The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-1747 JOSEPH ESPOSITO, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. oS" - / ,'1 7 LYNNE ESPOSITO, DEFENDANT CNIL ACTION - CUSTODY COMPl ,AINT FOR CnSTODY AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Joseph Esposito, by and through his counsel Smigel, Anderson & Sacks, and files the following Complaint for Custody: 1. Plaintiff is Joseph Esposito, residing at 606 Buckhorn Court, Lewisberry, York County, Pennsylvania, 17339. 2. Defendant is Lynne Esposito, residing at 5915 Stephen's Cross, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055. 3. Plaintiff seeks custody of the following children: Name PTe~ent Resioence Age John Esposito; 5915 Stephen's Cross, Mechanicsburg, PA; 17 Elizabeth Esposito; 5915 Stephen's Cross, Mechanicsburg, PA; 15 4. The children were not born out of wedlock. The children are presently in the custody of Defendant. 5. During the past five (5) years, the children have resided with the following persons and at the following addresses: PeT!';ons Adoresses Dates . Lynne Esposito; 5915 Stephen's Cross, Mechanicsburg, PA; December 2004 to present Lynne Esposito; 2012 Mountain Pine Drive, Mechanicsburg, P A; June 2004 to December 2004 Joseph & Lynne Esposito; 2012 Mountain Pine Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA; 1995 to June 2004 6. The mother of the children is Lynne Esposito. She is married to, but separated from, the father of the children, Joseph Esposito. 7. The relationship of Plaintiff to the children is that of Father. Plaintiff currently resides with the following persons: Nmne Lisa Torp R e1~tlom:111p Paramour 8. The relationship of Defendant to the children is that of Mother. Defendant does not currently reside with anyone other than the children. 9. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or witness, or in another capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody of the children in this or another Court. Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the children pending in a Court of this Commonwealth. Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the children or who claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the children. 10. The best interest and permanent welfare of the children will be served by granting the relief requested because: A. Plaintiff is a fit parent. B. The children see Plaintiff as a source of love and affection. C. Awarding shared legal and physical custody of the children to both parties will provide continuity, stability and certainty to the children's lives. 11. Each parent whose parental rights to the children have not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the children have been named as parties to this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court to grant shared legal and shared physical custody of the children to the parties jointly. SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS Date: 3/3DJos- o migel, Esquire ill #09617 Ja es R. Demmel, Esquire ill #90918 4431 North Front Street, 3rd FIr. Harrisburg, P A 17110-1709 (717) 234-2401 Attorneys for Plaintiff VRRTFTCA TTON 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: .3/30/05 ~~ ~ - - Ci C>' - ~ t2 ~ t r ? .J:- r-' r..... ::;:}, :il - :::;~ - ~ '--;'? (",,) v - JOSEPH ESPOSITO PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON LEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PEN SYLVANIA v. 05-1747 CIVIL ACTION LA LYNNE ESPOSITO IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Wednesday, April 06, 2005 , upon consideration of th attached Complaint. it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa P. Gre vy, Esq. at DJ Manlove's, 1901 State St., Camp Hill, PA 17011 on Friday, May 13,20 5 . the conciliator, at 1:00 PM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference, At such conference, an effort will be made to resol e 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 appe r at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The courl hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection f om Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to schedule hearing. FOR THE COURT. By: Is/ Melissa P. GreeVL..lI~'._~ ~. Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to co ply with the Americans with Disabilites Act of 1990, For infonnation about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court. please contact our of Ice. All arrangements must be made at [east 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. F YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO F[ND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP, Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle. Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (7 J 7) 249-3 [66 ~~? ~~ 5.;21,/1 ~ ~~ ~ r>1l P7j:9l( 51} 1';7 ~ ~ _~ ~/ .(4).7-/'"7 It??J.;>? I ~',~0~"v'/\1"\S!\)N7\'! II'r . ,'. '. -., --".''''':) {\.,d+"~.' ;: ,,_.:.- ';') j 9 ~:8 Hd 9- ~dV SiluZ AUV10l\;o;.110(]Q 3Hl :10 3~l:UO-CJ31!:I JOSEPH P. ESPOSITO, Plaintiffi'Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM LYNNE A. ESPOSITO, Defendant/Petitioner : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN CUSTODY EMERGENCY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Lynne Esposito, by and through her attorneys, James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP, and petitions this Honorable Court for special relief as more fully set forth hereafter: 1. The parties, Plaintiff, Joseph Esposito (hereinafter "Father") and Defendant, Lynne Esposito (hereinafter "Mother") are the natural parents of one minor child, Elizabeth Esposito, born March 23,1989 (hereinafter "Elizabeth"). The parties' are also the parents oOohn Esposito, age eighteen (18), born May 15, 1987 (hereinafter "John"). 2. The parties separated in June 2004 and are in the middle of a divorce. 3. The parties' separation occurred when Father, without warning, announced an adulterous affair with his current paramour, Lisa, with whom he presently resides and left the marital residence. 4. Since June 2004, by Father's own admission, he has spent approximately two and a half (2 Yz) hours on alternating Sunday afternoons with Elizabeth. 5. Elizabeth has expressed a clear and consistent refusal to spend time with Father at his home due to Elizabeth's dislike of Father's paramour and the emotional trauma that the parties' separation has caused Elizabeth. 6. Father has not had one overnight with Elizabeth since the parties' separation and Elizabeth has never been to Father's home and/or in the company of Father's paramour. 7. On April I, 2005, Father filed a Complaint for Custody. 8. A Custody Conciliation before Melissa P. Greevy, Esquire was conducted on May 12, 2005. The Conciliator issued a Summary Report following the Conciliation, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 9. The Summary Report confirms the parties' agreement to participate in therapeutic family counseling to deal with Elizabeth's refusal to spend time with Father as a result of her emotional trauma caused by the separation and her dislike of Father's paramour. 10. Included with the Conciliator's Summary Report and submitted to this Honorable Court for consideration was a proposed Interim Order, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 11. The proposed Interim Order provides: It is noted that there is significant emotional tension between the parents and between Father and at least one of the children /Elizabeth}. To address this concern, the parties will be participating in therapeutic family counseling to provide a therapeutic environment in which the pains and tensions which exist may be addressed...The parties shall initiate telephone contact to schedule to the first appointment during the week of May 16, 2005. See proposed Interim Order, ~4 (emphasis added). 