awarded primary custody to her child's father trial court conducted a hearing on the petition to modify at which both parties permitted to put on as much evidence as they wished. At the conclusion c hearing, the court entered an order which denied the petition to modify pri custody but increased the mother's partial custody rights and schedule, additional review hearing about four months in the future. This Superior ( an The vere the iary an ourt -6- noted, without elaboration, that the order was interlocutory and that mother's a therefrom was premature and subject to quash. Id. at 458, 625 A.2d at 696. 11. If the Motion to Quash is granted, then regardless of Fathers' position the childre will relocate until the matter is reviewed on January 2, 2012, and it makes no sense to delay that relocation when the matter will be reviewed on January 2, 2012. 12. Given the uncertain status of the appeal, it is not appropriate to grant Fathers' Stay Motion. WHEREFORE forthe foregoing reasons, Respondent/Plaintiff Holly C. Miller respectfully rep the Honorable Court to deny and dismiss Petitioner/Defendants' Motion for Supersedes and Dated: August 8, 2012 Respectfully submitted, ANE DCLIFF, ESQUIRE urt ID #32112 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 737-0100 Attorney for Holly C. Miller 7- VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: HOLLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire, hereby certify that on this date I am serving a copy of the fore oing document, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Proce ure: Service by First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid and Addressed as Follows: Joanne H. Clough, Esquire 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Attorney for Defendant, Raymond A. Miller) Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esquire Turner and O'Connell 4701 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Attorney for Defendant, Richard V. Lucente) t - I Dated: August 8, 2012 t RADCLIFF, ESQUIRE ourt ID #32112 3448 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 737-0100 Attorney for Plaintiff, Holly C. Miller EXHIBIT "R-1" FLIGHT ITINERARY From: Holly M Date: 8/6/2012 7:33:19 PM To: dianeradcliff@comcast.net Subject: miller Hello Diane. Tony is in Seattle but he did look at the document. The only changes if you think is nessary is: Admitted 3: You have Valley Washington it should be Spokane Valley, Washington. 11: which you may have already seen. The number 3 is in when and one sentence : it makes "not" sense. Below I have a copy of my flight to Harrisburg on Aug 17th. That is additional cost that cannot be refunded. I have both Gabrielle and Dominique registered at Central Valley High school and they have appoints with their new guidance counselors on August 23rd. I cannot register Vincent, Gino and Madison until the school opens on August am still moving forward with everything and the kids and I are counting down the days.:) Thank you again for everything. Have a wonderful evening. Holly ---Original Message-- From: Priceline.com Customer Service <ItineraryAir@trans.pdoeline.com> To: HMILLER7 <HMILLER7@AOL.COM> Sent: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 5:15 pm Subject: Your priceline.com Itinerary for Harrisburg, PA - Aug 17, 2012 (Itinerary #172-822-410-11) priceline.Con. Check your request I Help Flights I Hotels I Cars I Packages I Cruises I Activities I Price8fookem I Rewards I Last Minute Deals ` > Flight Confirmation Thank you for booking your trip to Harrisburg, PA with priceline. A copy of your itinerary is shown below. Click here to access your complete itinerary and receipt, plus other information for your priceline trip. flight schedules from time to time, be sure to contact AIRLINE CONFIRMATION # United Airlines: FZN4CR ae view my itinerary email my itinerary print my itinerary get our mobile app share M share Add Trip Protection for $16.00 Per Person fS Offer expires: 07110112 at 04:15 PM 100% Trip Cancellation and Trip Interruption Protection reimburses for cancellations due 114 to unforeseen illness of traveler, family members and traveling companions, death in the family, job loss, natural disaster at departure or destination city or other specified events. $500 Baggage and Personal Effects reimburses for lost personal effects as well as checked baggage throughout your trip. 24/7 Hour Live Travel Assistance A real person available to assist you any time of the day +VA" with last minute flight or hotel changes, luggage locator services, cash transfers, medical assistance services and emergency services. e:can Flight Details Flight Information Leaving Spokane, WA (GEG) at 6:03 AM on Friday, August 17, 2012 Arriving Harrisburg, PA (MDT) at 9:15 PM on Friday, August 17, 2012 Flight From To Travel Time/Class United Airlines Spokane Intl (GEG) Denver Intl (DEN) 2h 11m Flight 791 Spokane, WA Denver, CO Economy 16:03 AM 9:14 AM 8/7/2012 priceline trip number: 172-822-410-11 Layover Time: 3h 25m United Airlines Denver Intl (DEN) O'Hare Intl (ORD) Flight 908 Denver, CO Chicago, IL 12:39 PM 4:00 PM Layover Time: 2h 30m United Airlines O'Hare Intl (ORD) Harrisburg Intl (MDT) Fllght 278 Chicago, IL 1 Harrisburg, PA 6:30 PM 9:15 PM Passenger and Ticket Information Travelers Seat Preference Ticket # Holly C Miller Flight 791: 29C Requested Delivery: e-ticket Flight 908: 37D Requested Ticketed by: United Airlines Flight 278: 30C Requested 2h 21 m Economy 1 h 45m Economy Airline Contact Information I United Airlines 11-800-864-8331 I www.ual.com Confirmation #: FZN4CR v2.,P Or 4 Add a Hotel to Your Trip Save up to 60% off Recent Name Your Own Price® Winning Hotel Bids' 3-Star Hotel - Harrisburg, PA 46% Off York 2-Star Hotel - Harrisburg, PA Hershey 50% Off $59 *'* .. $100 3-Star Hotel - Harrisburg, PA % Off $100 Harrisburg West 2.5-Star Hotel - Harrisburg, PA 34% off $85 Harrisburg East * *112 3.5-Star Hotel - Harrisburg, PA 52% Off $75 Harrisburg * **112 2.5-Star Hotel - Harrisburg, PA $$7 Carlisle West 42% Off * *112 2-Star Hotel - Harrisburg, PA 4t)% Off $120 Carlisle East ** >> See More Hotel Winning Bids » Browse all Hotels Summary of Charges 8/7/2012 Airline Ticket Cost: Airline Ticket Taxes & Fees Processing Fee: Number of Tickets: Airfare Subtotal: Total Trip Cost: (All prices are in US dollars) $184.00 per ticket $25.40 per ticket $0.00 per ticket 1 $209.40 $209.40 ?I v for our new priceline rewards Visa card today. Get cash bads. Important Information Airline Contact Information: Please confirm your flight information and check-in location with the airline prior to each departure. Your carrier may offer check-in, seat assignments and flight status information. United Airlines: 1-800-864-8331 Airline Information: We recommend that you arrive at the airport a minimum of 90 minutes in advance of departure for domestic flights, and at hours in advance of departure for international flights. If you choose not to take your outbound flight, the airlines will autorr cancel the remainder of your reservation and no refunds will be granted for the unused portion of your trip. Customer Service If you need assistance with this or any other priceline purchase please contact a customer service representative at the number below. Please have both your priceline trip number and the phone number you provided when you placed your request when you call. Thanks again for using priceline. Customer Service Phone Number. 1-800-340-0575 (when calling from the United States) Your priceline trip number: 172-822-410-11 Phone Number You Provided: 509-844-5910 Frequently Asked Questions Add Activities to Your Trip Save on these and more activities on your trip to Harrisburg Airport Ground Transportation Safe, reliable, door-to-door transportation to and from the airport and your hotel. Airport Parking Reserve airport parking for your trip. Tours & Attractions I - 1% Choose from hundreds of sightseeing tours, activities and attractions thafil make your next vacation even better. t 8/7/2(} 12 Your Flight Details Flight Information - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 US Airways From Bahknore/WashkVton Intl Thurgood Marshall Flight 678 Apt (13M) 4h 47m, 1993 Baltimore, MD ml Departs: 5:16 PM US Airways From Flight 687 Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl Airport (PHX) 2h 35m, 1021 Phoenix, AZ ml Departs: 8:00 PM Passenger and Ticket Information Seats for. Holly C Miller ( Change Seat ) Carrier Flight # Seat US Airways 678 16A US Airways 587 17B Seat Charges for Holly C Miller Trip Number. Ticket Number: 176-7614850-10 0377089873504 Ticket Type: Electronic Ticket Meal Preference: No Meal Preference Seats for. Madison J Miller ( Change Seat) Carrier Flight # Seat US Airways 678 16B US Airways 587 17C Seat Charges for Madison J Miller Trip Number. Ticket Number: 176-7614850-10 0377089873505 Ticket Type: Electronic Ticket Meal Preference: No Meal Preference Seats for. Gino R Lucente ( Change Seat ) Caller Flight # seat US Airways 678 16C US Airways 587 17D Seat Charges for Gino R Lucente Trip Number: Ticket Number: 176-761-850-10 0377089873506 To Aircraft Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl Airbus A319 Airport (PHX) Phoenix, AZ Economy/Coach Arr vas: 7:02 PM Class To Aircraft Spokane hrti Airport (GEG) Airbus A319 Spokane. WA Economy/Coach Arrives: 10:35 PM Class Seat Type Seat Cost Standard No Charge Standard No Charge $0.00 Airline Confirmation: A2ZSKW - US Airways Frequent Flyer Information: None Provided Seat Type seat cost Standard No Charge Standard No Charge $0.00 Airline Confirmation: A2ZSKW - US Airways Frequent Flyer Information: None Provided Seat Type Seat Cost Standard No Charge Standard No Charge $0.00 Airline Confirmation: A2ZSKW - US Airways http://www.priceline.comltmvellairlinesAl mglen-us/statusIPrinterFriencUyRetail.asp?session... 7/9/2 i2 Ticket Type: Meal Preference: Frequent Flyer Information: Electronic Ticket No Meal Preference None Provided Seats for. Vincent R Lucente ( Change Seat ) Carrier Flight # Seat US Airways 678 16D US Airways 587 17E Seat Charges for Vincent R Lucente Trip Number. Ticket Number: 176-7614850-10 0377089873507 Ticket Type: Electronic Ticket Meal Preference: No Meal Preference Seats for. Dominique P Lucents ( Change Seat) Caller Flight # Seat US Airways 678 16E US Airways 587 17F Seat Charges for Dominiq ue P Lucente Trip Number: Ticket Number: 176-761-850-10 0377089873508 Ticket Type: Electronic Ticket Meal Preference: No Meal Preference Seats for. Gabrielle B Lucente ( Change Seat) Carrier Flight # Seat US Airways 678 16F US Airways 587 17A Seat Charges for Gabrielle B Lucente Trip Number. Ticket Number: 176-7614350-10 0377089873509 Ticket Type: Meal Preference: Electronic Ticket No Meal Preference Airline Contact Information US Airways 14800-428-4322 www.usair.com Seat Type Seat Cost Standard No Charge Standard No Charge $0.00 Airline Confirmation: A2ZSKW - US Airways Frequent Flyer Information: None Provided Seat Type Seat Cost Standard No Charge Standard No Charge $0.00 Airline Confirmation: A2ZSKW - US Airways Frequent Flyer information: None Provided Seat Type Seat Cost Standard No Charge Standard No Charge $0.00 Airline Confirmation: A2ZSKW - US Airways Frequent Flyer Information: None Provided confirmation: A2ZSKW what do these words mean? Airline Confirmation, Electronic Ticket, Trip Number, Meal Preferences, Pending, Seat Preferences, Assigned, Requested, Not Assigned, Change Seat, Ticket Number Summary of Charges Airline Ticket Cost: $165.00 Airline Ticket Taxes & Fees: $21.60 Bonus: No Prioeline Booking Fee Number of Tickets: 6 Airline Ticket Shipping & Handling: $0.00 (Electronic Ticket) Airfare Subtotal: $1119.60 http://www.priceline.com/tmvellakli aes?lang/en-us/statusINnterFriendlyReWl.asp?session... 7/9/012 HOLLY CATHLEEN LUCENTE, Plaintiff V. RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) N0.2002-5647 CIVIL TERM HOLLY C. MILLER, Plaintiff RAYMOND A. MILLER Defendant RAYMOND A. MILLER, Plaintiff HOLLY MILLER, Defendant ` -,-, ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS - = OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVA~ i~ ~I ,.; . ~~ c, ~_- CIVIL ACTION (IN~ DIVORCE) ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ d NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM e ~ r-_~ ~r - =_, ,-.