HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-1754KITTY M. HENRY,
Plaintiff
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 1754 CIVIL 1989
CIVIL ACTION - IN CUSTODY
PETITION FOR
MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ORDER
AND NOW, this day of March, 2005, comes the Plaintiff, KITTY M. HENRY, by
and through her attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, and presents the following Petition for
Modification of Custody Order, averring as follows:
1.
The Plaintiff is Kitty M. Henry, an adult individual residing at 23 Carlisle Road,
Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17241.
2.
The Defendant is Kevin B. Gantz, an adult individual residing at 442 West Main Street,
Walnut Bottom, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3.
On December 9, 1994, an Order of Court was entered in this matter establishing shared
physical custody on a weekly basis with regard to their minor child, namely, Jessica M. Gantz,
born July 12, 1988. Said Order is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as
Exhibit "A."
1
4
4.
The minor child, who will turn 17 years of age on July 12, 2005, desires to live
exclusively with Plaintiff.
5.
The best interests and permanent welfare of the child require that the Court modify the
current custody schedule as requested by the minor child.
6.
At the insistence of the minor child, Plaintiff seeks a modification of custody to give her
exclusive physical custody and joint legal custody of the parties' minor child.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully seeks the entry of an Order of Court granting
Defendant's Petition for Modification of Custody Order.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: March 18, 2005
IRW/jIN & McKNIGHT
By: ,&q .
Douglas G. Miller, Esquir
Supreme Court I.D. No. 83776
Matthew A. McKnight, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 93010
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-2353
Attorney for Plaintiff,
Kitty M. Henry
2
VERIFICATION
The foregoing document is based upon information which has been gathered by my
counsel and myself in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this
document and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I
understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
-- t?,
Y ENRY
Date: March 18. 2005
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy
of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by first class United States mail,
postage paid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, on the date set forth below:
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 South Hanover Street
Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: March 18, 2005 IRWIN & McKNIGHT
v
Do glas G. Miller, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 83776
Matthew A. McKnight, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 93010
West Pomfret Professional Building
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222
(717) 249-2353
Attorney for Plaintiff
Kitty M. Henry
f_1 P J
a
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
IN CUSTODY
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA:
Please enter the appearance of Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire on behalf of the
Defendant in the above referenced matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated:
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
4711 Locust Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
(717) 657-0632
Id. No. 63522
r? /'f
?3
? !sue
[: 1
[. -r?
-tom
{""'1 j
N ._
.t
KITTY L. GANTZ,
Plaintiff
VS.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. CIVIL 1989
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
You, Kevin B. Gantz, defendant, have been sued in Court to obtain custody
of the child, Jessica Marie Gantz, born July 12, 1988.
You are ordered to appear in person at the Cumberland County Court House,
Courtroom No. 3 , opth Floor, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on A,
the - `` day of A 1989, at : 9V o'clock for hearing
on the complaint for dh , stody attached.
You are further ordered to bring with you the child, Jessica Marie Gantz,
if she is in your physical custody at that time. Pending further order of
court, and in consideration of the circumstances as set forth in the attached
Petition, Plaintiff, Kitty L. Gantz, shall have primary residential custody of
her minor daughter, Jessica Marie Gantz, subject to rights of visitation in
the Defendant as follows: Defendant, Kevin B. Gantz, shall have right to
partial custody of Jessica Marie Gantz, born July 12, 1988, on alternating
Sundays from 1:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m., beginning May 21, 1989. Defendant
shall also have partial custody of Jessica Marie Gantz on each and every
Tuesday beginning Tuesday, May 23, 1989, picking her up at the babysitter at
the time he gets off work until 8:30 p.m, when he shall return the child to
her mother; and every other Saturday beginning Saturday, May 27, 1989, from
5:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. Father shall provide transportation to and from
each period of partial custody and visitation. This Order shall be in full
force and affect until further order of court.
If you fail to appear as provided by this order or bring the child, an
order for custody may be entered against you or the court may issue an order
for your arrest.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A
LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO
FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Court Administrator
Fourth Floor
Cumberland County Court House
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone; (717) 240-6200
Dated:
By the Court,
l
J.
KITTY L. CANTZ,
Plaintiff
VS.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. CIVIL 1989
IN CUSTODY
COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY
1. The Plaintiff is Kitty L. Gantz, residing at R.D. 1, Box 75, Walnut
Bottom, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. The Defendant is Kevin B. Gantz, residing at Walnut Bottom, and
having a mailing address of P.O. Box 123, Walnut Bottom, Pennsylvania.
3. Plaintiff seeks custody of Jessica Marie Gantz, born July 12, 1988.
The child was not born out of wedlock. The child is presently in the custody
of Kitty L. Gantz, who resides with her parents at R.D. 1, Box 75, Walnut
Bottom, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
4. Since the birth of the child, July 12, 1988, she has resided with her
parents at Walnut Bottom, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, until Saturday, May
13, 1989; she has resided with her mother and maternal grandparents at R.D. 1,
Box 75, Walnut Bottom, Pennsylvania, from May 13, 1989, to present.
5. Plaintiff and Defendant are the natural parents of the child, Jessica
Marie Gantz, born July 12, 1988, and are presently separated. No divorce
action has been filed.
6. The Plaintiff, Kitty L. Gantz, is presently residing with her parents
and the child.
7. The Defendant, Kevin B. Cantz, is presently residing in the marital
home with no other persons.
8. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or witness, or in another
capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody of the child in this or
another court.
Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the child
pending in a court of this Commonwealth. Plaintiff does not know of a person
not a party to the proceeding who has physical custody of the child or claims
to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child.
9. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served
by granting primary custody as requested because the Plaintiff mother has been
the primary caretaker of the child, Jessica Marie Gantz, and has provided, and
will provide, the emotional stability and proper upbringing for the child.
10. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been
terminated and the person who has physical custody of the child have been
named as parties to this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court to grant primary residential
custody of the child, Jessica Marie Gantz, born July 12, 1988, to her, subject
to reasonable rights of partial custody and visitation in the Defendant.
Respectfully submitted,
Sally . Winder
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Complaint for Custody are true
and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief. I understand
that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.
section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date;
Ki t antz
14 ? N
ti
IJl
1.
d
n 1/
A
McCREA & DAVIS
N"milla, Pennsylvania
Shippansburg, Pennsylvania
KITTY L. GANTZ,
Plaintiff
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
AND NOW, this
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 1754 CIVIL, 1989
IN CUSTODY
I ?, ORDER
day of June,
1989, pursuant to a meeting
of counsel in Chambers, it is hereby ordered that the Court's
Temporary Order of May 17, 1989 shall be amended in the following
respects:
1. Father shall have temporary physical custody of the
child Jessica Marie Gantz born July 12, 1988, on alternating
weekends from Saturday at 9:00 A.M. until Sunday at 8:30 P.M.
commencing June 10, 1989.
2. The Father shall have temporary physical custody of
Jessica Marie Gantz every Thursday from the time that he gets off
work until 8:30 P.M. when he shall return the child to her
Mother.
3. In all other respects the Order of Court of May 17,
1989 shall remain in effect pending the hearing scheduled for
August 4, 1989.
BY T ,
J.
FLOWER, KRAMER, MORGENTHAL & FLOWER - ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THREE IRVINE ROW, CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013
c.
Ci
ra
C
C
KITTY L. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
KEVIN B. GANTZ, NO. 1754 CIVIL, 1989
Defendant
IN CUSTODY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of a Petition for Special
Relief was served to Kitty L. Gantz, by personal service,
occurring on June 2, 1989 at the Judge Advocate General's Office
of the Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
h / 8q
Jam s 7)elduco
112 outh West Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
???
?:
?:
KITTY L. GANTZ,
Plaintiff
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
AND NOW, August 4, 1989, at 10:45 a.m., Kitty Gontz, having
appeared in open court together with personal counsel, Barbara
B. Townsend, Esquire, and Kevin Gontz, having appeared with
personal counsel, Stephen Hogg, Esquire, and the parties having
agreed to continue this hearing this morning to December 15,
1989, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom Number 3, and the parties also
having agreed to certain interim visitation rights, we do accept
their agreement, and we direct that:
1) The parties shall share joint, legal custody of their
child, Jessica Marie, DOB June 12, 1988.
2) The mother shall have primary physical custody of the
child subject to the father's visitation with the child:
a) Every Tuesday after the father's employment until
8:00 P.m., and every other weekend after the father's employment
on Friday with the return time of Sunday at 7:00 p.m.
3) The Parties also agree that they are going to submit to
mediation with an expert in an attempt to resolve this custody
situation and that they will share the costs of this mediafion-,
By the Court,
cc
r
V.
GeorgkJY Hof e J. I Co
Barbara B. Townsend, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Stephen Hogg, Esquire
For the Defendant :mtf
I
Guidance Associates of PA
Branch Office
82 North Second St.
Stanley E. Schneider, Ed. D. Chambersburg, PA 17201
Director, Guidance Associates
890 Poplar Church Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-6917
December 4, 1989
The Honorable George Hoffer
Cumberland County Court
Carlisle, Pa.
Re: Custody of Jessica M.Gantz, age 15 months
Eugene H. Stecher, M.A.
Licensed Psychologist
82 North Second St.
Chambersburg, PA 17201
(717) 263-9392
Kevin B. Gantz, Plaintiff, vs. Kittly L. Gantz, Defendant
Summary of Contacts. A mediation session was held with both parents pre-
sent on 9/11/89. A variety of approaches to custody for Jessica were
discussed, and by the end of the session both parents agreed to think a-
bout a joint residential arrangement. Kitty later phoned to say that she
felt intimidated by Kevin during the session and was not interested in a
joint arrangement. She felt that Kevin was not sufficiently sensitive to
Jessica's needs and the child would be best off in her primary care. She
wished to maintain the current visitation arrangement between Jessica and
her father. During the mediation session I noticed that Kitty's appre-
hension was quite high and trust levels were quite low in her interactions
with Kevin. For his part, Kevin consistently had a rather tense and
sharp edge to his voice, and there was quite often a critical tone as
well, accompanied by a rather controlling manner. In addition to custo-
dy arrangements, it was obvious that Keven hoped Kitty would be willing
to work on marital differences, as well, an interest which she didn't
share. During the course of the session Kevin was much more likely to
acknowledge Kitty's positive parenting qualities while the reverse was
seldom so, and the idea of a joint residential arrangement as an equita-
ble solution to the custody dispute appealed to him. Home-studies with
parent and child present were subsequently held at Kevin's residence on
10/10 and at Kitty's residence on 10116. In addition, numerous phone
calls have been received from each parent. I also received 6 pages of
typed material from Kitty outlining her views on family background, the
marital relationship, and parenting as they applied to both her and Ke-
vin. I asked for a response from Kevin, and he provided 7 pages of typed
material on the same subjects.
Kevin's Residence is a modern brick home which sets well off the highway
between Leesburg and Walnut Bottom and rests on a lot which is slightly
larger than one acre. Air-conditioning and heating are well provided,
and cleanliness, food and clothing, and amount and quality of furnishings
appeared quite adequate. Upstairs consists of three bedrooms and a bath
and downstairs has living and dining rooms, kitchen/dining area, bath, and
laundry room. There are also garage and basement areas. I understand
that this is the residence in which Kevin and Kitty lived, and there may
be some problem holding onto the residence financially.
0 Psychological Testing • Anger Management • Mediation /Custody
CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION: Kevin Gantz, Kitty Gantz PAGE 2
Kitty's Residence is on the first floor of a dwelling that sits along
the main road through Walnut Bottom. There is a porch in front and a
play area to the rear of the house. The home environment is clean and
comfortable, and food, clothing, amount and quality of furnishings ap-
peared quite adequate. Rooms included living and kitchen/dining areas,
two bedrooms and a bath. There is also a basement area for washing
clothes.
Observation at Father's Home. Jessica at first wanted to sit on her fa-
ther's lap during the interview, but before too long she began to play on
her own and only occasionally returned for reassurance. There were a
number of age appropriate toys easily available to her, and she received
and responded to encouragement from her father. Jessica seemed quite
comfortable and relaxed, displayed normal child curiosity, and was plea-
sant and well-behaved my entire stay. Father was gentle and attentive
when Jessica approached, but he did not get down on the floor and play
with her, and he did not use verbal affection when holding her. This
home-study took place at 3:00 PM, and the potential for interfering with
Jessica's nap time was present.
Observation at Mother's Home. The home-study occured at the same time
of day as mentioned above. Jessica's interactions with her mother were
quite positive, and she displayed the same initial apprehension followed
by more independent behavior as at her father's home. She eventually be-
came quite cranky, and it was apparent that a nap was in order. In spite
of the child's initial crying, and in spite of having the pressure of an
evaluator present, Kitty followed through on her resolve to place the
child in bed for a nap. Interaction was quite positive again when Jessi-
ca awoke, including play with a stuffed animal. All things considered,
in general Jessica appeared to be somewhat more relaxed at father's resi-
dence.
Background Information. Kevin is 29 years old and has achieved a 4-year
college education. He is a management level employee with Carlisle Tire
and Rubber. He was raised on a farm near Hershey; his father was em-
ployed by Bethlehem Steel. Kevin is next to the oldest of four siblings,
and he has many good memories of doing things with his brothers. He al-
so remembers having to do without, and that was hard; he was self-con-
scious in school about his clothes and about the hair-cuts his mother gave.
He made up his mind to go out and accomplish something for himself. He
had a desire to succeed and be independent without having things handed
to him. He sees his parents as being there for him but not too close.
Discipline wise, up to a certain age there were some spankings, but main-
ly verbal reprimands after that. There were never any drugs or alcohol
in the house. Kevin recalls respecting his parents and "only bucking the
system so far," even though he did come to blows with his father a coup-
le times over differences about how the farm should be operated.
Background Information. Kitty is 28 years old and has achieved a high
school education plus a semester of college. She is an administrative
employee with the federal government at the Carlisle Barracks. She has
two older brothers(ages 34,37) and she recalls a stable childhood and
loving parents who are supportive and easy to talk to. There were occa-
sional spankings for discipline, but usually only a warning or stern look
was necessary. Kitty could not point to any negatives in her family life
CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION: KEVIN GANTZ, KITTY GANTZ PAGE 3
or mistakes her parents might have made. She states that her parents ne-
ver fought in front of the children, and she always respected their wish-
es.
Parenting Questions included decision-making situations such as thumb-
sucking, refusing to eat, fighting, stealing, lieing, sexual development
and behavior, etc. Daily routine was explored as well as plans for meet-
ing educational, religious, and social needs. Questions were asked about
self-perception as a parent and differences with the other parent.
Both mother and father gave reasonable, knowledgable, and flexible an-
swers to the decision-making situations. Each recognized the need for
the child to accept responsibility and consequences in the context of
parental communication/understanding/support. Also, both would encourage
educational achievement(including college), friendships and a variety of
social activities, church and religious practices at home(prayers, e.g.).
Both described a predictable daily routine, which included sitter service
while the adult worked, with regular meal and bedtimes.
Mother identified the most important parenting quality as being there for
the child and having good communication. She advocates allowing individ-
uality in the context of teaching right and wrong with sufficient disci-
pline to create a respectful relationship. Kevin identified the most im-
portant parenting quality as understanding; he believes that it is impor-
tant to get close enough to the child to understand her curiosities and
the way that she learns, to know what she's doing and the problems she
may be having.
Regarding parenting differences, Kitty believes that she offers more emo-
tional stability. She controls her emotions toward Kevin in front of
Jessica better than Kevin controls his emotions; she says that his hos-
tility is evident, including put-downs in front of Jessica. She says
that this behavior follows the same pattern which Kevin observed in his
own home. She recalls that it was hard to convince Kevin that Jessica
needed to go to the doctor's, and he seems otherwise harsh at times as
well; for example, he returned Jessica from a visit recently and Jessi-
ca bumped her head getting out of the car, and Kevin did not attempt to
comfort her and seemed unaware of what actually happened, perhaps too
caught up in what he was thinking about Kitty.
Regarding parenting difference, Kevin said that he could not give an ov-
erwhelming factor about why Jessica might be best off in his primary
care. He states that Kitty tends to have an "I need, I want" attitude,
and his commitment to the parenting task includes a willingness to per-
sonally do without if necessary. He points out that Kitty frequently
expects too much from the grandparents; e.g., she would get angry with
his parents if they turned down a last minute request to babysit. Ke-
vin believes that he is also more reiable in some ways; Kitty tends to
start a project and then not finish it.
Written Materials. Kitty makes the point that Kevin grew up in a home
were family relationships were distant, put-downs were common, and the
adults were unable to show affection and say 'I love you., She states
that Kevin carried these same attitudes over into the marital relation-
ship to the point of keeping the company of other women during her two
pregnancies and blaming her for the premature birth and death of their
J?
CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION: KEVIN GANTZ, KITTY GANTZ PAGE 4
twin sons. She describes an environment of constant friction and argu-
ments and blame. Kitty is afraid that Jessica will be exposed to this
same type of harmful emotional environment when she is with Kevin.
Kevin points out that the children in his family all received educations,
hold respectable jobs, pay their bills, are not drug or alcohol abusers,
and are not afraid to work for what they want. He recalls happy memor-
ies of many family trips and also taking walks with his father. He says
that there had always seemed to be a "power struggle" between himself
and Kitty throughout the marriage, and he felt that he was frequently
put second to her family and friendships. He points out that her main
complaint seemed to be that he always wanted "control," but when they
went to counseling she was unwilling to do homework exercises which ad-
dressed that issue. He points out that Kitty also had a relationship
with another man about 2 years into the marriage.
Of all the accusations, most are outright denied by both adultsbut each
will admit to one major mistake. Kevin admits to an affair, and Kitty
says that she was wrong to inform her parents first, before Kevin, of her
pregnancy with Jessica. In general it is obvious that neither were able
to meet the emotional needs of the other in the marriage.
Since Kitty is very concerned about it, and rightly so, I need to re-
spond to her concern that the controlling and emotionally distant fea-
tures of Kevin's personality will have a significant adverse result with
Jessica. My answer is a "qualified no" which I attempt to address in
the following conclusions and recommendations. I believe that it is
most important for Jessica that the parents learn to cooperate and she
has the opportunity to spend the maximum amount of time with each.
Conclusions.
1. Jessica is quite comfortable with both parents.
2. Kitty has a greater capacity for emotionally supportive communica-
tion than Kevin.
3. Kevin has greater emotional independence from his family of origin
than Kitty.
4. Both parents have sound knowledge about parenting.
5. There is on-going hostility between both parents regarding their
own relationship or lack thereof.
Recommendations.
1. Shared legal custody and joint residential custody on an alternat-
ing one week basis, with liberal phone calls and shared or alterna-
ted holiday and special celebration occasions.
2. If Kevin must work his part-time job, or if either has a college
course or some other similar activity, the other parent should get
the first chance at sitting for Jessica.
3. Parenting counseling at least once per month, or more frequently
as the counselor may determine, both parents to participate. If
Kevin refuses,Kitty should receive primary residential custody.
Eug e H. Stecher, M.A.'
VTTTV I-P%T7,
Paaintiff
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN RE; CUSTODY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
1754 CIVIL 1989
MER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 1989, Kitty
L. Gantz having appeared in open court together with personal
counsel, Barbara Townsend, Esquire, and Kevin B. Gantz having
appeared together with personal counsel, Steven Hogg, Esquire,
and the Defendant having presented testimony on the custody
matter in regard to the parties' child, Jessica, DOB, July 12,
1988, we order and direct as follows;
(1) The parties shall share equally joint legal
custody of the child,
(2) The parties shall share equally physical
custody of the child and shall do so by alternating physical
custody of the child on a weekly basis. This shall be done by
transferring the child each Sunday at 7;00 p.m. in a mutually
agreeable manner. The party receiving the child shall be
responsible for pick up of the child. In view of the fact that
the child is currently with the mother, this arrangement shall
start with the father's custody commencing Sunday, December 17,
1989,
(3) Every Christmas, the party not in custody of
the child shall have a visit with the child from noon to 1;00
p.m.;
(4) If either party desires to take their summer
vacation in a two-week increment, the alternating visits shall
la c "er a completion of a solid two-week visit with that
porticular parent;
(5) Upon agreement of both parties, as stated to
the Court, so long as Mrs. Grahm is available, she shall
continue to be used as the babysitter; and the parties shall
equally share this cost.
By the Court,
George E. Hoffer, J.
BARBARA TOWNSEND, ESQUIRE
For the Plaintiff
STEVEN HOGG, ESQUIRE
For the Defendant
wcm -
KITTY L. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
B. GANTZ, NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
Defendant IN CUSTODY
NOTICE AND ORDER TO APPEAR
Legal proceedings have been brought against you alleging
that you have willfully disobeyed an order of the Court for
custody.
If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the
(following pages, you may but are not required to file in writing
th the Court your defenses or objections.
Whether or not you file in writing with the Court your
defe ses or objections, you must appear 'n person in Court on
the 0 day of 1990 at
i
0 o'clock //-.m. in Cour oom of the
1
Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
IF YOU DO NOT APPEAR IN PERSON, THE COURT MAY ISSUE A
FOR YOUR ARREST.
If the Court finds you have willfully failed to comply
with its Order for Custody, you may found to be in Contempt of
--ourt and committed to jail, fined or both. r-
c?
r-
_ b ni
-r y T
Cp A
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU
IDO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
(OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse
4th Floor
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
By the Court,
i
-Ag) t&^St
"Ail - IV I J.
KITTY L. GANTZ,
Plaintiff
V.
iKEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
IN CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW, this 24 day of March, 1990, upon presentation
nd consideration of the within Petition for Contempt against
efendant Kevin B. Gantz, it is ordered and directed as follows:
1. The Defendant, Kevin B. Gantz, is ordered to
immediately comply in all respects with this Court's Order of
December 15, 1989 and to place his daughter with Mrs. Grahm, the
parties' babysitter, until relieved by further Order of Court.
2. This Order is to remain in effect until further
hearing before this Court.
By the Court,
AQI/.
in It 14 It lef%
G%204
E. off r, J.
a
Q 9'a ?cmi
a _,an
3 ?ym
O ??
E
KITTY L. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
KEVIN B. GANTZ, NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
Defendant IN CUSTODY
PETITION FOR CONTEMPT
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Kitty L. Gantz, by and
through her attorney, Ron Turo, Esquire, and moves the Court as
follows:
1. On December 15, 1989, by Order of Court, the parties
had caused their custody and visitation arrangements to be
modified as set forth in that Order per the Honorable George E.
Hoffer. A copy of the Order is attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibit A.
2. The Court, in its Order, indicated that the
babysitter to be used by the parties was Mrs. Grahm, as long as
she is available, and the parties should share equally in this
cost. In January of 1990 Mrs. Grahm delivered a child and was
consequently unable to care for the Gantz child until March 5,
1990.
3. In the interium months the parties agreed to allow
the mother of Defendant, Kevin Gantz, to temporarily care for the
child during the Father's period of custody while Mrs. Grahm's
sister cared for the child during the Mother's period of custody.
4. Following the return from pregnancy leave of Mrs.
iGrahm, Plaintiff had requested that the child be returned to Mrs.
Grahm pursuant to the Court Order and pursuant to the parties'
previous Agreement.
5. The Defendant has refused to abide by the Court's
Order and has refused to allow the child to return to the
babysitter during his period of physical custody.
6. This refusal is in direct violation of the Court's
Order and consequently, Plaintiff avers, he is in contempt of
this Court's Order of December 15, 1989.
WHEREFORE, for all the above reasons, Plaintiff Kitty L.
Gantz, by and through her attorney, Ron Turo, Esquire,
respectfully requests this Court to hold a hearing and, after
hearing, find the Defendant in contempt of Court and further
order that he comply, in all respects, with this Court's Order of
December 15, 1989 including the requirement to provide the child
to Mrs. Grahm as the babysitter as the parties had previously
agreed.
e
7Resp ctf ully s ed,
?
