Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-3332 MARIA P. COGNETTl & ASSOCIATES MARIA P. COGNETTl, ESQUIRE Attorney J.D. No. 27914 210 Grandview Avenue, Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone No. (717) 909-4060 Attorneys for Plain<iff MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA : NO. 04 -33.3..\ C;u~L '--r~ BRENDA BROWNEWELL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY I. Plaintiff is Mark D. Isenberg, an adult individual residing at 752 Petersburg Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant is Brenda Brownewell, an adult individual residing at 61 Partridge Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff seeks custody of the following child: Name Taylore Brownewell Present Address Age 4 752 Petersburg Road, Carlisle, P A 17013 4. The child was/was not bom out of wedlock. The child is presently in the custody of Plaintiff. 5. During the past five (5) years, the child has resided with the following persons at the following addressees): Name Address Dates Mark D. Isenberg and Brenda 216 Hill Street, Mt. Holly 1/00 through 12/03 Brownewell Springs, PA 17048 Mark D. Isenberg and Brenda 752 Petersburg Road, 12/03 through 7/27/03 Brownewell Carlisle, PAl 70 13 Brenda Brownewell 61 Partridge Circle, Carlisle, 7/27/03 through 6/4/04 PA 17013 Mark D. Isenberg 752 Petersburg Road, 6/4/04 through present Carlisle, PAl 70 13 6. The Mother of the child is currently residing at 6 I Partridge Circle, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Mother's marital status is undetermined at this time. 7. The Father of the child is currently residing at 752 Petersburg, Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Father's marital status is undetermined at this time. 8. The relationship of Plaintiff to the child is that of Father. Plaintiff currently resides with the following persons: Name Rose Isenberg Taylore Brownewell Relationship Mother Daughter 9. The relationship of Defendant to the child is that of Mother. Defendant currently resides with the following persons: Name Judy Brownewell Amber Brownewell Relationship Mother Daughter 10. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or a witness, or in any other capacity in other litigation concerning the custody of the child in this or any other Court. 11. Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the child pending in a court of this Commonwealth. 12. Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child. 13. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting the relief requested. 14. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the child has been named as parties to this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court to grant him shared legal and primary physical custody of the child. Respectfully Submitted: MARIA P. COGNETTI & ASSOCIATES Date: July 5, 2004 By: 210 Grandview A venue, Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone No. (717) 909-4060 Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I, Mark D. Isenberg, hereby verify and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing document 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.A. !i4904 relating to unsworn verification to authorities. DATE: 'f0;0~ e~{\1 N 0 ~ ~ 1. -... ..... 0- ........ N "I lI) 0 () t)' ~ w r Or ~ C) ,..., :~:; C) ........~ ~n -, --r f;l ;JJ tJ ( r"^ j - I l.,~) en :--1 1, .I.~ r", ,;) l""'.) c,.\ MARK D. ISENBERG PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. 04-3332 CIVIL ACTION LAW BRENDA BROWNEWELL DEFENDANT IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday, July 19, 2004 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Dawn S. Sunday, Esq. at 39 West Main Street, Mechanicshurg, PA 17055 on Wednesday, AnKust 18, 2004 , the conciliator, at 8:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT. By: Isl Dawn S. Sunday, F.sq. Custody Conciliator mhc The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3l66 L__ .t.A'? ~L /J, .~ trv ~ ,'1 r"f v "1d.9p ACZ t>/ L -6 ~ /~~2:>~ ~ At'. ty'. L .~~~~~-~ /11/-;/.( I f: :8 ~!d 61 lnr 11GDZ ""r"-",r"'\'j''''~'~d :l1..p :\0 f(iV U...-'I';\.). ,,.l..'-.i'-' . .,J' - . . :.')tJ~0-CIJ 1:.:1 :J~ ;",~ " MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 04-3332 BRENDA K. BROWNEWELL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY EMERGENCY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF 1. Defendant Brenda K. Brownewell is the mother of Taylore M. Brownewell, the minor child the subject hereof (d.o.b. January 14, 2000). She resides at 61 Partridge Circle, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 2. Plaintiff Mark D. Isenberg is father of the minor child the subject hereof. He resides at 752 Petersburg Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. The parties hereto are married and are the natural parents of the minor child the subject hereof. 4. From the child's birth until Defendant's and Plaintiff's separation in August, 2003, Defendant was the primary nurturing parent of Taylore. 5. Plaintiff and Defendant separated in August, 2003, at which time Defendant left the family home and Taylore went with her. 6. During substantially all of ~~gust, September and October, 2003, Plaintiff refused to see Taylore but after much urging by Defendant and by members of both Defendant's and his own family, he began to see the child in or about November, 2003. 7. Thereafter, the parties' custody arrangement for Taylore evolved so that each party basically had custody of her for equal periods of time. 8. To Plaintiff's displeasure though, after Defendant's separation from him, Defendant began to move on with her life, including socially. 9. In early June, 2004, after Plaintiff enjoyed a scheduled three or four day vacation period with Taylore, he refused to return the child to Defendant as would be normal in the their custody arrangement claiming that their four year old daughter did not wish to see her mother, the Defendant. 10. Thereafter, until the intervention of attorneys after both parties filed custody actions, Defendant was not allowed by Plaintiff to have any periods of custody with Taylore. 11. After the intervention of attorneys, Defendant was able to see her daughter on alternate weekends and two weekday evenings, but not overnight, this as dictated by Plaintiff and only after Defendant's attorney "guaranteed" that the child would be returned to Plaintiff who apparently was concerned that Defendant would use the same "self help" method of determining custody as did he. 12. A custody conciliation conference held herein on August 18, 2004, at which time Plaintiff seeminqly justified his position that the amount of time for Defendant's custody of their daughter should be dictated by him because he thought Defendant was not giving priority to being the child's mother. 13. At their conciliation conference, despite what Defendant felt was an alarmingly weak rendition by Plaintiff of her deficiencies as a parent, Defendant and Plaintiff agreed to undergo an evaluation so as to try to resolve their custody disagreement outside of court. 14. At the conciliation conference too, feeling it both and unfounded and unfair that Plaintiff would continue to express a concern that Defendant would use the same "self help" method as did he to deal with custody and not return their child to him at the end of those periods dictated by him for her custody, Defendant's attorney refused to "guarantee" the child's return to Plaintiff. 15. Despite that lack of "guarantee", Defendant had consistently returned Taylore to PlaintifJ: at the end of her periods of custody with her before the conference and has continued to do so until present. 16. The day after the parties' custody conciliation conference, Plaintiff informed Defendant by letter from his attorney that she could not have those periods of custody previously dictated by him without the "guarantee" of her attorney that she would return the child to him. 17. Not wishing to use either "self help" similar to that used by Plaintiff to deal with the issue of custody nor not see their daughter until after a court hearing, Defendant instructed her attorney to "guarantee" that the child would be timely returned to Plaintiff. 18. However, both the letter and Plaintiff's unreasonably intransigence at the conciliation conference clearly showed Defendant what Plaintiff's mind set was, his lack of reasonableness and his inability to segregate their failed relationship from the needs of their daughter. 19. Resulting, Defendant could see no purpose served by a Custody evaluation and requested this case be sent directly to court. 20. Defendant believes and avers that Plaintiff is manipulating the jUdicial system which when a mutually satisfactory until a jUdicial or mutually acceptable determination is reached conference generally calls for the status quo to remain in effect custody schedule cannot be reached by the parties at a conciliation in force. and, thus, in this case, keep Plaintiff's dictated custody schedule Plaintiff's child's best interest for her not to be 21. Defendant believes and avers that: it is not in her and is reached herein. able to continue to co-parent Taylore until a jUdicial determination interest to have the Custody arrangement Used by her and Plaintiff 22. Defendant believes and avers that it is in Taylore's best effect until a hearing can be held herein which would allow prior to Plaintiff's "self help" in early June, 2003, to be in Defendant and Plaintiff equal periods of Custody of with Taylore. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays your Honorable Court to enter an Emergency Order herein allowing Defendant and Plaintiff equal periods of Custody of their daughter Taylore M. Brownewell until a full hearing can be held herein. DATED: 9-21-04 ~;;;:; Submitted: HERSCHEL LOCK, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 3107 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6661 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: 9-21-04 MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLA1ID COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 04-3332 BRENDA K. BROWNEWELL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 23rd day of September 2004, I served a copy of the Emergency I, Herschel Lock, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this Petition for Special Relief by depositing same in the United States Pennsylvania, as follows: Post Office, Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, at Harrisburg, Maria Cognetti, Esq. 210 Grandview Avenue, Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 . DATED: 9-23-04 ~cJal HE SCHEL LOCK, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 3107 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6661 G;:)~ ~ () ~. D ~ -.... iJ\ .-..J ~ G o (') ...., = 0 c = " ~m .<- (/) -::I rTl Fl;:o -0 "7 (~ N ')~ Cij~'L~ :b ") -< ~- -.J r) ~C.I ;::,~. ~;C, -0 :T: -,i ::r:: ~..~(;~ Ij;:~~: r" 25<'(1 --~ ~.i :1"> r- :"1J -< U) .< MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRENDA K. BROWNEWELL, Defendant NO. 04-3332 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2004, upon consideration of Defendant's Emergency Petition for Special Relief, a Rule is hereby issued upon Plaintiff to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE within 10 days of service. BY THE COURT, J. ...,Maria Cognetti, Esq. 210 Grandview Avenue Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff ~erschel Lock, Esq. 3107 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1310 Attorney for Defendant )' . ~ J{) -oir:ol vDawn S. Sunday, Esq. 39 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Custody Conciliator :rc '11 :2 Hd 9- DO ~OGZ ^l.1Vlo-;~CH10dd ::lHl ~O 381:1:10-0311.:1 I:\Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody PJeadings\Answer to Petition for Special Relief.wpd October 12, 2004 MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO, 04-3332 BRENDA BROWNEWELL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, to wit, this day of , 2004, upon consideration of Defendant's Answer to Emergency Petition for Special Relief, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED as follows: I. Defendant's Emergency Petition for Special Relief is DENIED; 2. The parties are directed to undergo a custody evaluation to be conducted by Kasey Shienvold, Psy.D., of Riegler, Shienvold lmd Associates, with any and all costs of such evaluation to be split evenly betwe(m the parties; 3. Defendant is directed to pay Plaintiff the amount of$2,500.00 as compensation for the reasonable and necessary counsel fees Plaintiff has incurred as a result of having to defend against this action. BY THE COURT: J. I:\Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Answer to Petition for Special Relief.wpd October] 2, 2004 MARIA P. COGNETTI & ASSOCIATES MARIA P. COGNETTI, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 27914 210 Grandview A venue, Suite 102 CarnpHiIl,PA 17011 Telephone No. (717) 909-4060 Attorneys for Plaintiff MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLA1\1D COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA v. NO. 04-3332 BRENDA BROWNEWELL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY ANSWER TO EMERGENCY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF NOW COMES Mark D. Isenberg, Plaintiff herein, by and through his attorney, Maria P. Cognetti, Esquire, and files the following Answer to Emergency Petition for Special Relief and in support thereof avers as follows: I. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant was the child's primary nurturing parent. It is believed and therefore averred that the child was in Plaintiff's care more often than in Defendant's care because of Defendant's seeming disinterest in being a parent. Plaintiff worked a repeating two-week schedule wherein he would work a twelve hour night shift from 6:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. for two nights and then have off the next two nights, followed by three nights of work I:\Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Answer to Petition for Special Reliefwpd October 12,2004 and two nights off. Plaintiff would then work two nights and have three more nights off On the days that Plaintiff was not working he would keep the child. On the days that he was working, he would watch the child for several hours a day from the time he woke up around I :00 p.m. until Defendant returned home from work in the evening. 5. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff and Defendant separated in August 2003. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant and the child left the marital residence on July 27, 2003 to go on a camping trip to Knoebels Resort and Campground. Defendant never returned to the marital residence. Plaintiff only leamed that Ddendant had returned to the area when Defendant's older daughter called Plaintiff on August I, 2004 and informed him that Defendant and the child had returned and that the three of them were now living at Defendant's current address. 6. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff refused to see the child during "substantially all of August, September, and October 2003." It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff saw the child a few times in August, several times in September and on numerous occasions in October. During much of October, Plaintiff was picking the child up from the babysitter's residence and even having the child spend the night at his house. 7. Denied. It is specifically denied that the parties' eustody arrangement was such that the parties had custody of the child for equal periods of time after November 2003. It is believed and therefore averred that going forward from October 2003, the custodial arrangement was such that Plaintiff had custody of the child more often than Defendant. I;\Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Answer to Petition for Special Reliefwpd October 12, 2004 8. Paragraph 8 is not an averment of fact to which a response is necessary. Should the court require a response, the averments of paragraph 8 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. It is specifically denied that after Plaintifftook a scheduled three or four day vacation with the child, he refused to return the child to Defendant. It is believed and therefore averred that in June of 2004, Defendant and her boyffiend decided to travel to Dover, Delaware for a four or five day trip to attend the NASCAR races. Plaintiff was able to watch the child over this period of time because he had stopped working as of April 7, 2004. Over the preceding months, Plaintiff had become very concerned about 11he care and attention his daughter was receiving while in Defendant's custody and due to the child's intense reaction at having to return to Defendant's care following the trip to Dover, Plaintiffthought it was in the child's best interest to remain in his care. As he was not working, Plaintiff was able to provide around the clock care for the child. 10. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant was not allowed by Plaintiff to have any periods of custody of the child. It is believed and therefore averred that between June and August of 2004, both parties agreed to allow the child to decide with whom she wanted to spend time. On the occasions that Defendant would ask to see the child, the child would state that she wanted to stay with Plaintiff and Defendant would abide by this. 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the parties agreed to a custody schedule that gave primary physical custody to Plaintiff and two weekday evenings and I:\Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Answer to Petition for Special Relief.wpd October 12, 2004 alternate weekends to Defendant. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff dictated anything or that Plaintiff was concerned with "self-help." It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiffs counsel asked Defendant's counsel to give his word that upon resuming Defendant's periods of custody with the child, the child would be returned to Plaintiff at the end of Defendant's period of custody, as agreed by the parties. 12. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a custody conciliation conference was held on August 18, 2004. The remainder of dt:fendant's averment is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at time oftrial. 13. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant agreed to undergo a custody evaluation. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant left the custody conciliation conference without agreeing to anything, and rather, Defendant's counsel told Plaintiffs counsel and the conciliator that he would call the conciliator the follow:ing day with his position on a custody evaluation. Due to the fact that Plaintiff was, and still jis, in favor of undergoing a custody evaluation, if Defendant was, or currently is, in favor of undergoing a custody evaluation, it would certainly seem appropriate for the Court to appoint a custody evaluator in this matter. 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that at the custody conciliation conference Defendant's counsel placed Plaintiffs counsel on notice that he would no longer give his word that the child would be returned to Plaintiff at the end of Defendant's agreed upon periods of custody. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff "dictat<:d" anything or engaged in any form of "self-help." I:\Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Answer to Petition for Special Reliefwpd October 12, 2004 15. Denied. It is specifically denied that "despite that lack of 'guarantee', Defendant had consistently returned" the child to Plaintiff at the end of her periods of custody "before the conference and has continued to do so until present." Prior to the custody conciliation conference, Defendant's counsel gave his word that the child would be returned to Plaintiff at the end of Defendant's periods of custody. Further, despite Defendant's counsel's remarks during the custody conciliation conference, after the conference, he again gave his word that the child would be returned to Plaintiff s care. Therefore, Defendant had no periods of custody during which time her counsel had not given his word that the child would be returned. 16. Admitted with clarification. It is believed and therefore averred that because of Defendant's counsel's comments at the custody conciliation conference it was important to Plaintiffs counsel to ensure that Defendant's counsel would once again give his word that the child would be returned to Plaintiff at the end of Defendant's periods of custody. 17. The averments of paragraph 17 are denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time oftrial. 18. The averments of paragraph 18 are denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the avennent and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time oftrial. 19. The averments of paragraph 19 are denied. Plainltiffis without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth ofthe averment and strict proof thereof, if 1:\Client Directory\lsenberg.M\P1eadings\Custody P1eadings\Answer to Petition for Spec:ial Relief.wpd October 12, 2004 relevant, is demanded at the time oftrial. 20. Paragraph 20 is not an statement offact and th'lrefore, does not require a response. Should the Court require a response, the averments of paragraph 20 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time oftrial. 21. Paragraph 21 is a conclusion of law and, as such, does not require a response. Should the Court require a response, the averments of paragraph 21 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time oftrial. 22. Paragraph 22 is more properly a prayer for relief and, as such, does not require a response. Should the Court require a response, the averments of paragraph 22 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order of Court which: a. DENIES Defendant's Emergency Petition for Special Relief; b. Directs that the parties undergo a custody evaluation to be conducted by Kasey Shienvold, Psy.D., of Riegler, Shienvold and Associates, with any and all costs of such evaluation to be split evenly between the parties; c. Directs Defendant to pay Plaintiff his reasonable and necessary counsel fees incurred as a result of having to defend against this action; f:\Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Answer to Petition for Special Reliefwpd October 12, 2004 d. Grants any other relief as the Court deems appropriate. Respectfully Submitted: MARIA P. COGNETTI & ASSOCIATES Date: October 12,2004 By: 210 Grandview Avenue, Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone No. (717) 909-4060 Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I, Mark D. Isenberg, hereby verify and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing document 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.A. 94904 relating to unsworn verification to authorities. DATE: /0 /; ~/o i ;7h( MARK D. ISENBERG I:\Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Answer to Petition for Special Relief.wpd October 12,2004 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Maria P. Cognetti, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff herein, do hereby certifY that on this date I served the foregoing Answer to Emergency Petition for Special Relief by depositing a true and exact copy thereof in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Herschel Lock, Esquire 3107 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 1711 0-131 0 MARIA P. COGNETTI & ASSOCIATES Date: October 12, 2004 By: 210 Grandview A venue, Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone No. (717) 909-4060 Attorney for Plaintiff .--, '''"' (. '.~} ~- CJ C.1 .;:~ o .'tl .-1 :J:.~ n"l(':J ...,-, t;3 () ;} '''',.'. ',( ') ;e1 (.) (.) r-~) MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRENDA K. BROWNEWELL, Defendant NO. 04-3332 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 28th day of October, 2004, upon consideration of Defendant's Emergency Petition for Special Relief, and Plaintiffs Answer to Emergency Petition for Special Relief, and following a telephone conference with Maria P. Cognetti, Esq., attorney for Plaintiff, and Herschel Lock, Esq., attorney for Defendant, the court will rely on the temporary order to be proposed by the custody conciliator, Dawn Sunday, Esq., BY THE COURT 7 U/~ :L . Wesley Oler, r., 'J. ...4aria P. Cognetti, Esq. 210 Grandview Avenue Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff ,)!erschel Lock, Esq. 3107 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1310 Attorney for Defendant ~wn S. Sunday, Esq. 39 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Custody Conciliator ~ I O-J.. ~ -01 > :rc AJ.N,~~(~1J!)Y'2 ~~1tl~~~ v~no I 0 :~ rld 82 1:10 ~OOl ~,tIVl.Oi.lOlilOod 3Hl :to ...,ALI..j('Lr'13'1.J. ':kJJ..:J_.V- <J I ..- MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 04-3332 CIVIL ACTION LAW BRENDA BROWNEWELL Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ day of ~ t>v . , 2004, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A Hearing is scheduled in Court Room No. / of the Cumberland County Courthouse on the ,;Jnd... day of ~ ,Jtb~, afWhich time testimony will be taken. For purposes ofthe hearing, the Mother shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list of witnesses who are expected to testify at the hearing, and a summary ofthe anticipated testimony of each witness. These memoranda shall be filed at least ten days prior to the hearing date. ad- 9';3~ q. /11. 