~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ' ~-1 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) N0.2010-3837 CIVIL TERM A. MILLER' AY TE TO SPOKANE SUPERIOR COURT APPEAL AND NOW, this ~y day of August, 2012, comes Defendant/Petitioner Raymond A.', Miller, by and through his attorney, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire and respectfully files this reply to Plaintiff's New Matter Motion for Supersedes and in support thereof avers as follows: REPLY TO NEW MATTER 7. No responsive pleading is required to this averment. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. It is specifically denied that for the reasons averred by Plaintiff Mother HCIM that is not in the best interest of the children for the Fathers' Joint Motion for Supersedes to Stay Order to be granted. To the contrary, it is in the best interests of the children that the Stay be granted ar~d that the children remain in the custody oi'their fathers while the Child Fast Track Appeal is entertained by the Pennsylvania Superior Court: ', a. Denied. It is specifically denied that it is not in the best interest of the children to remain in Pennsylvania during the pendency of the Child Fast Track appeal because) Mother purchased airline tickets to transport the children to Spokane Valley, Washiagton on August 22, 2012. Father RAM's legal counsel notified Mother HCM's legal counsel by telephone on or about .1uly 2, 2012 that Father RAM was filing an appeal of the Jlune 29, 2012 Court Order permitting the relocation and Mother HCM purchased the airline tickets without purchasing the Trip Protection Insurance at $ 16.00 per ticket which ~~~~ would have allowed her to receive a refund ifthe Court granted the Stay. Mother HCM's airline ticket for her own flights on 8-17-12 and 8-22-12 can still be used if the Stayiis granted because Mother HCM can travel to Pennsylvania and have a six day visit w~th the children if the Motion fir Supersedes and Stay is granted. The potential. harm tc~ the children by changing schools two times if Fathers RAM and RVL are successful on the Child Fast. Track Appeal is greater than Mother HCM's potential financial loss frorr~ purchasing the tickets without trip insurance. b. Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is specifically denied that granting the Say would not be in the best interests of the children. It is admitted that granting the Stay would prevent the children from living with Mother HCM in Spokane Valley Washington, but it is denied that it is the Court that would be preventing the childrem to reside in the primary custody of Mother HCM. To the contrary, as Mother clearly testified at trial, she made the decision to relocate to Spokane Valley regardless of '', whether the children could :move with her and it is Mother' HCM's own decisions a~d conduct that have caused the situation where the children may no longer be in her ', primary physical custody. i. Admitted. Eiy way of further explanation, Mother left ', Pennsylvania and the children to live with her paramour. ii. Denied. It is specifically denied that if Fathers' Stay Motion is granted the next time Mother HCM will be able to see the children is on or around December 22, 2012. TO the contrary, Mother has already purchased a ticket for a six day trip to Pennsylvania from Augusl; 17 to 22, 2012 and can have a six day visit with the children in August and Mother can also fly to Pennsylvania on numerous other visits at apparently nominal airfare and see the children on many occasions between August 22, 2012 and ', December 22, 2012 including but not limited to Columbus Day ~~~, weekend, Thanksgiving or any other time period she wishes to travel. iii. Admitted in part. It is admitted that the Court made such a partial finding; however, the Court also indicated this was a very difficult case and further stated in its July 26, 2012 Re: Opinion Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925 that "the very difficult nature of these cases is evident from. the Court's opinion, and the benefit of appellate review is equally obvious in such cases." page 8. (emphasis added). iv. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Mother HCM was the primary caretaker of the children but it is specifically denied that this is the ', controlling factor in custody relocation cases and it is specifically ~I denied that such status is a controlling factor to warrant relocation. '', v. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the Court made such a partial finding; it is specifically denied that said partial finding is a basis to deny the Stay where the Court by its own admission welcomes appellate review and has taken the unusual ', step of scheduling a status hearing on January 2, 2013 to determine whether the .June 29, 2012 Order should be continued or modified based on the circumstances then existing on Wednesday January 2, 2013. vi. Denied. It is specifically denied that the children will be away from Mother HCM for 153 days if the Stay is granted or that the children will be away from each other for said time period. Mother HCM has airline tickets to travel to Pennsylvania for 6 days from August 17 through 22, 2012 and can travel here for additional periods of custody on numerous occasions for nominal airfare of$ 209.00. Mother HCM is aware of the fact that the minor children are spending significant times with Mother HCM and Father RAM's daughter on a weekly basis including sleepovers with Father RVL and Father RVL's four children and their minor child is not separated from her siblings. '' vii. Denied. Mother HCM's averment that it is in the best interests of the children that they remain with her in the same home in Spokane Valley Washington is disingenuous since she testified repeatedly that she was moving to Spokane even if the children did not move with her. Preserving the children's relationships with their fathers is a compelling reason to support their continued residency in Pennsylvania. ', viii. Admitted in part. It is admitted there is no temporary order granting Mother HCM partial custody rights; however, any Order granting the Stay should include an award of partial physical ', custody to 1V[other HCM from August 17 through August 22, 2012 and at any other times Mother is able to travel to Pennsylvania or is able to send the children for a visit to Spokane Valley Washington pending the outcome of the Child Fast Track appeal pending with Pennsylvania Superior Court. ix. Denied. It is~ ludicrous to allege that if Mother HCM does not prevail on appeal, "the children can relocate to Pennsylvania and ', will not sufff;r any harm while they remain in the custody of Mother HCM pending the appeal". Removing 5 children from the schools they have attended for many years, transferring them two thousand miles away to new schools, then transferring them back to their Pennsylvania schools is harmful, and it is harmful to take them from their fathers, their churches, and the only friends they have ever known. If Mother HCM prevails on the appeal, the children are simply delayed in the relocation and do not suffer the harm inherent in reversing a two thousand mile relocation. xi. Denied. It is specifically denied that it is better for the children to ', start school in the fall in Spokane, if the appeal is successful and they are Ordered back to reside in Pennsylvania. 10. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Order of Court dated June 29, 2012 is not "Final Order" as required by Pa.R.A.P. Rule 341. It is further denied that Defendants/Petiti Appeal is interlocutory. To the contrary, Mother HCM filed two Petitions to Relocate which both granted by the Court in its Order of June 29, 2012 and determined the ultimate issue and permitted the relocations. a. Denied. It is specifically denied that Kassam v. Kassam, 811 A.2d 1023 ', (Pa.Super. 2002) is controlling in the instant action. In the Kassam case, the trial court did not make a final order on the ultimate issue and scheduled an additional hearing on the ultimat~ issue in that case. In the instant action, t:he trial court has ruled on the ultimate issue after conducting 5 days of evidentiary hearings and granted two petitions to relocate. In Parker v. MacDonald, 344 Pa. Super. 552, 496 A2d.1244 (Pa.Super 1985) the Superior Court held that the trial court language making an Order open to further review did not defeat the finality or appealability of the parties rights to challenge the order in the appellate court. In Cady v. Weber, 317 Pa.S~per 481, 464 A.2d 423 (1983) the Court also found that an Order was final and appealable desp~te the fact the court was allowing for further proceedings to determine a way to minimize the traumatic impact of transferring custody from a grandmother where they had resided for se~eral years to the mother and held that the ultimate issue was resolved in the court's decision and therefore the Order was appealable despite the Court holding additional proceedings. b. Denied. It is denied that G.B. v. M.M.B., 448 Pa.Super. 133, 670 A.2d 714 '' (Pa.Super 1996) is controlling in the instant action since that Order did not resolve the ultirr~ate issue and therefore was not a final appealable order. In G.B. v. M.M.B., the parties had numerous petitions filed during the pendency of the custody action and the Court held a hearing on the issue of "permanent custody and partial custody" on March 17, 1995 and did not havle time to hear from all of the witnesses and scheduled a second day of hearing for May 8, 195 but entered an Order at the conclusion of the testimony on March 17 granting father certain per~ods of partial physical custody. When :mother and or the children's attorney tried to obtain a suspension of that order after a subsequent visit with father and prior to the May hearing, th~ court denied that request and the March 17 order was entered permitting father's partial cus~ody pending the further proceedings. Mother filed an appeal of that Order to the Superior Cour~ and father filed a Motion to Quash that appeal which was granted. The Superior Court held tha~ a custody order will be considered final and appealable only after the trial court has complete i~ its hearings on the merits and the resultant order resolves the pending custody claim between tl~e parties. In the instant action, the trial court did complete the hearings on the merits in 5 da}~s of testimony and did issue and order resolving the ultimate issue between the parties and granted the two relocation petitions of Mother. The fact that the court scheduled a subsequent hearing to see if that Order needed to be modified did not change the final nature of the order granting~the relocations. This was not an interim order permitting relocation pending a hearing of a trials on the merits; it was a final order entered after a complete hearing on the merits simply scheduling a time for new evidence after the fin<~l order to see if a modification of that Order was In G.B.v. M.M.B., the Superior Court also noted that Pa.R.A.P. 341 does not explicitly custody orders and notes that custody orders are different than other civil orders because custody orders have significant, important and immediate impact upon children and it is important prompt and comprehensive review of Custody determinations. ', c. Denied. Sawko v. Sawko, 425 Pa.Super. 