12. Although not yet signed by the Court, it is anticipated that the Conciliator's proposed Interim Order will be adopted. 13. The proposed Interim Order institutes a custodial schedule for Father as follows: A. May 29th from Noon to 5:00 p.m. B. Effective June 5, 2005, on alternating Sundays, from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. C. Vacation. Each parent shall be entitled to two (2) eight (8) day uninterrupted blocks of partial custody for purposes of vacation each year. Father's Summer 2005 weeks shall be June 12, 2005 through June 19,2005 and July 10, 2005 through July 17,2004. See proposed Interim Order, ~3. 14. The proposed custodial schedule is vague, pmporting to apply to partial custodial rights of Father to both Elizabeth and John, despite the fact that John is eighteen (18) years of age and not the proper subject of any Custody Order. IS. Father failed to appear to exercise the custody permitted by paragraph three (3)(A) of the proposed Interim Order on May 29th with Elizabeth. 16. Father appeared at Mother's home at 5:00 p.m. on June 5, 2005, eight (8) hours past the proposed start time of his visitation with Elizabeth. Father stayed with Elizabeth in Mother's home until 6:30 p.m., at which time Father left. John refused to spend any time with his Father during the hour and a half visitation. 17. Father has spoken to Elizabeth on the telephone twice in the last three (3) weeks and on both occasions Elizabeth has firmly and unequivocally told Father that she will not attend the vacation week with him and that she wants nothing to do with Father's mistress. She has advised she will not go to Father's house and that she will not be in the same house with Father's mistress. 18. The next period of custody enumerated in the proposed Interim Order is June 12, 2005 through June 19,2005 with Father. 19. The parties have not begun, let alone completed, therapeutic family counseling to address the "significant emotional tension" between Father and Elizabeth. 20. Despite the fact that Father has not had any overnights with Elizabeth in the past year, he is now proposed to have an uninterrupted week of custody with Elizabeth commencing June 12th. 21. Elizabeth has expressed great distress regarding the possibility that she would be forced to endure the uninterrupted week of custody proposed in the Conciliator's proposed Interim Order. 22. Elizabeth has refused to participate in the proposed uninterrupted week of custody with her Father due to Father's lack oftime with the minor child over the past year; Elizabeth's severe emotional anxiety and distress over the separation of her parents; Elizabeth's dislike for Father's paramour and her clear and consistent refusal to spend time with such individual; and Father's failure to comply with even the minimal custodial opportunities presented to him in the proposed Interim Order on May 29, 2005 and June 5,2005, respectively. 23. The therapeutic family counseling acknowledged by all to be necessary assist in dealing with the "significant emotional tension" between the parents and Father and Elizabeth has not yet occurred and forcing Elizabeth to comply with the proposed Interim Order, specifically the uninterrupted week schedule approaching, is not in Elizabeth's best interests, will further damage Father's relationship with his daughter, and will force a possible contempt scenario as it is certain that Elizabeth will refuse to attend the vacation with Father. 24. To the extent the proposed Interim Order purports to require the parties' son, John, to attend the proposed custodial periods, the Order is improper and should specifically exclude any reference to the parties' adult son. 25. The trial of this matter has been scheduled for August I, 2005 before this Honorable Court. WHEREFORE, Petitioner/Defendant, Lynne Esposito, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court refuse to implement the proposed Interim Order issued by the Conciliator until such time as the hearing scheduled for August 1,2005 has been completed. Alternatively, if the Interim Order has already been signed by the Court, Petitioner respectfully requests that the summer custodial schedule be stayed pending the completion of therapeutic family counseling and the completion ofthe trial scheduled before the Court on August 1,2005. In either case, Petitioner respectfully requests that the parties son, John, be excluded from the Custody Order. Respectfully submitted, Date: June 8, 2005 JAME~.SM. ITD, ETTERlCK & CONNELLY, LLP ~ ~I MAX J. SMITH, JR., ESQUIRE - LD. No. 32114 JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE LD. No. 82629 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 Attorneys for DefendantlPetitioner, Lynne A. Esposito VERIFICATION The undersigned, JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE, of the law firm of James, Smith, Dietterick & Counelly LLP, Hershey, Pennsylvania, hereby certifies that the foregoing Petition has been prepared by me by knowledge and information acquired during the course of my representation of Petitioner IDe fend ant, Lynne Esposito; that I execute this verification as a signature of said Petitioner cannot be obtained in the time necessary for the f1ling of this Petition; that Petitioner's Verification will be substituted for this Verification as soon as possible; and that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 1/4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. {q-8- OS DATE ~~~ . JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE - fX~~\;l* A . ;tI': ../ Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY JOSEPH ESPOSITO, v. LYNNE ESPOSITO, Defendant CUSTODY CONCiliATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVil PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME , DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF John Esposito Elizabeth Esposito May 15, 1987 March 23,1989 Mother Mother 2. Father filed a Complaint for Custody on April 1, 2005. The Custody Conciliation Conference was held on May 13, 2005. Present for the Conference were: the Father, Joseph Esposito, and his counsel, Ann Levin, Esquire and James Dremmel, Esquire; the Mother, Lynne Esposito, and her counsel, Max J. Smith. Jr., Esquire. The parties' youngest child, Elizabeth (age 16), also appeared for the Conference and spoke privately with the Custody Conciliator. 3. The parties were not able to reach an agreement with regard to the custodial schedule. They agreed upon therapeutic family counsel to address the tensions that exist in the relationship between Father and the children. However, they were not able to agree upon any contribution for the Mother to make toward this endeavor. 4. Father's position on custody is as follows: Father resides in Lewisberry with his paramour, Lisa. The parties separated in June of 2004. The children remained with their Mother. Father reports that since then, the status quo has been about two and one- half hours on alternating Sunday afternoons. Father finds that brief amount of time to be not enough time for the "Father side of parenting." Father wants to include his 18 year old son in the Custody Order because of concern that in the absence of an Order, the child will feel. guilty if he spends time with his Father. It is Father's perception that the children feel guilty soo/~oo Il'J nsar XVd ~C:Sl SOO~/L~/SO -' /. ..... NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM for spending time with him and there is concern that the Mother's reaction to the circumstances of the separation has served to alienate the children from their Father. Father requests an Order that provides for custodial periods on altemating weekends from Friday through Sunday and one night during the week, such as Thursday overnight to Friday moming. Father also requests custodial time for purposes of vacation from June 12 through June 19, 2005 (which would include Father's Day) and July 10 through July 17, 2005. There Would be some need to coordinate the custodial times around his on-call schedule;whlch he reports he has approximately one month in advance. Father is willing to participate in counseling with the children but believes that Mother should have to contribute to the cost of the counseling In part to require an investment on her part to improve the circumstances. 