2. The parties shall submit themselves, their minor Child, and any other individuals deemed necessary by the evaluator, to a custody evaluation to be performed by a professional to be selected by agreement between the parties. In the event the parties are unable to mutually agree upon an evaluator, the Father shall be entitled to select the professional and the Father shall be responsible to pay all costs of the evaluation. The purpose of the evaluation shall be to obtain independent professional recommendations concerning ongoing custody arrangements which will best serve the needs and interests ofthe Child. The parties shall sign any authorizations deemed necessary by the evaluator in order to obtain information pertaining to the parties or the Child. The parties shall cooperate in scheduling evaluation sessions for themselves and the Child on a timely basis. 3. Pending further Order of Court or agreement of the parties, the parties shall have custody of the Child as follows: A. The parties shall share having legal custody of Taylor E. Brownewell, born January 14, 2000. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all major non-emergency decisions affecting the Child's general well- being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding her health, education and religion. Pursuant to the terms of this paragraph each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the Child including, but not limited to, school and medical records and information. B. The parties shall have physical custody of the Child as follows: - . VI NV!\l,\ S[;~~<~d l n.!('''''.~ ,~'" .,,, ;""-'/'nt"'l I\..t.r'i~ :t)\; ~._:': ~.,,-, :-:-~:....~~:::)~ ~~I v L I :E Wd 62 AON ~OOl AtJV10NOH10ad 3Hl :i0 3:)8:!o-G31H (1) The Mother shall have custody of the Child on alternating weekends from Friday at 5:00 p.m. through Monday morning before work, from Thursday at 5:00 p.m. through Friday before work during weeks following the Mother's weekend periods of custody, and from Monday at 5:00 p.m. through Tuesday morning before work during weeks following the Father's weekend periods of custody. The Mother's alternating weekend periods of custody shall continue on the same alternating schedule as previously used by the parties. (2) The Father shall have custody of the Child at all time:s not otherwise specified for the Mother in this provision. 4. Unless otherwise arranged by agreement between the parties, the parties shall share having custody of the Child on Thanksgiving Day with the Father having custody of the Child until 2:00 p.m. and the Mother having custody on Thanksgiving Day from 2:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. In the event the Mother has custody under the regular schedule for the overnight period on Thursday, the Mother's Thanksgiving period of custody shall extend until Friday morning. 5. The Christmas holiday in 2004 shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from Christmas Eve at 12:00 noon through Christmas Day at 12:00 noon and Segment B, which shall run from Christmas Day at 12:00 noon through December 26 at 12:00 noon. Unless otherwise agreed between the parties, the Mother shall have custody of the Child during Segment A and the Father shall have custody during Segment B. The parties shall equally share having custody ofthe Child from December 27 through December 31, 2004, which shall supercede and take precedence over the regular custody arrangements for the weekdays. 6. The parties shall equally share responsibility for providing transportation for exchanges of custody. In the event the parties are unable to agree, the parent relinquishing custody shall transport the Child. 7. 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 th/e 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. BY THE COlJRT, cc: 4rsche1 Lock, Esquire - Counsel for Mother A:aria Cognetti, Esquire - Counsel for Father 'II l~_1 PI~ J1 .. 30 . 0 if ,J. MARK D. ISENBERG Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 04-3332 CNIL ACTION LAW BRENDA BROWNEWELL Defendant IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: J. Wesley Oler, Jr. CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH Taylor E. Brownewell January 14, 2000 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on August 18, 2004, with the following individuals in attendance: The Father, Mark D. Isenberg, with his counsel, Maria P. Cognetti, Esquire, and Todd C. Hough, Esquire, and the Mother, Brenda Brownewell, with her counsel, Herschel Lock, Esquire. 3. Both parties filed petItIOns seeking primary physical custody of the Child. At the conference, the parties were unable to reach an agreement both as to ongoing custody arrangements and an immediate schedule for the Child. In light of the specific issues and concerns raised by the parties, the conciliator strongly encouraged the parties to consider the possibility of obtaining the assistance of a custody evaluator to provide guidance and information which would be useful in establishing arrangements by agreement. It was agreed at the end of the conference that the conciliator would hold this matter to allow time for counsel to contact the offices of evaluators to determine availability and costs associated with a custody evaluation. Subsequently, further disputes arose in connection with the custody evaluation option and a telephone conference was held between the conciliator and counsel on October 1, 2004. At that time, it was determined that the Mother had filed an Emergency Petition to establish immediate custody arrangements on which a hearing was pending. The Court entered an Order on October 28, 2004 requesting a proposed Order from the initial conciliation conference addressing temporary arrangements pending hearing. 4. The Mother's position on custody at the conciliation conference was as follows: The Mother believed that the Child's interests would be best served by the equally shared arrangements the parties had been following by agreement under which each parent had custody of the Child for alternating .. .- two-day periods. The Mother argued that the Father's use of "self-help" in unilaterally ending the equally shared arrangement and assuming primary custody was unwarranted and unfair. The Mother also indicated that the Father had spoken derogatorily about her in front of the Child. The Mother was not in favor of addressing the custody issues through a custody evaluation. 5. The Father's position on custody at the conference was as follows: The Father indicated that the shared custody arrangement had not been meeting the Child's needs as the Mother had been unavailable during much of her custodial time and the Child did not want to return to the Mother's home after a period of vacation custody with the Father. The Father raised various concerns regarding the Mother's ability to properly care for the Child. The Father proposed that the issues be addressed through the evaluation process. 6. Based upon the representations of the parties and counsel at the conciliation conference and subsequent discussions with both counsel, the conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. fJ~ d-;)., ~:n1 Dffie I IL-A-~< Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator 1:\Client Directory\lsenberg.M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Motion for Continuance 00.2.05 hearing.wpd January 18,2005 MARIA P. COGNETTI & ASSOCIATES MARIA P. COGNETTI, ESQUIRE Attorney J.D. No. 27914 210 Grandview A venue, Suite 102 Camp Hill. PA 17011 Telephone No. (71 7) 909-4060 Attorneys for Plaintiff MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 04-3332 BRENDA BROWNEWELL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND NOW, comes Mark D. Isenberg, Plaintiff herein, by and through his attorney, Maria P. Cognetti, Esquire, and brings this Motion for Continuance and in support thereof respectfully represents as follows: I. Mark D. Isenberg is the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter. 2. Brenda Brownewell is the Defendant in the above-captioned matter. 3. On or about July 9, 2004, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Custody of the parties' daughter, Taylore Brownewell. 4. On or about July 19,2004, an Order of Court was issued scheduling a Conciliation Conference on August 18, 2004, before Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire. 5. The parties attended the Conciliation Conference on August 18,2004, however, they were unable to reach an agreement as to ongoing custody arrangements or an immediate schedule for custody pending a hearing in the matter. The conciliator delayed I;\Client Directory\lsenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadiugs\Motion for Continuance of3.2.05 hearing.wpd January 18,2005 action until such time as the parties could contact several custody evaluators to determine their availability and the potential costs associated with a custody evaluation. 6. On or about September 23, 2004, Defendant filed an Emergency Petition for Special Relief requesting this Honorable Court enter an Order establishing shared legal and physical custody pending a custody hearing. On or about October 14,2004, Plaintiff filed an Answer to Emergency Petition for Special Relief. Following a conference call between counsel for the parties and the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr., this Honorable Court entered an Order dated October 28, 2004, indicating that the Court would rely on the temporary Order yet to be proposed by Attorney Sunday. 7. On or about November 19,2004, Attorney Sunday filed her Custody Conciliation Summary Report and Proposed Order of Court. 8. By Order of Court dated November 29,2004, this Honorable Court established a custodial arrangement and directed the parties to submit themselves to a custody evaluation. 9. Plaintiff contacted Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D., and scheduled his first appointment with Dr. Shienvold for February 24, 2005. At Defendant's counsel's request, Plaintiff contacted Dr. Shienvold's office to attempt to reschedule the appointment for an earlier time so that the custody evaluation could be completed prior to the March 2, 2005 hearing date established by the Court's Order of November 29, 2004. Plaintiff was unable to move his appointment any earlier than Febmary 17,2005. 10. Plaintiffs counsel confirmed with Dr. Shienvold's office that the court I:\Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Motion for Continuance 00.2.05 hearing.wpd January 18,2005 ordered custody evaluation will not be complete prior to the March 2, 2005 hearing date. A continuance of the hearing would enable the parties to complete the custody evaluation prior to said hearing. 12. Plaintiffs counsel contacted Defendant's counsel regarding a continuance of the hearing and was informed that Defendant does not concur with Plaintiffs request for a continuance. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court continue this matter generally until such time as Dr. Shienvold has had the opportunity to issue his report on the custody evaluation. Respectfully Submitted: MARIA P. COGNETTI & ASSOCIATES Date: January 18,2005 By: 210 Grandview Avenue, Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone No. (717) 909-4060 Attorney for Plaintiff 1:\Client DirectOly\lsenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Motion for Continuance 00.2.05 hearing.wpd January 18, 2005 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Maria P. Cognetti, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff herein, do hereby certifY that on this date I served the foregoing Motion for Continuance by depositing a true and exact copy thereof in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Herschel Lock, Esquire 3107 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 1711 0-131 0 MARIA P. COGNETTI & ASSOCIATES Date: January 18,2005 By: 7 c' . 210 Grandview Avenue, Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone No. (717) 909-4060 Attorney for Plaintiff 12 ~-" Cj I;""~:l c-:.-:1 -n ~" ~ , ~-- \".J r -,:) j;" , r::? :.~. .::: ---- - MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 04-3332 BRENDA K. BROWNEWELL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S "lOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted and, by way of further answer, it is averred that not knowing Plaintiff filed his Custody Complaint Defendant filed her Custody Complaint on or about July 19, 2004, this being docketed to No. 04-3332. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted but, by way of further answer, Defendant believes and avers that the parties' inability to reach an agreement as to the custody of their daughter arose from their disagreement as whether the custody arrangement, be it temporary until a hearing was held or permanent, should be what existed prior to June of 2004 when Plaintiff used "self help" to alter the custody arrangement that had long been in place. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted and, by way of further answer, it is averred both that the custody arrangement put in place by your Honorable Court's ORder was to be temporary and in effect only until a custody hearing was held and by inference, the person selected to do a custody evaluation be one who could do so in a reasonable and timely fashion and in time for the March 2, 2005 hearing date set over three months hence. 9. Admitted. 10. Defendant is without knowledge as to the truth of the averments. 12. (Sic) Admitted and, by way of further answer, it is averred that Defendant suggested to Plaintiff by her letter of January 12, 2005 that another elevator be used whose schedule so their work could be done in a reasonable and timely fashion and in time for the March 2, 2005 hearing (See Exhibit "A" attached hereto. ) DATED: ;I~/{i; ( f ~~a(ubmitted: HERSCHEL LOCK, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 3107 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6661 FAX NO: 909-4068 January 12, 2005 Maria Cognetti, Esq. 210 Grandview Avenue, Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 RE: Isenberg v. Brownewell Custody Dear Maria: As a follow up to my recent telephone conversation with your associate Todd, I must tell you that I cannot agree to your request to continue our custody hearing now scheduled for March 2nd until after Dr. Schienvold concludes his evaluation. While I realize that Mr. Isenberg's sole responsibility to pay for the evaluation allows him to chose the evaluator, I do not believe it allows him to chose someone who cannot even start the process until nearly three months after the Court's November 29, 2004, Order nor finish it until four to six months thereafter. Because we are fortunate to have many well qualified psychologists and other custody evaluators in our area, I believe we should use one of them who can deal with this important matter in a more timely fashion than can Dr. Schienvold. Sincerely, Herschel Lock HL/cf cc: Brenda Brownewell EXHIBIT "A" VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made i-n l:he foregoing are true and correct. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Fa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: 1-20-05 ~O{~ BRENDA K. OWN EWELL (f --- MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 04-3332 BRENDA K. BROWNEWELL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Herschel Lock, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this 20th day of January 2005, I served a copy of the Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance by depositing same in the United States Post Office, Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, at Harrisburg, pennsylvania, as follows: Maria Cognetti, Esq. 210 Grandview Avenue, Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 DATED: 1-20-04 cJ;(J cLr~ HERSCHEL J~OCK, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 3107 North Front Street Harrisbur~J, PA 17110 (717) 238--6661 (~ f '~'-"', , ..:J~ (....-- , ~'\ 1, 'J c. " , .- MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRENDA K. BROWNEWELL, Defendant NO. 04-3332 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 27th day of January, 2005, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion for Continuance and of Defendant's Answl~r to Plaintiffs Motion for Continuance, the hearing previously scheduled in the above matter for March 2, 2005, is rescheduled to Thursday, April 7, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. I, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT, p\1aria P. Cognetti, Esq. 210 Grandview Avenue Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff ,Aerschel Lock, Esq. 3107 N. Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17110-1310 Attorney for Defendant ~ / 4lrE ~ 0/-2'7-05 :rc ZS :Oi HV L2 NVr SGul 3H1 jC j8;:J::':C-O=:n~3 MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 04-3332 BRENDA K. BROWNEWELL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE AT HEARING OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESS 1. Petitioner Brenda K. Brownewell is the Defendant in the above captioned custody case. 2. Respondent Mark D. Isenberg is the Plaintiff in the above captioned custody case. 3. Heretofore the parties disagreed as to the need for there to be a custody evaluation done in this case Plaintiff demand that there be one while Defendant took the position that such an evaluation was unnecessary (see Defendant's Emergency Petition for Special Relief filed September 27, 2004 and Defendant's Plaintiff's Answer thereto filed on or about October 12, 2004). 4. As a result of Defendant's Petition and Plaintiff's Answer aforesaid your Honorable Court by its Order dated October 28, 2004, scheduled a telephone conference the parties' attorneys the Court to discuss the matter. 5. During the conference call your Honorable Court opined that an evaluation would be helpful to it and thereafter the conference entered its Order dated November 29, 2004, and directing that there be a custody evaluation that if Plaintiff and Defendant' could not agree upon an evaluator Plaintiff could select one and be responsible for all costs of the evaluation. 6. Your Honorable Court scheduled a custody hearing for March 2, 2005. 7. Because the custody evaluation would not be timely completed the custody evaluator chosen by Plaintiff, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Continuance in which he stated the reason for his request being that the custody evaluation aforesaid could be completed in a timely manner. 8. As a result the custody hearing was rescheduled for April 7, 2005. 9. On April 4, 2005, Defendant's attorney received a telephone call from the custody evaluator chosen by Plaintiff that being Dr. Arnold Shienvold and was told by him that he did not know whether he would be called to court by Plaintiff and if he was not but Defendant wanted him there Defendant would have to pay his $750 appearance fee. 10. On April 5, 2005, Defendant's attorney telephoned Plaintiff's attorney, asked her whether she was going to have Dr. Shienvold in court and was told by her that she would not have him there. 11. Defendant followed your Honorable Court's November 29, 2004 Order and took the time and made the effort to submit to a custody evaluation as did the child the subject hereof. 12. Defendant believes and avers that your Honorable Court's November 29, 2004 Order, Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's Emergency Petition as related to a custody evaluation and the basis Plaintiff set forth in her Request for Continuance obligates her to either call Dr. Arnold Shienvold as a witness at the April 7, 2005 hearing or pay for his appearance thereat if Defendant is forced to call him to appear there. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays your Honorable Court to issue a Rule upon Plaintiff to show cause, if any he has, why he should not be obligated to call Dr. Arnold Shienvold as a witness at the April 7, 2005 hearing scheduled herein or in the alternative pay for Dr. Shienvold's appearance fee if Defendant is forced to call him there to testify. Respec DATED: t(/\,Jc ( HERSCHEL LOCK, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 3107 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6661 MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 04 - 3 3 3 2 BRENDA K. BROWNEWELL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Herschel Lock, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this 5th day of April 2005, I served a copy of the Defendant's Motion to Compel the Attendance at hearing of Plaintiff's Expert Witness, as follows: Via Facsimile: 909-4068 Maria Cognetti, Esq. 210 Grandview Avenue, Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 DATED: 4-5-05 clIJJA HERSCHEL LOCK, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 3107 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6661 () c:. :.:." ....., 1:;'1 .-1"\(\ ~>l"'i\. &:~;~ ~ ?Zi21 Y c:- z 2. ~) ~ ~ ?O ?O t U1 ~ ~ - - .-\ ff,~ -o1-r1 -Ot? ~g :1:"';.\ C) (') L.:: fn 9 [,.)'> ~2. (J'I <:1"\ l:\Client Directory\lsenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Response to Motion to Compel Shienvold.wpd April 6, 2005 MARIA P. COGNETTI & ASSOCIATES MARIA P. COGNETTI, ESQUIRE Attorney J.D. No. 27914 210 Grandview A venue, Suite 102 Camp Hill, P A 17011 Telephone No. (717) 909-4060 Attorneys for Plaintiff MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO 04-3332 BRENDA BROWNEWELL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE AT HEARING OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESS AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Mark D. Isenberg, and in response to the Motion to Compel the Attendance at Hearing of Plaintiffs Expert Witness, Plaintiff avers as follows: I. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant took the position that a Custody Evaluation was unnecessary. To the contrary, in paragraph 13 of Defendant's Emergency Petition for Special Relief, Defendant states "Defendant and Plaintiff agreed to undergo an evaluation so as to try to resolve their custody disagreement outside of Court." 4. Denied. It is specifically denied that by Order dated October 28, 2004, this Honorable Court scheduled a telephone conference for the parties' attorneys to discuss this matter with the Court. To the contrary, the Court's Order of October 28,2004 was following the telephone conference between counsel and was an Order directing the parties . 1:\Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Response to Motion to Compel Shienvold.wpd April 6, 2005 to rely on the temporary Order to be proposed by the Custody Conciliator. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted with clarification. The evaluation could not be completed in a timely manner because Defendant had taken so long to schedule her appointments. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. The avennents of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and therefore strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of Hearing. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant quite begrudgingly took part in this custody evaluation. It is denied that Defendant "took the time and made the effort..." with regard to this evaluation. It is Plaintiffs belief that the original Hearing date of March 2nd had to be moved and the Custody Evaluation could not be completed in a timely fashion due to the fact that Defendant dragged her feet in making her appointments. 12. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Court's Order of November 29, 2004 obligates Plaintiff to call Dr. Shienvold as a witness or to pay for his appearance at said Hearing ifhe is called by Defendant. Plaintiff can not be obligated to call anyone as his witness. More importantly, as Dr. Shienvold would likewise state, Dr. Shienvold is not the expert witness of the Plaintiff. He was simply picked by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Court's 1:\Client Directory\lsenberg~M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Response to Motion to Compel Shienvold.wpd April 6,2005 prior Order, due to the fact that Defendant would not cooperate in the process of picking a psychologist who could have been agreed upon by the parties. Clearly, based upon the wording of the Court's Order of November 29,2004, Defendant did not participate in the picking of the evaluator since, by the literal reading of the Court Order, if the parties failed to agree upon an evaluator, then the cost ofthe evaluation would be upon the Plaintiff. It is Plaintiffs belief that, due to the fact that Defendant knew Plaintiff would have to pay for the evaluation if no evaluator was mutually agreed upon, Defendant chose to not participate in the picking of the evaluator. This then triggered the portion of the Order that directed Plaintiffto pay the costs ofthe evaluation. Although the Order of November 29, 2004 entitled Plaintiff to select the particular evaluator, it did not make such an evaluator Plaintiffs witness. Dr. Shienvold is the Court appointed evaluator, and as such, Defendant is free to call him herself. If Defendant believes that Dr. Shienvold is simply the expert witness of the Plaintiff, then the fact that Dr. Shienvold forwarded his report to both counsel certainly would belie this fact. Therefore, Plaintiff believes that it is clear that Plaintiff cannot be made to call any particular witness, especially an expert witness. It is equally clear that counsel for Defendant is certainly more than able to call Dr. Shienvold himself. With regard to the issue of payment of Dr. Shienvold's witness fee, it is also specifically denied that this was encompassed by the Court's Order of November 29,2004. That Order stated "father shall be responsible to pay all costs ofthe evaluation." Father has in fact paid all of the costs ofthe evaluation. Those costs came to $4,000.00, all of which were paid by Plaintiff. This was at much personal sacrifice to Plaintiff since he is currently 1:\Client Directory\lsenberg~M\Plcadings\Custody Pleadings\Response to Motion to Compel Shienvold.wpd April 6, 2005 on disability and Defendant has a good paying job. Finally, the cost oftestifying is always in addition to the cost of the evaluation. Clearly this Court did not intend for Plaintiff to have to pay the cost of a witness who could have, and very well may be, called by Defendant. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that if Defendant wants to call Dr. Shienvold she is certainly not estopped from doing so. However, the cost of an attendance fee for &'1 expert witness should clearly be born by the party calling that witness. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court deny Defendant's request to obligate Plaintiffto cal1 Dr. Shienvold as his witness and further to deny Defendant's request that, should Defendant call Dr. Shienvold as her witness, that Plaintiff be compel1ed to pay the costs thereof. Respectfully Submitted: MARIA P. COGNETTI & ASSOCIATES Date: April 6, 2005 By: 210 Grandview Avenue, Suite 102 Camp Hill, P A 17011 Telephone No. (717) 909-4060 Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Maria P. Cognetti, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff herein, do hereby certify that on this date I served the foregoing document via facsimile and by depositing a true and exact copy thereof in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Herschel Lock, Esquire 3107 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17110-1310 Date: April 6, 2005 By: 210 Grandview Avenue, Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA l70ll Telephone No. (717) 909-4060 Attorney for Plainti ff ~, """ :~<;. q, ~ -(,'''-' {"..."", \>(\\ -;{,\() '(} (-) ^.~ -':\ --, ..-,:\ -()'t1 _/ ;c'"" 'i5'~' 'A ,:"'" '-;1 ~ <.fI o 0, C" ,-' a f}. ~ "<l -)0 \ -' C-:;:. ~:l ---- ~ , MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF? CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRENDA BROWNEWELL, 04-3332 CIVIL TERM Defendant IN CUSTODY ***************************************** BRENDA BROWNEWELL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF? CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. MARK D. ISENBERG, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW 04-3477 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2005, upon consideration of the complaints for custody filed by the parties with respect to their child, Taylore L. Brownewell (date of birth January 14, 2000), and following an initial period of hearing held on this date at which Dr. Arnold T. Shienvold, custody evaluator and psychologist, completed his testimony and his report was admitted into evidence, and at which both parties testified briefly without prejudice to the right to be recalled and subjected to further direct and cross-examination, it is ordered and directed pending further order of court as follows: 1. Legal custody of the child shall be shared by the parties; 2. Physical custody of the child shall be shared by the parties with the mother having the child on Monday and Tuesday with overnights, and the father having the child on Wednesday and Thursday with overnights, and the parties alternating weekends; 3. The child shall be enrolled in the South Middleton School District: 4. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the parties from deviating from the terms of this order by mutual agreement: 5. After December 25, 2005, the Court will entertain , .. upon motion by either party a request to modify the terms of this order based upon circumstances as they exist at that time; and 6. Further hearing in these matters is scheduled for Wednesday, July 27, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., and Thursday July 28, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. Neither party has requested that the notes of testimony from today's hearing be transcribed. By the Court, ~ia P. Cognetti, Esquire 210 Grandview Avenue Ste. 102 Camp Hill, FA 17011 For Mark D. Isenberg ~rschel Lock, Esquire 3107 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1310 For Brenda Brownewell J Pcb 1/ ~ ~~~ OL\ - \?-~cb MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff v. BRENDA BROWNEWELL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 04-3332 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2005, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion To Compel the Attendance at Hearing of Plaintiff's Expert Witness, the motion is denied. ~ria P. Cognetti, Esquire 210 Grandview Avenue Ste. 102 . Camp Hill, PA 17011 For the Plaintiff ~erschel Lock, Esquire 3107 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1310 For the Defendant . pcb '" J) " } 6\>~'- ~~ ()~ _1).-06 By the Court, cJ~ ,. "', \,"\: '-, \.l {"I.ll,t.> < ,") \ c' lS\'~)~ ri \\ L r..:}"." - MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF'? CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRENDA BROWNEWELL, 04-3332 CIVIL TERM Defendant IN CUSTODY ***************************************** BRENDA BROWNEWELL, Plaintiff v. MARK D. ISENBERG, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF'? CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 04-3477 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2005, the actio~ at No. 04-3477 Civil Term is hereby consolidated with the action at No. 04-3332 Civil Term, for purposes of the hearing being held on this and subsequent dates, the Plaintiff shall continue to be designated as Mark D. Isenberg on the exhibits, and the issues raised in both parties' complaints for primary custody will be deemed encompassed by the hearing. ~ria P. Cognetti, Esquire 210 Grandview Avenue Ste. 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 For Mark D. Isenberg ~schel Lock, Esquire , 3107 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1310 For Brenda Brownewe11 pcb By the Court, ~ Wesley 0 .J ,~ 'J ,0.- , \ / \l~ O~ OF ?r",~ I,P;) I') (..IHit.i rlJ. 1\ f.- 10: lJ U ('\ :.\ -1...J.., MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff v. BRENDA K. BROWNEWELL, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 04-3332 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 26th day of July, 2005, upon consideration of the attached letter from Herschel Lock, Esq., this matter is continued generally. Counsel are directed to notify the court if they desire a hearing in this matter or if a settlement is reached. Maria P. Cognetti, Esq. 210 Grandview Avenue Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Mark D. Isenberg Herschel Lock, Esq. 3107 N. Front Street Harrisburg, P A 1711 0-131 0 Attorney for Brenda Brownewell :rc BY THE COURT, ~ '" ~ '7. :27.oJ 4-- 9 1:0\ /. ., tn" 0007 .(, _, ,I :llJ:.;v ^b"~'.LCi'\~)~ 'Lr~;'j::i 3Hi :10 3~)1:j:!(}-cr:n\J '." . '-- ~ " :";,1.'" HERSCHEL LOCK E80 717 288 5288 07/26/05 08.18am P. 001 HERSCHEL LOCK AttOrney at LIiIN 3107 NORTH FRONT STRf;ET HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17110-1;110 FAX NO: 240-6462 (717) 238-6661 . FAX 238-S28t1 July 26, 2005 The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. Cumberland county Courthouse L Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Isenberg v. Brownewell Custody Dear Judge Oler: I write you, both as attorney for Brenda Brownewell and on behalf of Maria cognetti, the attorney for Mr. Isenberg, to request a general continuance of our Custody hearing scheduled before you on July 27th and 28th. Since parties seem to have reached a meeting of minds, counsel should be able shortly to send you a stipulated order for your consideration. I appreciate, as I am sure Attorney Co~rnetti does, you allowing additional time to try to reach a settlement. Herschel Lock HL/ef ee: Maria Cognetti, Esq. - Fax #909-4068 MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRENDA K. BROWNEWELL, Defendant NO. 04-3332 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 18th day of October, 2005, upon consideration of the attached letter from Maria P. Cognetti, Esq., attorney for Plaintiff, a hearing in the above matter is scheduled for Monday, February 13,2006, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. I, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT, ~aria P. Cognetti, Esq. 210 Grandview Avenue Suite 102 Camp HilI, PA 17011 ~ Attorney for Mark D. Isenberg v-M'erschel Lock, Esq. 1'1 ~ 3107 N. Front Street/ 0 ' I () '61-/ Harrisburg, PA 17110-1310 Attorney for Brenda BrowneweII :rc 0"1('):1 n.111 :'" I.'..) r,> 1, I ''I' ~!iiJ7 (\ c.. J ' ,.F,.". J ~,'j' lJ MARIA P. COGNETTI & ASSOCIATES Attorneys & Counselors at Law 210 Grandview Avenue, Suite 102. Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone (717) 909-4060 . Fax (717) 909-4068 Email CognettiLaw@aol.com Maria p, Cognetti" Attorney at Law Practice Limited to Matrimonial Law Kristopher T, Smull Attorney at Law Jennifer L, LaBelle Attorney at Law *Fellow, American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Fellow, International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers October 14,2005 Honorable J, Wesley Oler Jr. Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 RE: ISENBERG V. BROWNWELL Docket No. 04-3332 Dear Judge Oler: You will recall that on July 26,2005, Attorney Lock wrote to you and advised that the above-referenced matter could be continued generally based upon a pending agreement of the parties, On September 1, 2005, at the request of Attorney Lock, 1 did in fact send him a draft Custody Stipulation, 1 have not had a formal response from Attorney Lock, although it would appear from our conversations that we do not in fact have an agreement as to the terms of a stipulation, Therefore, at this time, 1 would ask that the Court reschedule this matter for a hearing with regard to custody. If however the Court would deem it appropriate, 1 believe that an in-Chambers conference or telephone conference between counsel may help to put this case back on track, In any event, 1 would be happy to draft a proposed Order, setting forth the terms of either of the above options, Please let us know how the Court would wish to proceed, Thank you for your attention to this matter, Very truly your , /t(~t' Maria P. ;tgnetti , MPC/jg cc: Herschel Lock, Esquire Mr, Mark Isenberg OCT! ., , / 20175 1:\Client Dircctory\Iscnberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Custody Stipulation,wpd February 10, 2006 MARK D, ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, NO. 04-3332 BRENDA BROWNE WELL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, TO WIT, this ~ay of .;~~> , 2006, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED that the attached Stipulation for Custody is made an Order of this Court and said Stipulation is adopted it its entirety and incorporated herein as an Order of Court, BY THE COURT: IJI {'Cft':" 2M" cWhii-.4ot ChOMfO ,..,' } It.. \.L'. InJ S I) :21111 C I [jJj i)G0Z ::!o L\Client Directory\lsenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody P\eadings\Custody Stipulation.wpd February] 0,2006 MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, NO. 04-3332 BRENDA BROWNEWELL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY STIPULATION AND NOW, this /Jlldayof jiry,;'l ,2006, comes Plaintiff, Mark D, Isenberg, by and through his attorney, Maria P. Cognetti, Esquire, and Defendant, Brenda Brownewel1, by and through his attorney, Herschel Lock, Esquire, and hereby enter the following Stipulation concerning custody of their minor child, Taylore 1" Brownewell, as follows: 1. Plaintiff is Mark D, Isenberg (hereinafter "Father"), an adult individual residing at 752 Petersburg Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. ../16 2, Defendant is Brenda Brownewel1 (hereinafter "Mother"), an adult individual /7;0T 111 BaR+......ore 'P,\::.e., 6ardners residing at 61 Pam:iag€ Dri"€, Cfli1i~Ie, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, ;3I(l3 3, The parties hereto are the natural parents of one (1) minor child: Taylore It. r<'\ . /l,() T -'Brownewell, born January 14, 2000, 4, The parties agree to share legal custody of their minor child, All decisions effecting the child's growth and development including, but not limited to: medical and dental treatment; psycho therapy, psycho analysis, or like treatment; decisions relating to actual or potential litigation involving the child, directly or as a beneficiary, other than custody and litigation; education, both secular and religious; choice of camp, if any; athletic pursuits and extra curricular activities shal1 be considered major decisions and shall be made by the parties '. J :\Client Dircctory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Custody Stipulation. wpd February 10, 2006 jointly, after discussion and consultation with each other and a view toward obtaining and following a hannonious policy in the child's best interest. 