450, 625 A.2d 692 (Pa.Super., 1996) is not controlling in this action and is not a custody relocation case. In the instant action, the ~ourt has ruled on the ultimate issue in its June 29, 2012 Order and has granted Mother HCM's t}wo petitions for relocation and said Order is final and appeallable despite the Court scheduling~a status hearing for January 2, 2103. ', 11. Denied. It is specifically denied that if the Motion to Quash is granted by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, that the children will relocate until the matter is reviewed on January 2, 2013 or that "it makes no sense to delay the relocation when the matter will be reviewed on Janu~ry 2, 2013". To the contrary, the Court can grant the Motion for Supersedes and Stay the relocation o~ders of June 29, 2012 and evidence can be presented at the January 2, 2013 hearing of how the children have been functioning in the primary custody of their fathers. It is in the children's best interests to remain in Pennsylvania pending the outcome of Mother's Motion to Quash, and if said Motion is'. unsuccessful, to remain in the Commonwealth pending the outcome of the Child Fast Track appeal. 12. Denied. T'he mere filing of a Motion to Quash by Mother HCM does not negate the' appropriateness of the Motion for Supersedes and Stay and the children should remain in Pennsylvania in the custody of their fathers pending this appeal. WHEREFORE, Father RAM respectfully requests the Honorable Court grant the Joint l~~iotion for Supersedes and Stay and direct the minor children remain in the primary physical custody o~ their respective F~ others during the fall 2012-2013 school calendar year until Superior Court rules ojn this Child Fast "Crack Appeal Case and/or Motion to Quash and grant any appropriate modification Ito the custody schedule so Mother may exercise temporary periods of partial physical custody with the kninor children from August 17 through 22, 2012 and at any other times she can arrange to tra~el to Pennsylvania or she can arrange to have the children travel to Spokane Valley to visit. ', Reppecxfully submitted, Jo~~H~rison Cloug , sq ATTY. ID. NO. 3646 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tele: 717-737-5890 Counsel for Raymond Miller VERIFICATION I, Kaymond A. Miller, hereby verify and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge. and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn verification to authorities. ,~ A -... - ._.. DATE: ~~ ~ ` Z ~ s ~~.11~ti-~-6 ~ ~-~.~.._.51._.5-~ '' Raymond A. Miller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Connie Lee, Limric, secretary to Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, do hereby certify that~on this date I served a copy of the foregoing document by United States First Class Mail to the follow~ng individual set. forth below: ' Hand Delivery ', The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. ', Cumberland County Courthouse I, One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esquire 4701 North Front Street Harrisburg PA 17110 /~ ~ IIII Date: 1 ~ ~ °~- .t.~ ~ ~---- --~-- ~~-~----~ Con ie Lee L~'m ' , secretar ~,, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire I Attorney ID No. 36461 ', 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 ', (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Raymond A. Miller ', C;~= ~'~r-i~ F','~OIµHpNOTAi 2~ ~~~~ 16 ~~ I t ~ I HOLLY CATHLEEN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA LUCENTE, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNS~j/4'~#O G©~.1{VT, Plaintiff f'~NNS Y'LYANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) V. RICHARD VINCENT LUCENTE, Defendant N0.2002-5647 CIVIL TERM HOLLY C. MILLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) RAYMOND A. MILLER Defendant NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM RAYMOND A. MILLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, N0.2010-3837 CIVIL TERM Defendant AND NOW, this 1~~- day of August, 2012, comes Defendant/Petitioner Rachazd Lucente, by and through his attorney, Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esquire and respectfully'files this to PlaintifFs New Matter Motion for Supersedes and in support thereof avers as follows: REPLY TO NEW MATTER 7. No responsive pleading is required to this averment. Y 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. It is specifically denied that for the reasons averred by Plaintiff Mother that is not in the best interest of the children for the Fathers' Joint Motion for Supersedes to Stay to be granted. To the contrary, it is in the best interests of the children that the Stay b~ granted that the children remain in the custody of their fathers while the Child Fast Track Appeeal is by the Pennsylvania Superior Court: a. Denied. It is specifically denied that it is not in the best interest df the childr~n to remain in Pennsylvania during the pendency of the Child Fast Track appeal because Mother purchased airline tickets to transport the children to Spokane Valley, W on August 22, 2012. Father RAM's legal counsel notified Mother HCM's legal by telephone on or about July 2, 2012 that Father RAM was filing an appeal of the 29, 2012 Court Order permitting the relocation and Mother HCM purchased the airli tickets without purchasing the Trip Protection Insurance at $ 16.00 per ticket which would have allowed her to receive a refund if the Court granted the Stay. Mother H M's airline ticket for her own flights on 8-17-12 and 8-22-12 can still be used' if the Stay s granted because Mother HCM can travel to Pennsylvania and have a six day visit wi the children if the Motion for Supersedes and Stay is granted. The potential harm to the children by changing schools two times if Fathers RAM and RVL are successful on e Child Fast Track Appeal is greater than Mother HCM's potential financial loss from purchasing the tickets without trip insurance. b. Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is specifically denied that granting the would not be in the best interests of the children. It is admitted that granting the would prevent the children from living with Mother HCM in Spokane Valley Washington, but it is denied that it is the Court that would be preventing the children to reside in the primary custody of Mother HCM. To the contrary, as Mother cleazly testified at trial, she made the decision to relocate to Spokane Valley regardless of whether the children could move with her and it is Mother' HCM's own decisions conduct that have caused the situation where the children may no longer be in her primary physical custody. Admitted. By way of further explanation, Mother left Pennsylvania and the children to live with her pazamour. ii. Denied. It is specifically denied that if Fathers' Stay Motion is granted the next time Mother HCM will be able to see the children is on or azound December 22, 2012. To the contrary, Mother has already purchased a ticket for a six day trip to Pennsylvania from August 17 to 22, 2012 and can have a six day visit with the children in August and Mother can also fly to Pennsylvania on numerous other visits at appazently nominal airfare and see the children on many occasions between August 22, 2012 and December 22, 2012 including but not limited to Columbus Day weekend, 'Thanksgiving or any other time period she wishes to travel. iii. Admitted in part. It is admitted that the Court made such a partial finding; however, the Court also indicated this was a very difficult case and further stated in its July 26, 2012 Re: Opinion Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925 that "the very difficult nature of these cases is evident from the Court's opinion, and the benefit of appellate review is equally obvious in such cases." page 8. (emphalsis added). iv. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Mother HCM was the primary caretaker of the children but it is specifically denied that this is the controlling factor in custody relocation cases and it is specifically denied that such status is a controlling factor to warrant relocation. v. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the Court made such a partial finding; it is specifically denied that said parttial finding is a basis to deny the Stay where the Court by its awn admission welcomes appellate review and has taken the u~husual step of scheduling a status hearing on January 2, 2013 to determine whether the June 29, 2012 Order should be continued or rhodified based on the circumstances then existing on Wednesday January 2, 2013. vi. Denied. It is specifically denied that the children will be away from Mother HCM for 153 days if the Stay is granted or that the children will be away from each other for said time period. Mother HCM has airline tickets to travel to Pennsylvania for 6 days from August 17 through 22, 2012 and can travel here for additional periods of custody on numerous occasions for nominal airfaze of $209.00. Mother HCM is aware of the fact than the minor children aze spending significant times with Mother HCM and Father RAM's daughter on a weekly basis including sleepovers and their minor children aze not separated from their vii. Denied. Mother HCM's averment that it is in the best inlterests of the children that they remain with her in the same home fn Spokane Valley Washington is disingenuous since she testified repeatedly that she was moving to Spokane even if the children did not move with her. Preserving the children's relationships with their fathers is a compelling reason to support their (continued residency in Pennsylvania. viii. Admitted in part. It is admitted there is no temporary order granting Mother HCM partial custody rights; however, apny Order granting the Stay should include an awazd of partial phy$ical custody to Mother HCM from August 17 through Augusjt 22, 2012 and at any other times Mother is able to travel to Pennsylvania or is able to send the children for a visit to Spokane Valley Washington pending the outcome of the Child Fast Trac~C appeal pending with Pennsylvania Superior Court. ix. Denied. It is ludicrous to allege that if Mother HCM does not prevail on appeal, "the children can relocate to Pennsylvtania and will not suffer any harm while they remain in the custody of Mother HCM pending the appeal". Removing 5 children from the schools they have attended for many yeazs, transferring them two thousand miles away to new schools, then transferring them back to their Pennsylvania schools is harmful, and it is harmful to take them from their fathers, their churches, and the only friends they have ever known. If Mother HCM prevails on the appeal,. the children aze simply delayed in the relocation and do not suffer the harm inherent in reversing a two thousand mile relocation. xi. Denied. It is specifically denied that it is better for the children to start school in the fall in Spokane, if the appeal is successful and they aze Ordered back to reside in Pennsylvania. 10. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Order of Court dated June 29, 2®12 is not a "Final Order" as required by Pa.R.A.P. Rule 341. It is further denied that Defendants/!Petitioners' Appeal is interlocutory. To the contrary, Mother HCM filed two Petitions to Relocate which both granted by the Court in its Order of June 29, 2012 and determined the ultimate issue and permitted the relocations. a. Denied. It is specifically denied that Kassam v. Kassam, 811 A.2d 1023 (Pa.Super. 2002) is controlling in the instant action. In the Kassam case, the trial court did make a final order on the ultimate issue and scheduled an additional hearing on the ultimate in that case. In the instant action, the trial court has ruled on the ultimate issue after days of evidentiary hearings and granted two petitions to relocate. In Pazker v. MacDonald, Pa. Super. 552, 496 AZd.1244 (Pa.Super 1985) the Superior Court held that the trial court language making an Order open to further review did not defeat the finality or appealability the parties rights to challenge the order in the appellate court. In Cady v. Weber, 317 Pa.Su~ 481, 464 A.2d 423 (1983) the Court also found that an Order was final and appealable despi the fact the court was allowing for further proceedings to determine a way to mirnimize the traumatic impact of transferring custody from a grandmother where they had resided for sev years to the mother and held that the ultimate issue was resolved in the court's decision and therefore the Order was appealable despite the Court holding additional proceedings. b. Denied. It is denied that G.B. v. M.M.B., 448 Pa.Super. 