5. Mother's Dosition on custodv is as follows: Mother resides in Mechanicsburg with the children. Mother reports that the time Father is currently spending with Elizabeth is substantially more than she spent with him before the separation. Mother perceives the daughter as being significantly closer to her than she has been to her Father. With regard to John, Mother's position is that because he is 18, he is not pl1Jper1y the subject of a Custodial Order. She further states that she does not see a problem with John's willingness to spend time with Father. Mother's counsel expressed the possibility that if Father pushes his daughter to comply with weekend custodial periodS at his home that she will resist and Father win end up losing her. However, Mother would agree to Father continuing to spend time with the daughter on Sunday afternoons. Mother would also agree to the children participating in therapeutic family counseling with their Father. However, she is unemployed and does not want to be required to contribute any of the support that Father is paying to her toward the un reimbursed counseling expenses that may be incurred in this endeavor. 6. Because the parties do not have an agreement with regard to the custodial schedule, and do not have an agreement with regard to the sharing of the unreimbursed expenses of therapeutic family counseling, the Conciliator proVides the Court with a recommended Interim Order in the form as attached. The Order i ude hearing should the parties not be able to ~agreement prior to that date. ~~/OS Oa e Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire Custody Conciliator :251247 soo/soo Il'J M'!'sar XVd ~C:Sl SOO~/L~/SO ~ ~ .. FILE . 't(.- .A- -<': JOSEPH ESPOSITO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM v. LYNNE ESPOSITO, CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY Defendant ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of , 2005, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: . 1. Leaal Custodv. The parties, ~oseph Esposito and Lynne Esposito, shall have shared legal custody of the children, John Esposito, born May 15, 1987, and Elizabeth Esposito, born March 23, 1989. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all major non-emergency decisions affecting the children's general well-being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion. Pursuant to the terms of 23 Pa. C. S. ~5309, each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the children including, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious or school records, the residence address of the children and of the other parent. To the extent one parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable tirne as to make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent. 2. Phvsical Custodv. Mother shall have primary physical custody subject to Father's rights of partial-custody which shall be arranged as follows: A. 8. 9:00 p.m. May 29'" from Noon to 5:00 p.m. Effective June 5, 2005, on alternating Sundays, from 9:00 a.m. to C. Effective July 1. 2005, on alternating weekends, from Friday at 5:00 p.m. to Sunday at 5:00 p.m. 3. Vacation. Each parent shall be entitled to two (2) eight (8) day uninterT\.lpted blocks of partial custody for purposes of vacation each year. Father's Summer 2005 weeks shall be June 12, 2005 through June 19, 2005 and July 10. 2005 through July 17, 2005. gOO/~OO Il'J M~SQr XVd CC:Sl SOO~/L~/SO '/.-" -. NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM 4. It is noted that there is significant emotional tension between the parents and between Father and at least one of the children. To address this concern, the parties will be participating in therapeutic family counseling to provide a therapeutic environrnent in which the pains and tensions which exist may be addressed. The cost of unreimbursed medical expenses shall be shared by Mother and Father in a ratio of 25% to Mother and 75% to Father. The parties shall initiate telephone contact to schedule the first appointment during the week of May 16, 2005. Mother shall participate in the therapeutic family counseling should it be deemed to be clinically indicated by the therapist. 5. A hearing is scheduled in Courtroom Number _ of the Cumberland County Courthouse, on the day of , 2005, at - o'clock _ _.M., at which time testimony will be taken. For the purposes of the hearing, the Father, Joseph Esposito, shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties or the parties pro se shall file with the Court and opposing counsel/party a memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list of witnesses who are expected to testify at the hearing, and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. These memoranda shall be filed at least ten days prior to the hearing date. BY THE COURT: J. Olsl: Ann V. Levin, Esquira,4431 N. Front Slrael. Harrisburg. PA 17110 Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire, PO Box 650, Hershey, PA- 17033 SOO/cOO Il'J !\'9sar XVd cc:Sl SOO~/L~/SO JOSEPH P. ESPOSITO, PlaintifflRespondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM LYNNE A. ESPOSITO, DefendantJPetitioner : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 8 ~ day of June, 2005, I, JARAD W. HANDELMAN, Esquire, Attorney for DefendantJPetitioner, hereby certifY that I have this day sent a copy of Emergency Petition for Special Relief by fax and by depositing a certified copy of same in the United States, mail, postage prepaid, at Hershey, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Smigel, Anderson & Sacks Attn: Ann V. Levin, Esquire 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 1711 0-1709 MAX J. SMITH, JR., Esquire I.D. No. 32114 JARAD W. HANDELMAN, Esquire J.D. No. 82629 James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey,PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 ,. ~ ~ ~ "" ~ t (") "'" C) ..;;:;::;:'> oJ> (- ~i , co ~ ~ ni::!l r- -orn ::T:J9 (){.!.- ;j.-/ ,'S:d '--0 C:>it'\ ?S -< -u -f" ~ '-" -.l / RECEIVED MAY 2720051' .- JOSEPH ESPOSITO, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY v. LYNNE ESPOSITO, Defendant ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this to-rh day of _Uu,A.I' ,2005, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. Leoal Custodv. The parties, Joseph Esposito and Lynne Esposito, shall have shared legal custody of the children, John Esposito, born May 15, 1987, and Elizabeth Esposito, born March 23, 1989. Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make all major non-ernergency decisions affecting the children's general well-being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion. Pursuant to the terms of 23 Pa. C. S. ~5309, each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the children including, but not limited to, rnedical, dental, religious or school records, the residence address of the children and of the other parent. To the extent one parent has possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the records and information of reasonable use to the other parent. 