5, Physical custody of the minor child shall be shared by the parties, as follows: a) Every Monday from 7:00 a,m. until Wednesday at 7:00 a.m, with Mother. b) Every Wednesday from 7:00 a,m, until Friday at 7:00 a,m, with Father. iI0 m{)/~ ) BllgillRiRg ge]'ltelHllllr , 2995 mitk Fath,),The parties shall alternate weekends from 7:00 a.m, Friday until 7:00 a.m, Monday, d) Holidays shall be shared as follows: I. Christmas shall be divided into Segment A (from Noon on December 24 until Noon on December 25) and Segment B (from Noon on December 25 until Noon on December 26). Beginning in 2005 and in all subsequent odd numbered years, Father shall have Segment A and Mother shall have Segment B. In all even numbered years Father shall have Segment B and Mother shall have Segment A. H, Thanksgiving shall be divided into Segment A (from Noon on the Wednesday proceeding the holiday until Noon on Thanksgiving) /41 and Segment B (from Noon on Thanksgiving until Noon the W following day). Beginning in 2001 and in all subsequent G<id- Qven /?Jy' numbered years, Mother shall have Segment A and Father shall 131(3.-- ,.r,~:::iChave Segment B, In all~ numbered years Father shall have Segment A and Mother shall have Segment B. HI. Easter shall be alternated each year from 8:00 a.m, Easter Sunday l:\Clicnt Directory\lsenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Custody Stipulation.wpd February 10, 2006 until 8:00 a.m, the following day. Beginning in 2006 and in all tf'.v'd. (F t=~1 ~ /Z';V subsequent even numbered years thereafter Matllel shall have the ,;'1,hA _ m~er- /"-" f-' .t?;7Z[ Easter holiday, fatRef shall have the Easter holiday in all odd numbered years, IV, Memorial Day and Labor Day shall be alternated by the parties from 8:00 a,m. Monday until 8:00 a,m, Tuesday, Beginning in ~ ~ ~e^ t5If3 m,uz 209t and in all subsequent oQQ.numbered years thereafter Father shaII have Labor Day and Mother shall have Memorial Day, In all ~p /?7b7 odd - numbered years Father shaII have Memorial Day and Mother shall have Labor Day, v. Mother's Day will be spent with Mother every year from 8:00 a.m, Sunday until 8:00 a,m. Monday and Father's Day will be spent with Father every year from 8:00 a,m, Sunday until 8:00 a,m. Monday, e) The parties shall each be allowed two (2) non-consecutive weeks of vacation with the child during the non-school summer months each year. Each such week shall include that party's normal weekend. Each party shall give the other at least sixty (60) days written notice of their intended vacation dates, 6, The parties may modifY the schedule as set forth above as they may agree to be in the best interest of the minor child, and the parties are encouraged to be l1exible and accommodating reasonable requests for schedule changes, " 1:\Client Dircctory\lsenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Custody Stipulation.wpd February 10, 2006 1. lS(!,.t2 "51'5 f\CoI.""vrl2. 7, i:-~ ( 8, The parties shall alternate the Federal ~ax Dependency Exemption for the child t"(?')L1: with Mother receiving the exemption for tax year 200/ 9, The non-custodial parent at any given time shall have reasonable ongoing telephone access to the minor child, and the minor child should not be precluded from telephoning the non-custodial parent at reasonable times. Should the minor child be unavailable to receive a telephone call from the parent, the custodial parent shall be responsible for having the child return the telephone call when the child reaches an appropriate age, 10. Each party shall keep the other advised of a current address and telephone number. .JIb j?)tY II. -S I") f\ l .f~ca VI.-\- Each party shall advise the other promptly of any illness suffered or injury j\ sustained by the minor child, 12, The parties shall communicate directly with each other regarding the minor child, and shall not allow any interference from any third persons. The minor child should not be used as an intermediary. All contact between the parties, whether in person or by telephone, shall be polite, civil and respectfuL 13. The parties will not undertake or allow by any other person the poisoning of the -, I:\Client Directory\lsenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Custody Stipulation,wpd February 10, 2006 child's mind against one of the other parties by conversation which includes any critical, hostile, or condemning language, or any way derogates the other party from extended family members, 14, The parties shaII not conduct or permit arguments or heated conversations in the presence or hearing of the minor child, 15. Neither party shall attempt or condone any attempt to directly or indirectly, by any artifice, or subterfuge, whatsoever, to estrange the minor child from the other parent, or to injure or impair the mutual love and affection of the minor child, At all times, each parent shall encourage and foster in the minor chi ld a sincere respect and affection for the other parent, and shall not hamper the natural development of the child's love and respect for the other parent. 16, Each parent shall keep the other advised on an ongoing basis of the schedule of I!.ilA - (s.:."'ool) in-' /1/0<'all curricula)-and extra curricular activities and events in which the minor child is engaged, Both parents shall have the right to attend these activities and events and participate in them to the extent parents are normally allowed or encouraged to do so. During scheduled periods of custody, both parents shaII be responsible for the child's attendance at regularly scheduled activities and special events, 17, Each party acknowledges that they have been advised ofthe legal ramifications of this Stipulation from their respective attorneys, and voluntarily consent to this agreement. 18, It is the intention of the parties that this Stipulation may be entered as an Order of Court, as if a full hearing had been held thereon and enforced pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act 23 Pa,C,S, 54. It is agreed that, until subsequent Order of Court of competent jurisdiction, Pennsylvania shall be deemed the home 1:\Client Directory\lsenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Custody Stipulation. wpd February 10,2006 state of the child, and that the Stipulation shall be considered the first custody decree or initial decree concerning said minor child, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, sealed, and acknowledged this agreement on the day and year above-written. /)/cz/1/6" j~ Mark D. Isenberg _/ -. Plaintiff ~.,,\ Herschel Lock, Esquire Attorney for Defendant fill) /lrF \ \ - I ~-\- i\ IS ~e .plY f?'~l, '\"h€2. fCl,..\; ~€ S e<LK.V\ow\eO~e. . \. \.-\-1..1 rJ eCtC,,", of ~. Q..I/vt I {,()\"'eV\. ~e.C\ ra::'fD\f\S\D~ [, I ~C\.V~ ?'^l.\S\C~ cusAvdL( o-(\o..~\o-re) ~ d \ ~ fA. -sof~ OLV\.6. v\v r-\v \' , ~ ~\OVI ~' \/lfZT WI +- ~ 0+' tJ~,c"'- I S '^~\ \r\a...J\V~ a-'I\.0"OV\vU-l?vt. I pCl..\ ~ W \'t'\ '-\<Ae.I\ I€Sfec \J(2 ~e.r o u) Ii'\', pr \ iM.tt.\'i "'OI{V~S , F'u('~e\ I ~e PCL\4-\€S uijrae A-o 1V\ \-\-la..\::> a.. c.our5.~ ~. Co- pa\€V\+,VlC\. COVVlse\ll">l (1'\ L\{.ce Y\e.rJ;.r ~+vre.1 W!% 10e.cU "Pc. SSu1<2S, MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF? CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. BRENDA BROWNEWELL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW 04-3332 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY ***************************************** BRENDA BROWNEWELL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF? CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, MARK D. ISENBERG, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW 04-3477 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Proceedings held before the HONORABLE J. WESLEY OLER, JR., J., Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, On April 7, 2005, In Courtroom Number 1. APPEARANCES: Maria P. Cognetti, Esquire For Mark D. Isenberg Herschel Lock, Esquire For Brenda Brownewell 1 Oll :Ol!,' 'hI"' 'v ~l\Wl :1ln " 1 MARK D. ISENBERG, 2 having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 3 DIRECT EXAMINATION 4 BY MS. COGNETTI: 5 Sir, I have three questions for you this afternoon. Q 11 12 Okay, Mark, you go by Danny, is that correct? 13 That is correct. 14 Danny, could you tell the Court what kind of parent you think you are for Taylore? A I think I am a very good parent for Taylore. I think that she needs to have strong values instilled in her while she is young, She needs to have a stable environment. I don't think she should be moved around. And I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 feel that I can do that for her, MR. LOCK: Sorry, could you get closer to the mike, BY MS. COGNETTI: Q Why do you feel that you are the better primary custodial parent? A Well, as I said, I feel that there is things that 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 should be taught to a child when they are young so that they grow up -- as they grow, it is built into their nature and it becomes routine, habit. And it is no longer hard to force them to do something then too, you know, if it is instilled in them when they are young. Q Why are you the better person? A Well, I feel that Brenda was late on correcting Amber, disciplining her for her grades, leaving her off of punishment early before she brought her grades up, and some other things, basically. MS, COGNETTI: Cross. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LOCK: Q Mr. Isenberg, let me ask you a couple of questions. I believe you indicated you think you are a good parent? A Yes, I do. Q Do you believe your wife is a good parent? A I believe she loves her child dearly, yes. Q Strong values, you believe in them from what you said, correct? A Yes. Q Do you believe she does, she, Brenda? A Yes, Q You said you wanted to be the primary custodial 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 parent so you could teach the child certain things while she is young, What sort of things are you referring to? A Things, a routine, habits, homework, school comes before play. If she doesn't do good in school, there is consequences that she is going to suffer. If she suffers those consequences, they will be the full consequence until they do not -- until she does bring her grades up. About going to school on time, not being late. Q Well, Taylore isn't in school yet, is she? A Yes, she is, Q Where is she? A She is at the Church of the Brother, she goes to day school for two days a week now. Q She lS not in public school, is she? A No, sir. MR. LOCK: I have nothing, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Cognetti, anything further 18 of this witness? 19 MS. COGNETTI: No, Your Honor. Do you care to ask 20 the witness any questions? 21 THE COURT: No, I don't believe so. Thank you, you 22 may step down. 23 24 25 4 1 BRENDA K. BROWNEWELL, 2 having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 3 DIRECT EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. LOCK: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Brenda, would you give the Court your full name? Brenda K. Brownewe1l. You are the Defendant in the action that was Q A Q brought today to No. 04-3332, A That is correct. Q As far as your daughter, Taylore, would you tell correct? Judge Oler what kind of parent you think you are for the child? A I think I am a good parent. I have been very involved with Taylore. I feel I am the nuturing parent, I have been since the day she was born. There was scheduling for her. The bad times, the play times, the activity times, the holiday things with people, with family, I kept that close connection, I was very involved with Taylore. Taylore and I are very close, and we have a very good relationship. Q Why do you feel you are the better custodial parent to Taylore than Mr. Isenberg? I have been the nuturing parent for Taylore. A I can keep separate my personal -- my relationship with Mark Starner, and my relationship with Mark Isenberg and my work separate from the needs of Taylore. I can give her, just as any other mother, a good mother can give the proper care. I take good 5 1 care of her and I am there for her. 2 3 4 5 6 Q You said that you were the primary nurturing parent. What do you mean by that? A Knowing the needs of Taylore, knowing what she needs and how she needs to be taken care of and what is 7 important for her as a child to grow, MR, LOCK: That would be all, Your Honor, 8 9 10 THE COURT: Ms. Cognetti? CROSS-EXAMINATION 11 12 13 14 15 16 BY MS. COGNETTI: Q Can I call you Brenda? A Yes, Q Brenda, you said we have a good relationship, meaning you and Taylore, correct? A Yes. 17 Do you acknowledge that she has a really good Q A Q A Q her dad? A Q 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 question that -- I was trying to keep up so I think I did -- that you could give her proper care? A Yes. Q And that I think you said I am there for her? A Correct. Q Would you agree either from what you see or from what you have heard from Dr. Shienvold that in the last six to nine months that Danny has also given her proper care? A Yes. Q And that he has been there for her as well as you have? A Yes. MS. COGNETTI: That is all I have, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay, Mr, Lock, anything further of 15 this witness? 