133, 670 A.2d 714 (Pa.Super 1996) is controlling in the instant action since that Order did not resolve the ultim issue and therefore was not a final appealable order. In G.B. v. M.M.B., the parties had numerous petitions filed during the pendency of the custody action and the Court held a he 'ng on the issue of "permanent custody and partial custody" on March 17, 1995 and'did not hav time to hear from all of the witnesses and scheduled a second day of hearing for May 8, 19 but entered an Order at the conclusion of the testimony on March 17 granting father certain pe ' ds of partial physical custody. When mother and or the children's attorney tried to obtain a suspension of that order after a subsequent visit with father and prior to the Mays hearing, th court denied that request and the March 17 order was entered permitting father's partial cus ody pending the further proceedings. Mother filed an appeal of that Order to the Superior Co and father filed a Motion to Quash that appeal which was granted. The Superior Court held tha a custody order will be considered final and appealable only after the trial court has complete its hearings on the merits and the resultant order resolves the pending custody claim between t e parties. In the instant action, the trial court did complete the hearings on the merits in 5 da s of testimony and did issue and order resolving the ultimate issue between the parties and grant d the two relocation petitions of Mother. The fact that the court scheduled a subsequent heari g to see if that Order needed to be modified did not change the final nature of the order granting e relocations. This was not an interim order permitting relocation pending a hearing of a trial on the merits; it was a final order entered after a complete hearing on the merits simply schedu ing a time for new evidence after the final order to see if a modification of that Order was approp 'ate. In G.B.v. M.M.B., the Superior Court also noted that Pa.R.A.P. 341 does not explicitly ad ss custody orders and notes that custody orders are different than other civil orders because c tody orders have significant, important and immediate impact upon children and it is important f r prompt and comprehensive review of Custody determinations. c. Denied. Sawko v. Sawko, 425 Pa.Super. 450, 625 A.2d 692 (Pa.Super., 199 ) is not controlling in this action and is not a custody relocation case. In the instant action, the has ruled on the ultimate issue in its June 29, 2012 Order and has granted Mother HCM's tv petitions for relocation and said Order is final and appeallable despite~the Court scheduling status hearing for January 2, 2103. 11. Denied. It is specifically denied that if the Motion to Quash is granted by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, that the children will relocate until the matter is reviewed on Janu 2, 2013 or that "it makes no sense to delay the relocation when the matter will be reviewed on Jan 2, 2013". To the contrary, the Court can grant the Motion for Supersedes and Stay the relocation or ers of June 29, 2012 and evidence can be presented at the January 2, 2013 hearing of how the childre have been functioning in the primary custody of their fathers. It is in the children's best interests o remain in Pennsylvania pending the outcome of Mother's Motion to Quash, and if said Motion is unsuccessful, to remain in the Commonwealth pending the outcome of the Child Fast Track 12. Denied. The mere filing of a Motion to Quash by Mother HCM does note. negate the appropriateness of the Motion for Supersedes and Stay and the children should remalrv in Pennsy in the custody of their fathers pending this appeal. WHEREFORE, Father RVL respectfully requests the Honorable Court grant the Joint for Supersedes and Stay and direct the minor children remain in the primary physical custody of~ their respective Fathers during the fall 2012-2013 school calendar year until Superior Court rules o~ this Child Fast Track Appeal Case and/or Motion to Quash and grant any appropriate modification ~ the custody schedule so Mother may exercise temporary periods of partial physical custody with the children from August 17 through 22, 2012 and at any other times she can arrannge to Pennsylvania or she can arrange to have the children travel to Spokane Valley to visit. Respectfully submitted, a H. Rehkamp, Esquire ~" A rney ID #206589 1 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/232-4551 telephone 717/232-2115 facsimile j hr@turnerandoconnell.com Counsel for Richard Vincent Lucente to CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this date I served a cgpy of the foregoing document by United States First Class Mail to the following individual set forth below: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire 3 820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Date: g ~ S ~ Z anna H. Rehkamp 1 ~ / t ~~r~~~~r~ s fG CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER aC'n PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) Ij Superior Court of PA ~AR~s oy To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: Superior Court of Pennsylvania The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: RAYMOND A. MILLER Vs. HOLLY C. MILLER 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM 1324 MDA 2012 The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No. 1 to 1120, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 8/17/2012. u s o e D v' . Bue ,Pro honotary Alma Kostje evac, Deputy An additional coav of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date cony thereby acknowledging receiat of this record. Received in Superior Court Date Signature & Titl MIDDLE ,/ 1 H.C.L., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) V. R. V.L., Defendant : NO. 2002-5647 CIVIL TERM H.C.M., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF V7 C ?, = - Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI&; r cn .. ns V. : CIVIL ACTION (IN DIVORCE) R.A.M., F-1-3 Defendant : NO. 2009-2081 CIVIL TERM = R.A.M., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION (IN CUSTODY) H.M., V Defendant : NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM IN RE: RESPONDENTS' JOINT MOTION FOR SUPERSEDEAS AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2012, after careful consideration of Respondents' "Joint Motion for Supersede[a]s To Stay Order Permitting Children To Relocate to Spokane Valley, Washington Pending Child Fast Tract Superior Court Appeal," Petitioner's answer thereto with new matter, and Respondents' replies to new matter, the joint motion for supersedeas pending disposition of the appeal is denied. BY THE COURT, l 'c.4 % l Wesley 01 r r., S.J. Ab, Diane G. Radcliff, Esq. 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for H.C.M. (formerly L.) Johanna H. Rehkamp, Esq. Turner and O'Connell 4701 Noah Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for R.V.L. k/ Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for R.A.M. 4p,es g4a d ed 6/-Wha )e^ CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) Superior Court of PA To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: Superior Court of Pennsylvania The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: RAYMOND A. MILLER Vs. HOLLY C. MILLER 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM 1324 MDA 2012 The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No. 1 to 1120, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the A Court is 8/17/2012. Deputy An additional cony of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date cony. thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. Date Signature & Title C`ornmonwealth of Pennsylvania Cvunt~~ t~f Cumberland ss: [, David D. Buell ,Prothonotary of the Court o1' Common Pleas in and for said COUntY, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the whole record of the case therein stated, wherein RAYMOND A. MILLER [n l-ESTIMOVY V4'HEREOF, f have hereunto t [~; ~ 17th Plaintiff, and HOLLY C. MILLER Defendant, as the same remains of record before the said Court at No. 2010-3837 of Civil Te~f?S A'-DRaOI~. set my hand and affixed the seal of said Cvurt day A A. D., 2012 Av ~ ~ • ~~~' 1 Pr~thonotarc 1 Kevin A. Hess President ,lodge of the Ninth .fudicial C3istrict, composed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that David D. Buell by whon1 the annexed record, certificate and :attestation were made and given. and whv, in his own pcoper handwriting, thereunto subscribed his name nand affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of~saicl Count~~, was, at the time of so doing. and now is Prati7anvtary in and for said County of Cumberland in the Commvnwealth of Pennsylvania, duly cvmmissianed and c3ualified to all of whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought ro be given as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere, a that the said record, certificate and attestation are in due fvrm of law and made by~proper offic Pre;idcitt ludec Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland sa. David D. Buell _, ~ Prvthonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the said County, dv certify that the Honorable Kevin A. Hess by whom the foregoing attestation was made, and who has thereunto subscribed his name, was, at the time of making thercvf. and still is PresidentJudge of the Court of Common Pleas, Orphan' Cvurt and Court of t~uarter Sessions of the Peace in and far said County, duly Commissioned and qualified; to all whose acts as uch full faith and credit arc and ought tv he given, as well in Courts o['judicature as elsewhere. 1N 1'ESTIMOtiY WHEREOF, [have hereunto set m hand and ffix'd the seal of said Court this l~h day, ~~ August ,4, p, _ 2012 . V~~ ~ , ~ (J ~ ~ L~ Protha'ac7tet No. Term 14 yo 2010-3837 Civil Term 1324 MDA 2012 RAYMOND A. MILLER Versus HOLLY C. MILLER EXEMPLIFIED RECORD From Cumberland Count Y Debt, S Int. from Costs Entered and Filed Prothonotary. Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the Cumberland county <'' in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2010-3837 to No. 1324 MDA 2012 Term, 19 is contained the following: COPY OF Appearance DOCKET ENTRY RAYMOND A. MILLER vs. HOLLY C. MILLER **SEE CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCKET ENTERIES** _.1 v.7:~' __ C-::;`1."Jer!?r+G+. ~..'OL?1ry .'~",C ...C....O~c~.,,.y,;. V~rr,rn _ r~c"~.Oa __ -- Civi1 Case 3?r:ir_t 2010-0383'' MILLER Reference No..: RAC. ~JND A (vs ) MIT~LER HOLLY C Case Ty e.....: COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Judgmen~......: .00 Judge Assigned: OLER J WESL:~Y JR Disposed Desc.: ------------ Case Comments ------------- Filed......... 6',/10/2010 Time. .. 