2. Physical Custody. Mother shall have primary physical custody subject to Father's rights of partial custody which shall be arranged as follows: .. A. May 29th from Noon to 5:00 p.m. B. Effective June 5, 2005, on alternating Sundays, from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. C. Effective July 1, 2005, on alternating weekends, from Friday at 5:00 p.m. to Sunday at 5:00 p.m. 3. Vacation. Each parent shall be entitled to two (2) eight (8) day uninterrupted blocks of partial custody for purposes of vacation each year. Father's Summer 2005 weeks shall be June 12,2005 through June 19, 2005 and July 10, 2005 through July 17, 2005. . r . NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM 4. It is noted that there is significant emotional tension between the parents and between Father and at least one of the children. To address this concern, the parties will be participating in therapeutic family counseling to provide a therapeutic environment in which the pains and tensions which exist may be addressed. The cost of unreimbursed medical expenses shall be shared by Mother and Father in a ratio of 25% to Mother and 75% to Father. The parties shall initiate telephone contact to schedule the first appointment during the week of May 16, 2005. Mother shall participate in the therapeutic family counseling should it be deemed to be clinically indicated by the therapist. 5. A hearing is sc.;heduled in Courtroom~mber .5" of the Cumberland County Courthouse, on the "/ sr day of /1"~ Jd , 2005, at & : .3 () o'clock 8-.M., at which time testimony will be taken. For the purposes of the hearing, the Father, Joseph Esposito, shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties or the parties pro se shall file with the Court and opposing counsel/party a memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list of witnesses who are expected to testify at the hearing, and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. These memoranda shall be filed at least ten days prior to the hearing date. J. Dist: ~ V. Levin, Esquire. 4431 N. Front Street, Harrisburg. PA 17110 j"lax J. Smith, Jr., Esquire. PO Box 650. Hershey. PA 17033 ~ ViN\iAl j8Nr~::J[< I 'Nn;"'; , . .;',c: '-:::':;'"n''' I\)., ,<"},j>",'_~:j,:::!l~ h.J f: I :9 I-lV 9 - NOr sooz AtNIONOH.lOod 3H.l dO 301:1:10-0318 - . _c . Plaintiff RECEIVED I<\f>..~ 27 l00sj1Y1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY JOSEPH ESPOSITO, v. LYNNE ESPOSITO, Defendant CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF John Esposito Elizabeth Esposito May 15, 1987 March 23, 1989 Mother Mother 2. Father filed a Complaint for Custody on April 1, 2005. The Custody Conciliation Conference was held on May 13, 2005. Present for the Conference were: the Father, Joseph Esposito, and his counsel, Ann Levin, Esquire and James Dremmel, Esquire; the Mother, Lynne Esposito, and her counsel, Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire. The parties' youngest child, Elizabeth (age 16), also appeared for the Conference and spoke privately with the Custody Conciliator. 3. The parties were not able to reach an agreement with regard to the custodial schedule. They agreed upon therapeutic family counsel to address the tensions that exist in the relationship between Father and the children. However, they were not able to agree upon any contribution for the Mother to make toward this endeavor. 4. Father's Dosition on custodv is as follows: Father resides in Lewisberry with his paramour, Lisa. The parties separated in June of 2004. The children remained with their Mother. Father reports that since then, the status quo has been about two and one- half hours on alternating Sunday afternoons. Father finds that brief arnount of time to be not enough time for the "Father side of parenting." Father wants to include his 18 year old son in the Custody Order because of concern that in the absence of an Order, the child will feel guilty if he spends time with his Father. It is Father's perception that the children feel guilty . . NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM for spending time with him and there is concern that the Mother's reaction to the circumstances of the separation has served to alienate the children from their Father. Father requests an Order that provides for custodial periods on alternating weekends from Friday through Sunday and one night during the week, such as Thursday overnight to Friday morning. Father also requests custodial time for purposes of vacation from June 12 through June 19, 2005 (which would include Father's Day) and July 10 through July 17, 2005. There would be some need to coordinate the custodial times around his on-call schedule, which he reports he has approximately one month in advance. Father is willing to participate in counseling with the children but believes that Mother should have to contribute to the cost of the counseling in part to require an investment on her part to improve the circumstances. 5. Mother's Dosition on custodv is as follows: Mother resides in Mechanicsburg with the children. Mother reports that the time Father is currently spending with Elizabeth is substantially more than she spent with him before the separation. Mother perceives the daughter as being significantly closer to her than she has been to her Father. With regard to John, Mother's position is that because he is 18, he is not properly the subject of a Custodial Order. She further states that she does not see a problem with John's willingness to spend time with Father. Mother's counsel expressed the possibility that if Father pushes his daughter to comply with weekend custodial periods at his home that she will resist and Father wiN end up losing her. However, Mother would agree to Father continuing to spend time with the daughter on Sunday afternoons. Mother would also agree to the children participating in therapeutic family counseling with their Father. However, she is unemployed and does not want to be required to contribute any of the support that Father is paying to her toward the unreimbursed counseling expenses that may be incurred in this endeavor. 6. Because the parties do not have an agreement with regard to the custodial schedule, and do not have an agreement with regard to the sharing of the unreimbursed expenses of therapeutic family counseling, the Conciliator provides the Court with a recommended Interim Order in the form as attached. The Order i ude a hearing should the parties not be able to ~agreement prior to that date. ~f~ Da e Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire Custody Conciliator :251247 7731-1-4 JOSEPH ESPOSITO, PLAINTIFFIRESPONDENT: v. LYNNE ESPOSITO, DEFENDANT /PETITIONER: AND NOW, this day of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER I i I I I I I I i I I I ,2005, it is herebylORDERED and I DECREED that Defendant's Emergency Petition for Special Relief is DENIED. BY THE COURT: J. fA VUsmmffJune 9,20053:11 PM JOSEPH ESPOSITO, PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNStL VANIA V. NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM LYNNE ESPOSITO, DEFENDANT/PETITIONER: CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff/Respondent, Joseph Esposito (hereinafter "father"), by and through his attorneys, Smigel, Anderson & Sacks, LLP, and files this Answer to De~endant's Emergency Petition for Special Relief and avers as follows: ! I I. Admitted. By way of furtner answer, Jonn Esposito will be a senior rn nigh schna! and Father continues to pay support for this child through the Cumberland County ~omestic I I I i I I I I 3. Denied. It is denied that the parties' separation occurred when Fath~r without warning announced an affair. By way of further answer, the parties have had marit~l difficulties for many years and been estranged for quite some time, although they continued to resi~e in the same I nome. Fatner's departure from tne marital home in 2004 snould nave come as no srrise to Motner based upon the marital discord they had been experiencing for years. I I Denied as stated. Father has only been permitted to spend approxim~telY 2 1'2 hours I with his daughter on alternating Sunday afternoons since the parties separated. Fatlfer has sought more time, which has been denied to him. By way of further answer, Mother's interference in Father's attempts to see his children have had a detrimental effect on the children's ~ell-being. I I i I ! Relations Office. 