ON TURD, ESQUIRE
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-9688
Attorney for Plaintiff
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing
document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief. I understand that false statements
herein made are subject to the provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date R TY L. ANTZ
?I
KITTY L'r GAfd,TZ,
Plaintiff
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN RE: CUSTODY
IN THE COURT OF CONi..aN' PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
1754 CIVIL 1989
ORDER _OF_C_O_Uffi
AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 1989, Kitty
L. GGntz hovina appeared in open court together with personal
counsel. Barbara Townsend, Esquire, and Kevin B. Gontz having
appeared together with personal counsel, Steven Hogg, Esquire,
and the Defendant having presented testimony on the custody
matter in regard to the parties' child, Jessica, DOB, July 12,
1988, we order and direct as follows:
(1) The parties shall share equally Joint legal
custody of the child;
(2) The parties shall share equally physical
custody of the child and shall do so by alternating physical
custody of the child on a weekly basis. This shall be done by
transferring the child each Sunday at 7:00 P.m, in a mutually
agreeable manner. The party receiving the child shall be
responsible fe: Pick ur of the child. In view of the fact that
the child is currently nlth the mother, this arrangement shall
start ?tth the father's custody commencing Sunday, December 17,
1989;
1>) Every Christmas, the party not in custody of
the child shall have a visit with the child from noon to 7:00
P.m.;
(4) If either party desires to take their summer
vacation in a two-week increment, the alternating visits shall
,i,ter.a completion of a solid two-week Visii• With that
,dollrticulor parent;
(5) Upon agreement of both parties, as stated to
the Court, so long as Mrs. Grohm is available, she shall
continue to be used as the babysitter; and the Parties shall
equally share this cost.
By the Court,
BARBARA TOWNSEND, ESQUIRE
For the PIointiff
STEVEN HOGG, ESQUIRE
For the Defendant
wcm
r??
KITTY L. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
(KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant IN CUSTODY
PRAECIPE
TO THE PRONOTARY OF THE SAID COURT:
Please settle, discontinue and withdraw the action for
Contempt filed March 20, 1990 on behalf of the Plaintiff in the
above captioned matter. In all other respects the Court Orders
filed at the above captioned number are to remain in effect other
than the Notice and Order to Appear for a hearing previously
scheduled for June 8, 1990 in Courtroom Number 3.
tfully submitted,
Date
v, uvYva..u
2 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-9688
Attorney for Plaintiff
is
C:
?....
KITTY L. GANTZ,
Plaintiff
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
IN CUSTODY
PETITION FOR GRANDPARENT VISITATION
1. Petitioners are Walter H. Gantz, Sr. and Carol L. Gantz,
his wife, who currently reside at 80 Seavers Road, Newville,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Plaintiff/Respondent is Kitty L. Gantz who currently
resides at R.D. #1, Box 75, Walnut Bottom, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
3. Defendant/Respondent is Kevin B. Gantz who currently
resides at R.D. #1, Box 833, Shippensburg, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
4. Respondents are the natural parents of Jessica M. Gantz
born July 12, 1988.
5. Petitioners are the paternal grandparents of the said
Jessica M. Gantz.
6. Respondents are divorced and have been separated since
May 13, 1989.
7. By order of this Honorable Court dated December 15,
SAIDIS, GUIDO
& MASLAND
26 W. High Street
Carlisle, Pa.
1989, Respondents were granted joint legal and physical custody
of the said Jessica M. Gantz, a copy of said order is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A"
8. Petitioners do not know of a person not a party to the
(proceedings who has physical custody of the child or claims to
1have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child.
9. The best interest and permanent welfare of the said
Jessica 14. Gantz will be served by granting visitation rights
to the Petitioners because it will increase the child's
opportunities to experience the natural love and affection of
her grandparents and it will in no way interfere with the
parent/child relationship.
10. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not
been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the
child have been named as parties to this action. All other
persons, named below, who are known to have or claim a right to
custody or visitation of the child will be given notice of the
pendency of this action and the right to intervene: None.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request the court to grant them
reasonable visitation rights with the said Jessica M. Gantz.
Edward E. Guido, Esquire
26 west High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Petitioners
SAIDIS, GUIDO
& MASLAND
26 W. High Street
Carlisle, Pa.
We verify that the statements made in this Petition for
Grandparent visitation are true and correct. We understand that
false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa. C.S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Dated: ('1141Q0 Walter H. Glantz,.
Carol L. Gantz
SAIDIS, GUIDO
At MASLAND
26 W. High Street
Carlisle, Pa.
KJTTY L. GANTZ, -IN THE COURT OF COMMON PkEAS 'OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN RE: CUSTODY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
1754 CIVIL 1989
AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 1989, Kitty
L. Gontz having appeared in open court together with personal
counsel, Barbara Townsend, Esquire, and Kevin B. Gontz having
appeared together with personal counsel, Steven Hogg, Esquire,
and the Defendant having presented testimony on the custody
matter in regard to the parties' child, Jessica, DOB, July 12,
1988, we order and direct as follows:
(1) The parties shall share equally joint legal
custody of the child;
(2) The parties shall share equally physical
custody of the child and shall do so by alternating physical
custody of the child on a weekly basis. This shall be done by
transferring the child each Sunday at 7:00 p.m. in a mutually
agreeable manner. The party receiving the child shall be
responsible for pick up of the child. In view of the fact that
the child is currently with the mother, this arrangement shall
start with the father's custody commencing Sunday, December 17,
1989;
(3) Every Christmas, the party not in custody of
the child shall have a visit with the child from noon to 7:00
p.m.;
(4) If either party desires to take their summer
vacation in a two-week increment, the alternating visits shall
EXHIBIT "A"
" start after a completion of a.solid two-week visit with, that
particular parent;
(5) Upon agreement of both parties, as stated to
the Court, so long as Mrs. Grahm is available, she shall
continue to be used as the babysitter; and the parties shall
equally share this cost.
By the Court,
George E. Hoffer, J.
BARBARA TOWNSEND, ESQUIRE
For the Plaintiff
r/STEVEN HOGG, ESQUIRE
For the Defendant
wcm
KITTY L. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF C014MON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
You, Kitty L. Gantz, Plaintiff/Respondent and Kevin B.
Gantz, Defendant/Respondent have been sued in court to obtain
visitation with the child, Jessica M. Gantz.
You are ordered to appear in person at Courtroom No. J
of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania on
'1?4& 7 r 1990 at 9:30 a-.m., for a hearing.
If you fail to appear as provided by this order, an order
for custody, partial custody or visitation may be entered against
you or the court may issue a warrant for your arrest.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU
DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Court Administrator, Fourth Floor
Cumberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
SAIDIS, GUIDO
& MASLAND
26 W. High Street
Carlisle, Pa.
BY AT COUR ,
J.
r -a
KITTY L. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant IN CUSTODY
/,/, ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this V day of September, 1990 upon request
of Plaintiff, Kitty L. Gantz, it is hereby ordered and directed
Jas follows:
1. The hearing scheduled on grandparent visitation for
September 7, 1990 at 9:30 a.m. is continued due to the medical
problems of the Plaintiff.
2. An interim hearing is hereby scheduled for Tuesday,
(October 2, 1990 at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom Number 3 of the
(Cumberland County Courthouse on a hearing for interim visitation
by the grandparents. The Plaintiff is directed to appear at that
time to provide testimony as to her objections to grandparent
visitation during the day.
3. At the request of the Petitioner Grandparents a
formal hearing is scheduled for Friday, November 2, 1990 at 9:00
a.m. in Courtroom Number 3 of the Cumberland County Courthouse.
All parties are directed to appear at that time for a full
hearing on the merits of the -O
g grandparents' petition.
c.
By the Court,
-- a o
4 '_ M
3- F=?m
-j' -t
4oq E. offer J. Cz Y*
0
KITTY L. GANTZ,
Plaintiff
VS
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
1754 CIVIL 1989
AND NOW, October 2, 1990, 4:20 p.m., after hearing and
consideration of the testimony presented, pending further
hearing in this matter set for November 2, 1990, we do modify
paragraph 5 of our Order of December 15, 1989, to state that,
quote, if the father desires, during the period that he has
custody of the child, he may use the grandparents as
babysitters, the grandparents being Walter and Carol Gantz,
Otherwise, paragraph 5 to remain in full force and effect.
By the Court,
Edward E, Guido, Esquire
For Walter and Carol Gantz
Ron Turo, Esquire
For Kitty Gantt
e g E. Hoffer, J. -
0
mtf
KITTY L. GANTZ, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant IN CUSTODY
PETITION TO MODIFY
AND NOW comes Kevin B. Gantz, through his attorney, Stephen
J. Hogg, Esquire, who comes as follows:
1. Petitioner Kevin B. Gantz who currently resides at R.D.
#1, Box 833, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Respondent is Kitty L. Gantz McBeth, who currently
resides at
3. The parties are the natural parents of Jessica M. Gantz,
born July 12, 1988.
4. By Order of this Honorable Court, dated December 15,
1989, the parties were granted joint legal and physical custody
of said child, a copy of said order is attached hereto as Exhibit
"An
5. Paragraph 5 of Exhibit "A" requires the parties to use
Mrs. Graham as a babysitter for the child.
6. On June 15, 1999, the paternal grandparents of the
child, Walter H. Gantz, Sr, and Carol L. Gantz, filed a Petition
for Grandparent Visitation requesting the right to babysit their
granddaughter during the weeks that Petitioner has custody.
7. Petitioner fully agrees that it would be in the best
interest of his daughter to have his parents babysit her during
his periods of custody.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests this Court to modify Paragraph 5
of the existing Custody Order to provide that the Petitioner may use
the child's paternal grandparents to babysit the child during Pet-
itioner's weeks of custody.
Date: Oct-, yo /ffo
, " 4 ??, &Z'_ W-
tephe . Hogg, squir
401 East Louther St.
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2698
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Petition are true and
correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject
to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
Date:
vin B. a
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire, attorney for the Defendant, do
hereby certify that I served a copy of -he attached Petition to
Modify by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage pre-
paid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed to the following:
Edward Guido, Esq.
26 West High St.
Carlisle, PA 17013
and Ron Turo, Esq.
32 South Bedford St.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date:
401 East Louthei St.
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2698
Attorney for Defendant
LAW OFFICES OF
EPHEN J. HOGG
E. LOUTHER STREET
;ARLISLE, PA 17013
' r
KITTY L. GANTZ,
Plaintiff
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
rq? ORDER
AND NOW, this l-l day of6z• , 1990, upon
consideration of the attached Petition to modify our prior Order
of December 15, 1989, a hearing thereon is scheduled for Friday,
November 2, 1990 at 9:00 A.M. in Courtroom Number 3 of the
Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania and shall be
joined with the hearing on a prior Petition For Grandparent
visitation filed in this matter.
B HE COURT,
4?&J " -
rge .Hoff r, J.
1
w ?,.. ra x'fi
a-pzA
y-> c_ O rn
.. x a?
1A
KITTY L. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant IN CUSTODY
STIPULATION OF COUNSEL
AND NOW comes Ron Turo, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff/
Respondent Kitty L. Gantz and Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire, Attorney
for Defendant/Respondent Kevin B. Gantz, and Edward E. Guido,
Esquire, Attorney for Petitioners Walter H. Gantz, Sr. and Carol
L. Gantz, and stipulate as follows:
1. Petitioners hereby withdraw their Petition for
Grandparent Visitation and the hearing scheduled thereon for
November 2, 1990 shall be cancelled.
2. Defendant/Respondent hereby withdraws his Petition to
modify the prior Custody Order and the hearing scheduled thereon
for November 2, 1990 shall be cancelled.
3. The Court's temporary order of October 2, 1990 attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" shall be made permanent.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned pray this Honorable Court to
SAIDIS, GUIDO
& MASLAND
26 W. High Street
Carlisle, Pa.
enter an order giving effect to t e above sti ri.
1? 7 -
Ron Turo, Esquire
Attorney for Walter H. Gantz, Sr.
and Carol L. Gantz
qo- ?Ka
•• t
KITTY L. GANTZ,
Plaintiff
VS
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
1754 CIVIL 1989
AND NOW, October 2, 1990, 4:20 p.m., after hearing and
consideration of the testimony presented, pending further
hearing in this matter set for November 2, 1990, we do modify
paragraph 5 of our Order of December 15, 1989, to state that,
quote, if the father desires, during the period that he has
custody of the child, he may use the grandparents as
babysitters, the grandparents being Walter and Carol Gantz.
Otherwise, paragraph 5 to remain in full force and effect.
By the Court,
4kr-?
e E. Hoffer, J.
Edward E. Guido, Esquire V
For Walter and Carol Gantz
Ron Tura, Esquire
For Kitty Gantz
mtf
EXHIBIT "A"
KITTY L. GANTZ,
Plaintiff
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW this Y day of 1990, upon Stipulation
of Counsel it is hereby ordered and directed that the Petition
for Grandparent Visitation previously filed in this matter be
dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that paragraph 5 of our Order dated
December 15, 1989 is hereby modified to permit father to use his
parents, Walter H. Gantz, Sr. and/or Carol L. Gantz, as
baby-sitters for his daughter, Jessica M. Gantz during the period
that he has custody of the child. All other provisions of the
order dated December 15, 1989 to remain in full force and effect.
g H e ,
SAIDIS, GUIDO
& MASLAND
26 W. High Street
Carlisle, Pa.
0
_ n
a=?M
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
KEVIN B. GANTZ, 1754 CIVIL 1989
Defendant IN CUSTODY
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY
1. Plaintiff, Kitty M. (Gantt) Henry, is an adult
individual currently residing at 23 Carlisle Road, Newville,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant is Kevin B. Gantz, an adult individual
currently residing at R.D. 1, Shippensburg, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
3. The paternal grandparents of the child at issue in this
case are Walter H. Gantz, Sr., and Carol L. Gantz, both adult
individuals currently residing at 80 Seavers Road, Newville,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
4. Plaintiff and Defendant are the natural parents of the
child, Jessica M. Gantz, born July 12, 1988.
5. The parties and the aforementioned paternal grandparents
are subject to Orders of Court which are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B".
6. The Plaintiff currently resides with her husband, Keith
Henry, and her husband's son, Bryan Henry, at the aforesaid
address.
7. The Defendant currently resides alone at the aforesaid
address.
8. Plaintiff resided at R.D. 1, Box 75, Walnut Bottom,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, from the date of the last order
until October, 1990, when she moved to her current address along
with the child.
9. Effective February 1, 1992, Plaintiff is terminating her
employment and will be available to maintain physical custody of
her child during the workday while Defendant is at work.
10. It is in the best interest of the child to maintain and
build a close relationship between the child and Plaintiff as
will be permitted through an arrangement whereby Plaintiff has
temporary physical custody of the child while the Defendant is
working during his week of physical custody of the child.
11. As the parties have a shared custody arrangement at
this time, both parties are able to provide contact between the
child's grandparents and the child for various periods as the
parties and child deem appropriate.
12. While the current arrangements of a grandparent
"baby-sitting" the child during the workweek instead of a
baby-sitter is preferable, the Plaintiff, who will now be
available to retain custody of the child during the workday, is a
preferable custodian to the grandparents.
13. All parties who have an interest in this proceeding
will be served with a copy of this Petition, including the
paternal grandparents.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests your Honorable Court to enter
an order providing that during the father's week of physical
custody, the child will be with the Plaintiff while the Defendant
is at work.
Respectfully submitted,
GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
Bra a fie Esquire
200?orth Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5551
800-347-5552
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document
are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein
are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904,
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATE:
Y HENRY
KITTY L. GANTZ,
Plaintiff
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN RE: CUSTODY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
'CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
: 1754 CIVIL 1989
AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 1989, Kitty
L. Gantz having appeared in open court together with personal
counsel, Barbara Townsend, Esquire, and Kevin B. Gantz having
appeared together with personal counsel, Steven Hogg, Esquire,
and the Defendant having presented testimony on the custody
matter in regard to the parties' child, Jessica, DOB, July 12,
1988, we order and direct as follows:
(1) The parties shall share equally joint legal
custody of the child;
(2) The parties shall share equally physical
custody of the child and shall do so by alternating physical
custody of the child on a weekly basis. This shall be done by
transferring the child each Sunday at 7:00 p.m. in a mutually
agreeable manner. The party receiving the child shall be
responsible for pick up of the child. In view of the fact that
the child is currently with the mother, this arrangement shall
start with the father's custody commencing Sunday, December 17,
1989;
(3) Every Christmas, the party not in custody of
the child shall have a visit with the child from noon to 7:00
p.m.;
(4) If either party desires to take their summer
vacation in a two-week increment, the alternating visits shall
Exhibit "A"
start after a completion of- a solid two-week visit with that
particular Parent;
(5) Upon agreement of both parties, as stated to
the Court, so long as Mrs. Grahm is available, she shall
continue to be used as the babysitter; and the parties shall
equally share this cost.
By the Court,
George E. Hoffer, J.
BARBARA TOWNSEND, ESQUIRE
For the Plaintiff
c
STEVEN HOGG, ESQUIRE
ti
For the Defendant
wcm = - -
KITTY L. GANTZ,
Plaintiff
VS
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
1754 CIVIL 1989
AND NOW, October 2, 1990, 4:20 p.m., after hearing and
consideration of the testimony presented, pending further
hearing in this matter set for November 2, 1990, we do modify
paragraph 5 of our Order of December 15, 1989, to state that,
quote, if the father desires, during the period that he has
custody of the child, he may use the grandparents as
babysitters, the grandparents being Walter and Carol Gantz.
Otherwise, paragraph 5 to remain in full force and effect.
By the Court,
Edward E. Guido, Esquire
For Walter and Carol Gantz
Ron Turo, Esquire
For Kitty Gantz
mtf
o
e e E Hoffer
J 'o
.
,
. L =
y O
Q
-=m
LZ <
0
Exhibit "B"
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiffs
v
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, F(_" - I'1 ' cl /;
the attached complaint, it is hereby
and their respective counsel appear
, the conciliator, at 4
, upon consideration of
directed that the1 parties
before f+"bC-r7 /, 61'i(Al
?h f jooc Cum b - (o. (oc.tdtix,
on the G VK day of Nlcf L k , 1992, at 1?-1 30 a.m.,
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.
FOR THE COURT,
BY:
`
CUSTODY CONCIL ATOR
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE
SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Office of the Court Administrator
Courthouse, 4th Floor
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
3P1;
l6, IIJ cc E 11 933
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
IN CUSTODY
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 2nd day of March, 1992, comes Bradley L.
Griffie, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff, and states that he
personally mailed a certified and true copy of a Petition for
Modification of Custody to Walter H. Gantz, Sr., and Carol L.
Gantz, at 80 Seavers Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, by certified
mail, return receipt requested. A copy of said receipt is
attached hereto indicating service was February 21, 1992.
Br dl G iffie, squire
GRIPPIE & ASSOCIATES
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 71013
(717) 243-5551
Sworn and subscribed
to this day
of March, 1992.
--------------
Notar'sl Seal
F'iobin J. Gosfam, Nom?Y R6AC
My Comm 17,1995
P 342 648 499
a
N
0
0
t7
N
m
d
c
0
E
0
LL
N
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED
NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
(See Reverse)
Sent to
r
S eel a No
P. Stale pod IP C
Postage b rt
• d
C dl/led Fee
cial Delivery Fee
Restricted Deh,,ery Fee ^ G D
d J
Return Receipt showing
to whom and Date Delivered /
Return Receipt showing to whom,
Date. and Address ot.be0very ;.
TOTAL Postage irO Fee @ L ,
Postmark or Date. O
1992
y 1
h
a
5
Restricted Delivery
• Complete item 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
• Compiew hens 3, and ?a & b.
• Print "ur pans and address on the reverse of this form so
that we can tetwn this card to you.
• Attach this form to the from of the mailpiece, or on the
belt it spot do" not permit.
• Write "Return Receipt Raquas?d" on the maitpisce next to
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an extra
fee):
1. 0 Addresses's Address
2.
4)#j4er /A Gas#?,?5, a?f 4b. "eryi:,
Carl ? "g :Rd
D Express M
7de.vr?llt:, Pry i7ay/ 7•
[3 Insured
? COD
Return Receipt for
*U-& 9.A0: 1900-Y73a/1
'?
5
I I
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
KEVIN B. GANTZ, NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
Defendant IN DIVORCE
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 12th day of March, 1992, comes Bradley L.
Griffie, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff, and states that he
personally mailed a certified and true copy of a Petition for
Modification of Custody to Kevin B. Gantz at 442 West Main
Street, Walnut Bottom, Pennsylvania, by certified mail, return
receipt requested. A copy of said receipt is attached hereto
indicating service was made on March 5, 1992.
r/T ?' /J ./lam
- -----------
le L.' Griffie, Esquire
GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 71013
(717) 243-5551
Sworn and subscribed
to this /;2 ? day
of March, 1992.
IV?W Seel
RohinJ. (3oslbm, Not?vY Rb1c
pRj?Con?imEC?kes?? ».1 95
m
d
m
O
u
u
N
J
N
fA
rn
m
E
O
LL
P 302 648 495
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE ('4WOEO
NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
(See Reverse)
Sent tc
Street an No. .
P.O„ S toad C e 7
,Postage
Certified Fee '1 x
(JV
Speoal Delivery Fee
Restncted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt showing
d
1
to whom and Date Dehvelee
Return Receipt showingg to whom,
Date. and Address of Dehvery
TOTAL Postage and Fgps
?.. Q
Jn
Postmark or Date
y?. J
? r
.
.. SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired, and complete items
3 and 4.
Put your add[es$ in the "RETURN TO" Space on the reverse side. Failure to do this will prevent this card
fell being resurhVid to you...Th return rebel t fee will Provide o t the name of the person delivered to and
the date of me . For sectional ess following services are available. onsu t postmaster or ees
Meet : or additional sarv requested.
en c ec ', _
1. ? Show to wildm deliver6d, de nd.addressee'e address. 2. . Restricted Delivery
(Errm charge) (Eats charge)
3. Article Addressed to: '.. T -
1?,A` a,
I /
6 4. rticle Number
_ D 5
&9 /k 417. VE
_
Z2 RA Z
n Type of Service:
Registered ? Insured
De?itified ? COD
6reae Mail ? Return Receipt
?r
for Mer hantlise
?,Y}j?j /fit f
s Always obtain signature of addressee
or agent and DATE DELIVERED.
5. S' Lure - A asses
R 8. Addressee's Address (ONLY if
requested and fee paid)
6. ign Ure - Agent
x
7. Date of Delivery
5
Ps Form 3811, Apr. 1989 *US.a.P.O. 1faa-taa4ata DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
=?: ? =,
r._,
l',
.?
A 77'
ee, i cc!!±
n-
`• ? r?'11 ?
C-VTi_ A,T,9"J
TP,I CiSr??7•;
?- r
A1n ' \10W t!! S 7f`1 dr7V of A !4t!,: t Dn ;rl Cti
;504'1 ,c, f Barr.? T2St1"!10114' O 9 Cc'.JeS'_ OT ',_,e Ii10}I'P' ''i) tii{
5peG1f.-i.r_ity '-o the orOe - of A.,.1' e f : .
the 50-h?PTS Sp(C1f-C 1-4CY` fOr !le I- „jf_,i-S'_'?1 Cd °?'_.v ?CCS
.. 1 C Uri.. ? f'[Fi.?ti < 1 n1
SnC'? ?Cd i.af r. >d 1? y (7 I1 ( - .CiC!'yl, n . the,
i:.5 1CK 1 ?OPi-VPI-V SI'f ':?t
eo e offa.'_
'S i'?iQ 1. P.y `fieESQ-l,7-I"P,
eor,ar, rOr9. tSghCF
: .
,r ,f 2f
- a
< .
rv
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
VS.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant IN CUSTODY
ORD R F C
AND NOW, this day of 1992, a hearing on the
request of the Plaintiff, Kitty M. Henry, is scheduled for
Friday, August 7, 1992, at 9:00 a.m., at which time the
Plaintiff's request for clarification of the Court's prior Order
dated April 21, 1992, shall be heard with respect to the
following:
A. Plaintiff's request that two specific days per week be
designated during the week of Defendant's custody when Plaintiff
is providing two days of temporary custody during the Defendant's
workday, so as to provide consistency for the parties and the
child; and
B. Plaintiff's request that a specific pick-up and drop-off
time be provided for the same two days; and
C. The mother's request that specific pick-up and drop-off
points be designated for the same two days each week.
v; N. n l;_SN?J3d
A1Nrlca ??a?}y3a?no
AVViGNOt+!__: h? 3N1 30
3Oljd 0 -4 =' L ?