1:35 Execution Date 0',/00/0000 Jury Trial.... Disposed Date. 0 00/0000 Higher Crt l.: 132~MDA2012 Higher Crt 2.: ************************************************:~**********~~**********~x******** General Index Attorney Info I, MILLER RAYMOND A PLAINTIFF CLOUGH JOANNE H 107 ONEIDA RD CAMP HILL PA 17011 MILLER HOLLY C DEFENDANT 38 KENSINGTON DR CAMP HILL PA 17011 *********************************************************************** ******** * Date Entries ****************************-t****************************************~* ******** ,Z-`7 6/10/2010 ~ 6/15/2010 g_/~ 8/10/2010 12- ~2- / 4/05/2012 33-3`-F 4/18/2012 36,6 ~ 4/25/2012 3.f 4/26/2012 6~ 5/02/2012 (~ 5/14/2012 /p 6 5/14/2012 (o7-6S 5/23/2012 6~- ~~O 6/06/2012 '~I~~~ l 6/20/2012 /~_ /S/ 6/26/2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - COMPLAINT - CUSTODY BY JAMES W ABRAHAM ESQ ----------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - 6/14/10 - COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY - PREHEARI CUSTODY CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 7/22/10 AT 10:30 AM 39 WES STREET MECHANCISBURG - BY DAWN S SUNDAY ESQ CUSTODY CONCILI COPIES MAILED 6/15/10 ----------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT DATED 8-9-10 IN RE CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMM REPORT - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 8-10-1 ----------------------------------------------------------- PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF PROPOSED RELOCATION - BY DIANE G RADC ATTY FOR PLFF ----------------------------------------------------------- COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT REGARDING RELOCATION - BY DEFT ----------------------------------------------------------- MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED RELOCAT BY DIANE G RADCLIFF ATTY FOR PLFF ----------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT DATED 4-26-12 IN RE PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED RELO 23 PACSA S 5337 - HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 30 2012 AT 1 IN CR 4 - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS PJ - COPIES MAILED 4-26 OHEARINGFSCHEDULED5FOR15/30/12RI5 RESCHEDULEDOFOR 5/ZO~A~IO~N IN CR 4 CUMB CO COURTHOUSE - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS PJ COPIES MAILED 5/2/1 ----------------------------------------------------------- PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE JAMES W ABRAHAM ESQ F PLFF ----------------------------------------------------------- PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE OF JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH ESQ PLFF ORDER OF COURT --5/23/12 - IN RE: CONSOLIDATION - 2009-2081 10-3837 ARE CONSOLIDATED SUA SPONTE BY THE COURT FOR PURPOS CONSIDERATION OF THE CUSTODY RELOCATION ISSUE - BY THE COUR WESLEY OLER JR J - COPIES MAILED 5/23/12 ----------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT DATED 5-25-12 IN RE RELOCATION - COUNSEL REQ TO CONTACT SECRETARY FOR SCHEDULING PURPOSES - BY THE COURT WESLEY OLER JR SJ- COPIES MAILED 6-6-12 ----------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - 5/25/12 - BEFORE THE HONORABLE WESLEY OLER JR SR J ----------------------------------------------------------- FORE6/~5/lOU@T9:30/AM/IN COURTROOMF2NDLFDRYO~D COURTHOUSEHE: COURT J WESLEY OLER JR J SR J - COPIES MAILED 6/26/12 G---- MAIN TOR - RY--- IFF ATION 30 PM 12 :00 PM R THE S OF J ESTED J BY THE ----------------------------------------------------------- ~S~ 6/26/2012 ORDER OF COURT - 6/25/12 - IN RE: RECORD SHALL REMAIN OPEN COURT _ _ ____ "" J71_J_ I, UIL LIJCtldiiU LU Uii'-V :_'_'~U' i..U_.U l.di~V V'_!_!_C: `~ d~C L Civil Case Print ~ - 2010-03837 MILLER RA~_.JND A (vs) MILLER HOLLY C Reference No..: Filed........: 6;/10/2010 Case T e.....: COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time.........: 1:35 Judgmen~..... .00 Execution Date 0;/00/0000 Judge Assigned: OLER J WESLEY JR Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. OV00/0000 ------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: 132 MD 2012 Hi her Crt 2.: WILL RESUME 6/26/12 @ 9:30 AM IN HEARING ROM ON 5TH FLR CU ----------------------------------------------------------- Z Sq_~6~'8/14/2012 DEFENDANT RAYMOND A MILLER'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATTE] JOINT MOTION FOR SUPERSEDEAS TO STAY ORDER PERMITTING CHILD] RELOCATE TO SPOKANE VALLEY WASHINGTON PENDING CHILD FAST TR; SUPERIOR COURT APPEAL - BY JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH ATTY FOR ] MILLER 2~0- 5~~{8/15/2012 H LE DSBEFOREOTHERCOURDTIJGWESLEYEOLERIJR SJFON 06/200/120INVOCR1 ---------------------------------- ~.-~~E-`------------------- S~S-'1$ 38/15/2012 WES'LEYROLER JRPSJCOND06/21/~2~ANDION 06/D5/120RN Try COURT ------------------------------------ - ,~Oc ~~_G+Cf~?8/15/2012 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS VOL ~ D BEFORE THE COURT J WESLEY OLER JR SJ ON 06/21/12~D~N 6/25/12 IN C-;R##~4-,p~~./-~ -------------------------------------------------- q~. ~~~~8/15/2012 H LE DSCEFPR OT PR~OUETIJGWESLEYEOLERIJROSJFON 06/~((0""~2~II~-~ 8 / 16 / 2 012 NOT O~~CK~T~~~N`!'T~I'ES 7 MA~LEb ¢'ITO~JOHA~NA~HILI., REHKP ~Q G/~RfA,DyC~LIFF ESQ AND JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH ESQ O - - - - - .- ~~" ~'~"~ - - _j7 - -~ ~J~. -n- LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - * Escrow Information COURTHOUSE - BY HE COURT J WESLEY OLER JR SJ COPIES MAILED 6/26/12 ----------------------------------------------------------- ~$ ~j 6/28/2012 ORDER OF COURT - 6/26/12 - IN RE: REQUESTS FOR RELOCATION 0 CHILDREN - RECORD S DECLARED CLOSED AND THE MATTER IS TAKE ADVISEMENT - BY THE COURT J WESLEY OLER JR SJ COPIES MAILED 6/28/12 ---------------------//-------------------------------------- (,c~_lS'le 6/29/2012 OLERRJRFSJOURCOPIES2MAILED 6/29/12CUSTODY - BY THE COURT J ----------------------------------------------------------- ~s7-r7 3 6/29/2012 PROPOSOED RELOCATIONS OFUTHE PARTIESCCHI~DRENETOCSPOOKANE VAL WASHINGTON ARE AUTHORIZED - A FURTHER HEARRING IS SCHEDULED COURT/J3WESLEY30LER JR SJMBECOPIESCMAILEDC06/29/12E PA - BY /7Ci_/~JJ 7/19/2012 VJOHANNAOH REHKAMPOATTYC ORDDEFT/LUCENTEO SUPERIOR COURT OF ----------------------------------------------------------- /9 2-~q~ 7/19/2012 ,~HEFAPPEALARDBY JOHANNAfH REHCKAMP ATTYEFORTDEFT/LUCENTEOMPLA Z~~_2~7/19/2012 RELOCATETTONSPOKANEPVALLDYAWASHINGTONOPENDINGRCHILDNFASTITR SUPERIOR COURT APPEAL - BY JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH ATTY FOR ----------------------------------------------------------- ~,~ 07/24/2012 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE DATED 7-24-12 IN RE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE A~ RESPONDENT HOLLY MILLER TO SHOW CAUSE - RULE RETURNABLE 14 DATE OF SERVICE - BY THE COURT J WESLEY OLER JR J - COPIES 7-24-12 ----------------------------------------------------------- „(!J6- 2 3 27/26/2012 OPINION - DATED JULY 26, 2012 - BY THE COURT J WESLEY OLER ----------------------------------------------------------- ~33-2387/27/2012 SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 1325 M: ----------------------------------------------------------- ,23 q-138/02/2012 TOR#E324DMDAP2010R COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING -----------------------=----------------------------------- ~4 ~_ y,~8/08/2012 PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUPERSEDEAS AND STAY OF RELOCATION CUSTODY ORDER - BY DIANE RADCLIFF ATTY FOR HOLLY MILLER B CO UNDER ESLEY FOR THE A - BY NED OF EN TO CK EFT AINST AYS OF JR S J A 2012 G TO EN TO CT AYMOND ME III/ 4 %~_ ?~~ ~,~ ~ C!1~ ME .~ _ 1 DIANE ******** .-v~_;~_~_ C..l;'.T.'.~er-_cT-.'.C'. :,'o'~^ry ~""Or_"O_^O~c~-rY c ~~~---~-~e ~ar,Ta Civil Case Prir_~ J 2010-03837 MILLER RAY~~~JND A (vs) MILLER HOLLY C Reference No... Filed......... 6,'10/2010 Case Tye:....: COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time.........: i D t 1:35 0 '00/0000 Judgmen ... .00 on a e Execut ; Judge Assigned: OLER J WESLEY JR Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ Cas e Comments ------------ - Higher Crt 1.: 1324MDA2012 Higher Crt 2.: l * Fees & Debits Beq Bal mts/Ad~ Py End Ba * CUSTODY AGMT 135.00 135.00 .00 TAX ON AGMT .50 .50 .00 SETTLEMENT 8.00 5.00 .00 AUTOMATION FEE 5.00 5.00 .00 JCP FEE 23.50 23.50 .00 CUSTODY FEE 5.60 5.60 .00 CUSTODY FEE-CO 1.40 1.40 .00 APPEAL HIGH CT 57.00 57.00 .00 236.00 236.00 .00 ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Information ******************************************************************************** TRUE COPY ~~ RECORD In Testimony whereof.! here unto set rhy hand Cattisle, Ida. /L and the seal of said Ctw~ 2a..L- This ~ day °f ry~ prothono~Y s~c ~~ ~ / i ~~r~e c~~ ~~~ ~j~IPS ~p S~~Qr~o r' CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER ~y PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) (~DU~1L Superior Court of PA To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: Superior Court of Pennsylvania The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: RAYMOND A. MILLER Vs. HOLLY C. MILLER 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM 1324 MDA 2012 The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No. 1 to 1134, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 8/24/2012. Davi D. B ell, Prothonotary Alma Kostjerevac, Deputy An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy, thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. Date Signature & Title Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ss: County of C timberland In TES"1-1MONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto this 24th I, David D. Buell ,Prothonotary of ttre Court of Common Pleas in and for said County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a. full, true and correct copy of the whole record of the case therein stated, wherein RAYMOND A. MILLER Plaintiff, and HOLLY C. MILLER Defendant, as the same remains of record before the said Court at No. 2010-3837 of Civil Term.l3~~ p?DJ4.2012 set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court day o[ Au>;ust A. D., 2012 Pro~honutan~ -, Kevin A. Hess President .lodge of the Ninth .ludicial District, composed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that - David D. Buell by whom the annexed record, certificate and attestation were made and given, and who, in his own proper handwriting, thereunto subscribed his name and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said County, was, at the time of so doing, and now is Prothonotary in and for said County of Cumberland in the Commonwealth of Pcnnsyh~ania, duty commissioned and qualified to all of whose acts as such full Faith and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere, and that t e said record, certificate and attestation are in due form of law and made btu ttie pr er offic .~//J Prnidcnt lodge Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland ss: I David D. Buell Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the said County,. do certify that the Honorable Kevin A. Hess by whom the foregoing attestation was made, and who has thereunto subscribed his name, was, at the time of making thereof, and still is President.hrdge ofthe Court of Common Picas. Orphan' Court and Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for said County, duly Commissioned and qualified; to all whose acts as such full faith and credit arc and ought to be given, as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere. IN TES"rIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set nrv hand and affixed the seal of said Court this 24th day of August A. D. 2012 Prnihnn~xarc T Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the Cumberland county c ` in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM to No. 1324 MDA 2012 Term, 19 is contained the following: COPY OF Appearance DOCKET ENTRY RAYMOND A. MILLER VS. HOLLY C. MILLER **SEE CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCKET ENTERIES** r _.~~~__ L. UI:l.V C110.11U VV V.11 l.y .C1V L11V!_V 1.0._y .. Vll~l:C !'0.1.~C Civi= Case print 2010-03837 MILLER RAYMOND A ;vs) MILLER HOLLY C Reference No..: Filed........: 6'',/10/2010 Case Ty e.....: COMPLAINT - Judgmen~......: CUSTODY .00 Time........ Execution Date 1:35 0'/00/0000 Judge Assigned: OLER J WESLEY JR Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0 /00 0000 ------------ Case Comments - ------------ Higher Crt 1.: 132 4MDA2012 Higher Crt 2.: General Index Attorney Info MILLER RAYMOND A PLAINTIFF CLOUGH JOANNE H 107 ONEIDA RD CAMP HILL PA 17011 MILLER HOLLY C DEFENDANT 38 KENSINGTON DR CAMP HILL PA 17011 * Date Entries - - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - $-*j6/10/2010 COMPLAINT - CUSTODY BY JAMES W ABRAHAM ESQ ---------------------//-------------------------------------- ~ 6/15/2010 ORDTOD~FCONFERENCE/SCHEDULEDOFOR 7/22 /0 ATS10D30 AMR39EWES STREET MECHANCISBURG - BY DAWN S SUNDAY ESQ CUSTODY CONCILI COPIES MAILED 6/15/10 ----------------------------------------------------------- !