2. Admitted. 4. 7731-1-4 5. Denied. It is denied that Elizabeth has expressed a clear and consist~nt refusal to spend time with Father at his home due to Elizabeth's dislike of Father's paramour ~nd the I I I emotional trauma that the parties' separation has caused Elizabeth. By way of furtlier answer, I I Elizabeth has not spent enough time with Father's girlfriend to form an opinion as tp whether she likes or dislikes her. It is believed that Mother has influenced the child so negative+; against Father I i and his girlfriend that she has been causing emotional harm to the child. 6. Denied. Father has had an overnight with the children. Mother was ~navailablc and i I having Father stay with the children suited her schedule. Since then, Mother has in~erfered and not I permitted the child to spend any overnights with Father or any time at his home. Mtther's averment I affirms Father's assertion that the child has not spent enough time with Father's girlrriend to I I I determine whether she likes her or not. II I I i I Admitted. By way of further answer, the Conciliator spoke directly rith the child. I Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the summary ~eport confim1s I I the parties' agreement to participate in therapeutic family counseling. It is denied thlat the summary I report indicates that family counseling is in place to deal with Elizabeth's refusal to ~pend time with I i Father as a result of her emotional trauma caused by the separation and her dislike of Father's I paramour. By way of further answer, it is Father's position that therapeutic counseli~g is needed for I the purposes of addressing the parental alienation that has taken place as a result of the minor child , i being primarily in Mother's care and influence. Further, the summary report does n1t support the \ I I I I , I 7. Admitted. 8. 9. reason for counseling as averred by Mother. 10. No response required. 7731-1-4 11. Admitted. 12 . Admitted. , By way of further answer, Father fully endorses the signihg of the interim I j i 1 order by the court. I 13a. Admitted. i I I . I 13b. AdmItted. " I 13c. Denied. Paragraph 2a. of the proposed order correctly reads "effectite July 1,2005, I on alternating weekends, from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 5:00 p.m." The ~aragraph quoted ! by Mother is set forth in Paragraph 3 of the proposed Order of Court. I I Denied. It is denied that the proposed custody schedule is vague. B* way of further I answer, the custody of the parties' son, John, was specifically discussed at the conci~iation I I conference. This child was still 17 at the time of the conciliation conference and th~ fact that he , , I would be 18 shortly was addressed. The Conciliator gave weight to the fact that Fat~er expressed I concern that his son was feeling guilt about spending time with Father. This guilt is\placed on him , I , by Mother. It was asserted that since Father is still paying support, the entry of an order addressing I custody of John would help the child avoid being caught in feelings of guilt placed ~n him by I I I Mother. " I I I 15. Denied. It is denied that Father failed to appear to exercise the custoqy permitted by I , 3a of the proposed order on May 29,2005 with Elizabeth. By way of further answe~, Father's calls I ! 14. to his daughter and the marital home went almost entirely unanswered and unreturn~d. Father I I believes that Mother directly influenced the child following the conciliation conferel1ce and that the child was instructed to ignore the phone calls. The parties' attorneys were provided ~opies as a 7731-1-4 courtesy from the Conciliator. Further, the proposed order was not yet signed. Father's efforts to I I confirm this period of custody were unsuccessful. 16. Denied as stated. Father called the night before his June 5, 2005 cus odial period. Mother said "don't bother coming because it wouldn't be happening. There is no ay it would happen." Mother later said Father could come to her house and Father did so. Joh did not "refuse" to spend time with Father while he was there. John was studying for a test and did ot spend any time with Mother or Father. I I I 17. Admitted. By way of further answer, Mother's alienation of the chi If' in particular since the conciliation, has caused a disruption in the phone contact. Father used to lpeak with his daughter several times per week. I 18. Admitted. I I 19. Admitted. By way of further answer, Father immediately, through ctunsel, initiated the scheduling of therapeutic counseling. It took Father's counsel several days before hearing back from Mother's counsel regarding an agreement on the selection of a therapeutic course1or. Further, once selected, the counselor's office had difficulty scheduling Elizabeth due to unrerumed calls by Mother to the counselor's office. I 20. Admitted. By way of further answer, Father has been extremely inv+lved in his daughter's life since birth. Father and daughter had a loving relationship until Mot~er's intervention I i and parental alienation of the child. I I 21. Denied. By way of further answer, Father believes that Mother has aused stress for the child. While at the conciliation conference, Mother and Father were waiting, wi h the child, while the Conciliator spoke with counsel. Father and Elizabeth were talking and M ther interrupted 7731-1-4 the conversation by saying, "He's trying to be nice to you, stay focused." Mother's:blatant , interference in the Father/daughter relationship is a sign of parental alienation and ~ot in the chi Id' s I ! best interest. I 22. Denied. It is denied that Elizabeth has refused to participate in the p oposed uninterrupted week of custody with Father due to Father's lack of time with the mi or child over the past year; Elizabeth's severe emotional anxiety and distress at the separation of her arents; Elizabeth's dislike for Father's paramour and her clear and consistent refusal to spe such individual; and Father's failure to comply with even the minimal custodial op~ortunities presented to him in the proposed interim order. By way of further answer, Father btlieves that if Elizabeth is refusing to spend time with him it is strictly as a result of Mother's infl~lence over the child. Mother has issues related to the parties' separation and divorce and refuses tt get counseling for herself. Mother does not encourage the relationship between Elizabeth and Fa,er at all. Father believes that Mother has influenced the child to refuse to accept his phone calls and interfered with his contact with the child, especially since the conciliation conference. Mother has pecifically told Father that there is no court order and that what the attorneys have been provided as only been prepared by another attorney and not signed by any judge. Father firmly believes t at until such time as there is a court order, Mother will not promote the relationship between hi and his daughter through phone contact or custodial periods. 23. Denied. It is denied that it is not in Elizabeth's best interest to spend time with her Father or that spending time with her Father would damage their relationship. Fath r believes that spending time with his daughter is one of the only things that can help ease any ten ions between them. 7731-1-4 I I 24. Denied. It is denied that the interim order is improper. By way of further answer, I I I given the specific facts of this case and Mother's negative influence over the childr1n regarding their I relationship with their father, the proposed order in this case can only benefit the pa ies' son. 25. Admitted. By way of further answer, the hearing has been schedule for August 1, 2005 based upon the entry of the interim order as proposed by the custody conciliat r. To the extent that order would not go into effect, a trial of this matter should be set much sooner. I WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that Mother's Emergency petitio~ for Special Reliefbe denied. I I Respectfully submitted, I i I SMIGEL, ANDERSON & S1CKS, LLP Date: ? ----1~- 0'; u By: LeRoy Smigel, Esquire 1. . #: 09617 Ann V. Levin, Esquire 1. 