Zfi, RV 9S 01 S any
BY THE COURT,
IOJ41_1?
o Hoff , Judge
AP ? ,f
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiffs
V
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendants
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
:CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:IN CUSTODY
+ S+ ORDER
AND NOW, this day of April, 1992, upon review of the attached
report of the Custody Conciliator, it is ordered and directed as
follows:
A. The Custody Order dated December 15, 1989 is ratified subject
to the modifications set forth below:
B. The initial modification by Order of October 2, 1990 is
deleted from the Custody Order and the following additional
language is added to the Custody Order:
During the period that Father has custody of the child and he
is working while the Mother is not working, Father shall allow
Mother to provide baby-sitting services for the minor child
for two days during the week while Father is at work. For the
remaining three days, Father may use his parents as
baby-sitters. Unless agreed otherwise by the parties them-
selves, Mother shall handle the transportation for pickup of
the child from Father and return of child to Father on those
two days when Mother provides care for the child. Father
may designate his home or his parent's home as the pickup
or delivery location.
BY THE COURT'
J
Ge o fer
cc: Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
Edward E. Guido, Esquire
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
A1Nnoo Ovv'ia H(l?
1'Jxd?C-
&WLS? 7194V
1
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiffs
V
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendants
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
:CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:IN CUSTODY
PRIOR JUDGE ASSIGNED: Honorable George E. Hoffer
CONCILIATOR CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the
following report:
1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the
subject of this litigation are as follows:
Jessica M. Gantz, born July 12, 1988.
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on April 16, 1992 with the
following individuals in attendance:
Mother Kitty M. Henry with her counsel Bradley L. Griffie
and Father Kevin B. Gantz with his counsel Stephen J. Hogg.
and Paternal Grandparents Mr. and Mrs. Walter H. Gantz, Sr.
and their counsel Edward E. Guido.
3. The prior orders in this case dated December 15, 1989 and
October 2, 1990 essentially provide that the parties have shared
legal custody, with physical custody being alternated on a weekly
basis between the parties. The October 2, 1990 order provided
that Father could use his Grandparents as babysitters when the
child was in his custody.
4. Since the entry of the most recent order, circumstances have
changed such that the natural Mother is now not employed. Because
of her availability during the day, Mother desires a modification
of the order to provide that she would be the caretaker for the
minor child during the day while Father is at work when Father has
custody of the child. Father desires to maintain the present
situation whereby his parents babysit for the child during the day
of the week that he has custody and while he is at work.
5. The parties could not agree to a resolution of this matter,
but did agree to allow the Court to enter an order based upon the
conciliation report rather than having a full hearing on this
issue.
6. The history of the case is such that Father was required to go
to Court in 1990 to enforce his desires to allow his parents to
baby-sit the child when the child is in his custody rather than
the child going to a non-blood baby-sitter Mother had desired.
The current custody arrangement during the day will be temporary
in nature in that some other arrangement will need to be
implemented once the child starts kindergarten and first grade.
7. Mother is remarried and has a stepchild at home who is of
school age.
8. Mother did not suggest any specific concern with the
Grandparent's care for the child, but did suggest that the child
would be better off with her during the day while Father is at
work since Mother is currently unemployed.
DATE Hubert X. Gilroy, quire
Custody Conciliat
1
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
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
VS.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
* IN THE COURT OF COMMON
* PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND
* COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
*
* NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
* CIVIL ACTION - LAW
* IN CUSTODY
IN RE: CUSTODY HEARING
Proceedings held before the
HONORABLE GEORGE E. HOFFER, J.,
Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania,
on the 7th day of August, 1992,
commencing at 9:16 a.m. in Courtroom Number Three.
APPEARANCES:
BRADLEY L. GRIFFIE, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
STEPHEN J. HOGG, Esquire
For the Defendant
r,
LJ
2
11
u
1 August 7, 1992
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
2
3 THE COURT: Morning.
4 MR. GRIFFIE: Good morning, Your Honor.
5 This is the time and place set for a hearing on some
6 requests that my client, Kitty Henry, has relative to
7 the custody order in this case; and we're ready to
8 proceed with testimony from Ms. Henry.
9 THE COURT: All right.
10 KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
11 having been first duly sworn and cautioned to testify
12 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
13 testified on her oath as follows:
14
15 E X A M I N A T I O N
16
17 BY MR. GRIFFIE:
18 Q Ms. Henry, please state your name and your
19 current address?
20 A Kitty Beth Henry. 23 Carlisle Road, Newville,
21 PA 17241.
22 Q Ms. Henry, who resides at that residence with
23 you?
24 A Me and my husband, Keith; my daughter -- joint
25 custody, half the time -- Jessica; and my stepson, Brian
I'-1
LJ
3
•
•
1 Henry.
2 Q With respect to Jessica, do you still have a
3 shared-c ustody arrangement?
4 A Yes, we do.
5 Q Forgetting about the holidays and summer or
6 anything special like that, what is the routine week
7 on/week off schedule?
8 A Every Sunday night on the week I get Jessica,
9 I pick h er up at 7 o'clock at Kevin's home on Sunday
10 evening; and then he picks her up on the following
11 Sunday a t 7 o'clock.
12 Q That's been going on for over a year now,
13 right?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Now, is it correct that you recently became
16 unemploy ed?
17 A Yes, it is.
18 Q Was that by your choice?
19 A Yes.
20 Q What did you do once you knew you would not be
21 working every day as you had been?
22 A I desired to have time during the day with
23 Jessica since I was home, and I called Kevin and told
24 him what I was doing and told him that I'd like to watch
25 her duri ng the day while he was working, and he told me
0
4
•
1 no.
2 Q Was that during -- that would be during his
3 week?
4 A During his week, during the day.
5 Q Okay. But rather than her being with someone
6 else, you asked him if you could keep her d uring the
7 day?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Okay. When he refused that, did you then
10 initiate the petition that caused us to go to the
11 conciliat or?
12 A Yes.
• 13 Q And the order that came out dated April 21,
14 1992, is that the order that resulted from your
15 petition?
16 A Yes.
17 Q That provides -- what do you have now? What
18 time do y ou have with Jessica now during Mr . Gantz's
19 week of c ustody?
20 A Typically, it had been, timewise, 7 o'clock
I
,
21 pick her up at his house; and 4:30 in the a fternoon --
22 Q You take her back?
23 A -- I take her back to him.
24 Q How many days a week?
25 A Two days.
•
5
•
•
1 Q Was that something that, in essence, was left
2 to luck of the draw or the draw of the Court?
3 A That was based on, you know, going in front of
4 the conciliator and leaving it to him to talk to the
5 judge, and then have the judge make a decision.
6 Q You wanted all five days. And what had
7 Mr. Gantz presented at the conciliator?
8 A Yes, I wanted all five days.
9 Q What did he want?
10 A Nothing, to my knowledge.
11 Q He still wanted you to have no days during his
12 week?
13 A Yes.
14 Q What came out of it was some type of
15 compromise, that was two days?
16 A Yes.
17 Q So routinely, you have picked her up at
18 7 o'clock in the morning and taken her back at 4:30. Is
19 that correct?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Where have you gone to pick up and drop off?
22 A Typically, it had been at a cousin's home.
23 There have been a few occasions -- well, there was one
24 occasion where I dropped off with the grandparents,
25 Walter and Carol. And there were two occasions where
49
6
l J
•
1 Kevin came to my house and picked her up.
2 Q Are you and Kevin able to discuss and agree
3 upon details regarding Jessica?
4 A No.
5 Q Has that been pretty much the case ever since
6 you separated?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Is one of the -- are two of the three requests
9 you've made to the Court have to do with picking up and
10 dropping off Jessica?
11 A Yes.
12 Q What are you asking the Court to do?
13 A I'm asking for two specific days in the week
14 for continuity purposes so that I can plan things to do,
15 things with her, on the days that I do have her.
16 Q How about with the pick-up and drop-off time,
17 is this 7 o'clock a.m. to 4:30 p.m., are you asking that
18 that be put in the order?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And the other request, you're asking that the
21 order say pick up and drop off Jessica at his home,
22 Mr. Gantz's home?
23 A Yes.
24 Q What if there were some type of emergency
25 where you had to pick up early or drop her off late or
0
7
•
•
1 pick up her somewhere else?
2 A That's understandable. I would have no
3 problem with that.
4 Q But the two of you do have conflicts when you
5 try to agree with anything on Jessica?
6 A Yes.
7 Q So to have the time and date -- or the time
8 and place set in there would help everybody?
9 A Yes, I think it would.
10 Q With respect to the two days per week, do you
11 care what two days of his week you have Jessica?
12 A No, I don't.
13 Q So when do you find out during -- when you
14 will have her during his week?
15 A Well, at this point, you know, where it is
16 right now, I have to call him on Saturday night to find
17 out which two days it will be of that week.
18 Q Do you always find out Saturday night?
19 A Usually, recently, he went on a vacation and
20 said he wo uld call me Sunday night and let me know, so
21 it was Sun day night before the week started.
22 Q So at least one occasion, it was like Sunday
23 night he m ight have told you you're going to have her
24 Monday and Tuesday, for example?
25 A That didn't happen, but that could happen.
E
8
•
•
1 Q What type of things as far as planning do you
2 have that you need to have this consistency, you need to
3 know when you're picking up your daughter?
4 A Like I've been saying, it's different things.
5 It's really -- since I only have her two days, I'd like
6 to make, you know, quality time out of that time.
7 There's different things. Jessica is really close to
8 her one cousin, and they have three children. And a
9 crazy schedule, too. But if they knew what days it was
10 going to be, they could plan the week so that Jessica
11 could to get together with that cousin.
12 Oh, see, there's a lot of planning with our
13 church. We do a lot of activities where the mothers and
14 the children get together. And a lot of time we need
15 counts on different things, you know, like a month of
16 ahead of time to go do these things and plan. And
17 that's very difficult to do when you don't know what day
18 it's going to be till Saturday when you have a lot of
19 people involved and so --
20 Q Are there any -- how about appointments or
21 anything like that where you actually have to schedule
22 appointments?
23 A Oh, it's very difficult to schedule those kind
24 of appointments when you're -- you don't know what days
25 you're going to have.
0
9
0
I?
L
1 Q Have you already had conflicts like that?
2 A I've had some conflicts, you know. And if I
3 had her all the time, I mean, that wouldn't be a
4 problem. But since I have the two days, I try to
5 schedule everything that's about spending time with
6 Jessica on those days. When I have to schedule
7 appointments like three to four weeks out, I have no
8 idea what days they're going to be. It ends up
9 conflicting.
10 Q Had you had specific times where you had to
11 schedule appointments?
12 A Yeah. Recently, I had to go for a long
13 distance appointment, and I had to schedule it a month
14 ahead of time. And I just, you know, picked a day. I
15 said, I guess we'll schedule it that day and hope that
16 it doesn't conflict, you know, so I don't have my
17 daughter because I didn't want to take her on a long
18 distance thing like that. And it ended up I -- instead
19 of -- it's supposed to be a four-week appointment, and I
20 scheduled it for the following week then, and took her
21 with me, so --
22 Q In fact, did we have a conflict when you
23 scheduled an appointment with me, and it turned
24 out -- it turned out to be a day that you had Jessica?
25 A Well, just recently, this past Tuesday, I
r 1
U
10
0
•
1 scheduled it two weeks ahead of time and -- not that I
2 wanted to go there, but I had to. And it ended up
3 falling on that same day.
4 Q Is Jessica learning the days of week, or does
5 she know the days of the week?
6 A We're working on it. We read a lot of books
7 and talk about Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and different
8 seasons and different things like that.
9 Q Having worked with one week on/one week off
10 schedule for a year and a half and or so now, is she
11 pretty well ingrained to that?
12 A Yes. She knows on Sunday, she knows the days
13 that we go to church, oh, Daddy, comes tonight. I say,
14 yeah, honey, that's when Daddy comes, tonight.
15 Q You can't do anything, any planning with her,
16 planning in her mind, to know when she's going to be
17 with you the two days of her dad's week?
18 A No, I can't.
19 Q Are there any things that she's involved in,
20 extra things that she's been involved in, that there
21 have been some problems come up because of not knowing
22 the days you had her?
23 A Liked said, getting together with friends
24 and stuff. But recently, I wanted to get her enrolled
25 for -- in my week -- for swimming. And they said to me,
0
11
•
•
1 they said, we'd like to do a quick test on her. Is
2 there any way that you could bring her in the other week
3 so we could get just her in quicker to see where she's
4 at so we could plan. I said, well, you know, I want to
5 sign her up right now; but I can't tell you -- be able
6 to tell you what day that's going to be until Saturday.
7 And they have so many kids, you know, it's kind of hard
8 to say, well, I'll wait till Monday to tell, you know,
9 if it's going to be Monday or Tuesday.
10 Q Now, before you had these two days, who was
11 responsible for watching Jessica, to your knowledge?
12 A During his week? His parents, Carol and
13 Walter.
14 Q Are they still the ones that keep her for the
15 three days as far as you know?
16 A Yes.
17 Q So with respect to the time, 7 o'clock a.m.
18 pick up and a 4:30 drop-off time, is that any more
19 important during the school year that you have a -- know
20 a designated time for sure when you're going to pick up
21 Jessica?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Why is that?
24 A With my stepson being there -- he's ten now.
25 But there is a certain time when I need to get him off.
0
12
•
1 And with a 7:00 to 4:30 time right now, that works out
2 really well, because I know I'm going to get up (sic) at
3 7:30, so I get back in time to get him up and get him on
4 his way.
5 Q But your requests are not as much asking for
6 your specific days that you want or your specific time
7 or you designating where the pick up is; it's not that.
8 It's just that whatever it is, you'd like it written
9 down so you know what -- your week. Am I correct on
10 that?
11 A Yes, that's right.
12 Q In other words, if Mr. Gantz made it 7:30 in
• 13 the morning, does that matter?
14 A Not during the summertime; it's not as hard.
15 But in a school year, you'll work with it if you have
16 to.
17 Q So long as you know a time, then you can work
18 a schedule?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And the same is true with two days?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Any two days, if it's Monday, Friday, if it's
23 Wednesday, Thursday, whatever two days to be picked will
24 be fine just so you know, then you and your daughter can
25 plan. Is that right?
n
U
13
• s
ht
i
1 .
, ye
g
A R
2 MR. GRIFFIE: That's all the questions I
3 have.
4
5 C R 0 S S- E X A M I N A T I O N
6
7 BY MR. HOGG:
8 Q Mrs. Henry, I'm a little confused here.
9 Listening to your testimony, it sounds almost as if the
10 two days that you have during Kevin's week are the only
11 two days that you have your daughter. But you have had
12 your week, your alternate --
13 A Yes.
14 Q -- since you've been unemployed. Is that
15 correct?
16 A Yes.
17 Q You haven't missed a week?
18 A No.
19 Q You were discussing the -- what happened with
20 trying to make an appointment one month ahead.
21 Was that impossible to make during your week
22 of custody?
23 A That's what I ended up doing, but the doctor
24 wanted to see me on a four-week period versus five
25 weeks.
•
14
\J
CJ
1 Q If I understand your testimony, you were
2 saying that that was the day that you were not available
3 to babysit because you didn't want to take her with you?
4 A Oh, I would have taken her with me; but it was
5 out of state; and I don't care to take her out of state
6 on that day if I don't have to.
7 Q I'm asking you, are you saying that day was
8 less convenient for you, and you didn't know whether or
9 not that that would be a day that you would have her?
10 A I didn't know if that was the day I was going
11 to have her; and I wanted make best of the time when I
12 do have her, so I wouldn't have scheduled anything on
13 that day had I known I had her.
14 Q Well, during the time that this order for two
15 days have been in effect, when you have talked to Kevin
16 prior to the -- his week about the two days that you're
17 going to have, have you ever told him, look, this day is
18 inconvenient for me; how about if we pick whatever days?
19 A No. Because it's his responsibility to tell
20 me which two days it will be. So he didn't tell me
21 that. That's what the order says.
22 Q Have you ever expressed to him that the day
23 that he picks is not good for you?
24 A No, I have not. Because I don't want it to
25 appear that I don't want her then.
15
•
C?
J
1 Q The activities that you've discussed.
2 Have you actually arranged any activities for Kevin's
3 week -- have you made any arrangements for any
4 activities, or are these just things that you would like
5 to do if you have two specific days?
6 A These are things that came up, you know. They
7 weren't something that was prearranged saying
8 that -- this particular day. You know, as I said about
9 swimming, you know, that time period is set by a high
10 school. It's nothing that I can change, so -- it's a
11 two week period.
12 Q So you haven't made those arrangements; is
13 that your answer?
14 A I went to schedule her for my week of custody,
15 and that's when they wanted to test her. And they asked
16 me if I could come during the first week of the swimming
17 instead of the second week since they wanted to have her
18 the whole week, and then that's when the reservation was
19 to get her in. And I said I can't tell you. I'm sorry.
20 Q That was just one day?
21 A That's for testing. I could have had her in
22 for the two full weeks if I had her full-time, but
23 that's not possible.
24 Q Again, at that time, did you tell Kevin the
25 week before that you were to bring her in one day? Did
0
16
•
•
1 you tell him that you needed her on a specific day that
2 week --
3 A No, I didn't.
4 Q -- to test her?
5 A No, I did not.
6 Q And you mentioned family commitments or
7 opportunities to see the family. Is that impossible
8 during your week?
9 A We do it all the time during our week. And I
10 like to make time for these other two days now because
11 she's so close to this cousin since I do have her and
12 all.
13 Q But it's not as if she doesn't see them for
14 months at a time? She does see them at least every
15 other week --
16 A Yes, she does.
17 Q -- is that correct?
18 A The recent exchanges that you've had with
19 Jessica, have you taken a tape recorder to those?
20 MR. GRIFFIE: Objection to relevance,
21 Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Has she what?
23 MR. HOGG: Taken a tape recorder.
24 THE COURT: Where?
25 MR. HOGG: To the exchanges.
17
•
1 THE COURT: What are we getting into
2 here, sir?
3 MR. HOGG: Well, my point is there are
4 some communication problems here.
5 THE COURT: I suspect there probably are.
6 So?
7 MR. HOGG: Well, I'm getting to the point
8 that if Mrs. Henry is desirous of two specific days,
9 that needs to be something that the parties need to
10 communicate on. Up to this point, as her testimony
11 indicates, she hasn't expressed any preference for --
12 THE COURT: Well, let's argue -- you can
• 13 argue that to me. I'm asking you what's the relevance
14 of whether she takes a tape recorder to this meeting?
15 MR. HOGG: Withdrawn.
16 THE COURT: Huh?
17 MR. HOGG: I'll withdraw that.
18 THE COURT: Oh, okay.
19 MR. HOGG: I have no further questions.
20 THE COURT: Step down.
21 MR. GRIFFIE: Your Honor, we have nothing
22 further to present.
23 MR. HOGG: Kevin Gantz.
24
25 (No Omissions.)
•
18
•
1 KEVIN B. GANTZ,
2 having first been duly cautioned and swor n to testify
3 the truth, the whole truth and nothing bu t the truth,
4 testified on his oath as follows:
5
6 E X A M I N A T I O N
7
8 BY MR. HOGG:
9 Q Please state your full name.
10 A Kevin Brian Gantz.
11 Q And your current address?
12 A 442 West Main Street, Walnut Bo ttom,
• 13 Pennsylvania.
14 Q And you've heard the testimony of Kitty Henry
15 concerning the past custody arrangements as far as your
16 daughter, Jessica, is concerned?
17 A Yes, I have.
18 Q Is that essentially correct as far as the week
19 on/week off arrangements?
20 A It's essentially correct except for the fact
21 that it's been going on for about two and a half years
22 now.
23 Q Longer than one year?
24 A That's correct.
25 Q Now, prior to the current order which allowed
•
19
• i
1 tty Henry two days during your week, what arrangements
K
2 did you make for baby-sitting for Jessica?
3 THE COURT: Prior to that?
4 Q (By Mr. Hogg) Prior to the two day a week
5 order?
6 A The arrangements that I made were for my
7 parents to watch her while I was at work.
8 Q Where is it that you work?
9 A I work for Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company.
10 Q Do you have a set schedule there? Are you on
11 shift work?
12 A No, I do not have a set schedule. I'm
• 13 responsible for a department of fifty people with
14 twenty-four hour a day operation, which means that I can
15 be in at work at any time; and sometimes I don't have
16 complete control of when I have to be there. Sometimes
17 I have to be there for certain things.
18 THE COURT: What do you do? You the
19 manager of a certain department?
20 THE WITNESS: I'm the SPC Coordinator --
21 Statical Processing Control -- and Area Facilitator,
22 which is similar to a department manager.
23 THE COURT: You paid a salary or hourly?
24 THE WITNESS: Salary, Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: And do you normally have a
•
20
U
•
1 workday?
2 THE WITNESS: Business hours are 7:00 to
3 5:00 -- 7:00 a.m to 5:00 p.m.
4 THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel.
5 Q (By Mr. Hogg) Your parents, then, where do
6 they live?
7 A 80 Seavers Road, Newville, Pennsylvania.
8 Q How far is that from your house?
9 A I've never actually tested or measured it, but
10 it's approximately four miles.
11 Q And, again, prior to the two day a week order
12 in April of this year, how did you arrange the
13 baby-sitting during your work week when you had Jessica?
14 A Would you repeat the question, please.
15 THE COURT: I thought you already asked
16 this.
17 MR. HOGG: Pardon?
18 THE COURT: Every time you say again, you
19 tell me you've already asked a question. When did
20 grandma babysit?
21 MR. HOGG: Well, I'm asking what the
22 arrangements were.
23 Q (By Mr. Hogg) Would you drop her off there,
24 and then pick her up?
25 A At my parents' house?
0
21
n
U
?J
1 Q Yes.
2 A Yes, I did.
3 Q Do your parents work?
4 A Yes, they do.
5 Q What do they do?
6 A My father works full-time for Bethlehem Steel;
7 and my parents, together, operate a moderate log
8 operation.
9 Q Your father's schedule, is he on a regular
10 shift at Bethlehem Steel?
11 A No, he is not.
12 Q How does his shift work?
13 A It depends on the productivity level where
14 he's working at. If things are slow, sometimes he can
15 be on one shift for the whole week. If things are
16 relatively busy down where he works, he could be working
17 three -- all three shifts on the same week.
18 Q The farm operation, is that a full-time
19 operation then?
20 A Yes, it is.
21 Q And does your mother get involved in that?
22 A Yes, she does.
23 Q And are there certain days, then, during the
24 week that would be difficult for them to, either because
25 of his work schedule at Bethlehem Steel or the farm
is
22
•
1 operation, for them to have Jessica?
2 A Yes, there are days that are difficult.
3 Q Okay. And you worked around that when you had
4 Jessica your full week?
5 A Yes, we did.
6 Q Now, how did you do that? How did you work
7 around it?
8 A Well, for certain times, I've taken off work.
9 We've hired outside help to come in.
10 THE COURT: Babysitter?
11 THE WITNESS: No. To do the work so that
12 my mother was free to babysit.
• 13 THE COURT: Oh, at the farm?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 THE COURT: All right.
16 A And, you know, we've changed our schedules
17 and done things that other -- at other times when it was
18 less convenient so that we could reserve it to babysit.
19 Q (By Mr. Hogg) Now, since this order has been
20 in place, since April, you've generally had Kitty pick
21 Jessica up at your house. Is that correct?
22 A That's correct
23 Q And then she brings her back --
24 A That's correct.
25 Q -- in the evening?
•
23
•
•
1 Why is it that you have made this arrangement
2 the week before to discuss with her which days the
3 upcoming week would be -- which days she would get
4 Jessica?
5 A Well, first of all, I have to look at my work
6 schedule at the end of my work week. I try to
7 anticipate what I have to do the week -- next week. And
8 I take a look at what I need to do and when I need to be
9 into work. The second thing is my father doesn't know
10 his work schedule until Friday, late Friday afternoon;
11 and sometimes --
12 Q Excuse me.
13 A -- it's until Saturday.
14 Q On your work schedule, are there days that you
15 can take off during the week?