16 MR. LOCK: No, Your Honor, thank you. 17 THE COURT: You may step down, thank you, 18 Mr. Lock, did you want to move for admission of Dr, Shienvold's 19 report? 20 MR. LOCK: Yes, I would ask that that be admitted, 21 marked as Defendant's Exhibit 1, please. 22 MS. COGNETTI: No objection, Your Honor, 23 THE COURT: All right. Defendant's Exhibit 1 is 24 admitted, Do counsel wish to make brief closing arguments at 25 this point in the case with the understanding that I would be 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 under some sort of temporary order at the conclusion of the argument? MR. LOCK: THE COURT: I would like to if I may. All right, go ahead. MR. LOCK: Your Honor, I realize this is an interim step on the prelude to an interim order. I would respectfully suggest that it is good both parents love the child and the child loves both parents. On the other hand, at least all the primary testimony today that is in Dr. Shienvold's report, there are anger issues that Mr, Isenberg is facing, which I believe the totality of Exhibit 1, Dr. Shienvold's report, as well as his testimony on direct and cross-examination, indicate that not only exists but it might be incorrect to impact upon the child. Fortunately, he says it is not lost, the child is doing well. However, given what he said also and realizing this is just an interim step, I respectfully suggest it might be prudent, given the history of this case, to move slowly and keep an eye on that anger, the impact the anger has on custody, which isn't to say Mr. Isenberg doesn't love the child and vice versa, for the protection of the child, given the history of the case. Thank you. THE COURT: Ms. Cognetti. MS. COGNETTI: Thank you, Your Honor, I am not sure that I understood Mr. Lock's last reference to protection 8 1 of the child because I don't think we have heard anything 2 today, including mostly what we have heard from Dr. Shienvold, 3 about the child needing protection from either of these 4 parents. 5 I think we have heard a lot, even in their very 6 brief comments, that in spite of their kind of joint anger, 7 mutual anger or individual anger, I think that deep down they 8 both somewhere think highly of each other and know that they 9 are both decent parents. 10 I would focus the Court in the interim on two 11 things. We heard a lot about anger, we heard a lot about Mr. 12 Isenberg being angry, and I guess I keep thinking that if my 13 spouse ended up being engaged to my best friend/boss I probably 14 would be angry. The real test will be how Mr. Isenberg IS continues to deal with his anger. 16 We heard from Dr. Shienvold that way before that 17 evaluation ever started Mr. Isenberg had put himself in 18 counseling, in this courtroom, in this kind of work, this lS a 19 good thing. So we know that there are some steps there, only 20 time will tell, but Mr. Isenberg did that on his own. 21 On the other hand, we have the other competing 22 anger going on that perhaps didn't get quite as much play but 23 Ms. Brown is angry at Mr. Isenberg for taking or keeping her 24 child and now would appear to want to punish him for that by 25 ignoring the clear relationship between he and his daughter and 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wanting to take this child away from him in a sense that would appear to be to get back. I think on an interim basis the Court should focus on what is going on right now today, and that would be the status quo, however we got there. I heard three things from Dr. Shienvold, and I made a point of writing them down because I thought they were so key: This child shows no signs of alienation, there are no problems with Taylore -- those were his words -- and Taylore is very well adjusted. To me that says Taylore is doing good in the current situation, and then on an interim basis we should leave it at that. THE COURT: Very good, thank you, we will take a brief recess. I will look at Dr. Shienvold's report and come back into court and I will enter a temporary order. (Recess.) THE COURT: We will enter this order, AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2005, upon consideration of the complaints for custody filed by the parties with respect to their child, Taylore L. Brownewell (date of birth January 14, 2000), and following an initial period of hearing held on this date at which Dr. Arnold T. Shienvold, custody evaluator and psychologist, completed his testimony and his report was admitted into evidence, and at which both parties testified briefly without prejudice to the right to be recalled and subjected to further direct and cross-examination, it lS 10 1 ordered and directed pending further order of court as follows: 2 1. Legal custody of the child shall be shared by 3 the parties; 4 2. Physical custody of the child shall be shared 5 by the parties with the mother having the child on Monday and 6 Tuesday with overnights, and the father having the child on 7 Wednesday and Thursday with overnights, and the parties 8 alternating weekends; 9 3. The child shall be enrolled in the South 10 Middleton School District; 11 4. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the 12 parties from deviating from the terms of this order by mutual 13 agreement; 14 5. After December 25, 2005, the Court will 15 entertain upon motion by either party a request to modify the 16 terms of this order based upon circumstances as they exist at 17 that time; and 18 6. Further hearing in these matters is scheduled 19 for Wednesday, July 27, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., and Thursday July 20 28, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. 21 Neither party has requested the notes of testimony 22 from today's hearing to be transcribed. 23 Court is adjourned. 24 25 11 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the proceedings are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the above cause and that this is a correct transcript of same. )) . e /) 1Ui ',/ o.;tVj,1UJ. , .. J) Cu'1. . , . Patricia C, Barrett Official Stenographer - - ---- ---- ------- - - -- -- The foregoing record of the proceedings on the hearing of the within matter is hereby approved and directed to be filed. vVlvJ" 'jlOa{, Date 0~ Wesley 12 t.\Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Petition for Contempt and Modification. wpd September 29,2006 MARIA P* COGNETTI & ASSOCIATES MARIA P. COGNETTI, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 27914 210 Grandview Avenue, Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone No. (717) 909-4060 Attorneys for Plaintiff MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff/Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 04-3332 BRENDA BROWNEWELL, DefendantJRespondent CIVIL ACTION - LA W IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR MODIFICATION AND CONTEMPT OF A CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW comes Petitioner, Mark D. Isenberg, by and through his attorney, Maria P. Cognetti, Esquire, and files the following Petition for Modification and Contempt of a Custody Order: 1. Petitioner is Mark D. Isenberg (hereinafter "Father"), an adult individual residing at 752 Petersburg Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Respondent is Brenda Brownewell (hereinafter "Mother"), an adult individual residing at 77 Baltimore Pike, Gardners, Adams County, Pennsylvania. 3. The parties hereto are the natural parents of one (1) minor child: Taylore M. Brownewell, born January 14, 2000. 4. The minor child is the subject of a Stipulated Order of Court dated February 13, 2006, wherein the parties agreed to shared legal and physical custody of the child. A true and correct copy of said Order is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit "A." ~Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Petition for Contempt and Modification.wpd September 29, 2006 5. In addition, the stipulated Order states that both parties are to provide a safe and nurturing environment for the child, part of which includes the child having her own primary bed. 6. The parties included such language because it was believed that the child was inappropriately sharing a bed with Mother and her paramour. 7. It has recently come to Father's attention, through the child, that she is once again sleeping in the same bed with Mother and her paramour. 8. When Father learned of the current circumstances he contacted his attorney who attempted to resolve the situation through a letter to Mother's attorney; however, Father's attorney's attempts to resolve the situation amicably have been ignored. 9. Father's attorney requested permission to return the child to meet with Dr. Arnold Shienvold, who had previously evaluated the parties' custody situation, in order to determine the extent of the activity, but no response to said request was given. 10. Father fears that Mother will attempt to influence the child into recanting her story regarding the circumstances surrounding the issue and that only a trained psychologist, such as Dr. Shienvold, will be able to get to the bottom of the situation. 11. Mother's actions are in direct violation of both the letter and spirit of the custody order, and her total lack of remorse or understanding of the serious nature of the situation raises questions about her ability to parent and provide a safe and nurturing environment for the child. 12. Father seeks to modify the Order of Court to transfer primary custody of the child to him while forbidding Mother from exercising periods of overnight visitation while her paramour is in residence. I~\Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Petition for Contempt and Modification. wpd September 29,2006 13. Father requests that this Honorable Court find Mother in contempt of the Order of Court of February 13, 2006 and impose appropriate sanctions. 14. Father believes and therefore avers that, due to Mother's actions in exposing the child to potential harm and her continually violating the parties' Custody Order, the best interest of the child will be served by granting him primary physical custody of the child. WHEREFORE, Father respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant him primary physical custody of the minor child and find Mother in contempt of the Order of Court of February 13,2006. Respectfully Submitted: MARIA P. COGNETTI & ASSOCIATES /0 !3/0b Date: By: MARIA P. OG TI, ESQUIRE Attorney LD. No. 27914 210 Grandview Avenue, Suite 102 Camp Hill, P A 17011 Telephone No. (717) 909-4060 Attorney for Petitioner I\Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody PJeadings\Custody Stipulation.wpd February 10, 2006 MARKD. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 04-3332 BRENDA BROWNEWELL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, TO WIT, this \ S ~day of F l!-l:,. , 2006, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED that the attached Stipulation for Custody is made an Order of this Court and said Stipulation is adopted it its entirety and incorporated herein as an Order of Court. BY THE COURT: III i:\Client Directory\lsenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Custody Stipulation,wpd February 10, 2006 MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO, 04-3332 BRENDA BROWNEWELL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY STIPULATION AND NOW, this iJ1/dayof jjr-vJt~ l Isenberg, by and through his attorney, Maria P. Cognetti, Esquire, and Defendant, Brenda ,2006, comes Plaintiff, Mark D. Browllewell, by and through his attorney, Herschel Lock, Esquire, and hereby enter the following Stipulation concerning custody of their minor child, Taylore L. Brownewell, as follows: 1. Plaintiffis Mark D. Isenberg (hereinafter "Father"), an adult individual residing at 752 Petersburg Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. y1{;3 2. Defendant is Brenda Brownewell (hereinafter "Mother"), an adult individual $:JL III Ba.P+i~ore ~\ ~e..J 6tlc-dt~r S residing at 61 Par1riElg@ Driue, Cadi31c, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. ,6/0 3. The parties hereto are the natural parents of one (1) minor child: Taylore Tt.' f'{') . /j,() T -:Brownewell, born January 14, 2000. 