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PAl 711 0 i (717) 234-2401 I Attorneys for Plaintiff/Respondent I I I Jun 09 05 02:59p JOSEPH ESPOSITO 06-09-05 13:42 FROM-SAS 1 717-795-0597 T17Z343611 T-8B5 P H 127 F-144 p.2 VERIFICATION It Joseph P. Esposito, verify that the statements contained in the for~going plc~djng are trlle and I I correct to the best of my knowledge, information an.d belief. Ilmdershlnd that false st~l(~meI11S lhc['i~ln i I an;: made subject 11) the penalries of 18 Pa.C.S. ~4904) relating to unswom falsificatiot to aUlhoriucs. ~l ~~. . Esposi.o i I I I D..e:. 7731-1-4 JOSEPH ESPOSITO, PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT: I I i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLE~S CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNStL VANIA v. NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM LYNNE ESPOSITO, DEFENDANT/PETITIONER: CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ann V. Levin, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff/Respondent in the above capfoned matter, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff sAns er to Defendant's Emergency Petition for Special Relief on counsel for Defendant by de oSltIng same in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage paid on the C; day of June, 2005, addressed 1s follows: I Jarad W. Handelman, Esquire I James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly i P.O. Box 650 I Hershey, PAl 7033 I SMIGEL, ANDERSON & S Ui By: LeRoy Smigel, Esquire J.D. #: 09617 Ann V. Levin, Esquire J.D. #: 70259 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PAl 711 0 I (717) 234-2401 l Attorneys for Plailltiff/Resllldcnt I I I I t-:) % r.... .. c-;; ~2. ';..;..-:;. L~", :-2 \ ...0 ~ ~--o fn~ -98 -.) . (~::~ S~(r7. ~ -..,r: -- (.;' .. ~ 0:: Jr .:~. - RECEIVED JUN 0 9 ~ JOSEPH P. ESPOSITO, Plaintiff/Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM LYNNE A. ESPOSITO, DefendantlPetitioner : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN CUSTODY ORDER .;fn AND NOW, this IS day of June, 2005, Plaintiff/Respondent, Joseph P. Esposito, is hereby DIRECTED to show cause, if any, why the relief requested in DefendantlPetitioner's Petition for Special Relief should not be granted. A. }.p,.- -0 ~ YI... ..~ -^^ ~ ~ ~ .-v\ ()....c.. r? ;-005' c..::r- p aJ..... -f .1-- r--'.' ~ ~ ~ -1. 'ttA ~ c.,.;::t:;\..qoo' - .. 1'~ r~!:;;n ~~ ~Q~ "",~,",~);.;/~~' f'l11~.. ] . ...."..lhtl L"Qttl.. 1:;1:.111:1 'uws. ~111~ 11 r. "1",,~l~Q.lul .~ lJ1upu~cd mtuluJ> @ut!!l 3H8111itt",d fvllvH~.ub C611,j]jatiM d1.d ;:)ublh~tl\,ld Lv ti:tlJ 031'11t is H8re8;' ;J3.,~"~9) *' ~~6~ Rul"" R",l...'Hu...e]e dhy.;J .&oM ';"..t'" y ~""'" u.pu.u ,",VU_U03\.J fVl ltt~pvud\,ll.lt. J. {sf , l c-- J ~ \;' .f'J <:> .... , A1N("~"\'- ,("'-";--',' "":':?:h!nD -.J S 8 : \ I l4\j 9 I Hnrsonz ~.l:fvlC;:CHl()Jd 3Hl :lO jOH:IO-(B11:l IAVUsmm//June 24, 2005 4:52 PM JOSEPH ESPOSITO, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TElUvl L YJ',,'NE ESPOSITO. DEFENDANT CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY STIPULATION FOR CUSTODY AND NOW, this day of ,2005, the parties and counsel, do hereby stipulate and agree as follows: J. The court's order of June 15,2005 shall be vacated. 2. Paragraph 2 of the June 6,2005 order shall be modified to provide that Mother shall have primary physical custody subject to Father's rights of partial custody as more fully set forth in Paragraph 3 of this Stipulation for Custody. 3. Pending agreement of the parties or further order of the court, Father shall have rights of partial physical custody of Elizabeth Esposito at a minimum of once per week_ The parties will continue to work with Amy Kiessling, L.C.S.W., and agree to be guided by Ms. Kiessling's recommendations regarding custody. 4. All other provisions of the June 6, 2005 order shall remain in place. The August I, 2005 hearing shall remain scheduled unless the parties agree otherwise. The parties agree to submit this stipulation to the Court and request that the tenus set forth herein be adopted as an Order of Court which will supercede any prior orders entered in this matter. This Stipulation may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original instrument and all of which together shall be considered one and the same Stipulation, and shall become effective when counterparts, which together contain the signatures of each party, shall have been delivered to all of the parties hereto. Delivery of executed signature 7731-1--+ pages by facsimile transmission shall constitute effective and binding execution and delivery of this Stipulation. Thereafter, the parties will make good faith efforts to exchange original signed counterparts. The parties do verify that they stipulate as set forth abov,e and that the statements herein are true and correct to the best of their knowledge and infOlmation and belief The parties understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 94904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. JAMES, SMITH, D1ETTERICK & CONNELLY Lynne Esposito, Defendant By: Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire Jared W. Handelman, Esquire P.O. Box 650 Hershey, P A 17033 (717) 533-3280 Attorney fi)r Defendant SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP ---,Iv Joseph Esposito, Plaintiff By: LeR y Smigel, Esquire I.D, #: 09617 Ann V. Levin, Esquire J.D. #: 70259 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PAl 711 0 (717) 234-240 1 Attorneys for Plaintiff 06-24-05 15:59 FlOM-SAS 7171343611 T-946 P 04/04 F-792 i73l.l'cl pages by facsimile tr'ansmissiol1 shall constitute effective and binding execution and delivery of thiS Stipulation. Thereafter, the parties will make good faith efforts to exchange original signed COUlIterparts. 1'he parties do verify that they stipulate as set fonh above and that the statemelUS herein are lrue and correct to the best of their lcnowledge and information and belief. The parties understand thm false statements herein me made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 94904 relaling to unsworn ftllsificalion to authorities. LY~;O~~ef~ JAMES, SMITH, DIETTERICK & CONNELL Y BS~ Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire Jared W. Handelman, Esquire P.O. Box 650 Hershey, FA 17033 (717) 533-3280 Attorney for Defendant SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP BY:~_ AI ,~~ LeRoy Smigel, Esquire 1.D. #: 09617 Ann V. Levin, Esquire 1.D. #: 70259 4431 NOl1h Fron! Street HarrisbLlrg, PAl 711 0 (717) 234-2401 Anorneys for Plaintiff Joseph Esposito, Plaintiff Jun 24 05 05:13p JOSEPH ESPOSITO a6-2t-05 16:D3 FROM-SAS I 712""4 I 717-795-0597 rtTZa4aSIl r-847 P04/D5 1-19a p.l pa~es by facsimik transmission shall constitute effective and binding execution and delivery of this Stipulation. Thereafter, the panies will make good faith effol1s to exchange original signed C01lnLeI1'81is. The parties do verify that they stipulate as set fonh above and that the statements herein are true anll COITeCl1o the best of their knowledge and infonnauon and belief. The parties undersllmd that false statements herein arC made subject 10 the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. S4904 relating 10 unsworn falsificDtion 10 [,Ull1ocities. JAMES, SMITH, D1ETTERICK & CONNELL Y By; Max], Smith, Jr., Esquire Jared W. Handelman. Esquire P.O. Box 550 Hershey, PAl 7033 (717) 533-3280 Anomey for :Dcfendanr Lyxme Esposito, D.:fendanl SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP ~~ By: LeRoy Smigel, Esql.lire I.D. #: 096]7 Ann V. Levin, Esquire LD. #: 70259 4431 North Front Sneel Harrisburg, PAl 7 I lO (717) 234-240J Anomeys for Plllim.ifi .'