16 A Yes, I can.
17 Q How much vacation do you have?
18 A I get ten days.
19 Q You take any of those days individually?
20 A Yes, I may. I may take one day or a group of
21 days any time.
22 Q And then your father's schedule, you indicate
23 that som etimes varies during the week?
24 A Yes, it does.
25 Q And how about the operation of the farm?
0
24
• 1 THE COURT: What about it?
2 Q Well, as far as --
3 THE COURT: What are you asking him?
4 Q Does that -- how does the operation of the
5 farm vary from day to day during the week as far as
6 you're -- either both your parents or just your mother,
7 if your father's at work, having Jessica?
8 A Well, obviously, doing some of the work
9 is -- when that gets accomplished is going to be
10 reflected by my dad's work schedule. The weather has a
11 lot to do with that, depending on what season you're in,
12 corn planting or picking -- harvesting corn in the fall.
13 I know this spring, I personally took a day's vacation
• h
t
14 a
during the week that I did not have my daughter so t
15 we could get some work done and not interfere with the
16 week that I had custody.
17 Q Now, at some point during this two day a week
18 schedule, have you asked Kitty Henry to choose a day
19 herself?
20 A Yes, I did.
21 Q So that each of you chose one day for the
22 upcoming week?
23 A That's correct.
24 Q Is that a schedule that you can work with, as
25 far as each of you picking a day?
F- 1
LJ
25
•
1 A Yes, I can work with that.
2 Q So even if she would pick one -- the same day
3 every week you can --
4 A I can't say that that would work all the time.
5 I think -- I assumed it would need the flexibility of
6 saying, well, you know, that particular day this week is
7 not good for whatever reason.
8 MR. HOGG: I don't think I have any
9 further questions.
10
11 C R 0 S S- E X A M I N A T I O N
12
13 BY MR. G RIFFIE:
14 Q Mr. Gantz, did your attorney tell you that he
15 met twic e with this Judge trying to figure out two
16 specific days a week that would be good?
17 A Yes, he did.
18 Q What happens if you get called into work
19 during the week when you have Jessica?
20 A I've never come across that problem. If I
21 did, I'd contact my parents.
22 Q You've never been called in in two and a half
23 years during the week that you had Jessica?
24 A (Witness shakes head.)
25 Q What's your work schedule?
u
26
n
U
•
1 A What is my work schedule?
2 Q Uh-huh.
3 A It's flexible.
4 Q When do you go to work?
5 A Whenever I feel like it.
6 Q Sir, when do you go to work during the day?
7 A Whenever I feel like it.
8 Q Isn't it correct that ever since this two week
9 thing -- this two day thing was changed, you have made
10 arrangements for Kitty to pick Jessica up at 7 o'clock
11 every time, 7 o'clock a.m.?
12 A Yes, I have.
13 Q When do you go to work, right then?
14 A Yes, I do.
15 Q So you go to work and you're there at 7:30; is
16 that righ t?
17 A Yes, I do.
18 Q And you leave at 4:00, is that right,
19 normally?
20 A On the day that she's baby-sitting Jessica.
21 Q When you normally go to work, do you normally
22 leave at 4:00?
23 A It depends on what I'm involved in --
24 Q How many hours --
25 A -- on the days --
•
27
•
•
1
2 Wait a minute
THE COURT REPORTER: Wait a minute.
You have to go one at a time. Thank
3 you.
4 Q (By Mr. Griffie) You finally got to the point
5 where you told me you go to work at 7:30. I'm not sure
6 why that was so hard.
7 A When she watches Jessica, that's when I do go
8 to work.
9 Q When do you go to work during the five days
10 that you have Jessica?
11 A 6:00, 6:30 --
12 Q You get Jessica --
13 A -- 8:00.
14 Q -- up and take her over to your mom's --
15 A When I have Jessica --
16 Q -- at 6:00 in the morning?
17 A -- yes.
18 Q When you have Jessica --
19 THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait a minute.
20 I'm going to have to hold my hand when he's talking, and
21 then give you a signal when to start talking again.
22 And I'm g oing to have to do the same thing to you,
23 Mr. Gantz . She can only take one person at a time, and
24 it's not a contest to see who can interrupt when you're
25 both talk ing. Now, let's do this --
•
28
•
•
1 MR. GRIFFIE: Your Honor, we might not
2 need this if Gantz were to simply tell us what his work
3 schedule is.
4 Q (By Mr. Griffie) So you have that
5 flexibility. So if the Judge says in this order that
6 Kitty will pick Jessica up at 7 o'clock a.m. and will
7 return her at 4:30 p.m., you can comply with that?
8 A I don't know that I can every time.
9 Q Okay. Why couldn't you?
10 A Well, for example, sometimes we run trials at
11 odd hours; and I have to be there.
12 Q What odd hours?
13 A 5 o'clock in the morning, 6 o'clock in the
14 evening, odd hours.
15 Q When that happens during your week with
16 Jessica, you have to get Jessica up at 4:30 or 5 o'clock
17 in the morning?
18 A If that were to happen, yes.
19 Q And if for some reason now that your parents
20 only have Jessica three days instead of five, it's a
21 terrible inconvenience to have her for those three days?
22 A It restricts the amount of flexibility that I
23 have.
24 Q Well, if now you only have to -- they only
25 have to have her three days, what in the world -- and
0
29
•
1 it's such a problem -- what in the world did you do when
2 you did it five days?
3 A Well, I had five days to work with.
4 Q You had Jessica five days?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q Well, if it's a problem to have her certain
7 days a week and that's when you want to use Kitty for,
8 then what did you do during those weeks when it was a
9 problem and you weren't using Kitty?
10 A I said I personally took vacation. I left
11 work early or went into work late.
12 Q So if the Judge said Kitty would have Jessica
13 on Thursday and Friday every week, when she does this
14 during your week, it's not that that would create a
15 problem. It's that Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday
16 might possibly be a problem, right?
17 A Or Thursday or Friday could be a problem.
18 Q If you don't have Jessica, why would it be a
19 problem?
20 A The time that I have to be at work, it might
21 be a problem.
22 Q Do you have a phone?
23 A Sure.
24 Q Would you call her and ask her if there was
25 some type of emergency to pick Jessica up early or drop
L J
30
•
•
1 her off later?
2 A Sure, if your client could do the same to me,
3 too.
4 Q So if these emergencies that have never
5 happened during your week that you have had Jessica
6 would happen to occur on these two days, you could pick
7 up the phone and say, I have to go in early; can you
8 pick her up at 6:00?
9 A Yeah, I've done that already. I've called
10 your client and said, you know, look, if you need to
11 come back into town, I'll pick her up.
12 Q So even though you have a schedule to work
13 with just as you had a custody schedule to work with it,
14 is it possible when emergencies arise to modify that?
15 A That's correct. I've taken every court order
16 that I've been given and made the best out of it.
17 Q You indicate that you dropped -- you drop
18 Jessica off at your parents and they keep her. Is there
19 some reason that you could not drop off or pick up
20 Jessica at Kitty's house?
21 A It's more traveling time.
22 A If, in fact, the Judge says, for example,
23 during your week of custody, Kitty will have Jessica on
24 Thursdays and Fridays, and if for some reason on the
25 farm Wednesday is a terrible workday and it's not good
0
31
r 1
U
1 to have Jessica there, is there any reason you can't
2 call Kitty and have her come get Jessica then?
3 A No, there would be no reason at all. Unless,
4 of course, you know, she said that she has problems,
5 maybe she has a conflict. I don't know.
6 Q So you might not even have to. You never did
7 that, though, in the past, did you, during your week
8 when you had to hire outside help or you took off work,
9 you never called Kitty to see if there were arrangements
10 she could make, did you?
11 A Was there a need to?
12 Q Well, I asked a question. Did you ever do it?
13 A There was no need to.
14 Q You never did?
15 A No, we always worked it out ourselves.
16 Q So that even if two days were designated, if a
17 problem arose during the other three days, and Kitty
18 Henry is available to keep the child, you can use her,
19 that's one option, correct?
20 A (No audible response.)
21 Q Correct?
22 A If she's available.
23 Q Okay. And the second option is to do what you
24 always did if you have conflicts: You hire outside help
25 or you take off a day of work, right?
U
32
U
•
1 A That's right.
2 MR. GRIFFIE: I have no further questions.
3 THE COURT: Anything else?
4 MR. HOGG: Just a few.
5
6 R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N
7
8 BY MR. HOGG:
9 Q Mr. Gantz, what was your understanding of the
10 travel arrangements under the court order in April
11 giving Mrs. Henry two days?
12 A My understanding of the travel arrangements
13 were th at she was to provide transportation to and from
14 my home unless we agreed otherwise.
15 Q And is that what is happening?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Since April?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And has she ever expressed any -- told you
20 that th ere was any problem with that arrangement or
21 request ed you to make some other arrangements?
22 A No, she has not.
23 MR. HOGG: That's all I have.
24 MR. GRIFFIE: Nothing further, Your
25 Honor.
0
33
•
•
1 THE COURT: How long have you been at the
2 Carlisle Tire & Rubber?
3 THE WITNESS: Almost five years, Your
4 Honor.
5 THE COURT: And you've had some --
6 training of some kind to become a manager, or has it
7 just been on-the-job traini ng?
8 THE WITNESS: It's been on-the-job
9 training.
10 THE COURT: You've worked your way up in
11 the department, I assume?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: All right. At Carlisle Tire
14 & Rubber, you manufacturer rubber products of some kind?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: And you put together a
17 compound, I guess, and you run tests on it ever so often
18 to insure you conform to th at. Is that what you're
19 telling me?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, we do that. We also
21 investigate new process and methods of the production.
22 THE COURT: Well, I mentioned that
23 because you talk about runn ing a test at unexpected
24 hours sometimes.
25 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
0
34
n
1 THE COURT: When was the last time you
2 ran a 5:00 a.m. test?
3 THE WITNESS: Last time that I had to be
4 in early was sometime within the last three months.
5 Last summer, we moved a four-wheel calender down from
6 Syntec, and I was responsible for training the people.
7 THE COURT: That was 1991?
8 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honor.
9 I was responsible for training our people how to run
10 that calender. That is part of the responsibility of
11 Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company having that calender. We
12 need the calender stuff for SynTec, and there's been
13 quite a number of times that I've gone in to work at
14 3;30, 4 a.m., 5:00 a.m. to help those people learn how
15 to run Carlisle/Syntec material.
16 THE COURT: All right. All right. Fine.
17 Was that last summer you're talking about?
18 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor, that's
19 still going on today.
20 THE COURT: When was the last time you
21 when in at 5:00 a.m.?
22 THE WITNESS: I don't have the specific
23 date.
24 THE COURT: Well, was it one month ago,
25 two months ago, three months ago?
0
35
•
1 THE WITNESS: It was within the last
2 three months.
3 THE COURT: One time within the last
4 three months?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Okay. How about the last six
7 months?
8 THE WITNESS: It's been several times.
9 THE COURT: Several I take to mean three?
10 THE WITNESS: Three, four.
11 THE COURT: All right. How many times
12 have you been in at 6 p.m.?
• 13 THE WITNESS: It could have been twenty,
14 twenty-five times in the la st five months.
15 THE COURT: So you stayed that late
16 sometimes in your workday; is that what you're saying?
17 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Generally, you go in --
19 let me start over.
20 What time does th e shift come in at Tire &
21 Rubber?
22 THE WITNESS: The day shift comes in at
23 7 a.m. and works till 3 p.m , if you're an hourly worker.
24 Generally, when I don't hav e my daughter, Your Honor, I
25 try to be there prior to 7 o'clock so that I can talk to
•
36
C
r1
U
1 anybody on the 11:00 to 7:00 crew before they leave to
2 handle any problem or anything like that.
3 When I have my daughter --
4 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I understand
5 your being in management that you're not tied to
6 punching a clock out there; but your schedule is kind of
7 somewhere around 7:00 a.m. to 4 or 5 o'clock. Is that
8 the idea?
9 THE WITNESS: Generally, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Okay. Fine. I understand.
11 You may yo u may step down. Anything else?
12 MR. GRIFFIE: No, Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: You're resting?
14 MR. GRIFFIE: (Nods head.) -- yes.
15 THE COURT: Close the record for the
16 arguments.
17 (WHEREUPON, arguments were held.
18 Brad Griffie for the Plaintiff and
19 Stephen Hogg for the Defendant.)
20 THE COURT: I'm going to take a recess.
21 (WHEREUPON, at 10:07 a.m., a short
22 recess was taken.)
23 MR. HOGG: Your Honor, Mr. Gantz would
24 agree to a Thursday/Friday schedule, if two days
25 are -- it must be two specific days.
37
•
1 THE COURT: Pardon?
2 MR. HOGG: If it must be two specific
3 days, he will agree to a Thursday/Friday schedule.
4 THE COURT: All right.
5 MR. HOGG: The same as they have done:
6 7 o'clock to 4:30 with Mrs. Henry being responsible for
7 the pick up at Mr. Gantz's home -- the pick up and the
8 drop off.
9 (WHEREUPON, the following order was
10 entered.)
li THE COURT: AND NOW, this date, the Court
12 having heard testimony on the request of the mother to
13 set further specificity to the order of April 21, 1992,
14 we direct that the mother's specific days for her
15 "baby-sitting services" shall be Thursday and Friday,
16 and the times shall be 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and the
17 point of pick up and redelivery shall be the father's
18 house.
19 THE COURT: Anything else?
20 MR. HOGG: Nothing further.
21 THE COURT: Anything else?
22
23
24
25
(No Omissions.)
0
38
• 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
Honor.
MR. GRIFFIE: Nothing further, Your
THE COURT: Court's in recess.
(WHEREUPON, the proceedings
concluded at 10:25 a.m.)
U
39
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
I
?J
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.
,I
Rebecca R. Sheelyy, CSR
The foregoing record of the proceedings upon the
above cause is hereby approved and directed to be filed.
(ff I ?--
l"?? Y y
?? {'-
??
.
lJ
per
W 4
???
y
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
VS.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
IN CUSTODY
PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AND
DETERMINATION OF LEGAL CUSTODY RIGHTS
AND NOW comes Kitty M. Henry, the above named Plaintiff, by
and through her counsel of record, Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire,
and petitions the Court as follows:
1. Your Petitioner is Kitty M. Henry, the above named
Plaintiff and an adult individual currently residing at 23
Carlisle Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Your Respondent is Kevin B. Gantz, the above named
Defendant and an adult individual currently residing at 442 West
Main Street, Walnut Bottom, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. The parties are subject to an Order of Court dated
December 15, 1989, which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference as Exhibit "A"
4. The parties' prior Order, which is attached as Exhibit
"A", has been modified by order of Court dated April 21, 1992,
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as
Exhibit "B".
5. The aforesaid Order was further modified by order of
Court dated the 7th day of August, 1992, which is attached hereto
and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C".
6. During various periods of time since the entry of the
Court's Order of August 7, 1992, which Order followed an
extensive hearing just to determine the two days during
Respondent's week when Petitioner would have physical custody of
the parties' child while the Respondent was at work, the
Respondent has failed and refused to follow the Orders of Court
entered in this case by advising Petitioner on several occasions
that he is not going to be at work and, thus, refuses Petitioner
the opportunity to have physical custody of her child as set
forth in the order of August 7, 1992.
7. Petitioner is aware that Respondent, in fact, has been
working on numerous occasions when he claims to be home with the
child for purposes of denying Petitioner the opportunity to be
with the child.
8. Respondent's prior refusal to cooperate with your
Honorable Court and the Petitioner in even selecting two specific
days to allow Petitioner to have physical custody of her daughter
during Respondent's week while he is at work, and Respondent's
failure and refusal to cooperate with the Court and Petitioner in
setting specific pick-up and delivery times and pick-up and
delivery points for the two days of physical custody as described
herein, is indicative of his refusal to cooperate in these
proceedings.
9. Respondent's failure and refusal to allow Petitioner to
have the child during Thursday and Friday of his work week and,
further, his actions which were taken within the first month
following the Court's entry of the Order of August 7, 1992, is
indicative of his unwillingness to cooperate in this matter and
his unwillingness to follow your Honorable Court's Order.
10. Respondent's actions in this case illustrate his
refusal to follow the Court's Orders and contempt for the Court's
orders in this case.
11. Since the entry of the Court's prior Order, the child
has now passed the age of five years and is eligible for
enrollment in Kindergarten for the 1993-1994 school year.
12. The parties, despite various attempts, have been unable
to agree upon which elementary school the child will attend for
her Kindergarten education.
13. The Big Spring Area School District, in which both
parties reside, is in need of information from the parties as to
which Kindergarten the child will attend since she resides in two
separate elementary school areas.
14. Your Petitioner resides in the area where the child
would attend the Newville Elementary School and Respondent
resides in the area where the child would attend the Oak Flat
Elementary School.
15. For various and numerous reasons, the most appropriate
school for the child to attend for her first year in school would
be the Newville Elementary School which is the school she would
attend from the Petitioner's home.
16. The request for the Court's intervention to determine
the elementary school that the child will attend will not require
any modification of the Court's prior Order which provides for
the parties to maintain shared custody.
17. Petitioner is not desirous nor requesting that any time
be taken from the periods that the child is with the Respondent
and the request for the child to attend the Newville Elementary
School for her first year of schooling would not inhibit his
interaction or relationship with the child in any manner
whatsoever.
18. The most stable situation that could occur for the
child to continue her shared physical custody arrangements with
her parents and to attend school on as stable a routine as
possible would be for the child to attend the Newville Elementary
School.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests your Honorable Court to:
1. Find the Respondent in contempt of the Court's prior
orders;
2. Direct the Respondent's compliance with the Court's
prior orders in this matter or face additional sanctions for
contempt;
3. Direct and order that the child will attend the Newville
Elementary School during at least her first year of school, that
being the 1993-1994 school year; and
4. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
Br t r' fi , Esquire
et' ioner
200 North Hanove Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5551
(800) 347-5552
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document
are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein
are made subject to the penalties of IS Pa.C.S. Section 4904,
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATE C y %n,
KITT
ENRY
7-A W.
2
KITTY L. GANTZ,
Plaintiff
.I V .
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN RE: CUSTODY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS-OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
1754 CIVIL 1989
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 1989, Kitty
L. Gantt having appeared in open court together with personal
counsel, Barbara Townsend, Esquire, and Kevin B. Gantz having
appeared together with personal counsel, Steven Hogg, Esquire,
and the Defendant having presented testimony on the custody
matter in regard to the parties' child, Jessica, DOB, July 12,
1988, we order and direct as follows;
(1) The parties shall share equally joint legal
custody of the child;
(2) The parties shall share equally physical
custody of the child and shall do so by alternating physical
custody of the child on a weekly basis. This shall be done by
transferring the child each Sunday at 7:00 p.m. in a mutually
agreeable manner. The party receiving the child shall be
responsible for pick up of the child. In view of the fact that
the child is currently with the mother, this arrangement shall
start with the father's custody commencing Sunday, December 17,
1989;
(3) Every Christmas, the party not in custody of
the child shall have a visit with the child from noon to 7:00
P.m.;
(4) If either party desires to take their summer
vacation in a two-week increment, the alternating visits shall
Exhibit "A'
start after a completion of,o solid two-week visit with that
particular parent;
(5) Upon agreement of both parties, as stated to
the Court, so long as Mrs. Grahm is available, she shall
continue to be used as the babysitter; and the parties shall
equally share this cost.
By the Court,
BARBARA TOWNSEND, ESQUIRE
For the Plaintiff
STEVEN HOGG, ESQUIRE
For the Defendant
wcm
11 v ? iv+7?i !?.
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiffs
V
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ, :CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendants :IN CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of April, 1992, upon review of the attached
report of the Custody Conciliator, it is ordered and directed as
follows:
A. The Custody Order dated December 15, 1989 is ratified subject
to the modifications set forth below:
B. The initial modification by Order of October 2, 1990 is
deleted from the Custody Order and the following additional
language is added to the Custody Order:
During the period that Father has custody of the child and he
is working while the Mother is not working, Father shall allow
Mother to provide baby-sitting services for the minor child
for two days during the week while Father is at work. For the
remaining three days, Father may use his parents as
baby-sitters. Unless agreed otherwise by the parties them-
selves, Mother shall handle the transportation for pickup of
the child from Father and return of child to Father on those
two days when Mother provides care for the child. Father
may designate his home or his parent's home as the pickup
or delivery location.
BY THE COURT:
IS/ - E. 2v J
George E. Hoffer
cc: Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
Edward E. Guido, Esquire
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire ,. _.,.
f.. ? .r :... , '. _. r= Cn- sct r,/ hand
Th ay day f. .. .E.... 1.9
.....................- . E-?.... C...:....pis ..
_ Prothonotary
Exhibit "B" >
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiffs
V
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendants
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
:CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:IN CUSTODY
PRIOR JUDGE ASSIGNED: Honorable George E. Hoffer
CONCILIATOR CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the
following report:
1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the
subject of this litigation are as follows:
Jessica M. Gantz, born July 12, 1988.
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on April 16, 1992 with the
following individuals in attendance.:
Mother Kitty M. Henry with her counsel Bradley L. Griffie
and Father Kevin B. Gantz with his counsel Stephen J. Hogg.
and Paternal Grandparents Mr. and Mrs. Walter H. Gantz, Sr.
and their counsel Edward E. Guido.
3. The prior orders in this case dated December 15, 1989 and
October 2, 1990 essentially provide that the parties have shared
legal custody, with physical custody being alternated on a weekly
basis between the parties. The October 2, 1990 order provided
that Father could use his Grandparents as babysitters when the
child was in his custody.
4. Since the entry of the most recent order, circumstances have
changed such that the natural Mother is now not employed. Because
of her availability during the day, Mother desires a modification
of the order to provide that she would be the caretaker for the
minor child during the day while Father is at work when Father has
custody of the child. Father desires to maintain the present
situation whereby his parents babysit for the child during the day
of the week that he has custody and while he is at work.
5. The parties could not agree to a resolution of this matter,
but did agree to allow the Court to enter an order based upon the
conciliation report rather than having a full hearing on this
issue.
6. The history of the case is such that Father was required to go
to Court in 1990 to enforce his desires to allow his parents to
baby-sit the child when the child is in his custody rather than
the child going to a non-blood baby-sitter Mother had desired.
The current custody arrangement during the day will be temporary
in nature in that some other arrangement will need to be
implemented once the child starts kindergarten and first grade.
7. Mother is remarried and has a stepchild at home who is of
school age.
8. Mother did not suggest any specific concern with the
Grandparent's care for the child, but did suggest that the child
would be better off with her during the day while Father is at
work since Mother is currently unemployed.
DATE Hubert X. Gilroy, quire
Custody Conciliat
i
`J .
IGA.NMI iti T = 'Oi'RT OF COMMON ?_EA_ 0=
C_. CU .H3-_ ] OUN r, ENNS'f_VAN1A
C17VIL AC770N - LAW
IN CUS-ODY
GANTZ,
De fend^.n' CTVIL =9S9
0RHE Z17
AND NOW, this 7th day of A;_ust, 902, the Court
having heard testimony on the reques- the mother to set
further specificity to *he order of _i, 1992, we direct
that file ic'her's specific days for -er .:Dcby-sitting services"
shcII :de nursday and F iday, and ;.,_ _4 7 PS s`!all be ':OC C. m
to 4:>2 c m., and the aoirt of p_c:.. srt -edei'-very s^a:_ ve
the fatner's house.
3Y ne :our',
.zq&
Geo e hoffer, J.
---`Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Stephen J. nogg, Esquire
For the Defendant
r r s
Exhibit "C"
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
v
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY/VISITATION
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, l " '? l a0, l GiC/3 , upon consideration of
the attached complaint, it is hereby directed that// the_ parties
and their respective counsel appear before 1+'4' x? 1l f x' 6v 1 /-"'y egct
, the conciliator, at 1 r1 fjoa/- `C'A_ ")b (0. (CVArftO"LP-
on the I OfK day of J-Ut r) el 1993, at / v30 a.m.,
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.
FOR THE COURT,
BY:
CUSTODY CONCILIATOR
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE
SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Office of the Court Administrator
Courthouse, 4th Floor
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
"?i?`r''?iA>NH3^
as!_
3 31
E6, NG os 1 1 OZ AGE
AUG 10 1993
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
V
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
AND NOW, this A day
of the attached Custody Ci
directed as follows:
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
:CIVIL ACTION -,RUSTODY
, 9993, upon consideration
Report, it is ordered and
1. This Court's prior Orders of April 21, 1992 and August 7, 1992
shall remain in effect except as modified below.