4. The parties agree to share legal custody of their minor child. All decisions effecting the child's growth and development including, but not limited to: medical and dental treatment; psycho therapy, psycho analysis, or like treatment; decisions relating to actual or potential litigation involving the child, directly or as a beneficiary, other than custody and litigation; education, both secular and religious; choice of camp, if any; athletic pursuits and extra curricular activities shall be considered major decisions and shall be made by the parties f:\Client Directory\lsenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Custody Stipulation,wpd February 10, 2006 jointly, after discussion and consultation with each other and a view toward obtaining and following a harmonious policy in the child's best interest. 5. Physical custody of the minor child shall be shared by the parties, as follows: a) Every Monday from 7:00 a.m. until Wednesday at 7:00 a.m. with Mother. b) Every Wednesday from 7:00 a.m. until Friday at 7:00 a.m. with Father. /31;3 /}71{f/c) B@ginniBg SSfltsfFl13@r ,2005 uritl1 PttthM';The parties shall alternate weekends from 7:00 a.m. Friday until 7:00 a.m. Monday. d) Holidays shall be shared as follows: 1. Christmas shall be divided into Segment A (from Noon on December 24 until Noon on December 25) and Segment B (from Noon on December 25 until Noon on December 26). Begilllling in 2005 and in all subsequent odd numbered years, Father shall have Segment A and Mother shall have Segment B. In all even numbered years Father shall have Segment B and Mother shall have Segment A. 11. Thanksgiving shall be divided into Segment A (from Noon on the Wednesday proceeding the holiday until Noon on Thanksgiving) /;$ and Segment B (from Noon on Thanksgiving until Noon the (p ~. following day). Begilllling in 2001 and in all subsequent Gftt}-Q.ven numbered years, Mother shall have Segment A and Father shall ./;I{tv /?"Y....JC--have Segment B. ill all~ numbered years Father shall have Segment A and Mother shall have Segment B. 111. Easter shall be alternated each year from 8:00 a.m. Easter Sunday I:\Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Custody Stipulation.wpd February 10,2006 ,61(3 ;613 until 8:00 a.nl. the following day. Beginning in 2006 and in all c::r T=~l- /l// subsequent even numbered years thereafter Mether shall have the ,___ (Y\~er- /?;l.i;{ Easter holiday. Fat-fl0r shall have the Easter holiday in all odd numbered years. IV. Memorial Day and Labor Day shall be alternated by the parties from 8:00 a.m. Monday until 8:00 a.m. Tuesday. Beginning in ,. Ay~ It:> (!j)en .;V/P /77&. 20~ and in all subsequent gQQ. numbered years thereafter Father shall have Labor Day and Mother shall have Memorial Day. ill all ,.bP /??.DT odd ~ numbered years Father shall have Memorial Day and Mother shall have Labor Day. v. Mother's Day will be spent with Mother every year from 8:00 a.m. Sunday until 8:00 a.m. Monday and Father's Day will be spent with Father every year from 8:00 a.m. Sunday until 8:00 a.m. Monday. e) The parties shall each be allowed two (2) non-consecutive weeks of vacation with the child during the non-school summer months each year. Each such week shall include that party's normal weekend. Each party shall give the other at least sixty (60) days written notice of their intended vacation dates. 6. The parties may modify the schedule as set forth above as they may agree to be in the best interest of the minor child, and the parties are encouraged to be flexible and accommodating reasonable requests for schedule changes. f:\Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Custody Stipulation.wpd February 10,2006 l. C5~e "5 llJ I"\?\.--\-\Jr-e.. 7. 8. The parties shall alternate the Federal Tax Dependency Exemption for the child n~~h( ~ r r/~ with Mother receiving the exemption for tax year 20oJ. 9. The non-custodial parent at any given time shall have reasonable ongoing telephone access to the minor child, and the minor child should not be precluded from telephoning the non-custodial parent at reasonable times. Should the minor child be unavailable to receive a telephone call from the parent, the custodial parent shall be responsible for having the child return the telephone call when the child reaches an appropriate age. 10. Each party shall keep the other advised of a current address and telephone number. /1lJ; '7,<"';' fvr?/u 11. -s ,~" r(~ca.V\.-\- Each party shall advise the other promptly of any illness suffered or injury .A sustained by the minor child. 12. The parties shall communicate directly with each other regarding the minor child, and shall not allow any interference from any third persons. The minor child should not be used as an intermediary. All contact between the parties, whether in person or by telephone, shall be polite, civil and respectful. 13. The parties will not undertake or allow by any other person the poisoning of the i:\Client Directory\lsenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Custody Stipulatioll.wpd February 10,2006 child's mind against one of the other parties by conversation which includes any critical, hostile, or condemning language, or any way derogates the other party from extended family Inembers. 14. The parties shall not conduct or permit arguments or heated conversations in the presence or hearing of the minor child. 15. Neither party shall attempt or condone any attempt to directly or indirectly, by any artifice, or subterfuge, whatsoever, to estrange the minor child from the other parent, or to injure or impair the mutual love and affection of the minor child. At all times, each parent shall encourage and foster in the minor child a sincere respect and affection for the other parent, and shall not hamper the natural development of the child's love and respect for the other parent. 16. Each parent shall keep the other advised on an ongoing basis of the schedule of /J vA - lS~"'oo\) !YY j1;JOlall curricular and extra curricular activities and events in which the minor child is engaged. Both I "^ parents shall have the right to attend these activities and events and participate in them to the extent parents are normally allowed or encouraged to do so. During scheduled periods of custody, both parents shall be responsible for the child's attendance at regularly scheduled activities and special events. 17. Each party acknowledges that they have been advised of the legal ramifications of this Stipulation from their respective attonleys, and voluntarily consent to this agreement. 18. It is the intention of the parties that this Stipulation maybe entered as an Order of Court, as if a full hearing had been held thereon and enforced pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act 23 Pa.C.S. 54. It is agreed that, until subsequent Order of Court of competent jurisdiction, Pennsylvania shall be deemed the home . ' f:\Client Directory\lsenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Custody Stipulation,wpd February 10, 2006 state of the child, and that the Stipulation shall be considered the first custody decree or initial decree concerning said minor child. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, sealed, and acknowledged this agreement on the day and year above-written. /)JtUi~~ Mark D. Isenberg _/ ---- Plaintiff ~ . . (/ \ HerschefLock, Esquire Attorney for Defendant 'IP /1;:dl. the par--\ l~ s ackV\.ow~~ ~+ 0: I S ~e. \_ \~ 0+ eac~ of ~~Vvt, wh~~ ~eJ-1 I ra.sfoV\ S \Ol \., I \ hOcv~ p"'-l.\sld c.tJs~'i f)-f' \a.~\Dre) -\n d I . \ \ " CA.... -s~ OcV\.~ v\u r-\v \" \ ~ ~ \0\1 t ?:!. v~ ftc- W \~ ---.J -L + uf' iJh,C'" I S "'~\ ,^a.JW~ a-V\v \ ,ov\ l/v<-(2 Vl \ I ptz..\ A- W \1\ '--\{A~\\ r.esft2C- lVe. ~er- o u) V\. PI \ vv<-?L\( howU2S r r[)l~e, I ~e par+\e's tZjrae +0 1'l\\+tCC-\(' C<.. eours.€? 0+: Co - paretA+' VI q . CO(}V1se~' I'>J (1'\ L\tce \I\~ar ~+V(eJ W i~ N€.d \JQ ssa:j<es; . I I. VERIFICATION I, Mark D. Isenberg, hereby verify and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 94904 relating to unsworn verification to authorities. DATE: ~~~'lcl!7- M D. ISENBERG , r.\Client Directory\Isenberg-M\Pleadings\Custody Pleadings\Petition for Contempt and Modification,wpd September 29,2006 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Maria P. Cognetti, Esquire, Attorney for Petitioner herein, do hereby certify that on this date I served the foregoing Petition for Modification and Contempt of a Custody Order by depositing a true and exact copy thereof in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Herschel Lock, Esquire 3107 North Front Street Harrisburg, PAl 711 0-131 0 Date: 10/3/0j? By: ASSOCIATES 210 Grandview Avenue, Suite 102 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone No. (717) 909-4060 Attorney for Petitioner (J ~ IV ~ Crt ~ 0 . w \) ~ ~ ~ w ~ w D ....0 ......... " t ~ ,......,) = ,= c:.~ C) 11 --4 :r:.,., rnp T; !:q .U'i ;~ ~~~ ~~?, \~ """> ~ C? c ~ --, I Ul -0 -'-..,?" --..,,,, N MARK D. ISENBERG PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. 04-3332 CIVIL ACTION LAW BRENDA BROWNEWELL DEFENDANT IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Tuesday, October 10, 2006 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Dawn S. Sunday, Esq. at 39 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 on Thursday, November 09, 2006 , the conciliator, at 10:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearin2. FOR THE COURT, By: Isl Dawn S. Sunda Es Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Oisabilites Act of 1990. For infonnation about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HA VE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 ~fv~ ~~ -pox'.p2~~ ,~~ f;:P % ~- ~'rJ :j::] "'::1 ::.._~I /\ (1~) I I :S i~d 0 I 1JO 9DOl ,\t1\/lC):\C,;]"-Li"':~)::d :It-Il :10 :Cj'~iC).'CI:=nl:J 1<1"0/.01 :1l?/ 0/ 0/ ~r;J~ ~/' al MOV 17 2006 r' MARK D. ISENBERG, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. 04-3332 CIVIL ACTION LAW BRENDA BROWNEWELL Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT ~ ~~ AND NOW, this 21 day of 1\J Ov . , 1e62r, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The parties shall participate in coparenting 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 skills and cooperation to enable them to address issues regarding the Child before conflicts escalate. The parties agree that the Mother shall contact Sally Rooney initially to determine whether she is available to conduct the coparenting counseling as well as address the Child's sleep related issues which have been identified by the parties. In the event Sally Rooney is not available for coparenting counseling, the parties agree to contact New Passages to initiate the coparenting counseling and to schedule a session for the parents with Sally Rooney limited to the Child's sleeping issues. The parties shall select the coparenting counselor and contact the counselor's office within 14 days following the conciliation conference to schedule the first session. The parties shall equally share any costs of counseling which are not covered by insurance. 2. Within 90 days ofthe date of this Order, counsel for either party may contact the conciliator to schedule an additional conciliation conference in the event that the parties are unable to resolve the issues raised in the Father's Petition through counseling. BY THE COURT, cc: ~rschel Lock, Esquire - Counsel for Mother ~aria Cognetti, Esquire - Counsel for Father" J. ~ co j?: z 6 - :::) Wz - oS: 06 x: ~-:) ~ 1.2- ?-= ex: '.J_ C) ::1 go ::ij) &: I ~~Sz :::l u ex: Z a:UJ Lu u,JW f!= 0 coo.. ~ -.s::> :z <::::> ::> = 0 c--.a MARK D. ISENBERG Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 04-3332 CIVIL ACTION LAW BRENDA BROWNEWELL Defendant IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: J. Wesley Oler, Jr. CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: DATE OF BIRTH NAME Taylor E. Brownewell January 14,2000 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on November 20, 2006, with the following individuals in attendance: The Father, Mark D. Isenberg, with his counsel, Maria P. Cognetti, Esquire, and the Mother, Brenda Brownewell, with her counsel, Herschel Lock, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. /V~ ~ ~CO{.Q Date Da~ Custody Conciliator