\\ ~~ ~i.' ::> - '" 7f' ~~ "\ ~. r " ~. 0, ~ s:;.- 7731-1-4 JOSEPH ESPOSITO, PLAINTIFF v. LYNNE ESPOSITO, DEFENDANT AND NOW, this <1 ~ day of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA s NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM RECEIVED JUL 06100S ~ CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER :r~ , 2005, after reviewing the parties' Stipulation for Custody, it is ORDERED and DECREED that the stipulation is adopted as an order of court. c9 ~' ,0 0<\ 1. VII'JV!ilASNN3d ""n~r, ,'1' ',,.,, '"'~'I'(\''' ^-U~ t;~, "":,,, '~-'.:'!t::Ji ~IIV 91 :6 I,.jIJ B- lor sooz Ab\ilCNOHIO'dd 3Hl dO 30J:!~o-a311:l Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH ESPOSITO, VS NO, 05-1747 CIVIL TERM Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY LYNNE ESPOSITO, IN RE: CONTINUANCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2005, hearing in this matter is continued until August 25, at 2:00 p.m. Pending said hearing, the status quo shall be maintained. Provided, however, that the child Elizabeth Esposito is ordered and directed to accompany her father to visit to West Chester University on Tuesday, August 2, 2005. By LeRoy Smigel, Esquire For Plaintiff Max J, Smith, Jr" Esquire For Defendant ~~ f-03-0{ Q-. :mlc .:n..... ."J I " c? . II 1.\'-1 " ~"'J ,."7 '.' <,' " t.' - ::\ 1\ ,Utiv JOSEPH ESPOSITO, Plaintiff VS LYNNE ESPOSITO, Defendant IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-,1747 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2005, after hearing, the following schedule of partial physical custody with Father shall be implimented: 1. Commencing on Saturday, August 27, 2005, Father shall spend two consecutive Saturdays with her from noon until 5:00 p.m. 2. Commencing on Saturday, September 10, 2005, Father shall be entitled to spend each Saturday and Sunday with the child from noon until 5:00 p.m. 3. Commencing on October 1, 2005, through Sunday, October 23, 2005, Father shall be entitled to spend each Saturday and Sunday with the child from noon until 9:0C p.m. 4. Thereafter, Father shall be entitled to spend every other weekend from Saturday at 9:00 a.m. until Sunday at 5:00 p.m. with the child. Said every other weekend visitation to commence on October 29, 2005. Through the visitation ending September 18, 2005, father's paramore, Dr. Lisa Torp, shall not be present during the periods of visitation. The parties shall see that the child continues her regular therapeutic sessions with Amy Kiessling and each party shall participate as directed by the therapist. Father is authorized to email his daughter once per day. Mother is instructed to make sure daughter reads the emails and responds. LeRoy Smigel For Plaintiff Esquire Max J. Smith For Defendant Jr., Esquire :mlc J. ~~ F-.:ltf.bl C)..-- . S I .fJ' UH 'l, J f~ t. 6Z 5flV SOOZ ^bV1Cl'<C~'i,lUJd 3Hl .:10 38l:i:K},03lH ]Ill' , JOSEPH ESPOSITO, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM LYNNE ESPOSITO, DEFENDANT CNIL ACTION - CUSTODY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Joseph Esposito, by and through his counsel, SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP, and files this Petition for Special Relief and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Petitioner is Joseph Esposito (hereinafter Father), residing at 606 Buckhorn Court, Lewisberry, York County, Pennsylvania, 17339. 2. Respondent is Lynne Esposito (hereinafter Mother), residing at 5915 Stephen's Crossing, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055. 3. The parties are the parents of the minor child, Elizabeth Esposito, born on March 23, 1989. 4. The parties were before the Honorable Edward E. Guido on August 1, 2005 and August 25,2005 for a hearing regarding custody of the parties' minor child. 5. An order was entered on August 25, 2005, which addressed custody of the minor child during the school year. The order does not address holidays or vacation schedules. The court expressed its desire to have the parties agree on a holiday schedule, but that has not occurred. A proposed Stipulation for Custody was mailed to Mother's counsel on March 7, 2006 and a copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Mother has not responded to this proposed schedule. 6. Father has not been able to communicate directly with Mother regarding a vacation or holiday schedule. 7. At the conclusion of the hearings in the above referenced matter, the court indicated that if the parties were unable to agree on a schedule, a hearing would be set or proposed orders could be submitted. 8. Father believes that his proposed Stipulation for Custody for holidays and for vacation periods is reasonable and allows both parties to spend time with the minor child on these important days. 9. Father's proposed stipulation is based upon an alternating schedule, which takes into account who the minor child spent the holiday with last year. 10. Father has not received four (4) weekends of his regularly scheduled partial physical custodial periods with the minor child. Father has tried to be flexible in accommodating schedules.. 11. Father's efforts to be flexible have not been reciprocated. Father's efforts to schedule make up periods of weekend custody have either been ignored or met with confrontation. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the court adopt the proposed Order attached hereto as an Order of Court or in the alternative, schedule a hearing to determine an appropriate vacation and holiday schedule and additional periods of partial physical custody to make up for those that did not take place as scheduled. Date: 5 -I /- 6" SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP By:L U Lj Ann V. Levin, Esquire I.D.#: 70259 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PAl 711 0 (717) 234-2401 Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I, Joseph P. Esposito, verify that the statements contained in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: tJ/IO l{)eQ / / JOSEPH ESPOSITO, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM LYNNE ESPOSITO, DEFENDANT CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ann V. Levin, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff in the above captioned matter, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition for Special Relief on counsel for Defendant by placing same in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage paid, on the 11 th day of May, 2006, addressed as follows: Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 DERSON & SACKS, LLP By: . Ann . Levin, Esquire I.D.#: 70259 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PAl 711 0 (717) 234-2401 Attorney for Plaintiff u ~ ~ A:.) i tI) ~ ~ ') ,....;) 0 ........:~ c,: ~ 11 Cr'\ & r :J! "- '- ::~ mFJ .J::.' -< '''J i::D ~ ~ ---"l J '{) en ~~tJ D ~ -0 -......- (2 c') -- -"'- ~.""rn -0 ~ N :-:.:r '1> N ::0 Ul "< JOSEPH ESPOSITO. PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM LYNNE ESPOSITO, DEFENDANT CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Petition for Special Relief, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before C 6",:d..e ..:s. ,in Courtroom , ~ floor, at the Cumberland County Courthouse on 1" ~ IS. )AD Go , at / P.m., for a Hearing on the attached Petition for Special Relief. # 3 , 1=3() ..2>~: m/;Y /~k1(Jt, J. \/l~,]V'j\lASf\jNjd 'INn~r "1"'''1 '"'''^'n''' 1\_. .,'.,f_ 1 ~_;' ,. ! ":-:T!i'~, V 9Z :Z Wd 81 WI 9D02 Al:IV10i'IOHWdd 3Hl =10 38i:HO-Q311:J JOSEPH ESPOSITO, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM LYNNE ESPOSITO, DEFENDANT CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Joseph Esposito, by and through his counsel, SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP, and files this Motion for Continuance and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. On or about May 11, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Special Relief. 