2. For the school year of 1993194, the minor child shall attend
kindergarten at the school district in accordance with the
location of the Mother's home, which would be Newville Elementary
school. Both parties reserve the right to litigate the issue of
what school the child will attend when she starts first grade.
3. During the weeks that the Father has physical custody and the
child is attending school, the Father shall deliver the child to
Mother's home where the child may travel to school on the bus.
The Mother will make arrangements to deliver the child during
those weeks back to the Father's home at 4:30 p.m..
4. The parties shall continue in counseling as agreed upon by the
parties and their attorneys, with the cost of the counseling to
be shared.
5. The Mother shall allow the paternal grandparents to have
access to the minor child on certain weekdays in order to
transport the child to school and pick the child up from school,
which would be at least once a week during the week that the
Father has custody.
6. in the event either party desires to modify this order, that
party may petition the Court to have the case again scheduled
before the Custody Conciliator.
BY T
is
Hoffe
to
cc: Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
David Hukill, Esquire - U E6 4 ' 01 }? l wny P
f
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
V
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
:CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1915.3-8(B), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the
following report:
1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the
subject of this litigation is as follows:
Jessica M. Gantz, born July 12, 1988.
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on July 16, 1993 with the
following individuals in attendance:
The Mother Kitty M. Henry who appeared with her counsel
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire, and the Father Kevin B. Gantz
who appeared with his counsel David Hukill, Esquire.
3. The parties agreed to the entry of an order in the form as
attached. n . i /I A
DATE Hubert X. Gil y, Esquire
Custody Conciliator
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant IN CUSTODY
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY
AND FOR CONTEMPT
AND NOW, comes your Petitioner, Kitty M. Henry, by and
through her counsel of record, Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire, and
petitions the Court as follows:
1. Your Petitioner is the above named Plaintiff, Kitty M.
Henry, an adult individual currently residing at 23 Carlisle
Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Your Respondent is the above named Defendant, Kevin B.
Gantz, an adult individual currently residing at 442 West Main
Street, Walnut Bottom, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. The parties are subject to an order of Court dated
August 11, 1993, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference as Exhibit "A", said Order being based upon the
custody conciliation held in this matter on July 16, 1993.
4. As provided in paragraph 2 of the aforesaid order, "Both
parties reserve the right to litigate the issue of what school
the child will attend when she starts first grade."
5. The parties have been engaged in counseling since at
least August 1993 and have been unable to reach an agreement
relative to the school where the child will attend first grade.
6. Based upon the projected Court calendar and the fact
that the child will start first grade in late August 1994,
Petitioner brings this action to resolve the issue of which
school the child will attend.
7. The parties are subject to prior orders of Court
relative to this matter which are attached hereto as Exhibits
"B", "C" and "D".
8. Since the entry of the Order on August 11, 1993 relative
to custody of the child, Respondent has failed to comply with the
Order of Court in various respects, including, but not limited
to, the following:
a. Without proper notification, Respondent has failed
to provide physical custody of the child to the Petitioner during
his weeks of physical custody in order to allow the child to
attend school;
b. Respondent has made legal custody decisions
relative to the child without involving the Petitioner as
required by prior Orders of Court, including the order of Court
dated December 15, 1989, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit "B"; and
c. Respondent has failed to comply with the provisions
in the aforesaid Orders relative to the periods of time when the
child is to be in the physical custody of the Petitioner.
9. Due to the above, Respondent has been in contempt of the
Court's prior orders as outlined in Exhibit "A", "B", "C" and
"D", which are attached hereto.
10. In addition, the Respondent has shown an inability to
effectively communicate and resolve even the most modest problems
between the parties relative to custody of the child.
11. Respondent has shown that his time with the child is,
in fact, not spent with the child during the period that he has
physical custody, but rather the child is with other third
parties rather than being in the Respondent's care.
12. Other third parties, and not the Respondent, are
primarily responsible for the child's care during the periods of
time that Respondent is to have physical custody of the child.
13. Petitioner is available to take primary responsibility
for the physical care of the child and does not and will not
depend upon third parties to provide the primary physical care
for the child.
14. Petitioner is more ready, willing and able to provide
an ongoing close relationship between the child and the
Respondent than is the Respondent willing to provide such a
relationship between Petitioner and the child.
15. The child has been going to Kindergarten at Newville
Elementary School in the Big Springs School District for the
entire 1993-1994 school year as agreed by the parties.
16. The child is familiar with the surroundings of the
Newville Elementary School as well as the teachers,
administrators and other students at the school.
17. The child has shown the capacity to work well with the
teacher and students at the Newville Elementary School despite
the fact that Respondent has, to the best of his ability,
interrupted the status quo of the child by failing to comply with
the routine established for the child to attend school from the
Petitioner's residence each day.
18. Respondent has taken action to inhibit or otherwise
negatively affect the relationship between the child and the
Petitioner as well as the relationship between the child and her
step- or half-siblings.
19. The actions of the Respondent have shown a neglect for
the best physical and mental health of the parties' child solely
in an effort to damage the relationship between the child and
Petitioner.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests your Honorable Court to:
a. Enter an Order finding the Respondent in contempt
for his failure and refusal to comply with the prior orders of
Court effective in this case;
b. Enter an order providing that Petitioner shall have
primary physical custody of the parties' child with Respondent
having reasonable periods of temporary or partial custody; and
c. Order such other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
Respectfully submitted,
GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
i Ho Hanover-Street
Carl' le, PA 17013
(71 ) 243-5551
(800) 347-5552
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document
are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein
are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904,
relating to un(7sworn falsification to authorities.
DATE: ?O jqq•
KIT Y 4 ENRY
AUG 10 1999J
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
V
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
:CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
COURT ORDER
AND NOW, this Ilt` day of , 1993, upon consideration
of the attached Custody ConciIlat on Report, it is ordered and
directed as follows:
1. This Court Is°prior Orders of April 21, 1992 and August 7, 1992
shall remain ir2 effect except as modified below.
2. For the school year of 1993194, the minor child shall attend
kindergarten at the school district in accordance with the
location of the Mother's home, which would be Newville Elementary
school. Both parties reserve the right to litigate the issue of
what school the child will attend when she starts first grade.
3. During the weeks that the Father has physical custody and the
child is attending school, the Father shall deliver the child to
Mother's home where the child may travel to school on the bus.
The Mother will make arrangements to deliver the child during
those weeks back to the Father's home at 4:30 p.m..
4. The parties shall continue in counseling as agreed upon by the
parties and their attorneys, with the cost of the counseling to
be shared.
5. The Mother shall allow the paternal grandparents to have
access to the minor child on certain weekdays in order to
transport the child to school and pick the child up from school,
which would be at least once a week during the week that the
Father has custody.
6. In the event either party desires to modify this order, that
party may petition the Court to have the case again scheduled
before the Custody Conciliator.
BY THE COURT
is t =::al e-a ?a - t ee,
George E. offer
cc: Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
David Hukill, Esquire
Exhibit "A"
TRUE COPY FROM RECORD
In i st mo ;- aor, I here un` set my hand
and the seai or said Cor:rt at Carl;sla, Pa.
This ......LL day of.
93
..,., 19........
P? C .Z. .0 1
_ 7_ "L............
Prothonotary
Auc 10 1999)
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V :NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant :CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
COURT ORDER
AND NOW, this III" day of , 1993, upon consideration
of the attached Custody Conciliat on Report, it is ordered and
directed as follows:
1. This Court's-prior Orders of April 21, 1992 and August 7, 1992
shall remain inR effect except as modified below.
2. For the school year of 1993194, the minor child shall attend
kindergarten at the school district in accordance with the
location of the Mother's home, which would be Newville Elementary
school. Both parties reserve the right to litigate the issue of
what school the child will attend when she starts first grade.
3. During the weeks that the Father has physical custody and the
child is attending school, the Father shall deliver the child to
Mother's home where the child may travel to school on the bus.
The Mother will make arrangements to deliver the child during
those weeks back to the Father's home at 4:30 p.m..
4. The parties shall continue in counseling as agreed upon by the
parties and their attorneys, with the cost of the counseling to
be shared.
5. The Mother shall allow the paternal grandparents to have
access to the minor child on certain weekdays in order to
transport the child to school and pick the child up from school,
which would be at least once a week during the week that the
Father has custody.
6. In the event either party desires to modify this order, that
party may petition the Court to have the case again scheduled
before the Custody Conciliator.
BY THE COURT
George E. offer
cc: Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
David Hukill, Esquire
TRUE COPY FROM RECORD
in restmon 1 ,.tr:raor', I here v7to set my hand
and tha.seai of said Curt at Carlisle, Pa.
This ..... /.I? day of 19.93.
21- Cc 1,J?•
. Prothonotary
KITTY L. GANTZ, iV THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
- V. CVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant 1754 CIVIL 1989
IN RE: CUSTODY
ORDER OF rOURT
AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 1989, Kitty
L. Gantt having appeared in open court together with personal
counsel, Barbra Townsend, Esquire, and Kevin B. Gantz having
appeared together with personal counsel, Steven Hogg, Esquire,
and the Defendant having presentee testimony on the custody
matter in regard to the parties' child, Jessica, DOB, July 12,
1988, we order and direct as follows:
(1) The parties shall share equclly joint legal
custody of the child;
(2) The parties sna11 shore equally physical
custody of the child and shall do so by alternating physical
custody of the child on a weekly besi.s. This she11 be done by
transferring the child each Sunday at 7:00 p.m. In c mutually
agreeable manner. The party receiving the child shall be
responsible for pick up of the child. In view of the fact that
the child is currently with the mother, this arrangement shall
start with the father's custody commencing Sunday, December 17,
1989;
(5) Every Christmcs, the party not in custody-of
the child shall have a visit with the child from noon to 7:00
P.m.;
(4) If either party desires to take their summer
vacation in a two-week increment, the alternating visits shall
Exhibit "V'
start after a completion of a•'sol_d two-week visit with that
particular parent;
(5) Upon agreement of both parties, as stated to
the Court, so long as Mrs. Grahm is available, she shall
continue to be used as the babysitter; and the parties shall
equally share this cost.
BY the Court,
BARBARA TOWNSEND, ESQUIRE
For the Plaintiff
STEVEN HOGG, ESQUIRE
For the Defendant
wcm
T
(vV /i(
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiffs
V
KEVIN B. GANTZ;
AND NOW, this Ir1 day
report of the Custody
follows:
Defendants
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
:CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:IN CUSTODY
ORDER
of April, 1992, upon review of the attached
Conciliator, it is ordered and directed as
A. The Custody Order dated December 15, 1989 is ratified subject
to the modifications set forth below:
B. The initial modification by Order of October 2, 1990 is
deleted from the Custody order and the following additional
language is added to the Custody Order:
During the period that Father has custody of the child and he
is working while the Mother is not working, Father shall allow
mother to provide baby-sitting services for the minor child
for two days during the week while Father is at work. For the
remaining three days, Father may use his parents as
baby-sitters. Unless agreed otherwise by the parties them-
selves, Mother shall handle the transportation for pickup of
the child from Father and return of child to Father on those
two days when Mother provides care for the child. Father
may designate his home or his parent's home as the pickup
or delivery location.
BY THE COURT:
George E. Hoffer
cc: Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
Edward E. Guido, Esquire
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
en'a sc; ny hand
7h:c ........ cc, -•f C 19
f G
Exhibit "C" ,? Prothonotary
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiffs :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V :NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ, :CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendants :IN CUSTODY
PRIOR JUDGE ASSIGNED: Honorable George E. Hoffer
CONCILIATOR CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE r4TH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the
following report:
1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the
subject of this litigation are as follows:
Jessica M. Gantz, born July 12, 1988.
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on April 16, 1992 with the
following individuals in attendance.:
Mother Kitty M. Henry with her counsel Bradley L. Griffie
and Father Kevin B. Gantz with his counsel Stephen J. Hogg.
and Paternal Grandparents Mr. and Mrs. Walter H. Gantz, Sr.
and their counsel Edward E. Guido.
3. The prior orders in this case dated December 15, 1989 and
October 2, 1990 essentially provide that the parties have shared
legal custody, with physical custody being alternated on a weekly
basis between the parties. The October 2, 1990 order provided
that Father could use his Grandparents as babysitters when the
child was in his custody.
4. Since the entry of the most recent order, circumstances have
changed such that the natural Mother is now not employed. Because
of her availability during the day, Mother desires a modification
of the order to provide that she would be the caretaker for the
minor child during the day while Father is at work when Father has
custody of the child. Father desires to maintain the present
situation whereby his parents babysit for the child during the day
of the week that he has custody and while he is at work.
5. The parties could not agree to a resolution of this matter,
but did agree to allow the Court to enter an order based upon the
conciliation report rather than having a full hearing on this
issue.
6. The history of the case is such that Father was required to go
to Court in 1994 to enforce his desires to allow his parents to
baby-sit the child when the child is in his custody rather than
the child going to a non-blood baby-sitter Mother had desired.
The current custody arrangement during the day will be temporary
in nature in that some other arrangement will need to be
implemented once the child starts kindergarten and first grade.
7. Mother is remarried and has a stepchild at home who is of
school age.
8. Mother did tot suggest any specific concern with the
Grandparent's Ahre for the child, but did suggest that the child
would be better off with her during the day while Father is at
work since Mother is currently unemployed.
DATE Hubert Z. Gilroy, quire
Custody Conciliat
i --Y G A IMT ? `!
V.
Defe^ae-t
i ';,i:?-_ OF COMMON _A :
_ ! 0=
CJM'[ _?:\? •.VLiVI I. PENN -VAN A
CIVIL -IC -:70..N - LAW
-'NI M70DY
IVIL 1089
CRi?=K
AND Al, this 7th day of 1; :-:S-, 199=, the Court
nevinc hecrd testi^1ony an the revues: .ne mother to set
'ur:her SpeCif Cit`/ ;0 aie Oraer OL -J _ 21, 1992, WP. dlrec
ther soec_` c ccys. - `r yti:ig services"
shr_1 ce hursacy and idcy, and :._ :_-es s- he ':OC c
m.. crd t"e ?oi^t aicc... =rr edeiivery sra -- Ie
the fat::er's house.
;y the
- /Yj,&X -
Geo a 11_.V* -1 f4r, J .
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rrs
Exhibit "Y'
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
V
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, 1" y /'i5 v , upon consideration of
the attached complaint, it is hereby directed that the /parties
and their respective counsel appear before uµ? rfff x O <<lbySC?
the conciliator, at N"rk 'F(OVf ?uma•?b, ?rxtif?hb?sr
on the (Sf day of J1-4 IX 1994, at ?T a.m.,
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.
FOR THE COURT,
BY:
- SGT
CU TO CONCILIATOR YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE
SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Office of the Court Administrator
Courthouse, 4th Floor
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
a f Li
" ei ?iJ
f 1 i.? {i1
,?'{: 1?'f??1 __
?'}ta !
?, 44d sa Z ? k0w
;a 16 1994
jl ?
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v :NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant :CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
COURT ORMER
AND NOW, this day of , 1994, upon consideration
ti.on Report, it is ordered and
of the attached Custody C
directed as follows:
1. A Hearing is scheduled in Courtroom No. 3 of the Cumberland
County Courthouse on the 12th day of October, 1994,
at 9:00 a.m. at which time testimony in the above case shall
be taken. At this Hearing, the Mother, Kitty M. (Gantt)
Henry 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 that party's position on custody and also
setting forth a list of witnesses and the anticipated
testimony of each witness. This Memorandum shall be filed
at least ten days prior to the Hearing.
2. In the event either party desires to have any type of
psychological or other professional evaluation done in
preparation for this Hearing, the other party shall make
arrangements to cooperate in that evaluation and also make
arrangements for the minor child to cooperate in that
evaluation. Cost of the evaluation shall be born by the
party seeking the evaluation. Any professional expert
witness who is going to testify shall provide a written
report to the parties in advance of the Hearing which
report shall be shared with both parties. The report must
be provided at least five days prior to the Hearing date.
3
Pending further order of this Court, this Court's
Order of August 11, 1993 shall remain in effect.
of 1994 and pending the hearing scheduled in this
directed that the child shall start First Grade at
Elementary School. This directive is issued with
predetermination by the Court on the school issue
subject which could be reviewed at the hearing.
prior
In the fall
case, it is
the Newville
out any
and is a
cc: David Hukill, Esquire v 2 ? ?' ?- c? g?l6?y`l•
Bradley Griffie, Esquire _ C_ ?'-` a. P•
ANY?bM4N! ?i
MI VI ct Z 91 Snn
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
v
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
:CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
PRIOR JUDGE: JUDGE GEORGE E. HOFFER
CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUIYIIYlARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the
following report:
1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is
the subject of this litigation is as follows:
Jessica M. Gantz, born July 12, 1988.
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on July 21, 1994 with
the following individuals in attendance:
The Mother, Kitta M. (Gantz) Henry with her attorney,
Bradley Griffie, Esquire, and the Father, Kevin B. Gantz,
with his attorney David Hukill, Esquire.
3. This is the third time the case has been before the Custody
Conciliator. The original custody proceedings started in
1989 when the parties had a Hearing and an Order was entered
dated December 15, 1989. The parties then appeared before
the Conciliator again in April of 1992 and in August of 1993.
4. The parties have a history
major issues. The child in
first grade in September.
attend Oak Flats Elementary
the Mother wants the child
School. Both parties live
live in areas which would c
schools in accordance with
set forth above.
of not being able to agree on
question is scheduled to start
The Father wants the child to
School in the Newville area and
to attend Newville Elementary
in the Newville area, but they
all for different elementary
the desires of the parties as
5. Mother also suggests in her Petition to Modify Custody that
Father is in contempt because of violation of the prior Orders
for various reasons. Mother asserts that she should have
primary physical custody and that the child should attend
where she resides. Father is not specifically seeking a
change in the current custody arrangement but feels
strongly that the child should attend the elementary
school where Father resides for a variety of reasons.
The current custody situation is essentially as follows:
Shared alternating week schedules, except for Thursday
and Friday when the Father has the child and he is
working during which time the Father delivers the child
to the Mother for daycare.
6. The parties have in the past attended counseling in an
effort to resolve some of the disagreements they have.
Apparently, this counseling has not been successful. It
appears that some type of definitive Order needs to be
entered at least pertaining to the school issue.
7. The parties may want to obtain psychological evaluations
prior to a Hearing, and any Order should reflect a
requirement that the parties cooperate in that matter.
8. Because the hearing in this case is not scheduled until
October, the Court must decide which School District the child
attends pending the hearing. The Father argues that he deferred to
the Mother last year and allowed the child to attend the Newville
School District and, for that reason, the child should start at Oak
Flats at least until the hearing in October. It should be noted
that it appears both parties attended counseling with the intention
of having the counseling aiding in the decision of the school
issue, but that both parties discontinued the counseling sessions.
Mother argues that the child has already attended the Newville
School District and that the child should continue in that School
District until the hearing. Mother also notes that she has
initiated the proceedings in this case and that it is she who has
brought this issue to a head and she should not be penalized by now
directing the child to attend Oak Flat School. The fact that the
status quo is that the child is in the Newville School along with
the fact that the Mother is the moving party in this matter tips
the scale in favor of the Mother for purposes of a School District
prior to the hearing. It should be noted that the Conciliator's
recommendation on this issue does not reflect the judgment on which
School District is appropriate for purposes of a permanent Order.
9. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached.
g {vI 9Y 6
re
DATE Hubert X. Gilroy, "--
Custody Conciliator
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
DEFENDANT'S (RESPONDENT) MEMORANDUM
Defendant submits the following memorandum in response to
the Court's Order of August 15, 1994.
1. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Plaintiff-Petitioner, (hereinafter,"Mother,") and
DAVID D. HUKILL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Defendant-Respondent, (hereinafter, "Father,") are the parents
of a minor child, Jessica M. Gantz, born July 12, 1988. The
parties separated when Jessica was approximately one year old,
were divorced and both have subsequently remarried. Initially,
Mother, who took physical custody of the child, provided
Father with only short, supervised visitation. Father
petitioned the Court and was granted partial physical custody.
On December 15, 1989, when Jessica was approximately eighteen
months old, the Court ordered that the parents share equally
joint legal and physical custody, which is the current status.
There have been numerous subsequent petitions by Mother for
modification of the above-mentioned Order, one to remove the
paternal grandparents as baby sitters in favor of a third
person, non-related baby sitter, while others were aimed at
expanding the Mother's periods of physical custody by
providing child care while Father is at work.
The current Petition asks the Court: (1) to terminate
Father's joint shared physical custody which he has had for
almost five years and substitute temporary or partial custody;
(2) to hold the Father in Contempt of Court for alleged
violations of previous Court Orders; (3) to ratify the
Mother's unilateral decision to send Jessica to Newville
Elementary School for first grade in violation of Father's
rights to participate in such a decision.
The parties individually and/or separately have had the
benefit of six separate counselors or psychologists in an
attempt to improve their skills in dealing with joint parental
problems.
2. QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
1. Is it in the best interests of the child, Jessica M.
Gantz to continue in a joint shared custody arrangement of
five year's standing which provides for equal participation by
both parents in her upbringing?
2. Should the parents participate jointly in decisions
involving the child's health, education and welfare and, when
agreement cannot be reached, submit the matter to binding
arbitration rather than litigation?
IThe suggested answer to both questions is, yes.
T_
III ARGUMENT
Father suggests that it is the best interests of Jessica
M. Gantz to have both parents involved as equally as possible
in her upbringing. For this reason he makes no counter-
proposal that primary physical custody should be awarded to
him. It is the Father's position that the joint shared
custody order in effect for approximately five years has
generally worked well; that Jessica has thrived under it,
enjoys going back and forth between both extended families
and that it would not be in her best interests and might
result in psychological harm to make a radical change. It is
the Father's contention that the problem is not the custody
arrangement but the failure of the Father and Mother to
communicate effectively. The Father feels he has made best
efforts to work out the problems through numerous counselors
and has acquired and continues to improve his skills while the
Mother remains uncommitted to working matters out though the
use of professionals. It is the Father's position that major
decisions involving the child's health, education and welfare
should be discussed and unilateral action by either party
avoided. Should agreement by the parties not be reached, the
matter should be submitted to a neutral third party for
binding arbitration and the parties bound by the decision.
The choice of an elementary school should be one such issue.
As to allegations of violations of Court Orders, the
Father denies knowing or willful violation absent exigent
and with proper notification to Mother.
IV CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons the Defendant
respectfully requests that Plaintiff's petition be dismissed
as to matters of Contempt and change of Custody and that the
parties be ordered to submit matters such as school selection
to binding arbitration when they cannot be otherwise resolved.
V WITNESSES
The Defendant will call the following witnesses:
1. Kevin B. Gantz, the defendant and child's father who
will provide direct testimony as to his relationship to the
child, the success of the joint shared arrangement, his
efforts at settling problems with the Plaintiff through the
use of professional counselors and respond to specific
allegations by the Plaintiff.
2. Patricia A. Gantz, child's step mother, who will
testify as to her relationship with the child and her role in
the joint shared custody arrangement.
3. Dr Stanley Schneider and/or staff members directly
involved in the evaluation of the Gantz family unit, who will
provide their expert testimony on the merits of retaining the
joint shared arrangement as well as discuss the problems they
in attempts to work with both parents in a
situation.
4. John Smith, President of Carlisle Tire and Rubber, the
is employer and immediate supervisor, who will
fy to the Defendant's character and his skills in dispute
resolution, empathetic listening,
5. Kitty Henry, Keith Henry and Debra Reid, Jessica's
teacher, whom we are advised is under Plaintiff's subpoena, as
on cross examination if they do not take the stand.
VI EXHIBITS
1. Correspondence between the parties, calendars of the
!Lantz family's daily activities involving Jessica and
I
summaries of Jessica's school attendance.
Respectfull'yII submitted,
l q.