~ 8/10/2010 ORDER OF COURT DATED 8-9-10 IN RE CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMM REPORT - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 8-10-1 ----------------------------------------------------------- /~-jz 4/05/2012 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF PROPOSED RELOCATION - BY DIANE G RADC ATTY FOR PLFF ----------------------------------------------------------- 33-34/18/2012 COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT REGARDING RELOCATION - BY DEFT ----------------------------------------------------------- 3(,_61f4/25/2012 BOTD~ANEOG RADCLIFFDATTYRFOR PLFF~INTIFFS PROPOSED RELOCAT ----------------------------------------------------------- 3$ 4/26/2012 ORDER OF COURT DATED 4-26-12 IN RE PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED RELO 23 PACSA S 5337 - HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 30 2012 AT 1 IN CR 4 - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS PJ - COPIES MAILED 4-26 ----------------------------------------------------------- 6 5 5/02/2012 OEARINGFSC~EDULED5FOR15/30/12RIS RESCHEDULEDOFOR 5/2~/12ION IN CR 4 CUMB CO COURTHOUSE - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS PJ COPIES MAILED 5/2/1 ----------------------------------------------------------- 6G 5/14f2012 PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE JAMES W ABRAHAM ESQ F PLFF ----------------------------------------------------------- (e6 5/14/2012 PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE OF JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH ESQ PLFF b`l-6 ~ 5/23/2012 ORDER OF COURT - 5/23/12 - IN RE: CONSOLIDATION - 2009-2081 10-3837 ARE CONSOLIDATED SUA SPONTE BY THE COURT FOR PURPOS CONSIDERATION OF THE CUSTODY RELOCATION ISSUE - BY THE LOUR WESLEY OLER JR J - COPIES MAILED 5/23/12 ----------------------------------------------------------- 6~T~?O 6/06/2012 ORDER OF COURT DATED 5-25-12 IN RE RELOCATION - COUNSEL REQ TO CONTACT SECRETARY FOR SCHEDULING PURPOSES - BY THE COURT WESLEY OLER JR SJ- COPIES MAILED 6-6-12 ----------------------------------------------------------- rJ(-l~ q 6/20/2012 WERSLEYROLER JRPSRCJEDINGS - 5/25/12 - BEFORE THE HONORABLE ----------------------------------------------------------- ~$O-fSI6/26/2012 OORE6/205/i0U@T9:30/AM/IN COURTROOMF2NDLFDLRYOLD COURTHOUSEHE: COURT J WESLEY OLER JR J SR J - COPIES MAILED 6/26/12 --------------------------------------------- ~52 6/26/2012 ORDER OF COURT - 6/25/12 - IN RE: RECORD SHALL REMAIN OPEN G---- MAIN TOR - RY--- IFF ATION 30 PM 12 :00 PM R THE OR S OF J ESTED J BY THE COURT AVJ~1 ~. l.lttll./C11Q1!V. ~.V UAL I,.y L1V1~1!VLJ.V I..QlY ~ VL11L.C li uMt.. Civil Case Pr__nt - - 2010-03837 MILLER RAYMOND A (vs) MILLER HOLLY C Reference No... Filed......... 6',/10/2010 Case Tye:....: COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time.........: 1:35 Judgmen ... .00 Execution Date 0',/00/0000 Judge Assigned: OLER J WESLEY JR Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0 00/0000 ------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: 132 MDA2012 Higher Crt 2.: WILL RESUME 6/26/12 Q 9:30 AM IN HEARING ROOM ON 5TH FLR C B CO COURTHOUSE - BY THE COURT J WESLEY OLER JR SJ COPIES MAILED 6/26/12 ------------------------------------------------------------------- (53 6/28/2012 ORDER OF COURT - 6/26/12 - IN RE: REQUESTS FOR RELOCATION O CHILDREN - RECORD IS DECLARED CLOSED AND THE MATTER IS TAKE UNDER ADVISEMENT - BY THE COURT J WESLEY OLER JR SJ COPIES MAILED 6/28/12 ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- (~{-/S66/29/2012 OLERRJRFSJ URC0PIES2MAILED 6/29%12CUSTODY - BY THE COURT J ESLEY ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- ~~_~736/29/2012 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT - IN RE CUSTODY RELOCATION - THE PROPOSED RELOCATIONS OF THE PARTIES CHILDREN TO SPOKANE VAL EY WASHINGTON ARE AUTHORIZED - A FURTHER HEARRING IS SCHEDULED FOR COURT/J3WESLEY3OLER JR SJMBEC0PIESCMAILEDC06/29/12E PA - BY THE ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- ~~~-I~T2.7/19/2012 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF RAYMOND A MILLER TO SUPERIOR COURT OF P - BY JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH ATTY FOR DEFT RAYMOND A MILLER ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- ~g3_(~87/19/2012 ONFAPPEALONDBY JOANNEfHARRISONECL0UGHMATTYOFORRDEFT RAYMOND AD OF MILLER ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- ~01-.2057/19/2012 JOINT MOTION FOR SUPERSEDEAS TO STAY ORDER PERMITTING CHILD EN TO RELOCATE TO SPOKANE VALLEY WASHINGTON PENDING CHILD FAST T CK SUPERIOR COURT APPEAL - BY JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH ATTY FOR EFT ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- ~00 7/24/2012 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE DATED 7-24-12 IN RE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE A AINST RESPONDENT HOLLY MILLER TO SHOW CAUSE - RULE RETURNABLE 14 AYS OF DATE OF SERVICE - BY THE COURT J WELLEY OLER JR J - COPIES ILED 7-24-12 ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- 206-X327/26/2012 OPINION - DATED JULY 26, 2012 - BY THE COURT J WESLEY OLER JR S J ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- ~33~~$7/27/2012 SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 1325 M A 2012 ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- 22~Q.2~38/02/2012 TOR#1324DMDAP2010R COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- z~„~588/08/2012 PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUPERSEDEAS AND STAY OF RELOCATION CUSTODY ORDER - BY DIANE G RADCLIFF ATTY FOR HOLLY MILLER ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- 2S~_~q 8/14/2012 DEFENDANT RAYMOND A MILLER'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATTE TO JOINT MOTION FOR SUPERSEDEAS TO STAY ORDER PERMITTING CHILD EN TO RELOCATE TO SPOKANE VALLEY WASHINGTON PENDING CHILD FAST T CT SUPERIOR COURT APPEAL - BY JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH ATTY FOR YMOND MILLER ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- 2r1~} Sl~{8/15/2012 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - VOLUME II - BEFORE THE HONORABL J WESLEY OLER JR SJ ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- b.~,c_~538/15/2012 WESLEYROLER JRPSOCEEDINGS - VOLUME III - BEFORE THE HONORAB E J ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- ~~-Q~R8/15/2012 WESLEYROLER JRPSOCEEDINGS - VOLUME IV - BEFORE THE HONORABL J ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- qrp-(~~Q 8/15/2012 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - VOLUME V - BEFORE THE HONORABLE J WESLEY OLER JR SJ ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- 8/16/2012 NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRIES MAILED TO JOHANNA HILL REHKMAP ESQ DIANE G RADCLIFF ESQ AND JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH ESQ ----------------------------------------------------------- ---- !~~_~~3(8/16/2012 NDIATTERATO JOINTRMOTIONEFORLSUPERSEDEASPTO SOTAYLORDERFPERMIT ING _. ~~ ~ ~ ~um.Uer!_ana ~.:ounLV rro ~.ncr.ora.rv ~ s err tico ' y Civil Case Print 2010-03837 MILLER RAYMOND A (vs) MILLER HOLLY C Reference No... Filed......... Case Type.....: COMPLAINT - CUSTODY Time........ Judgment......: .00 Execution Date Judge Assigned: OLER J WESLEY JR Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. ------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: 13 Higher Crt 2.: CHILDREN TO RELOCATE TO SPOKANE VALLEY WASHINGTON PENDING ~ FAST TRACK SUPERIOR COURT APPEAL - BY JOHANNA H REHKAMP AT' RICHARD LUCENTE ---------------------------------------------------------- 1/3.Z-//,3,3 8/21/2012 IN RE RESPONDENTS JOINT MOTION FOR SUPERSEDEAS - APPEAL IS *DENIED* - BY THE COURT J WESLEY OLER JR SJ - COPIES MAILE] 8-21-12 8/24/2012 NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRIES MAILED TO JOHANNA HILL REHKMAP ES( G RADCLIFF ESQ AND JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH ESQ 08/24/12 ~I.3~I - _ _ _ . - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - * Escrow Information * Fees & Debits Beq Bal Pmts/Ad~ End Bal CUSTODY AGMT 135.00 135.00 .00 TAX ON AGMT .50 .50 .00 SETTLEMENT 8.00 8.00 .00 AUTOMATION FEE 5.00 5.00 .00 JCP FEE 23.50 23.50 .00 CUSTODY FEE 5.60 5.60 .00 CUSTODY FEE-CO 1.40 1.40 .00 APPEAL HIGH CT 57.00 -------- 57.00 .00 ------ 236.00 ---------- --- 236.00 --------- .00 ~aae x/10/2010 1:35 4/00/0000 (~/00/0000 4MDA2012 HILD Y FOR DIANE ********* * * ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Information * ******************************************************************************** TRUE COPY FROM RECORI In Testimony whereof, I here. unto set my and the ~a>'said ~ t terUsle, Pa. This 1~~'~:..day of . 20 _ ProthoC 's~P~r/~ ch,ld~P~ CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF AFPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) Superior Court of PA To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: Superior Court of Pennsylvania The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and` entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: RAYMOND A. MILLER Vs. HOLLY C. MILLER 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM 1324 MDA 2012 The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No. 1 to 1134, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 8/24/2012. Davi D. B ell, rothonotary Alma Kostjerevac, Deputy An additional.: copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sisn and date copy, tlnerebv acknowlena receipt of this record. Date Signature & Title Reeved to Superior Court AUG 2 4 2012 S ~ ~~~' ~j a /f S' o~~ MIDDLE r ~. File Copy Karen Reid Rramblrt;, Esc. Pruthoiiutarc Man :A. i;nvbill, Ls~,. Ue~nrtc Pr~,thonutan Middlc District Pennsv'.~ anra Judicial Center P U. &ix 62435 601 Commonwealth •1~°enue, Suite 1600 Harrisl~~u r~, PA 17106-2435 ~ ? 171 ?72-1294 ~cH~~~-_~~uF~erior.r<~urt.state.p~ys C7 ~ mot;. CERTIFICATE OF REMITTAL/REMAND OF RECORD -s3 ~ ~.~ Z~ ~ ~f" TO: David D. Buell ~n w 4°, z ~~' ' ~~ ~ RE: H.C.M. v. R.A.I1/I. ~ ~ 1324 MDA 2012 Trial Court: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas Trial Court Docket No: 2010-3837 ;r` cwn '~! Annexed hereto pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 2571 and 2572 is the entire record for the above matter. Original Record contents: Item Parts Filed Date Description August 20, 2012 2 Additional Item(s): Certified copy of Superior Court Order dated 9/12/12. Remand~Remittal Date: 10/22/2012 ORIGINAL RECIPIENT ONLY -Please acknowledge receipt by signing, dating, and returning the enclosed copy of this certificate to our office. Copy recipients (noted below) need not acknowledge receipt. Respectfully, Mary A. Graybill, Esq. Deputy Prothonotary /vs I Enclosure cc: Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. The Honorable J. Wesley Oler Jr., Senior Judge Diane Gilbert Radcliff, Esq. Docket No: 1324 MDA, 2012 Service List Addressed To: Buell, David D. Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse '1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Fax No: (717) 240-6573 Carbon Copied To: ,Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. Clough, Joanne Harrison, P.C. 3820 Market St Camp Hill, PA 17011 Fax No: f717) 737-5892 ~rhe Honorable J. Wesley Oler Jr. Senior Judge Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Fax No: (717) 240-6460 Diane Gilbert Radcliff, Esq. 3448 Trindle Rd Camp Hill, PA 17011 File Copy AOPC 1021b Rev. 0 9/1 212 0 1 2 I~stance:2011476836 H.C.M. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA (C.P. Cumberland County v. No. 2010-3837) No. 1324 MDA 2012 R.A.M. Filed: September 12, 201.2 ORDER The motion to quash this appeal is hereby DENIED as having been filed untimely. Nevertheless, this appeal is QUASHED sua sponte~ as having been filed from an order that is interlocutory and not appealable. See G.B. v. M.M.B., 670 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 1996). Per Curiam ~ ~ ~ C T ~~ ~*t ti ~ ~ ="i7 ~"' = Z~ "~ -v rn ~D w o~ <~ ~° ~~ z ~~ z,~ ~~ `'; .~ ~ r ...,~ rn = 'TRUE COPY FROM RECORD Aaest: O C T 2 z Z~,12 ~ .~ ~1,~~~~~~ ~ri ~ Supetlor Court of PA -Middle District HOLLY C. MILLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION—LAW RAYMOND A. MILLER, Defendant NO. 09-2081 CIVIL TERM RAYMOND A. MILLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION—LAW HOLLY C. MILLER, / Defendant NO. 10-3837 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 23rd day of April, 2013, an additional period of hearing in the above matter is scheduled for Thursday, August 15, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. 5, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT, -' JiVesley 0101:2, Jr. S.J. a - ,AJiane G. Radcliff, Esq. Attorney for Holly C. Miller Joanne Harrison Clough, Esq. Attorney for Raymond A. Miller :rc �a 1?:;;;JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH,ESQUIRE f 7/3 Attorney I.D.No. 36461 ` :� E'f f 3820 Market Street -�:;''t r. , Camp Hill, PA 17011 PEP'i' COUi#l v Telephone: (717)737-5890 YL VA NIA RAYMOND A.MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION(IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, : NO.2010-3837 CIVIL TERM Defendant STIPULATION OF PARTIES TO SETTLE CUSTODY ACTION WHEREAS, Raymond A. Miller(hereinafter referred to as Father) is the natural Father of the minor child, Madison Miller(hereinafter referred to as Child, born November 22, 2004 and Holly Miller(hereinafter referred to as Mother) is the natural Mother of Madison; WHEREAS, the parties have been engaged in protracted custody litigation in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, resulting in eight days of Court testimony regarding Mother's relocation from Cumberland County, Pennsylvania to Spokane Valley, Washington; WHEREAS, Mother and Father both desire to resolve the Custody Action without the need for further trial Court proceedings or appeals; WHEREAS, Mother and Father have reached an agreement regarding a custody schedule that they believe is in the best interest and permanent welfare of their minor daughter, Madison; WHEREAS, Father Raymond A. Miller is represented by Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire and Mother Holly Miller is represented by Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire. 1 NOW THEREFORE, the parties set forth their agreement here below intending to be legally bound as follows: 1. This Stipulation is entered by Father Raymond A. Miller and Mother Holly C. Miller regarding the custody of their minor child, Madison J. Miller, born November 22, 2004, and shall supersede all prior custody Orders. 2. Mother and Father shall share and have joint legal custody of the Child. Joint legal custody means the right of both parents to control and to share in the making decisions of importance in the life of their Child, including educational, medical, and religious decisions. Both parents shall be entitled to equal access to the Child's school, medical, dental and other important records. As soon as practical after the receipt by a parent, copies of the Child's school schedules, special events notifications, report cards, and similar items shall be provided to the other parent. Despite this provision, if any service provider or professional still requires a release of a parent to access the Child's educational, religious or medical information, both parents shall execute a release within ten days of any written request by a parent or his or her counsel. Notwithstanding that both parents share legal custody, non-major decisions involving the Child's day to day living shall be made by the parent then having custody, consistent with the other provisions of this Order. 3. Mother shall have primary physical custody of the Child in Spokane Valley, Washington. 4. Father shall have periods of partial physical custody as follows: (A) Starting with the summer of 2013 and in all odd numbered calendar years thereafter, from the fourteenth (14th) day following the last day of school (being the last day of school for any of Mother's minor children) until seven(7) days preceding the first day of school for the Child in the fall (being the first day of school for any of Mother's minor children). In all even numbered calendar years summer custody shall commence the seventh(7th) day following the last 2 • day of school until seven (7) days before the first day of school. 1. Mother shall be entitled to exercise a three consecutive day visit with the Child in Pennsylvania during the month of July or August, if she notifies Father of her intention to do so at least two (2) weeks in advance of the visit and provided said visit does not interfere with any pre paid or prior special events scheduled by Father. 2. Mother shall also have partial custody during Father's work hours at such times as Mother is visiting in Pennsylvania. 3. Mother may have additional periods of partial custody during Father's periods of custody at such times at the parties may agree. (B) During each Easter/Spring school break (or the longer of the two if exercised separately) from the first full day off school to the last day off school. (C) Thanksgiving/Christmas Breaks: In odd numbered years, Father shall have custody of the Child for the entire week of Thanksgiving from the Saturday prior to Thanksgiving until the Sunday following Thanksgiving and Mother shall have custody of the Child for the entire Christmas break from the first full day off school until the last day off school. In even numbered years, the schedule shall reverse and Mother shall have custody the entire Thanksgiving week and Father shall have custody from the first full day off school until the last day off school of the Christmas school vacation. (D) At such times as Father is visiting in the Spokane Valley, Washington vicinity. (E) At additional times as the parties may agree. 5. Mother shall bear the full air transportation expenses to Middletown or BWI airports, including chaperone fees for all custody exchanges. 6. The non-custodial parent shall be entitled to contact his or her Child at least daily, by the means of his or her choice, and at the times of his or her choice, and the Child shall be permitted to contact the non-custodial parent at any time, by any means. 7. Pursuant to the provisions of 23 Pa.C.S.A., Section 5422, as of the date of this Order this Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania has exclusive continuing 3 jurisdiction over modification of this Order. 8. Neither party shall permanently relocate if the relocation would necessitate a change in the physical custodial schedule or significantly impair the ability of the not-relocating party to exercise physical custodial responsibilities unless the other party consents in writing or the Court approves the proposed relocation. The parent proposing relocation must notify all parties in accordance with 23 Pa.C.S.A, Section 5537 as set forth in Attachment A to the Order. 9. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the parties from deviating from the terms of this Order by mutual consent. 10. Both parties agree that this Stipulation shall be entered as a Court Order and that the hearing scheduled for August 15, 2013 is no longer necessary and shall be cancelled. WHEREFORE, both parties set forth his and her respective signatures here below intending to be legally bound. Witneses: , tkti A- 7/2y1,3 Joanne Harrison Clough, squire Raymond A. Miller DATE I \---) I `3 Witness Holly Mille , DATE 4 3 ?a, c • ✓y� 7 EXHIBIT A REQUIREMENTS REGARDING RELOCATION OF RESIDENCE A relocation is a move or change of residence that will significantly impair the ability of the non-relocating party to easily exercise periods of custody. You cannot relocate with the child(ren) without following these procedures. If you are contemplating such a move, you are strongly urged to seek the advice of an attorney to make sure that you are following the procedures. You are not permitted to relocate your residence without either: • The consent of every individual who has custody rights to the child(ren) to the proposed relocation OR • The court approves the proposed relocation. NOTICE 1 . The party proposing the relocation must notify every other party who has custody rights to the child(ren) of the proposed move by certified mail, return receipt requested. You should complete the attached "Notice of Proposed Relocation to Be Completed by Party Intending To Relocate" and send the notice to all other parties by certified mail, return receipt requested. 2. Notice must be given 60 days before the date of the proposed relocation OR 10 days after the date that the party knows about the relocation only if the individual did not know and could not have reasonably known about the relocation in time to comply with the 60 days notice or it is not reasonably possible to delay the date of relocation to comply with the 60 day notice. 3. You must include with this mailing the attached "Counter-Affidavit Regarding Relocation". The other parties must complete this form to indicate their position with regard to the proposed move. WHAT DOES) THE OTHER PARTY(IES) DO WHEN THEY RECEIVE THE NOTICE AND COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT? 1. If you receive a notice and a counter-affidavit, you must complete the counter- affidavit and file with the Prothonotary's Office this completed counter-affidavit within 30 days from the day you receive the notice and counter-affidavit. if you fail to file this counter-affidavit within the 30 days, you will be foreclosed from objecting to the relocation. 2. If the counter-affidavit is timely filed and the party objects to the proposed . relocation or objects to the proposed modification of the custody order, a hearing will be held. • • 3. You must serve the other party with the Counter-Affidavit by certified mail, return receipt requested. 4. If notice of the proposed.relocation_,has been properly given and no objection to the proposed relocation has been filed with the Prothontoary, then it will be presumed that the nonrelocating party has consented to the proposed relocation. 5. If a party who has been given proper notice does not file with the court an objection to the relocation within 30 days after receipt of the notice but later petitions the court for review of the custodial arrangements, the court shall not accept testimony challenging the relocation. WHAT DO I DO IF NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED RELOCATION IS FILED? The party proposing relocation shall file the following with the Prothonotary prior to relocation: 1. An affidavit stating that the party provided notice to every individual entitled to notice, the time to file an objection to the proposed relocation has passed and no individual entitled to receive notice has filed an objection to the proposed relocation. 2. Proof that proper notice was given in the form of a return receipt with the signature of the addressee and a copy of the full notice that was sent to the addressee. 3. A petition to confirm the relocation and modify any existing custody order, and 4. A proposed order containing the information in the notice. WHAT DO I DO IF A COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT IF FILED WITH THE PROTHONOTARY THAT INDICATES THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED RELOCATION AND NO OBJECTION TO THE MODIFICATION OF THE CUSTODY ORDER CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSAL FOR A REVISED CUSTODY SCHEDULE? • The court may modify the existing custody order by approving the proposal for a revised custody schedule submitted with the Notice. You should submit a proposed order with distribution and attach a copy of the notice and the courier-affidavit. WHAT DO I DO IF A COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT IS FILED WITH THE PROTHONOTARY WHICH INDICATES THAT THE NONRELOCATING PARTY OBJECTS EITHER TO THE PROPOSED•RELOCATION OR TO THE MODIFICATION OF THE CUSTODY ORDER? You should file a motion for a hearing with the Prothonotary's Office. The matter will be assigned to a judge for the scheduling of a hearing and disposition. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. CV CU : CIVIL ACTION Defendant : IN CUSTODY NOTICE OF PROPOSED RELOCATION TO BE COMPLETED BY PARTY INTENDING TO RELOCATE , parent of intend to move on and answer the following questions as follows. 1. What is the address of the intended new residence? 2. What is the mailing address of the intended new residence? 3. What are the name(s) and age(s) of all individual(s) who will be living at this new residence? 4. What is the home telephone number of the intended new residence? 5. What is the name of the new school and the new school district? 