2. An Order was entered on May 18, 2006, scheduling a hearing before the Court on June 15, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. 3. Counsel for Plaintiff is required to be in Adams County for a previously scheduled matter before the Honorable Robert A. Bigham at 2:00 p.m. 4. Counsel for Defendant, Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire, does not object to a continuance of the hearing. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant Plaintiff s Motion for Continuance ofthe hearing scheduled on June 15,2006. Date: C - )' - 0 " , By: LeRoy Smigel, Esquire I.D.#: 09617 Ann V. Levin, Esquire I.D.#: 70259 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17110 (717) 234-2401 Attorneys for Plaintiff # . ... JOSEPH ESPOSITO, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM LYNNE ESPOSITO, DEFENDANT CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ann V. Levin, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff in the above captioned matter, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Continuance on counsel for Defendant by placing same in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage paid on the ~ay of June, 2006, addressed as follows: MAX J. SMITH, JR., ESQUIRE JAMES, SMITH, DIETTERICK & CONNELLY P.O. BOX 150 HERSHEY, PA 17033 By: LeRoy Smigel, Esquire I.D.#: 09617 Ann V. Levin, Esquire I.D.#: 70259 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-2401 Attorneys for Plaintiff .. 'l':'J r-~, = (.~~ <..:;.;r"''\ c_ c:: I -..J -0 N C.,) . ) "::-1 do :=< Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-1747 JOSEPH ESPOSITO, VS LYNNE ESPOSITO, CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY Defendant ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 15th day of June, 2006, the agreement of the parties as contained in the attached is adopted as an order of this Court to modify our ordeep--oi:"-j;\ugust 25th, 2005. I / By t};l-e Court, ,i (,b~".~ ~~-~~, \ Edward E. Guido, J. Ann V. Levin, Esquire For the Plaintiff Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire For the Defendant , / ~/~ (, -If- O(P ,~ ("7 '\ 'II C... {.J ..~'" (j r I """r "1'07 "....... ;':" J \.J H. u, Ill, JU (, AH\ilo:~,-,'-L.::_(;:j 3H1 :Ie :1:);_~.~, .lei '-CF~l !~J " " JOSEPH ESPOSITO, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS NO. 05-1747 CIVIL TERM LYNNE ESPOSITO, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Proceedings held before the HONORABLE EDWARD E. GUIDO, J., Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on Thursday, June 15, 2006, in Courtroom Number 3. APPEARANCES: ~:~ ~ ~~ SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP Ann V. Levin, Esquire For the Plaintiff JAMES, SMITH, DIETTRRICK & CONNELLY Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire For the Defendant ~ ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Thursday, June 15, 2006 carlisle, pennsylvania (The following proceedings were held at 2:45 p.m.) THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. LEVIN: Good afternoon, your Honor. MR. SMITH: Good afternoon. THE COURT: Do I understand we've reached an 8 agreement? 9 10 MS. LEVIN: That's correct. THE COURT: Do you want to articulate that 11 for the record? MS. LEVIN: Yes. In resolution of the 13 petition for special relief that waS filed by -- on behalf 12 14 of Father, the parties have agreed to the following 15 schedule: 16 The Child shall be with Father in 2006 from 17 11:30 until 6 p.m. 18 19 20 THE COURT: When? 2006 is a long time. MS. LEVIN: From 11:30 until 6 p.m. THE COURT: On what day in 2006 or when in 21 2006. MS. LEVIN: Father's Day is June. 22 THE COURT: Oh, so Father's Day. 23 MS. LEVIN: Yes. Sorry. 24 THE COURT: Oh. Okay. That's fine. start 25 2 , 1 again. 2 MS. LEVIN: Let me start again. 3 The Child shall be with Father on Father's 4 Day, 2006, from 11:30 until 6 p.m. 5 The Child shall be with Father on Fourth of 6 July 2006 from 11 until 5 p.m. 7 The Child shall be with Father on July 5, 8 2006, from 9 a.m. until 7 p.m. 9 The Child shall be with Father from July 10 29th, 2006, until July 30th, 2006, according to the terms of 11 the existing August 25th, 2005, court order. 12 The Child shall be with Father on July 31st, 13 2006, from 9 a.m. until 7 p.m. 14 The Child shall be with Father from August 15 14th through August 20th, 2006, for purposes of vacation. 16 The Child shall be with Father from -- for 17 Labor Day -- 18 THE COURT: Do we have a start time? 19 MS. LEVIN: 7 a.m. on August 14th and return 20 on August 20th at 7 p.m. 21 THE COURT: Okay. 22 MS. LEVIN: The Child shall be with Father on 23 Labor Day 2006 and return to Mother at 9 p.m. The Child 24 shall have been with Father from the Saturday before Labor 25 Day and, therefore, will not need to return her Sunday 3 . , 1 overnight but merely keep her over through Labor Day. 2 The Child shall be with Father on 3 Thanksgiving Day 2006 from 9 a.m. until 8 p.m. 4 The Child shall be with Father on Christmas 5 Eve 2006 from 9 a.m. until 9 p.m. 6 The Child shall be with Father on Christmas 7 Day from noon until 6 p.m. 8 The Child shall be with Father on New Year's 9 Day in 2007, from 11 a.m. until 5 p.m. 10 In addition to the above, the Child shall 11 spend two evenings during the school year with Father from 5 12 p.m. until 9 p.m. upon four weeks notice from Father. 13 In addition, the Child shall spend one makeup 14 weekend with Father in the fall of 2006 upon four weeks 15 notice. The beginning and ending time to be consistent with 16 the weekends as set forth in the prior order of August 25th, 17 2005. 18 THE COURT: And does this revised agreement 19 replace the order of August 2005? 20 MR. SMITH: I don't believe it does, Your 21 Honor. I think the alternate weekends as set forth in the 22 August 25 order remain in effect. 23 THE COURT: Okay. So except as modified by 24 this, the August 2005 order remains in effect? 25 MS. LEVIN: Correct. 4 .... 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 MR. SMITH: With another exception, Your Honor. The parties, I believe, have agreed to discontinue the counseling that was directed in that order. The parties had been counseling with Amy Kiessling, and I think Miss Kiessling has recommended that that counseling no longer occur. And the parties agreed to that. MS. LEVIN: THE COURT: MS. LEVIN: THE COURT: MR. SMITH: Unfortunately, yes, Your Honor. Sorry to hear that. Okay. I believe that's all the terms. Is that correct? The terms as stated by by Miss Levin are correct. Just one clarification. It's my understanding that for the vacation in August that the parties' son will also accompany Elizabeth and Doctor Esposito. MS. LEVIN: That's the plan, yes. THE COURT: So what I'm going to do is simply have her type this up. You indicate that Morn agrees to this order? MR. SMITH: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And it's satisfactory to your client? MS. LEVIN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: So we'll enter the following order: 5 . - 1 AND NOW, this 15th day of June, 2006, the 2 agreement of the parties as contained in the attached is 3 adopted as an order of this Court to modify our order of 4 August 25th, 2005. 5 Okay. Good enough. Good job in working it 6 out. 7 _________ 8 (The proceedings concluded.) 9 _________ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 ... 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. ----------------------- The foregoing record of the proceedings on the hearing of the within matter is hereby approved and directed to be filed. ~j(.) " Da te # ~--~--~ ('?~/\) ~-,-- - :-,~:..:~. / "' ,.. ," '.'-.- \ Edward E. Guido, J. 7 ... .., !', Jd +1 7 : I II . ! !; I; [' 'I 0: l ) v -. ~ " \.,.t, ) v N:l\'L :iH.L :.10 ~;~):Lh):J:llij