Da id D. Hukill,
Attorney for the Defe
ndant
IDI 46101
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
CERTIFICATION
I, David D. Hukill, Esquire,
//p?do''hereby certify that I
have this ? day of IJC61A- 1 , 1994,
sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing Memorandum via
U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid from Carlisle,
Pennsylvania and addressed as follows:
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
i
Date By
David D. Hukill, Esquire
(KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
V.
(KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
DEFENDANT'S (RESPONDENT) MEMORANDUM
Defendant submits the following memorandum in response to
the Court's Order of August 15, 1994.
DAVID D. IIUKII. 1.
AriORNPI' All N4
I. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Plaintiff-Petitioner, (hereinafter,"Mother,") and
Defendant-Respondent, (hereinafter, "Father,") are the parents
lof a minor child, Jessica M. Gantz, born July 12, 1988. The
parties separated when Jessica was approximately one year old,
were divorced and both have subsequently remarried. Initially,
Mother, who took physical custody of the child, provided
Father with only short, supervised visitation. Father
petitioned the Court and was granted partial physical custody.
On December 15, 1989, when Jessica was approximately eighteen
months old, the Court ordered that the parents share equally
joint legal and physical custody, which is the current status.
There have been numerous subsequent petitions by Mother for
modification of the above-mentioned Order, one to remove the
paternal grandparents as baby sitters in favor of a third
person, non-related baby sitter, while others were aimed at
expanding the Mother's periods of physical custody by
providing child care while Father is at work.
The current Petition asks the Court: (1) to terminate
Father's joint shared physical custody which he has had for
almost five years and substitute temporary or partial custody;
(2) to hold the Father in Contempt of Court for alleged
violations of previous court orders; (3) to ratify the
Mother's unilateral decision to send Jessica to Newville
Elementary School for first grade in violation of Father's
rights to participate in such a decision.
The parties individually and/or separately have had the
benefit of six separate counselors or psychologists in an
attempt to improve their skills in dealing with joint parental
problems.
2. QUESTIONS PRESENTEb:
1. Is it in the best interests of the child, Jessica M.
Gantz to continue in a joint shared custody arrangement of
five year's standing which provides for equal participation by
both parents in her upbringing?
2. Should the parents participate jointly in decisions
involving the child's health, education and welfare and, when
agreement cannot be reached, submit the matter to binding
arbitration rather than litigation?
The suggested answer to both questions is, yes.
w
III ARGUMENT
Father suggests that it is the best interests of Jessica
M. Gantz to have both parents involved as equally as possible
in her upbringing. For this reason he makes no counter-
proposal that primary physical custody should be awarded to
him. it is the Father's position that the joint shared
custody order in effect for approximately five years has
generally worked well; that Jessica has thrived under it,
enjoys going back and forth between both extended families
and that it would not be in her best interests and might
result in psychological harm to make a radical change. It is
the Father's contention that the problem is not the custody
arrangement but the failure of the Father and Mother to
communicate effectively. The Father feels he has made best
efforts to work out the problems through numerous counselors
and has acquired and continues to improve his skills while the
(Mother remains uncommitted to working matters out though the
use of professionals. It is the Father's position that major
decisions involving the child's health, education and welfare
should be discussed and unilateral action by either party
avoided. Should agreement by the parties not be reached, the
matter should be submitted to a neutral third party for
binding arbitration and the parties bound by the decision.
The choice of an elementary school should be one such issue.
As to allegations of violations of Court Orders, the
Father denies knowing or willful violation absent exigent
and with proper notification to Mother.
IV CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons the Defendant
respectfully requests that Plaintiff's petition be dismissed
as to matters of contempt and change of Custody and that the
parties be ordered to submit matters such as school selection
to binding arbitration when they cannot be otherwise resolved.
V WITNESSES
The Defendant will call the following witnesses:
1. Kevin B. Gantz, the defendant and child's father who
will provide direct testimony as to his relationship to the
child, the success of the joint shared arrangement' his
efforts at settling problems with the Plaintiff through the
use of professional' counselors and respond to specific
allegations by the Plaintiff.
2. Patricia A. Gantz, child's step mother, who will
testify as to her relationship with the child and her role in
the joint shared custody arrangement.
3. Dr Stanley Schneider and/or staff members directly
involved in the evaluation of the Gantz family unit, who will
ide their expert testimony on the merits of retaining the
joint shared arrangement as well as discuss the problems they
in attempts to work with both parents in a
eling situation.
4. John Smith, President of Carlisle Tire and Rubber, the
's employer and immediate supervisor, who will
ify to the Defendant's character and his skills in dispute
resolution, empathetic listening,
5. Kitty Henry, Keith Henry and Debra Reid, Jessica's
teacher, whom we are advised is under Plaintiff's subpoena, as
on cross examination if they do not take the stand.
VI EXHIBITS
1. Correspondence between the parties, calendars of the
Gantz family's daily activities involving Jessica and
summaries of Jessica's school attendance.
Respectfully submitted,
U.I.J l ?-
avid D. Hukill,
Attorney for the Defendant
ID# 46101
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
CERTIFICATION
I, David D. Hukill, Esquire, do hereby certify that I
have this 3.,) day of _ 1994,
sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing Memorandum via
U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid from Carlisle,
Pennsylvania and addressed as follows:
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
r
Date BY
4vvdd ADDHH11, Esquire
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
VS.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
PLAINTIFF'S PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM
I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
In this action, Plaintiff's position is that the shared
custody arrangement in existence for some time in this case is
simply not working to the child's best interest. The parties'
attempt to communicate in this case has involved numerous
professionals, all of whom have been unsuccessful in their
attempts to see that the parties communicate effectively. The
Plaintiff's position remain that the Defendant, through his lack
of forthrightness and lies, is simply not attempting to act in
the best interest of the child, but rather attempting to "get
back at" the Plaintiff for wrongs her perceives to have existed
since the parties' separation years ago. The child is
consistently placed in the middle of this discrepancy. The
Defendant's means have always justified his end, which is to
limit the child's time with the Plaintiff in any way possible and
to inhibit the relationship between the child and the Plaintiff.
The parties, although this has been a shared custody arrangement,
have not been able to agree to even the most minimal matters,
necessitating numerous conciliations and conferences initiated by
both parties.
II.
A. Kitty Henry. Ms. Henry will testify to the superb
relationship that exists between her and her child and her
willingness to do whatever is in the child's best interest. Ms.
Henry will testify to the problems as outlined in her position
set forth above. This includes actual contempt on the part of
the Defendant, actions that have been emotionally upsetting to
the parties' child, actions to inhibit the child's involvement in
her schooling, and other actions that have been detrimental to
the child. Ms. Henry will also testify to the lack of
cooperation that has been exhibited by the Defendant since the
parties' entertained the shared custody arrangement several years
ago.
B. Keith Henry. Mr. Henry is the husband of the Plaintiff
and will testify to the exceptional relationship between the
child and Ms. Henry. He will also testify to the exasperating
attempts that the Plaintiff and he have made to communicate and
work for the best interest of the child through communications
with the Defendant. He will testify to the Defendant's lack of
forthrightness in various conciliation and counseling sessions
and the Defendant's need to control the circumstances relative to
the child.
C. Deborah Reed, the child's Kindergarten teacher. Ms.
Reed will testify to her development through Kindergarten and the
fact that she has a good attitude toward schooling. She will
also testify to the parties' respective involvement in the
child's schooling.
D. Lee Hynes. Ms. Hynes is the child's first grade teacher
and will testify to the fact that the child is doing well at
Newville Elementary School where she has developed a routine and
social involvement with the children at the school, as well as
involvement with the adults at the school.
E. Linda McBeth. Ms. McBeth is the sister-in-law of the
Plaintiff. Ms. McBeth is a neighbor of the Defendant. Ms. McBeth
has witnessed the good relationship between the child and Mr. and
Mrs. Henry. She has witnessed the very positive relationship
that the Plaintiff attempts to develop with the child. In
addition, this witness has actually witnessed incidents of the
Defendant's and the Defendant's wife lying to the Plaintiff in
order to take time away from the Plaintiff being with her child.
F. Gerald R. Henneman. Mr. Henneman is a private
investigator retained by the Plaintiff who will testify to the
facts concerning the Defendant's whereabouts at times that he
claimed he was with the child. These were times when the
Defendant claimed to be with the child so that he could take the
child away from the Plaintiff and inhibit the relationship
between the child and the Plaintiff or, at least, reduce the time
that the child is with the Plaintiff. Further, this witness will
testify to illustrate the total lack of credibility of the
Defendant.
G. Lee and Janet McBeth. These witnesses are the parents
of the Plaintiff and will testify to the good relationship
between the child and the Plaintiff, as well as their strong
contacts and relationship with the child as maternal
grandparents.
H. Bruce Neighbors. Mr. Neighbors will testify relative to
the curriculum at the Newville Elementary School and at the Oak
Flat Elementary School. These two elementary schools that are in
the Big Spring Area School District are the two schools available
for the child to attend her elementary schooling. It is the
Plaintiff's understanding that the Defendant continues to insist
that the child transfer from Newville Elementary School to Oak
Flat Elementary School and, therefore, this witness will need to
clarify any differences between the two schools.
I. Natalie Berger. Ms. Berger will testify as to her
professional position concerning the best interest of the child
in this case.
J. Chris Runyon. Ms. Runyon is a case worker with the
Cumberland County Children & Youth Services who is aware of false
claims of sexual abuse made by the Defendant against Mr. Henry's
son to a prior marriage, which claims were made to attempt to
drive a wedge between the child at issue in this custody action
and her step-brother.
K. Plaintiff reserves the right to call additional
witnesses, and particularly rebuttal witnesses, after receipt and
review of the Defendant's Memorandum.
Respectfully submitted,
GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
?u
n for Plaintiff
Af
North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5551
(800) 347-5552
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN RE: CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, October 12, 1994, by agreement of counsel, hearing in the
above matter is continued to Monday, November 28, 1994, at 10:00 a.m.
By the
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
For the Plaintiff/Petitioner
David D. Huldll, Esquire
For the Defendant/Respondent
:ssg
E. Hoffer,
h6. ?i? Ls R ? f ia?
J.
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN RE: CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, October 12,1994, by agreement of counsel, hearing in the
above matter is continued to Monday, November 28, 1994, at 10:00 a.m.
By the
E. Hoffer,
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
For the Plaintiff/Petitioner
David D. Hukill, Esquire
For the Defendant/Respondent
J.
ssg
MAIN OFFICE
412 Erford Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Stanley E. Schneider, Ed.D.
Director
David D. Hukill, Esquire
Suite 205
401 East Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Dear Attorney Hukill:
GUIDANCE
I ASSOCIATES
IOF
PENNSYLVANIA
October 6, 1994
Camp Hill: (717) 732-2917
Hershey: (717) 533-4312
Carlisle: (717) 245-2289
Chambersburg: (717) 263-9392
FAX: (717) 732-5375
RE: Kitty M. (Gantz) Henry v. Kevin V. Gantz
Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas
NO. 1754 - Civil - 1989
Civil Action - Custody
I am submitting our findings and recommendations resulting from contacts
with the parties involved in the above-cited custody matter.
REASON FOR EVALUATION:
Kitty Henry, the natural mother, filed a petition in the spring of 1994 for
modification of custody and for contempt . This appears to be a result of Jessica
reaching school age and her desire to settle which school the child will attend. In
her petition, she raises other issues related to her perception regarding the
schedule and care of Jessica.
BRIEF HISTORY OF CUSTODY:
Jessica was born July 12, 1988. The parents have essentially had a split
physical and legal parenting arra igement since late 1989. This shared parenting
arrangement has continued in spite of the lack of smoothness in parental
communication. The parents have been unable to achieve relaxed communication
with each other regarding the issues surrounding Jessica's care.
ISSUES:
Kitty Henry appears to have difficulty dealing with her experiences with
Kevin's approach to the joint custody. She also feels that Jessica should be raised
by a parent rather than a non-parent. Kevin seems to perceive Kitty as wanting to
Comprehensive Psychological Services Drug and Alcohol Treatment
RE: Henry (Gantz) v. Gantz
October 6, 1994
Page 2
interfere with his rights and responsibilities as Jessica's co-parent. He tends to
adopt a stringent and firm adherence to their parenting schedule and his structured
approach in adhering to a strict interpretation creates some consternation in Kitty.
She seems to perceive Kevin as acting in his own interest with little apparent
concern regarding Jessica. Kitty also seems to see Kevin as having little flexibility
and reacts to her perception of Kevin's approach which she sees as offensive,
antagonistic and competitive in his demands. Clearly, the communication between
the parents is not conciliatory nor overtly cooperative.
PARTICIPANTS:
Kitty Henry (natural mother)
9-27-94 - Initial interview
10-4-94 - Second interview
- Child Management Questionnaire
Parent Sentence Completion Test
Life Information Script
Keith Henry (step-father)
10-4-94 - Interview
Child Management Questionnaire
Parent Sentence Completion Test
Life Information Script
Kevin Gantz (natural father)
7-28-94 - Initial interview
8-4-94 - Second Interview
Child Management Questionnaire
Life Information Script
Parent Sentence Completion Test
Patty Callahan (significant other and currently step-mother)
8-4-94- Interview
Child Management Questionnaire
Life Information Script
Parent Sentence Completion Test
Jessica Gantz - Jessica was seen on two separate occasions when
accompanied by each parent(s).
8-12-94 - (accompanied by father and Patty Callahan)
Parent Child Observation
Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD)
Child Custody Questionnaire
Perceptions of Relationships Test (PORT)
9-30-94 (accompanied by mother and step-father)
Parent Child Observation
Child Questionnaire
Sentence Completion Test
Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD)
RE: Henry (Gantz) v. Gantz
October 6, 1994
Page 3
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF DATA:
Kindergarten Progress Report - 1993-94 school year
Big Spring School District correspondence dated 9-7-94
Big Spring School District correspondence dated 8-2-94
FINDINGS:
Kevin was seen initially at the end of July, 1994. He reported his current
work schedule to be approximately 7:00 - 7:30 am to 4:00 - 5:00 pm and
indicated working Saturdays half and day and Sunday for about two hours. He
stated initially that he wants "what's best for Jessica". He reported visiting two
elementary schools as well as Harrisburg Academy in an effort to determine which
one would be best for Jessica. The parents live in the same school district but
Jessica would attend different elementary schools. Currently, Jessica is enrolled
at the Newville Elementary School.
Kevin believes that the status quo would be best for Jessica. He would like
Kitty to accept the realities of the current custody arrangement and "stop
interfering with my week of custody and acknowledge my input .
Jessica has been in a 50/50 parenting arrangement since December 15, 1989.
Kevin believes that the current schedule can work. He further states that Jessica
is doing well "but may be subject to (negative) parental influence from Kitty".
It was determined that Kevin is very aware of Jessica's preferences in food,
her favorite color, her favorite story, the songs that she sings, and identified
annoying and irritating behaviors that she engages in as well. He was also aware
of her clothing sizes.
Apparently there is a different summer and school year schedule.
Kevin noted that Jessica may have been inappropriately touched by Keith
Henry's older son. Whatever occurred was three years ago and there does not
appear to be any sequel or continuing negative consequence related to whatever
occurred on that occasion.
I discussed with Kevin and Patty the consequence of the stress they
experience resulting from the continuing lack of positive communication between
Kevin and Kitty. They both stated that they believe that continuation of the status
quo is in Jessica's best interest:. Kevin is adamant in his belief that an equal
amount of time with both parents is best and stated, "Despite all the difficulties, it
is well worth negotiating around them". It was identified that Kitty has a problem
with Patty's close involvement with Jessica.
Kitty was initially seen at the end of September of 1994. She is currently a
full time homemaker and believes that it would be best for her to be primary
physical custodian of Jessica. She stated that it is her belief that Jessica needs
continuity and stability and made reference to "the fact that there is no working
with him (Kevin) ... things haven't changed". Kitty wants Jessica to have a
routine and further states that Jessica has been "left out of certain events and
RE: Henry (Gantz) v. Gantz
October 6, 1994
Page 4
activities" citing Daisys and Brownies, as well as certain school sponsored
activities. She believes that Kevin does not want Jessica involved.
Kitty and Keith Henry had a son (Seth Adam) in September of 1993 and she
believes that Jessica is bonded to her half-brother and missed out on certain
significant events related to Seth's birth and development. Throughout the
interview, Kitty cited multiple examples of Kevin's inflexibility and apparent
resistance in supporting time between Kitty and Jessica. She talked about
Mother's Day 1994 where she asked for time with Jessica and noted that Kevin
resisted this because "it was his weekend and finally said 2:00 pm (instead of
7:00 pm) would be OK".
Kitty stated that if she was the primary physical custodian she would "leave it
up to Jessica to identify when she would like to be with Kevin .. I would
encourage Jessica to be with Kevin, he's her father". She further stated her belief
that Jessica has.a large amount of control when she is with Kevin stating, "Jessica
gets what she wants when she's with Kevin". Finally, she believes that the lack
of continuity and stability impacts Jessica in that she does not know what day she
will be with Kitty. Kitty stated, "if he (Kevin) had his way, he prefer she be with
other people than me". This seems to reflect Kitty's concern that Kevin may be
undermining her relationship with Jessica.
All the adults completed custody-related instruments. The findings indicate
with consistency that all of the adults are appropriate in their approach to Jessica
and deeply care for, love and nurture he as well.
Jessica was seen when accompanied by each family system on separate
occasions. These findings are presented below. Generally it noted that Jessica is
not a spoiled child and does not in any way act spoiled. Her academic and
scholastic adjustment and performance seems to be fine. Jessica does well when
she is with each family system, likes all adults as well as her half and step-sibling.
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RECORDS:
Initially, the only information regarding Jessica's education was a note from
Debra Reid, kindergarten teacher, with the Big Spring school district. In her letter
dated August 2, 1994, Ms. Reid reported that Jessica was a student in her
kindergarten classroom during the 1993-94 school year. It was her observation
that she noticed "no variations in Jessica's behavior or other outward appearances
from week to week during the school term".
Jessica currently is enrolled in first grade at Newville Elementary School in the
Big Springs school district. In a letter to Kevin Gantz, Jessica's father, dated
September 7, 1994, Lee A. Clouse, principal, Newville Elementary School, reported
that Jessica had a total of five excused absences. All of these absences were for
illnesses and four of the five absences occurred when she was in her mother's
care. In his letter, Mr. Clouse noted, "Jessica was not habitually tardy and her
few absences did not, in my opinion, create any scholastic problem".
RE: Henry (Gantz) v. Gantz
October 6, 1994
Page 5
METHODS OF ASSESSMENT:
8-12-94 (accompanied by father and Patty Callahan)
Parent-Child Observation
Kinetic Family Drawing Test (KFD)
Child Custody Questionnaire
PORT
RESULTS:
It should be noted that Jessica was very apprehensive during the initial part of
the interview. She did not separate easily from her father and Patty and she clung
to Patty and asked her not to leave her. Jessica became tearful as she sat on
Patty's lap. After much coaxing and reassurance, Jessica agreed to have Patty
and her father leave the room. As the interview progressed, Jessica became very
relaxed and cooperative.
On the Child Custody Questionnaire, Jessica reported that her family
consisted of her mother, Keith (step-father), her father, Patty, Brian, and Seth.
She indicated that she gets along best with both her mother and her father and
there is no one in her family with whom she does not get along. The things that
Jessica really likes about her mother are that when she is sick, her mother cuddles
and takes care of her and if she has a bad dream, her mother comes over. There
is nothing she dislikes about her mother and nothing she would like to change.
The things that Jessica likes about her father are that he likes to play cards with
her, he likes to play ball, and he pushes her on the swing set a lot. There is
nothing she would change about her father and nothing she does not like too
much. She denies that anything bothers or worries her. According to Jessica, she
turns to her mother, her father, or Patty when things go wrong and she wants
help. She indicated that all of these adults help her. Jessica reported that her
mother punishes her by having her sit on a chair. Her father and Patty punish her
by sending her to her room. She could not decide which parent gets most excited
or happy when something good happens to her. She thinks that all the children in
her family are treated the same. She reported that she likes to play babies and she
is good at swimming. She described herself as happy most of the time. She has
some friends and her best friends name is Carly. Jessica indicated positive
feelings about her step-father, step-mother, step-brother, and half-brother. She
indicated that all of these individuals are "nice". Jessica demonstrated
indecisiveness when asked, "Which parent is it best for a boy or girl to live with -
mother or father". She also could not give an answer when asked, "if you had to
choose to live with only one parent, who would you live with? Why?'. Jessica
indicated that she is like her mother and her father. She noted that both of her
parents have blue eyes.
The Kinetic Family Drawing Test was used as a projective measure of
Jessica's perceptions of her parents and family interactions. When asked to draw
the members of her family doing something, Jessica drew herself, Patty, and her
father playing a game around a table. All of the figures were well differentiated
and all had happy expressions on their faces.
RE: Henry (Gantz) v. Gantz
October 6, 1994
Page 6
On the PORT, Jessica was asked to draw a picture of her mother and a
picture of her father. Jessica's drawings of both parental figures were well done.
However, Jessica put slightly more detail into the drawing of her mother. Also on
the PORT, Jessica was given two pages with stick figures, one representing a
mother and the other re resenting a father. She was then asked to draw herself
on each page. Jessica drew the figure of herself closer to the father figure. When
given a page with figures depicting both parents, placed at opposite edges of the
paper, Jessica drew herself equidistant from the two figures. Further, on the
PORT, when given a page with a picture of a dog sitting between two doghouses,
one labeled "Mom" and the other labeled "Dad" and asked to draw a line from the
dog to the house that the dog was going into, Jessica drew a line from the dog to
the house labeled "Mom". Finally, when shown a page with two dogs asleep and
dreaming, one of a figure representing a father and the other of a mother, Jessica
reported that the dreams were about each parent being beside the dog. She could
not identify which dream was "nicer".
Finally, a Parent-Child Observation was conducted to sample family
interactions. During this observation, Jessica played with her father and Patty
100% of the time. The three sat a small round table and initially played with
games. Her father affectionately called her umpkin". The family then got out
the play dough and played with the play dough for quite a while. Jessica's
interactions with her father and Patty were extremely positive. Jessica was
extremely affectionate with both adults and she often gave them hugs or cuddled
on their lap. The family laughed as they talked and played. Jessica's activity level
was within normal limits and she demonstrated good behavioral control throughout
the observation session. Jessica's father and Patty gave Jessica positive feedback
many times throughout the observation session. They effectively set limits on
Jessica's behavior and she complied with all of their requests.
9-30-94 (accompanied by mother and step-father, Keith Henry)
Parent-Child Observation
Child Questionnaire
Sentence Completion Test
Kinetic Family Drawing Test (KFD)
RESULTS:
It should be noted that Jessica was relaxed during this evaluation. She
remembered the testina room and the evaluator and quickly began playing with
toys in the playroom. Jessica demonstrated slight apprehension when her mother
and step-father left the room. However, she quickly calmed down and participated
well in all activities.
A Child Questionnaire was used to examine Jessica's perceptions of her
parents. Briefly, this instrument involves 20 items on which Jessica is asked to
express a preference for one of her parents. On this activity, she, expressed a
preference for her mother on five of the items. She expressed a preference for her
father on three of the items. Seven items were tied and she responded "I don't
know" to two items. On two of the items, Jessica indicated a preference for
RE: Henry (Lantz) v. Gantz
October 6, 1994
Page 7
Keith, her step-father. One of the items was
The results of this questionnaire suggest
parents as capable of serving her vital needs.
not applicable to Jessica at this time.
that, in general, Jessica sees both
On the Sentence Completion Test, Jessica indicated that the thing she likes
best about her mother is playing games with her. The thing she likes best about
her father is playing ball and feeding his dog. There is nothing Jessica dislikes
about either parent. Jessica reported that the best times at her mother's home are
when she gets to play with her best friend, Carly. According to Jessica, Carly's
mother will not let Carly go to see Jessica at her father's house. Jessica thinks
that the best times at her father's house are "whenever we sit around and watch
TV together". Jessica noted that there are no bad times at either parent's house.
Jessica thinks that both parents care the most about her. She could not identify
anything that either parent is unhappy about and she was not sure about how
each parent feels about the other, Jessica did acknowledge that her parents do
not get along with one another.