6. What is the date of the proposed relocation? 7. What are the reasons for the proposed relocation? 8. How do you proposed to change the custody schedule that is currently in effect? 9. Is there any other information that is relevant to the proposed relocation? 10. I have included a counter-affidavit that you can use to object to the proposed relocation. WARNING TO NON-RELOCATING PARTY IF YOU WANT TO OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED RELOCATION, YOU MUST FILE THIS COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT WITH THE PROTHONOTARY'S OFFICE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE OR YOU WILL BE FORECLOSED FROM OBJECTING TO THE RELOCATION. I verify that the statements made in this counter-affidavit 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). Date Signature Print Name Address Telephone Number : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. CV CU : CIVIL ACTION Defendant : IN CUSTODY COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT REGARDING RELOCATION The party objecting to the Notice of Relocation must file this document with the Prothonotary's Office within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Notice of Proposed Relocation. I, , file this counter-affidavit regarding the proposed relocation. I received the Notice of Proposed Relocation on 1. What are the names and ages of the child(ren) affected by the proposed relocation? 2. Where do this/these child(ren) currently reside? Check one of the following boxes: I do not object to the relocation and I do not object to the modification of the custody order consistent with the proposal for revised custody schedule as attached to this notice. I do not object to the relocation, but I do object to modification of the custody order and I request that a hearing be scheduled. I request that a hearing be scheduled n a. Prior to allowing the child(ren) to relocate. b. After the child(ren) relocate. • I do object to the relocation and I do object to the modification of the custody order, and I request that a hearing be held on both matters prior to the relocation taking place. I understand that I must file this counter-affidavit with the. Prothonotary's Office and that I must mail a copy to the other party by certified mail, return receipt requested. I understand that if I fail to file this counter-affidavit and mail a copy to the other party within thirty (30) days of receipt of the proposed relocation notice, I shall be prevented from objecting to the relocation. I verify that the statements made in this counter-affidavit 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). Date Signature • Print Name Address Telephone Number • Relocation of a Party: Relocation is defined as a change in a residence of the child which significantly impairs the ability of a non-relocating party to exercise custodial rights 23 Pa.C.S. §5322. No relocation shall occur unless every individual who has custody rights to the child consents to the proposed relocation or the court approves the proposed relocation. If a party seeks to relocate, that party shall notify every other individual who has custody rights to the child. Both parties must follow the statutory requirements contained in 23 Pa.C.S. §5337. Specifically, the relocating party must notify every other individual who has custody rights to the child by certified mail, return receipt requested. The notice must then comply with the following requirements: Notice must be sent no later than: (1) the 601x' day before the date of the proposed relocation; or (2) the 10`11 day after the date that the individual knows of the relocation if the individual did not know and could not reasonably know of the relocation in sufficient time to comply with the 60 day notice requirement and it is not reasonably possible to delay the date of relocation so as to comply with the 60 day notice requirement. Unless otherwise excused by law, the following information must be included in the notice: (1) The address of the intended new residence. (2) The mailing address, if not the same as the address of the intended new residence. (3) Names and ages of the individuals in the new residence, including individuals who intend to live in the new residence. (4) The home telephone number of the intended new residence, if applicable. (5) The name of the new school district and school. (6) The date of the proposed relocation. (7) The reasons for the proposed relocation. (8) A proposal for a revised custody schedule. (9) Any other information which the party proposing the relocation deems appropriate. (10) A counter-affidavit as provided under subsection (d)(1) which can be used to object to the proposed relocation and modification of a custody order. (11) A warning to the non-relocating party that if the non-relocating party does not file with the court an objection to the proposed relocation within 30 days after receipt of notice, that party shall be foreclosed from objecting to the relocation. If any of the aforementioned information is not known when the notice is sent but is later made known to the party seeking the relocation then that party shall promptly inform every individual who received notice. If the non-relocating parent objects to the proposed move he/she must do so by filing the counter-affidavit with the court and the other party within 30 days. The notice of objection to the opposing party must be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. If no objection is made in the manner set forth above then it shall be presumed that the non-relocating parent has consented to the proposed relocation and the court will not accept testimony challenging the relocation in any further review of the custodial arrangements. The court shall hold an expedited full hearing on the proposed relocation after a timely objection has been filed and before relocation occurs. The Court may permit relocation before a full hearing if the court finds that exigent circumstances exist. Certification Under 23 Pa.C.S. §5329: Each party has executed a Certification stating that he/she has not been charged with or convicted of an offense enumerated in 23 Pa.C.S. §5329 or an equivalent offense in another jurisdiction. RAYMOND A.MILLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION(IN CUSTODY) HOLLY MILLER, NO. 2010-3837 CIVIL TERM Defendant CUSTODY ORDER PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND NOW, this 3 o� day of J v, G1 , 2013, upon review and consideration of' the attached Stipulation of the Parties to Settle Custody Action, it is hereby directed that the terms of the parties' Stipulation to Settle Custody Action are hereby entered as a Custody Order as set forth here below: 1. This Court Order is entered pursuant to the Joint Stipulation of Plaintiff Raymond A. Miller (hereinafter referred to as Father) and Defendant Holly C. Miller (hereinafter referred to as Mother) and their child, Madison J. Miller, born November 22, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as Child), and shall supersede all prior custody Orders. 2. The parents shall share and have joint legal. custody of the Child. Joint legal custody means the right of both parents to control and to share in the making decisions of importance in the life of their Child, including educational, medical, and religious decisions. Both parents shall be entitled to equal access to the Child's school, medical, dental and other important records. As soon as practical after the receipt by a parent, copies of the Child's school schedules, special events notifications, report cards, and similar items shall be provided to the other parent. Despite this provision, if any service provider or professional still requires a release of a parent to access the Child's educational, religious or medical information, both parents shall execute a release within ten days of any written request by a parent or his or her counsel. Notwithstanding that both parents share 1 legal custody, non-major decisions involving the Child's day to day living shall be made by the parent then having custody, consistent with the other provisions of this Order. 3. Mother shall have primary physical custody of the Child in Spokane Valley, Washington. 4. Father shall have periods of partial physical custody as follows: (A) Starting with the summer of 2013 and in all odd numbered calendar years thereafter, from the fourteenth (14th) day following the last day of school (being the last day of school for any of Mother's minor children) until seven (7) days preceding the first day of school for the Child in the fall (being the first day of school for any of Mother's minor children). In all even numbered calendar years summer custody shall commence the seventh (7"') day following the last day of school until seven(7) days before the first day of school. 1. Mother shall be entitled to exercise a three consecutive day visit with the Child in Pennsylvania during the month of July or August, if she notifies Father of her intention to do so at least two (2) weeks in advance of the visit and provided said visit does not interfere with any pre paid or prior special events scheduled by Father. 2. Mother shall also have partial custody during Father's work hours at such times as Mother is visiting in Pennsylvania. 3. Mother may have additional periods of partial custody during Father's periods of custody at such times at the parties may agree. (B) During each Easter/Spring school break (or the longer of the two if exercised separately) from the first full day off school to the last day off school. (C) Thanksgiving/Christmas Breaks: In odd numbered years, Father shall have custody of the Child for the entire week of Thanksgiving from the Saturday prior to Thanksgiving until the Sunday following Thanksgiving and Mother shall have custody of the Child for the entire Christmas break from the first full day off school until the last day off school. In even numbered years, the schedule shall 2 i reverse and Mother shall have custody the entire Thanksgiving week and Father shall have custody from the first full day off school until the last day off school of the Christmas school vacation. (D) At such times as Father is visiting in the Spokane Valley, Washington vicinity. (E) At additional times as the parties may agree. 5. Mother shall bear the full air transportation expenses to Middletown or BWI airports, including chaperone fees for all custody exchanges. 6. The non-custodial parent shall be entitled to contact his or her Child at least daily, by the means of his or her choice, and at the times of his or her choice, and the Child shall be permitted to contact the non-custodial parent at any time, by any means. 7. Pursuant to the provisions of 23 Pa.C.S.A., Section 5422, as of the date of this Order this Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania has exclusive continuing jurisdiction over modification of this Order. 8. Neither party shall permanently relocate if the relocation would necessitate a change in the physical custodial schedule or significantly impair the ability of the not-relocating party to exercise physical custodial responsibilities unless the other party consents in writing or the Court approves the proposed relocation. The parent proposing relocation must notify all parties in accordance with 2' Section 5537 as set forth in Attachment A to this Order. 9. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the parties from deviating from the terms of this Order by mutual consent. 10. The hearing scheduled for August 15, 2013 is no longer necessary and therefore cancelled. FOR THE COURT: Date: Tv t 3 o 1 Zo 1_9 By: S J. Distribution: Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, 3820 Market Street, Camp Hill, PA 171.1 /Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire, 3448 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011 -�,_� Aohanna Rehkamp, Esquire, 4701 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA AM 4T (counsel for Richard Lucente, Father in companion Custody Action) ;r- ,3 C:) C:)1 'j c — CD r ,3 0