The Kinetic Family Drawing Test was again used as a projective measure of
Jessica's perceptions of her parents and interactions. When asked to draw the
members of her family doing something, Jessica drew her father, Patty, herself,
Seth, Keith, Brian, and her mother. All the figures were positioned in a straight
line and Jessica placed herself between Patty and Seth. The figures were not well
differentiated but all had happy expressions on their faces. Jessica noted that she
had been asked to draw many pictures of her family recently.
Finally, a Parent-Child Observation was conducted to sample family
interactions. During this observation, Jessica played with her mother and
step-father 100% of the time. Jessica and her mother initially sat on the floor and
played with the doll house. Her step-father sat at the round table next to them.
Jessica's step-father got out play dough and made figures which Jessica and her
mother then incorporated into their play with the doll house. Jessica's mother and
step-father actively played with Jessica. They assumed the role of various people
in the house and acted these roles out. Jessica's interactions with her mother and
step-father were extremely positive. Jessica was very affectionate with both
adults and she smiled and laughed while she played with them. Jessica and her
mother eventually joined Keith at the small round table. Jessica got out a play
doctor's kit and examined both her mother and Keith. Jessica then got out paper
and markers and began drawing. This activity gradually evolved into playing
school. Jessica was the teacher and her mother and step-father were the pupils.
Jessica's activity level was within normal limits and she demonstrated good
behavioral control throughout the observation session. Her mother and step-father
gave her positive feedback many times throughout observation session. They
effectively set limits on Jessica's behavior and she complied with all of their
requests.
CONCLUSIONS:
The results of this evaluation suggest that Jessica perceives both parents and
stepparents positively and she perceives both of them as a source of nurturance
and support. Jessica would have a difficult time choosing between her two
parents. Jessica is very aware that her parents do not get along. Their bitterness
RE: Henry (Gantz) v. Gantz
October 6, 1994
Page 8
and animosity towards one another is not a major source of stress for Jessica.
There are no particular anxieties of concerns identified.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is our recommendation that Jessica continue to attend Newville Elementary
School. She seems well adjusted there and there is no reason to change that. We
are further recommending that the current joint custody arrangement remain intact.
If the court finds that Kevin's approach to Kitty results in her undermining her time
and/or influence with Jessica then the fact-finder will make the appropriate
adjustments regarding the specific amount of time that Jessica spends with Kitty
during the school week. Our data, however, does not indicate that the relationship
between Jessica and either parent, step-parent or grandparent is compromised by
the existing schedule. We believe that the existing schedule is working for Jessica
and that what is occurring is not the child's problem.
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley E. Schneider, Ed.D., R.C.E.
Psychologist
Registered Custody Evaluator
SES/ksm
Individual &
Family Services
115 South St John's Drive
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737.3840
CUSTODY REPORT
1. Identifying Information
Child's Name: Jessica Gantz
Date of Birth: 7/12/88
Mother's Name: Kitty Henry
Address: 23 Carlisle Road
Newville, PA 17241
Father's Name: Kevin Gantz
Address: 442 W. Main Street
Walnut Bottom, PA 17266
II. Reason for Referral
y PETITIONER'S
EXHIBIT
I
1 a8 5 ? -Mf`F
Date of Report: 10/4/94
Psychological Testing done by:
Barbara J. Schmitt, M.A., NCC
Evaluator:
Natalie S. Berger, Ph.D.,ABMP
Mrs. Kitty Henry was referred to our office in September,
1992, by Domestic Violence in Carlisle. Presenting problem
was ongoing conflict with her ex-husband, Kevin, related to
the joint custody of their daughter, Jessica. At that time
she questioned the value of moving for primary custody of
their daughter as a means of reducing the ongoing conflict.
After several months of joint counseling failed to resolve the
intensity or frequency of conflict, the decision was made to
file for primary custody as a means of reducing the ongoing
conflict. A custody evaluation was begun June, 1994. Through
an Order of Court dated August 15, 1994, both parties were
required to cooperate in any psychological or other
professional evaluation requested in preparation for this
hearing. As a result, Kevin Gantz contacted us to complete
a custody evaluation requested by Kitty Henry as ordered by
the Honorable Judge Hoffer.
III. Background Information
Parents separated when Jessica was ten months old in March,
1989. At that time Mother retained custody of Jessica and
Father had visitation every other weekend and Wednesday
nights. In December, 1989, Father was awarded joint custody.
Mother was working full time.
Custody Report
Jessica Gantz
Page 2
Mother remarried to Keith Henry on October 7, 1990, and became
a full time homemaker. Mother then petitioned to have care
of her daughter during the day while Father worked. She was
granted two days a week with the remaining time given to the
paternal grandparents.
Kindergarten entrance initiated another ground for battle and
parents argued over which school Jessica would attend.
Through conciliation it was decided that Jessica should attend
Newville Elementary, five minutes from Mother's home.
The parents have been in counseling with Ronald Lane, 1989,
Sally Rooney, 1990, and Dr. Stanley Schneider, 1991-1992.
They were also seen for a period of several months between
1993-1994 by Deborah Snelson, M.S. of Carlisle, These
counseling sessions were perceived by the Mother to only
provide more fields for continuing conflict between the
parties. Father viewed these sessions as necessary to
successfully co-parent Jessica.
IV. Means of Assessment
Kitty Henry:
6/02/94 MMPI-2
6/20/94 The Custody Quotient
7/19/94 Parental Assessment Skills Survey
7/19/94 Clinical Interview
9/28/94 Family meeting with Kitty, Keith, children
Bryan Henry and Jessica Gantz
Kevin Gantz:
9/26/94 MMPI-2
9/27/94 The Custody Quotient
9/27/94 Parental Assessment Skills Survey
9/27/94 Clinical Interview
9/29/94 Family meeting with Kevin, Patty, and Jessica
Gantz
Jessica Gantz:
6/07/94 Bricklin Perceptual Scales
6/07/94 Perception of Relationships Test
7/19/94 Sentence Completion Test
9/28-29/94 Projective Drawings
Reviews:
Report from Eugene Stecher, M.S.
Telephone Conversation with Christina Runyon, Children and
Youth Services
custody Report
Jessica Gantz
Page 3
V. Findings
A. Observations of Jessica with her two families:
Observations of Jessica with her mother show them to be very
demonstrative of physical affection. Jessica was not feeling
well on the day of our visit, as noted by the lethargic manner
and quiet reserve. Jessica approached the examining situation
with some anxiety. She sat on her mother's lap in the waiting
room reading books. In the office she sat on her mother's lap
or snugly beside her until it was time to separate. Upon
suggestion of working alone with the Examiner, Jessica clung
to her mother and began to cry. Mother explained to Jessica
the necessity of her cooperating and reassured her that she
would only be in the next room. After this 2-3 minute
episode, Jessica accepted the separation and then became
involved in the evaluation tasks, being quite playful and
cooperative.
Upon observation of Jessica with the Henry family, she
appeared quite relaxed. While observing the family engaged
in construction of a train assembly, it was apparent that
Jessica modeled after her step brother, Bryan. Bryan was
quite accommodating to her and teased her affectionately.
Jessica was similarly observed interacting with her father and
stepmother, Patty. The Gantz's situated themselves an the
floor setting up the train set with her. Jessica continued
in the play after the interview was initiated. Upon
completion of the setup, Jessica went over to her father who
was now seated in a chair. She said, "I finished the whole
box. I used all the pieces," to which Kevin responded
appropriately, "That's great, Jessica," and he gestured as to
give her a hug. There was an awkward pause at that moment,
as Jessica did not move towards her father to embrace him.
He coached her, "Give me a hug." She stood motionless. When
he did finally manage to put his arms around her, she stood
there with her arms straight to her side, receiving his hug,
but not returning it.
After 40 minutes of observation of family interaction, the
Examiner stated that she will need some time now to work alone
with Jessica. The Gantz's appropriately rose from their seats
to leave the room, and at that time Jessica was then
positioned between her father and stepmother. Jessica jumped
immediately into Patty's arms, wrapped her arms around Patty's
Custody Report
Jessica Gantz
Page 4
neck and her legs around Patty's waist and began to cry,
telling them, "Don't go." After several minutes of trying to
coax Jessica into cooperation, Patty turned her over to her
father and left the room. Kevin tried several different
methods to get Jessica to accept the required separation. He
finally sat her in the chair and told her she had to stay, to
which she responded by following him to the door. He closed
the door behind him and held it shut while Jessica pulled on
the doorknob whining. Once while Father was forcing her into
a chair, Jessica looked over to the Examiner and broke into
a smile--embarrassment or the glee of being manipulative, it
was difficult to tell. Father finally took hold of Jessica's
arms and plopped her into the chair with some degree of force.
It was obvious at this time that he was angry and Jessica
seemed to realize she had reached the limit with him. After
he left she sat in the chair and cried for a flew minutes,
seemingly very petite at that time. When the Examiner asked
if Jessica would like to be held, she nodded her head in
agreement. The Examiner then held Jessica and rocked her for
a few minutes until the crying stopped. The Examiner stated
to Jessica, "It's so hard, isn't it?" Jessica nodded her head
yes. When asked, "What's the hardest part?" Jessica could
only shrug her shoulders. At that point Jessica evidenced
interest in completing the drawing task assigned to her.
H. Jessica's testing results:
On the Perception of Relationship Test (PORT), Jessica scored
six tasks in flavor of Mother and one task as a tie. The PORT
is a series of seven visual motor tasks which are designed
specifically to identify the child's preferences for each
parent for the purpose of custody. The child is asked to draw
pictures of herself with each parent, to draw a picture of her
family doing an activity together, or to provide a choice as
to which barn the "horsey" will choose when it's time to go
in. Jessica's performance showed preference for the mother
on all items except for the draw a person. In that item, both
male and female figures received an equal number of points.
The summary of results is as follows:
Perception of Relationships Test
Task. I Tie
Task II Mother
Task III Mother
Task IV Mother
Task V Mother
Task VI Mother
Task VII Mother
Custody Report
Jessica Gantz
Page 5
On the Bricklin Perceptual Scales Jessica's scores also
reflected a preference for the mother. She scored a total
number of 19 items for the mother and 8 for the father. Five
items received tie scores. This test requires the child to
select on a continuum how much a particular trait represents
each parent. Jessica's results are as follows:
Bricklin Perceptual Test
PERCEPTION OF COMPETENCY
Mother
Father
PERCEPTION OF SUPPORTIVENESS
Mother
Father
Times Preferred
8
2
5
3
PERCEPTION OF FOLLOWUP CONSISTENCY
Mother 2
Father 1
PERCEPTION OF ADMIRABLE CHARACTER TRAITS
Mother 4
Father 2
Projective Drawings Results
When asked to draw a picture of her family the day of her
family observation with the Henry's, Jessica first drew a
picture of (left to right) Keith, Mom, me, Seth, then Bryan.
She drew a dog and a picture which hangs in the living room
of her mother's home. She then asked if she should draw her
dad and Patty, to which the Examiner replied, "Draw whomever
you consider to be your family." She then proceeded to add
to the right side of the page Dad and then Patty. Keith, Mom
and Jessica were all portrayed wearing green colored clothing.
Bryan, Dad and Patty were attired in red clothing. Seth, her
half brother, was portrayed in two colors of clothing, the top
half matched Mom's and the bottom half matched Bryan's.
On the date of the evaluation of Jessica with the Gantz
family, Jessica was asked again to draw a picture of her
family. On this occasion she drew six human figures, a dog,
a sun in the middle of the page and one cloud on each top
corner of the page. She identified the figures left to right
Custody Report
Jessica Gantz
Page 6
as Dad, Patty, baby, Mom, Bryan and Dad. Kevin stated that
the drawing looked like her mom's family. Jessica then
proceeded to label the figures and then drew herself in the
picture between Patty and her father. She drew herself in
totally different colors from anyone on the page. Bryan and
Keith were dressed alike, Mom and Seth were dressed alike,
and Patty and Dad were dressed alike. The classical
interpretation of human figure drawings wherein a sun is
spontaneously inserted into the family drawing is that the
child perceives lack of warmth in the environment.
C. Test results of Mr. and Mrs. Henry:
MMPI-2 results show Mrs. Henry to have a valid profile within
normal limits. Some bias towards creating a favorable
impression was noted.
On the Custody Quotient, Kitty received an overall score of
123 which places her functioning in the superior range. She
received perfect scores in five of the ten parental
competencies assessed in this test. She lost credit for only
one item in each of the subsequent subtests, largely related
to an inability to successfully resolve differences with
Jessica's father.
D. Test results of Mr. and Mrs. Gantz:
The MMPI-2 results show Mr. Gantz to have a profile within
normal limits. The results are characteristic of someone who
"appears to be interpersonally insensitive and intolerant of
others. He is likely to be somewhat narrow-minded and closed
person who is uninterested in the expression or discussion of
feelings."
On the Custody Quotient, Kevin Gantz received a score of 123
which places his competency in the superior range related to
matters of childrearing. He received a highly competent
rating in eight areas. In the other two areas, he scored in
the "good parent" range. In the area of joint cooperation,
he received a good parent rating. He feels joint custody is
the best decision: "She has the right as an individual to
have a relationship with both parents." He acknowledged that
the lack of communication between himself and Jessica's mother
makes decision making difficult.
Custody Report
Jessica Gantz
Page 7
E. Results from clinical interviews:
A few significant vignettes stand out as illustrative of the
dynamics in these families. A few of the stories are
validated behaviorally by both parties, yet perceived very
differently by each. Some of the stories told are recalled
quite differently.
One incident described by both parties is in regards to one
of Jessica's dental appointments. It was apparently agreed
by both parties that the families would alternate visits
taking Jessica to the dentist. On one visit, Kevin appeared
at the dentist's at the appointment Kitty had scheduled for
Jessica. At the time of payment there was a conflict over who
should get the bill. Kitty said she would take it and submit
it under her husband's insurance. Kevin wanted to submit it
under his insurance. Kitty proceeded to take the bill and
submit it. Kevin called Mr. Henry's work and spoke to a
representative regarding this dental claim to determine whose
insurance it should be submitted under. He discovered that
the "birthday rule" determines the primary insurance, i.e.,
the insured party whose birthday occurs first in the calendar
year. Thus, with him having a February birthday and Mr. Henry
having a March birthday, Kevin carries the primary insurance.
He stated it was "immoral" for Kitty to thus submit this
dental claim under her husband's insurance and felt
satisfaction that through his efforts this claim was denied.
A similar instance wherein Mr. Gantz took extraordinary
measures to dominate in interactions between the two families
was in regards to Jessica's registration for school. He
contacted the school transportation director, Mr. Neighbors
to try to intercede in Kitty's being able to register Jessica
for kindergarten in the spring prior to her admission to
kindergarten. The families were in conflict over which Big
Springs school Jessica would attend.
Another family story which is considered to be of great
significance is in regards to a complaint Kevin filed with
Children and Youth Services of Carlisle. Kevin claimed Bryan
was sexually molesting Jessica and reported this to C&YS. An
investigation was completed and according to Christina Runyon
of C&YS, Jessica age 3 did corroborate that Bryan had touched
her "between the legs in the basement." It was indeterminant
whether this was in play or in experimentation. It was denied
Custody Report
Jessica Gantz
Page B
by Bryan. The case was "not considered serious in any way"
by C&YS and this case was then closed. The children were
instructed in "good touch bad touch" and the parents were
cautioned to exercise sound judgment in supervising the
children.
The registration of Jessica into Girl Scouts provided further
fodder for fighting. Kitty registered Jessica without
consulting with Father. Father objected, not because he
objected to Girl Scouts, but because of the manner in which
the decision was made. He felt this further impeded on his
opportunity to have input into the significant decisions in
Jessica's life. He agreed to Jessica attending scouts only
if Kitty would agree to allowing his period of custody of
Jessica to begin several hours earlier on his weeks.
VI. Family Comments Regarding Custodial Arrangement
Kevin describes that his share of the supposed 50-50 custody
of Jessica has been severely eroded by the courts, by Kitty
being granted two days during his weeks. He states, "I don't
know how much more I can give up." Kitty, on the other hand,
states that if it is best for Jessica to be with her father
primarily, she would let her go. Kevin and Patty recommend
that the physical arrangement not change but that one party
be put in charge of making the major decisions for Jessica.
This party should be they as, according to Kevin, he is more
capable of making competent decisions for Jessica. He states
that he feels Jessica would lose greatly if he were not
allowed to make the major decisions for her care and that
Jessica would not lose at all if Kitty were denied the right
to make decisions for her care. Kitty, on the other hand,
feels it would be less stressful for Jessica to be in her
primary care as she is more accommodating to Kevin's requests
for additional time with Jessica and they have a proven track
record with Bryan's mother and Keith of being able to be
flexible and supportive in regards to granting additional
visitation.
When Jessica was asked what would make it better for her in
regards to her two families, she responded, "If they could
just stop fighting."
Custody Report
Jessica Gantz
Page 4
VII. Corroboration with Previous Findings
The report of Eugene Stecher dated December 4, 1484, was
reviewed. It is evident from this comparison that Mr. Gantz
had made efforts to improve his parenting skills with Jessica
since the time of that report. Mr. Gantz has made efforts to
correct what were described as "controlling and emotionally
distant" personality traits, though "evidence of a more
distant relationship" between himself and Jessica is still
quite obvious. In fact of the two parent figures at the Gantz
household, Jessica seems to be primarily attached to Patty.
Both parents were then and still now described as competent
in parenting skills. Jessica continues to have attachment to
both parents, and ongoing hostility is a hallmark of their
relationship.
VIII. Summary and Conclusions
Conflict between Jessica's two parents has been ongoing since
their separation. The forum for this has included sessions
with counselors, conciliators, litigation and involvement of
Children and Youth Services. Kitty has primarily used the
courts as a forum to abate what she perceives as Kevin's
unreasonableness, and Kevin primarily has relied upon outside
agencies, schools, insurance companies and counselors as a way
of securing results which he considers "morally" correct.
Jessica, consistently in both psychological testing and
interviewing with both families, showed preference for her
mother as primary parent. Jessica is quite profound in
realizing it's the hardship of their constant squabbling which
is the primary source of her stress. All alternative means
of achieving cooperation have been exhausted and the family
must turn to the courts to find a solution to coexist
peacefully with differences. This process was explained to
the family as somewhat akin to our political system where
Republicans and Democrats coexist peacefully despite widely
disparate beliefs.
Psychological literature supports the recommendation of
deciding on a primary custodial parent in cases of continuous
litigation as a means of reducing conflict. This custody
should be awarded to the parent most capable of appreciating
the value of the child's relationship with the other parent
and most flexible in accommodating to additional visitation
requested by the other parent. In this case, Kitty Henry
Custody Report
Jessica Gantz
Page 10
decidedly has been more reasonable and cooperative. Perhaps
the most telling moment of this is her acknowledgment that she
would relinquish custody of Jessica if it would truly be
better for Jessica to live with her father. The father on the
other hand, with tears in his eyes showing genuine caring for
Jessica, professed he did not know if he could give up any
more. His concern seemed to be more for the effect all this
was having on him, rather than on Jessica.
Additionally, the courts have made clear that preservation of
the family is of primary concern and that barring unusual
circumstances, siblings should be reared together. In this
case, Jessica has a half sibling and a step brother whom she
perceives as her family. She will benefit from the security
that comes from being raised in this nucleus, while not being
denied continuing contact with her father and paternal
grandparents.
Thus, I recommend that Jessica's interests would best be
served by having primary physical and legal custody in the
mother. Liberal visitation and liberal telephone access to
the father would be most desirable.
A#?)Zj ? ?q
Natalie S. Berger, Ph.D., ABMP
Psychologist
Registered Custody Evaluator
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1754 - CIVIL - 1989
CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
ADDENDUM TO DEFENDANT'S WITNESS LIST
Defendant adds the following name to his witness list:
DEBORAH REID, who was Jessica GantzIs kindergarten
teacher for the 1993-1994 Academic year. Ms. Reid was on
Plaintiff's witness list for the October 12, 1994 hearing but
was excused when the school issue was settled by stipulation.
Ms. Reid was also on the Defendant's witness list to be called
as on cross regarding Jessica's development in Kindergarten
and the teacher's evaluation as to the child's general
adjustment to the joint custody arrangement.
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN RE: CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, December 9, 1994, following a hearing before the Court
and argument of counsel, the Court hereby vacates all prior custody orders in this
matter.
It is further ordered and directed that the parties, namely plaintiff, Kitty
M. Henry (hereinafter referred to as Mother), and defendant, Kevin B. Gantz
(hereinafter referred to as Father), shall have shared or joint legal custody of their
child, Jessica M. Gantz (hereinafter referred to as Child), born July 12, 1988.
The parties shall have shared physical custody of the child by
exchanging physical custody on a weekly basis, as follows:
1. The party in custody during any given week shall transfer custody
to the other parry by transporting the child to the other party at 8:00 a.m. each
Monday morning, which shall begin the weekly period of physical custody for the
other party. In the event this exchange occurs on a Monday morning when there
is school for the child, the parent transferring custody may see that the child is
transported to school that Monday morning rather than to the other party. This
physical custody arrangement alternating custody weekly shall be implemented
with Father transferring the child to Mother at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, January 2,
1995, or, if Father chooses, by Father delivering the child to school on Monday
morning. Mother shall then retain physical custody of the child until Monday
morning, January 9, 1995, when she shall deliver the child to the Father at 8:00
a.m., or, if the child has school, Mother may deliver the child to school for the
initiation of Father's next week of physical custody. This arrangement shall then
continue on an alternating week basis.
2. During Father's week of physical custody, Father shall take the
child directly to school and shall pick the child up at the end of his work each day.
In the event the Father or his family has time off from work and is available to care
for the child, he may retain physical custody of the child that day. He shall notify
the Mother of this by telephone.
3. During Christmas, the parties shall alternate the periods of time
from between: (a) 8:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve until noon on Christmas day; and
(b) noon on Christmas day until 8:00 p.m. on Christmas day, each year. Father
shall have the second period described above and Mother shall have the first
period described above for Christmas 1994 and the parties shall thereafter
alternate these periods on an annual basis.
4. During the following holidays, the party in custody shall afford the
parent not in custody at that time a period of physical custody with the child either
from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. or from 2:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. on each such holiday
with the parent in custody selecting which time period the child shall be with the
non-custodial parent, at least one week prior to the holiday. The holidays included
under this provision are: New Year's Day, Easter, and Thanksgiving Day.
5. On Mother's Day of each year, in the event Mother does not
already have physical custody of the child, she shall secure physical custody of the
child at 10:00 a.m. on Mother's Day and retain custody of the child through
Mother's Day and the night of Mother's Day so as to begin her week period of
physical custody. During Father's Day of each year, in the event Father does not
already have physical custody of the child, he shall secure physical custody of the
child at 10:00 a.m. on Father's Day and retain custody of the child through Father's
Day and the night of Father's Day so as to begin his week period of physical
custody.
It is further ordered and directed that the child shall attend Newville
Elementary School unless a time shall occur in the future when Mother moves from
this elementary district.
Unless otherwise set forth above, the party securing physical custody
of the child shall be responsible for transporting the child at the beginning of each
period of physical custody described above.
Further, the parties shall keep each other advised immediately in the
event of serious illness or medical emergency concerning the child and shall further
take any necessary steps to ensure that the health and well-being of the child is
protected. During such illness or medical emergency, both parties shall have the
right to visit the child as often as he or she desires consistent with the proper
medical care of the child.
Neither parent shall do anything which may estrange the child from the
other party, or injury the opinion of the child as to the other party, or which may
hamper the free and natural development of the child's love or affection for the
other party.
The terms of this Agreement do not prohibit the parties reaching a
written Agreement, signed by both parties, confirming a modification in this Order,
whether that be for a specific occasion or for a modification of the general terms
of this Order.
By the Court,
J.
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
For the Plaintiff/Petitioner
David D. Hukill, Esquire
For the Defendant/Respondent
:ssg
Y-.
j'
cs
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN RE: CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, February 1, 1995, the parties, through their attorneys
meeting this day with the judge, having reached an agreement, paragraph 2 of our
order of December 9, 1994, is amended to include the following sentence:
During the summer vacation months, when father is working
during his week of physical custody, he will deliver the child to mother at the
beginning of his work day, and pick the child up from mother at the end of his
work day.
J.
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
For the Plaintiff/Petitioner
z?eS
David D. Hukill, Esquire C?.41
For the Defendant/Respondent
:ssg
7 13 j
By the Court.
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:CUSTODY
PRAE IPE TO ENTER AN APPEARANCE
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the plaintiff, Kitty M. (Lantz) Henry and remove
Bradley L. Lriffie. as attorney in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
IRWIN, McKNIGHT & HUGHES
September 9, 1997
By:
Attorney for plaintiff
Supreme Court ID No. 67212
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-2353
4. ?FlE
C7 ? n
fr,j
771
RECEIVED hki 0 3 2005
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
AND NOW, this
: NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
day of
2005, upon review of
Defendant's Petition for Contempt of Custody Order, it is hereby
that said
Petition shall be heard on 5119/05 at the Custody Conciliation Conference scheduled before
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire.
BY THE COURT:
J.
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ, : IN CUSTODY
Defendant
PETITION FOR CONTEMPT
OF CUSTODY ORDER
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Kevin B. Gantz, by and through his attorney,
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire, and respectfully files the following Petition for Contempt
of Custody Order:
1. Kitty Henry and Kevin B. Gantz, hereinafter referred to as Mother and Father,
are the natural parents of Jessica M. Gantz, born 7/12/88.
2. The parties share legal and physical custody of the child under the terms of an
Order entered by the Court on 2/1/95. A copy of said Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. On 3/21/05, at the beginning of Father's period of physical custody, the child
did not return to Father's residence after school. Father learned that Mother took the child
to her residence without Father's knowledge or consent.
4. On 3/21/05, Father verbally requested that the child be returned to his
residence, but Mother and the child refused.
On 4/4/05, at the beginning of Father's period of physical custody, the child
did not return to Father's residence after school. Father learned that Mother took the child
to her residence without Father's knowledge or consent.
6. Mother filed a Petition for Modification of Custody on 3/18/05, which was sent
to David Hukill, Esquire. The Petition's Certificate of Service states that the Petition for
Modification of Custody was sent to Attorney Steven Hogg. See attached Exhibit B.
Father did not receive the Petition for Modification of Custody until 4/5/05.
8. On 4/4/05, at the beginning of Father's period of physical custody, the child
did not return to Father's residence after school. Father learned that Mother took the child
to her residence without Father's knowledge or consent
9. On 4/7/05, Father went to Mother's residence to pick up the child and Mother
and the child refused Father's request that the child come home with him.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Father, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to:
a. Hold Mother in contempt of the existing Custody Order;
b, Grant Father primary physical custody of the child;
C. Award Father additional time of physical custody with the child to make up for
the times lost due to Mother's contempt of the Order;
d. Award Father attorney's fees in the amount of $750.00 for the filing of this
contempt petition;
e. Direct that this Petition for Contempt be heard during the Custody Conciliation
Conference scheduled for 5/19/05 before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire;
f. Any other relief deemed fair and equitable by this Court.
Respectfully Submitted,
A?- 2j, b sa ,C?C?.
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
4711 Locust Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
717-657-0632
Id. No. 63522
Dated: q ",?--7 -,r J-!5
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ, ; IN CUSTODY
Defendant
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand
that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904
relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
By: ? "C',"
Kevin B. Gan
Date: `Iraq-'??
EXHIBIT A
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN RE: CUSTODY
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
1754 CIVIL 1969
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, February 1, 1995, the parties, through their attomeys
meeting this day with the judge, having reached an agreement, paragraph 2 of our
order of December 9, 1994, is amended to include the following sentence:
During the summer vacation months, when father is working
during his week of physical custody, he will deliver the child to mother at the
beginning of his work day, and pick the child up from mother at the end of his
work day.
J.
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
For the Plaintiff/Petitioner
David D. Hukill, Esquire ?.
For the Defendant/Respondent
:ssg
pi
By the Court.
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN RE: CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, December 9, 1994, following a hearing before the Court
and argument of counsel, the Court hereby vacates all prior custody orders in this
matter.
It is further ordered and directed that the parties, namely plaintiff, Kitty
M. Henry (hereinafter referred to as Mother), and defendant, Kevin B. Gantz
(hereinafter referred to as Father), shall have shared or joint legal custody of their
child, Jessica M. Gantz (hereinafter referred to as Child), born July 12, 1988.
The parties shall have shared physical custody of the child by
exchanging physical custody on a weekly basis, as follows:
1. The party in custody during any given week shall transfer custody
to the other party by transporting the child to the other party at 8:00 a.m. each
Monday morning, which shall begin the weekly period of physical custody for the
other party. In the event this exchange occurs on a Monday morning when there
Is school for the chilu, the parent transferring
...ay see that the child Is
transported to school that Monday morning rather than to the other party. This
physical custody arrangement alternating custody weekly shall be implemented
with Father transferring the child to Mother at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, January 2,
1995, or, if Father chooses, by Father delivering the child to school on Monday
morning. Mother shall then retain physical custody of the child until Monday
morning, January 9, 1995, when she shall deliver the child to the Father at 8:00
a.m., or, if the child has school, Mother may deliver the child to school for the
initiation of Father's next week of physical custody. This arrangement shall then
continue on an alternating week basis.
2. During Father's week of physical custody, Father shall take the
child directly to school and shall pick the child up at the end of his work each day.
In the event the Father or his family has time off from work and is available to care
for the child, he may retain physical custody of the child that day. He shall notify
the Mother of this by telephone.
3. During Christmas, the parties shall alternate the periods of time
from between: (a) 8:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve until noon on Christmas day; and
(b) noon on Christmas day until 8:00 p.m. on Christmas day, each year. Father
shall have the second period described above and Mother shall have the first
period described above for Christmas 1994 and the parties shall thereafter
alternate these periods on an annual basis.
4. During the following holidays, the party in custody shall afford the
parent not in custody at that time a period of physical custody with the child either
from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. or from 2:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. on each such holiday
with the parent in custody selecting which time period the child shall be with the
non-custodial parent, at least one week prior to the holiday. The holidays included
under this provision are: New Year's Day, Easter, and Thanksgiving Day.
5. On Mother's Day of each year, in the event Mother does not
already have physical custody of the child, she shall secure physical custody of the
child at 10:00 a.m. on Mother's Day and retain custody of the child through
Mother's Day and the night of Mother's Day so as to begin her week period of
physical custody. During Father's Day of each year, in the event Father does not
already have physical custody of the child, he shall secure physical custody of the
child at 10:00 a.m. on Father's Day and retain custody of the child through Father's
Day and the night of Father's Day so as to begin his week period of physical
custody.
It is further ordered and directed that the child shall attend Newville
Elementary School unless a time shall occur in the future when Mother moves from
this elementary district.
Unless otherwise set forth above, the party securing physical custody
of the child shall be responsible for transporting the child at the beginning of each
period of physical custody described above.
Further, the parties shall keep each other advised immediately in the
event of serious illness or medical emergency concerning the child and shall further
take any necessary steps to ensure that the health and well-being of the child is
protected. During such illness or medical emergency, both parties shall have the
right to visit the child as often as he or she desires consistent with the. proper
medical care of the child.
Neither parent shall do anything which may estrange the child from the
other party, or injury the opinion of the child as to the other party, or which may
hamper the free and natural development of the child's love or affection for the
other party.
The terms of this Agreement do not prohibit the parties reaching a
written Agreement, signed by both parties, confirming a modification in this Order,
whether that be for a specific occasion or for a modification of the general terms
of this Order.
By the Court,
George E. Hoffer, J.
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
For the Plaintiff/Petitioner
David D. Hukill, Esquire
For the Defendant/Respondent
:ssg
EXHIBIT B
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy
of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by first class United States mail,
postage paid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, on the date set forth below:
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 South Hanover Street
Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: March 18, 2005 IRWIN & McKNIGHT
Do glas G. Miller, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 83776
Matthew A. McKnight, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 93010
West Pomfret Professional Building
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222
(717) 249-2353
Attorney for Plaintiff
Kitty M. Henry
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY,
Plaintiff
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
: IN CUSTODY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this day of 2005, I, Katherine A. Frey,
Secretary to Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire, Attorney for the Defendant, hereby certify that
a copy of the within document has been served, by depositing a copy of the same in the
United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to the following
addressee:
Douglas G. Miller, Esquire
Irwin & McKnight
West Pomfret Professional Building
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3222
Attorney for Plaintiff
Bylj?r
Katherine A. Frey
n
? ? O
? '? G
( ?y '?i1
b _ 1
.?
f ?»
T ?
-
? V
? r ?
rn r
_??; r
? ?
N .v ?-,
?_)
t ry 11
l ?:'
;,
' <?rn
? y: ?... CJ ?'r
GJ
KITTY M. HENRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ
DEFENDANT
89-1754 CIVIL ACTION LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, Wednesday, May 04, 2005 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint,
it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. , the conciliator,
at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Thursday, May 19, 2005 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: /s/ Hubert X. Gilroy Esq. tt?
Custody Conciliator
The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans
with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations
available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements
must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled
conference or hearing.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET
FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone (717) 249-3166
? v'y ? r`a?iF F
9£ -0 NJ S- AVw SODZ
i,zb' Ci :v;= a,Hi ?o
RECEIVED MAY 26200
KITTY M. HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v CIVIL ACTION - LAW
KEVIN B. GANTZ, : NO. 89-1754
Defendant : IN CUSTODY
COURT ORDER
AND NOW, this fj day of May, 2005, upon consideration of the attached
Custody Conciliation report, it is ordered and directed as follows:
1. A hearing is scheduled in Court Room No. 2 of the Cumberland County Courthouse
on the 13' day of June 2005 at 1:30 p.m. At this hearing, the mother shall 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 the history of
custody in this case, the issues currently before the Court, a summary of each parties
position on these issues, a list of witnesses who will be called to testify on behalf of
each party and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. This
memorandum shall be filed at least three days prior to the mentioned hearing date.
2. Counsel for the parties shall endeavor to obtain any written reports from any
counselors who are dealing with the minor child and submit those reports, if possible,
in lieu of testimony of the counselors at a hearing.
3. The parties shall cooperate with each other to arrange for a new counselor to meet
with the minor child and the father and to endeavor to create a better relationship
between the daughter and the father and to promote the daughter's willingness to visit
with the father. Cost of this counseling shall be split equally between the parties for
any cost not reimbursed by insurance.
BY THL COURT
cc?:)6u G. Miller, Esquire
arianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
V?
t? I
4i
N 1
"t
KITTY M. HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v CIVIL ACTION - LAW
KEVIN B. GANTZ, NO. 89-1754
Defendant IN CUSTODY
CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF
PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following
report:
1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation
is as follows:
Jessica M. Gantz, born July 12, 1988.
2. A Conciliation Conference was held on May 19, 2005, with the following individuals
in attendance:
The mother, Kitty M. Henry, with her counsel, Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, and the
father, Kevin B. Gantz, with his counsel, Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire.
3. There is a prior Order from 1995 which provided a shared physical custody situation
and the parties have been alternating custody on week on/week off basis since that
time. The minor child has had some difficulties with school and with some criminal
charges which have been processed through the juvenile system. She is currently on
probation. In March of this year, the daughter came to the mother and suggested
that she is refusing to go back to live with the father. The mother filed a petition to
modify the existing Order, and the father filed a petition for contempt because the
child was remaining with the mother and was not coming to live with the father
pursuant to the Court Order. The child has not seen the father, except at some soccer
games, since early March.
4.
5.
The issue is whether the Court is going to mandate that the daughter go to visit her
father. The Conciliator arranged for a short Court hearing because of the fact that
the child has not been seeing the father over the past two months.
The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached.
s a? a?
DATE
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquij
Custody Conciliator
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
4711 Locust Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
717-657-0632
Id. No. 63522
Attorney for Defendant
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ, : IN CUSTODY
Defendant
PETITION FOR CONTEMPT
OF CUSTODY ORDER
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Kevin B. Gantz, by and through his attorney,
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire, and respectfully files the following Petition for Contempt
of Custody Order:
Kitty Henry and Kevin B. Gantz, hereinafter referred to as Mother and Father,
are the natural parents of Jessica M. Gantz, born 7/12/88.
2. The parties share legal and physical custody of the child under the terms of an
Order entered by the Court on 2/1/95. A copy of said Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. A Custody Conciliation Conference was held before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire
on 5/19/05 and an Order of Court was issued by the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley on 5131105.
Said Order is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
4. Since the issuance of the Order dated 5131105, Father has not had any visitation
with the parties daughter.
5. On 5/19/05, Father attempted to pick the child up from school at Big Spring
Sr. High School, and Mother, who was present, stated that it was Jessica's choice if she
wanted to go with him.
6. Father scheduled a counseling appointment with Amy Kessling at Shienvold
& Associates for 5/31/05 and attempted to pick up the child from school to take her to the
appointment.
7. When Father arrived at the school, he met with the principal and the parties
daughter and the child stated that she would not go with him and "mom said it was my choice
if I wanted to go."
8. Father cancelled the appointment with Amy Kessling since the child refused
to go with him.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Father, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to:
a. Hold Mother in contempt of the existing Custody Order;
b. Address this Petition for Contempt at the custody hearing scheduled for
6/13/05 before this Honorable Court.
C. Award Father additional time of physical custody with the child to make up for
the times lost due to Mother's contempt of the Order;
d. Award Father attorney's fees in the amount of $750.00 for the filing of this
contempt petition;
f. Any other relief deemed fair and equitable by this Court.
Respectfully Submitted,
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
4711 Locust Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17109
717-657-0632
Id. No. 63522
Dated: 6 -(c _U
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ, : IN CUSTODY
Defendant
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand
that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: 6-(0 -o,
EXHIBIT A
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN RE: CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, February 1, 1995, the parties, through their attorneys
meeting this day with the judge, having reached an agreement, paragraph 2 of our
order of December 9, 1994, is amended to include the following sentence:
During the summer vacation months, when father is working
during his week of physical custody, he will deliver the child to mother at the
beginning of his work day, and pick the child up from mother at the end of his
work day.
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
For the Plaintiff/Petitioner
David D. Hukill, Esquire
For the Defendant/Respondent
:ssg
9s-
0
By the Court.
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
IN RE: CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, December 9, 1994, following a hearing before the Court
and argument of counsel, the Court hereby vacates all prior custody orders in this
matter.
It is further ordered and directed that the parties, namely plaintiff, Kitty
M. Henry (hereinafter referred to as Mother), and defendant, Kevin B. Gantz
(hereinafter referred to as Father), shall have shared or joint legal custody of their
child, Jessica M. Gantz (hereinafter referred to as Child), born July 12, 1988.
The parties shall have shared physical custody of the child by
exchanging physical custody on a weekly basis, as follows:
1. The party in custody during any given week shall transfer custody
to the other party by transporting the child to the other party at 8:00 a.m. each
Monday morning, which shall begin the weekly period of physical custody for the
other party. In the event this exchange occurs on a Monday morning when there
Is school for the chil(j, the parent transferring custody"..ay see that the child is
transported to school that Monday morning rather than to the other party. This
physical custody arrangement alternating custody weekly shall be implemented
with Father transferring the child to Mother at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, January 2,
1995, or, if Father chooses, by Father delivering the child to school on Monday
morning. Mother shall then retain physical custody of the child until Monday
morning, January 9, 1995, when she shall deliver the child to the Father at 8:00
a.m., or, If the child has school, Mother may deliver the child to school for the
initiation of Father's next week of physical custody. This arrangement shall then
continue on an alternating week basis.
2. During Father's week of physical custody, Father shall take the
child directly to school and shall pick the child up at the end of his work each day.
In the event the Father or his family has time off from work and is available to care
for the child, he may retain physical custody of the child that day. He shall notify
the Mother of this by telephone.
3. During Christmas, the parties shall alternate the periods of time
from between: (a) 8:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve until noon on Christmas day; and
(b) noon on Christmas day until 8:00 p.m. on Christmas day, each year. Father
shall have the second period described above and Mother shall have the first
period described above for Christmas 1994 and the parties shall thereafter
alternate these periods on an annual basis.
4. During the following holidays, the party in custody shall afford the
parent not in custody at that time a period of physical custody with the child either
from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. or from 2:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. on each such holiday
with the parent in custody selecting which time period the child shall be with the
non-custodial parent, at least one week prior to the holiday. The holidays included
under this provision are: New Year's Day, Easter, and Thanksgiving Day.
5. On Mother's Day of each year, in the event Mother does not
already have physical custody of the child, she shall secure physical custody of the
child at 10:00 a.m. on Mother's Day and retain custody of the child through
Mother's Day and the night of Mother's Day so as to begin her week period of
physical custody. During Father's Day of each year, in the event Father does not
already have physical custody of the child, he shall secure physical custody of the
child at 10:00 a.m. on Father's Day and retain custody of the child through Father's
Day and the night of Father's Day so as to begin his week period of physical
custody.
It is further ordered and directed that the child shall attend Newville
Elementary School unless a time shall occur in the future when Mother moves from
this elementary district.
Unless otherwise set forth above, the party securing physical custody
of the child shall be responsible for transporting the child at the beginning of each
period of physical custody described above.
Further, the parties shall keep each other advised immediately in the
event of serious illness or medical emergency concerning the child and shall further
take any necessary steps to ensure that the health and.well-being of the child is
protected. During such illness or medical emergency, both parties shall have the
right to visit the child as often as he or she desires consistent with the, proper
medical care of the child.
Neither parent shall do anything which may estrange the child from the
other party, or injury the opinion of the child as to the other party, or which may
hamper the free and natural development of the child's love or affection for the
other party.
The terms of this Agreement do not prohibit the parties reaching a
written Agreement, signed by both parties, confirming a modification in this Order,
whether that be for a specific occasion or for a modification of the general terms
of this Order.
By the Court,
George E. Hoffer, J.
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
For the Plaintiff/Petitioner
David D. Hukill, Esquire
For the Defendant/Respondent
:ssg
EXHIBIT B
RECEIVED MAY 261005
KITTY M. HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v CIVIL ACTION - LAW
KEVIN B. GANTZ, : NO. 89-1754
Defendant : IN CUSTODY
COURT ORDER
AND NOW, this 3) day of May, 2005, upon consideration of the attached
Custody Conciliation report, it is ordered and directed as follows:
1. A hearing is scheduled in Court Room No. 2 of the Cumberland County Courthouse
on the 13' day of June 2005 at 1:30 p.m. At this hearing, the mother shall 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 the history of
custody in this case, the issues currently before the Court, a summary of each parties
position on these issues, a list of witnesses who will be called to testify on behalf of
each party and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. This
memorandum shall be filed at least three days prior to the mentioned hearing date.
2. Counsel for the parties shall endeavor to obtain any written reports from any
counselors who are dealing with the minor child and submit those reports, if possible,
in lieu of testimony of the counselors at a hearing.
3. The parties shall cooperate with each other to arrange for a new counselor to meet
with the minor child and the father and to endeavor to create a better relationship
between the daughter and the father and to promote the daughter's willingness to visit
with the father. Cost of this counseling shall be split equally between the parties for
any cost not reimbursed by insurance.
cc: Douglas G. Miller, Esquire
Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire
TRUE CMow FROM RECORD
Intimony MI here unto set my hand
anb t!e sea[ of at ?4rlisle, Pa.
BY THE COURT,
KITTY M. HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
KEVIN B. GANTZ, : NO. 89-1754
Defendant : IN CUSTODY
CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF
PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following
report:
1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation
is as follows:
Jessica M. Gantz, born July 12, 1988.
2.
3.
A Conciliation Conference was held on May 19, 2005, with the following individuals
in attendance:
The mother, Kitty M. Henry, with her counsel, Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, and the
father, Kevin B. Gantz, with his counsel, Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire.
There is a prior Order from 1995 which provided a shared physical custody situation
and the parties have been alternating custody on week on/week off basis since that
time. The minor child has had some difficulties with school and with some criminal
charges which have been processed through the juvenile system. She is currently on
probation. In March of this year, the daughter came to the mother and suggested
that she is refusing to go back to live with the father. The mother filed a petition to
modify the existing Order, and the father filed a petition for contempt because the
child was remaining with the mother and was not coming to live with the father
pursuant to the Court Order. The child has not seen the father, except at some soccer
games, since early March.
4. The issue is whether the Court is going to mandate that the daughter go to visit her
father. The Conciliator arranged for a short Court hearing because of the fact that
the child has not been seeing the father over the past two months.
5. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached.
s a? o s?'
DATE
Hubert X. Gilroy, E
Custody Conciliator
KITTY M. (GANTZ) HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ, : IN CUSTODY
Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 4,fV- day of?A,24 , , 2005, I, Katherine A. Frey,
Secretary to Marianne E. Rudebusch, Esquire, Attorney for the Defendant, hereby certify that
a copy of the within document has been served, by depositing a copy of the same in the
United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to the following
addressee:
Douglas G. Miller, Esquire
Irwin & McKnight
West Pomfret Professional Building
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3222
Attorney for Plaintiff
B t
atherine A. Frey
? c
0
CIO
x
yr`
C,3 A
KITTY M. HENRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ
DEFENDANT
89-1754 CIVIL ACTION LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, Wednesday, March 23, 2005 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint,
it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. the conciliator,
at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Friday, April 15, 2005 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 hearing.
FOR THE COURT,
By: /s/ Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq,
Custody Conciliator
The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans
with Disabilites Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations
available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements
must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the
scheduled conference or hearing.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET
FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
"Telephone (717) 249-3166
Gtr - ??'?
soSc)_
n rr n
..l Vi.3_'r..l°n zi i'',
iAk,wy
KITTY M. HENRY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
No. 1754 CIVIL 1989
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant CIVIL ACTION - IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of , 2005, upon consideration of the
attached petition, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before
the conciliator, at
, on the day of , 2005 at M.
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 this conference may provide grounds for entry of
a temporary or permanent order.
BY THE COURT,
By:
J.
The Court of Common Pleas of Perry County is required by law to comply with the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations
available to 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 LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU
DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE
THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL
HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
800-990-9108
717-249-3166
KITTY M. HENRY,
Plaintiff
V.
KEVIN B. GANTZ,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 1754 CIVIL 1989
CIVIL ACTION - IN CUSTODY
PETITION FOR
MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ORDER
AND NOW, this day of March, 2005, comes the Plaintiff, KITTY M. HENRY, by
and through her attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, and presents the following Petition for
Modification of Custody Order, averring as follows:
1.
The Plaintiff is Kitty M. Henry, an adult individual residing at 23 Carlisle Road,
Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17241.
2.
The Defendant is Kevin B. Gantz, an adult individual residing at 442 West Main Street,
Walnut Bottom, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3.
On December 9, 1994, an Order of Court was entered in this matter establishing shared
physical custody on a weekly basis with regard to their minor child, namely, Jessica M. Gantz,
born July 12, 1988. Said Order is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as
Exhibit "A."
1
Is
4.
The minor child, who will turn 17 years of age on July 12, 2005, desires to live
exclusively with Plaintiff.
5.
The best interests and permanent welfare of the child require that the Court modify the
current custody schedule as requested by the minor child.
6.
At the insistence of the minor child, Plaintiff seeks a modification of custody to give her
exclusive physical custody and joint legal custody of the parties' minor child.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully seeks the entry of an Order of Court granting
Defendant's Petition for Modification of Custody Order.
Dated: March 18, 2005
Respectfully submitted,
IRWIN & McKNIGHT
y:
B
Douglas G. Miller, Esquir
Supreme Court I.D. No. 83776
Matthew A. McKnight, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 93010
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-2353
Attorney for Plaintiff,
Kitty M. Henry
2
41
VERIFICATION
The foregoing document is based upon information which has been gathered by my
counsel and myself in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this
document and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I
understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
?' KI Y 1VI. ENRY`
Date: March 18, 2005
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy
of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by first class United States mail,
postage paid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, on the date set forth below:
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 South Hanover Street
Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: March 18, 2005 IRWIN & McKNIGHT
Do glas G. Miller, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 83776
Matthew A. McKnight, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 93010
West Pomfret Professional Building
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222
(717) 249-2353
Attorney for Plaintiff
Kitty M. Henry
?v
Pay
?. i
:\"'?
?4
?a
°+..?
??
`7?
j T
\,_
??
.?
??
?_/?--.-
f ?
??
C,,;,
lc` ..
.,..?'