Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-2900Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 77a-1aa5 ; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY v. STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, NG ?? z q pa Defendants NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT, if you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take prompt action. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a decree of divorce or annulment may be entered against you by the Court. A judgment may also be entered against you for any other claim or relief requested in these papers by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you, including custody and visitation of your children. 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 2 LIBERTY AVENUE Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court 432317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY NO. 65-- 2 9" Cu * E? Tim. CUSTODY COMPLAINT 1. The Plaintiff is Jason A. Emlet (hereinafter referred to as "Father"), who currently resides at 341 Old State Road, Gardners, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17324. 2. The Defendant is Stacie L. Shambaugh (hereinafter referred to as "Mother"), who currently resides at 49 Johns Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. 3. Plaintiff seeks shared legal custody and primary physical custody of the following children: NAME PRESENT RESIDENCE DATE OF BIRTH Madison E. Emlet 49 Johns Drive August 8, 1997 Enola, PA Jason A. Emlet, Jr. 49 Johns Drive December 22, 1998 Enola, PA 4. The children are presently in the custody of Mother who currently resides at 49 Johns Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. 5. During the past five years the children have resided with the following persons at the following addresses DATES ADDRESSES NAMESOFPERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD 2000-Septmber, 2002 1254 Myerstown Road Mother, Father and Gardners, PA children September, 2002-October, 2002 Locust Lane Mother, Mother's Mother and children Harrisburg, PA October, 2002-June, 2004 Wild Cherry Lane Mother, Mother's boyfriend (Ja y Marietta, P PA McClay) and children 2004-August, 2004 June Locust Lane Mother, Mother's Mother , Harrisburg, PA and children. August, 2004-October, 2004 Enola, PA Mother and children October, 2004-Present 49 Johns Drive Mother, Mother's boyfriend (David Enola, PA Drumm) and children 6. The Father of the children is Jason A. Emlet, currently residing at 341 Old State Road, Gardners, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17324. 7. The Mother of the children is Stacie L. Shambaugh, currently residing at 49 Johns Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. The parties are currently divorced from each other. g, The relationship of the plaintiff to the children is that of Father. The Plaintiff currently resides with the following persons: RELATE NAME Self Jason A. Emlet Wife Amy E. Emlet Wife's Son Nicholas E. Adams 9. The relationship of the Defendant to the children is that of Mother. The Defendant currently resides with the following persons: RELATIONSHIP NAME Self Stacie L. Shambaugh Mother's boyfriend David Drumm Daughter Madison E. Emlet Son Jason E. Emlet, Jr. 10. 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. it. The plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the children pending in any court of this Commonwealth. 3 12. Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the children or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the children. 13. The best interest and permanent welfare of the children will be served by granting Plaintiff the relief requested because Plaintiff is in a better position to provide a stable and loving home for the parties' children. Defendant has had frequent moves and relocations which have effected the children's stability and schooling. The parties need a fixed schedule to avoid scheduling and transportation disputes. Defendant has failed to seek appropriate medical care for the children and otherwise address major concerns, including a potential eating disorders of the parties' daughter. 14. 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, the Plaintiff requests the Court to grant share gal custody and primary physical custody of the children to the Plaintiff. DATE: June 6, 2005 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court I.D. 32317 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme court 432317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JASON E. EMLET, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY V. STACIE L. SHAMBAUG" NO. Defendant VERIFY N I, Jason E. Emlet, hereby certify that the facts set forth in the foregoing CUSTODY COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ;AOSWO Dat ed: June 6, 2005 NX. E M L E T r C/i .- I D ` -? c7 ,T W b 'C JASON A. EMLET PLAINTIFF V. STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH DEFENDANT AND NOW, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT Friday, June 10, 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, July 01, 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, Es q. 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 LC .Z 14d W riff SOOZ Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY NO. 2005 - 2900 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, do hereby certify that I served a copy of the Custody Complaint in the above-captioned matter by United States Mail, Restricted Delivery, Certified No. 7003 0500 0001 6561 5454 Return Receipt Requested, on the above-named Defendant, Stacie L. Shambaugh, on June 10, 2005 at Defendant's last known address: 49 Johns Drive, Enola, PA 17025. The original receipt and return receipt card are attached hereto as Exhibit "A". I hereby certify that the facts set forth above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C. S.A. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Dated: June/ _; 2005 i 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 (717)-774-1445 Supreme Court ID #32317 Attorney for Plaintiff 41, U.S . Post al Ser vice. . CE RTIF IED MAIL ,, REC EIF (Dom estic M ail Only; No Ins urance C overa, J .r Ln Postage $ r-l O codified Fee $2.30 0070 E ? ? Q3 C3 Return Reciept Fee (Endorsement Required) $1.75 ark - ?yCY 4 Here,?N ° Resincted Delivery Fee (Entlorsement Required) bi1.00 ( Y1 3' 7 j i.n ° Total Postage 8 Fees $ b4l.65 C[{ ??n?{{pp{ 0675'UJ y? o M u. M Sent 7a - JdHQ"s b(zluE --------------- ol ¦ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front'If space permits. 1. Article Addressed to I h5 G L. SH1 ?9 ???I?SS ?j?LrtJ 6A,CIA, PA !-?60-5 A. ti7 l.. / 0 Agent B, = by( Printed Name} C. Date of Delivery D. Is delty" address different hoar tern 17 ? Yes f YES, enter dellvery address below: M No \ a, er0lde Type - - - rtitled Mall ?Ex?XM Md / 13 Registered )4.Re r Receipt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mail ? 0A.0. 4. Restricted Delivery! (Exec Feel Yee 2. AraaeNUmber 7003 0500 0001 6561 5454 (IMekr acrrr aarvlc? Y6al) PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt -- - --025er-g24F1aw EXHIBIT "A" CT1 T r ? CJ G Z? -' A/ RECEIVED AUG 25,Mlf JASON A. EMLET, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, : NO. 05-2900 Defendant : IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this _LLAday of August, 2005, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The mother, Stacie L. Shambaugh, and the father, Jason A. Emlet, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Madison E. Emlet, born August 18, 1997, and Jason A. Emlet, born December 22, 1998. 2. During the summer months when the children are off school, father shall enjoy primary physical custody of the minor children with mother enjoying periods of temporary physical custody on alternating weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. and at such other times as agreed upon by the parties. 3. During the school year when the children are attending school, mother shall serve as primary custodian with father having periods of temporary custody on alternating weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. and at such other times as agreed upon by the parties. 4. The parties shall continue to handle Holiday exchange of custody as they have in the past. 5. The parties shall submit themselves to a custody evaluation by an evaluator as determined by legal counsel for the father. Mother shall cooperate in the evaluation Ln c cm v F_. zr= ; ,Y -- (?j IT " Y G ? and provide the children to the evaluator as required. Additionally, both parties shall insure that any significant other they associate with shall participate in the evaluation as requested by the evaluator. Cost of the evlauation shall be paid for by the father. Father reserves the right to request this Court by Special Petition to allocate some of the cost of the evaluation to the mother. Upon the conclusion of the evaluation and in the event the parties are unable to reach an agreement at that time, legal counsel for the parties may contact the Custody Conciliator directly to conduct a telephone conference call in order to make arrangements to have this case scheduled for a hearing by the Court. cc: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire > a?-uS BY THE COURT, JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff v STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-2900 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 children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Madison E. Emlet, born August 18, 1997, and Jason A. Emlet, born December 22, 1998. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on August 11, 2005, with the following individuals in attendance: The father, Jason A. Emlet, with his counsel, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, and the mother, Stacie L. Shambaugh, with her counsel, Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire. 3. The parties agree to the entrance of an Order in the form as attached. DATE JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff V. STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL TERM PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE To Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary: Please withdraw my appearance from this case on behalf of the Plaintiff, Jason A. Emlet. Respectfully suaitted, Bv' Barbara Sample-Sullivan, Esq. 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Date: December 15, 2005 PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE To Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary: Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff, Jason A. Emlet. Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & McKNIGHT Date: l?QG" //,.-.S- / By: -L Iarcu A. McKnight, III, Esquire We t Pomfret Street Car"' Lee, Pennsylvania I 13 (717)24 2353 ?5 RECEIVED JUL 10 2006 j- JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff VS. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this ? day of July, 2006, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A hearing is scheduled in Courtroom No. 1 of the Cumberland County Courthouse on the _/LZ?L day of afe o. , 2006 at M. At this hearing, the Father 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 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 rive days prior to the mentioned hearing date. 2. Pending further Order of this Court, this Court's prior Order of August 26, 2005 shall remain in effect subject to the following modifications: A. Each parent shall be entitled to at least one week of vacation during the summer months. Mother's week of vacation shall be from July 7?h through the following Friday. Father may designate another week and give Mother reasonable notice for Father's period of vacation. B. Unless agreed otherwise by the parties, Mother shall have the Labor Day holiday for custody with the minor children. C. Unless agreed otherwise between the parties, Father shall have custody on Thanksgiving of this year for the entire period of time from Wednesday after school through Sunday evening at 5:00 p.m. Cc: Max Smith, Esquire Marcus McKnight, Esquire `NCO-u?.? `?I lv-a(, BY THE COURT, j: r . 1 JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff VS. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. 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 children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Jason A. Emlet, born December 22,1998 Madison E. Emlet, born August 18,1997 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on July 5, 2006 with the following individuals in attendance: The Mother, Stacie L. Drumm, with her counsel, Max Smith, Esquire The Father, Jason A. Emlet, with his counsel, Marcus McKnight, Esquire 3. The parties were before the Conciliator last August at which time there was an agreement and Order with Mom having primary custody during the school year and Dad having primary custody during the summer months. Since that time, a custody evaluation was performed. Additionally, Father is suggesting that the children are indicating a preference to stay with Father primarily. Mother indicates the children are expressing a similar preference to her. Regardless, Father is requesting a hearing at this time, and a hearing should be scheduled to address the issue of primary custody. The Conciliator recommends that the existing Order be modified to address a few minor issues on custody that have developed since last August. 4. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: July 1 2006 /)/- ?4 H ert X. Gilro Esquire Custody Conciliator ? . s JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff/Petitioner V. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant/Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 2005-2900 CIVIL TERM IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2006, upon consideration of Plaintiff's complaint for custody in the above-captioned matter, and following an initial period of hearing on today's date which has not yet been completed, the record shall remain open, and counsel are requested to contact the Court's secretary for purposes of scheduling an additional day of hearing. It is noted that, at the time of adjournment on today's date, Defendant had presented the testimony of Dr. Arnold Shienvold out of order with the permission of Plaintiff's counsel, Plaintiff had commenced his case-in-chief and had presented testimony of the parties' child Madison Emlet (date of birth 9/18/1997), partial testimony of the parties' child Jason A. Emlet (date of birth 12/22/1998), and partial testimony of Plaintiff himself. It is further noted that at the time of adjournment on today's date, Defendant's Exhibit 1 (Dr. Shienvold's report), and Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 (note written by Madison), had been identified and admitted. No other exhibits had been identified or admitted. Both counsel have requested that the notes of testimony from today's proceeding be transcribed and filed. The Court will enter a temporary order in the case within the next several days based upon the testimony received on today's date. L1 1:0ts10Z -74 By the Court, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esqu For the Plaintiff/Petitioner Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire For the Defendant/Respondent pcb JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, (now STACIE L. DRUMM), Defendant NO. 05-2900 CIVIL TERM IN RE: COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 18" day of October, 2006, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Custody Complaint, with respect to the parties' children, Madison E. Emlet d.o.b. August 8, 1997) and Jason A. Emlet, Jr. (d.o.b. December 22, 1998 and initial period of hearing held on October 16, 2006, and t )' following an he hearing not yet being completed, it is ordered and directed, pending further hearing and further order of court, as follows: 1. Legal custody of the children shall be shared by the parties; 2. During the school year, (a) Primary physical custody of the children shall be in the mother; (b) Temporary or partial physical custody of the children shall be in the father at the following times: 1. Every two weekends out of three, from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m; 2. On alternating federal holidays; (c) During the Christmas vacation, from December 25 at 3:00 p.m. until December 29, at 3:00 p.m.; (d) During Thanksgiving vacation, from Thanksgiving Day at 2:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m.; however, in 2006, the father shall have custody of the children for the entire period of time from Wednesday after school through Sunday evening at 5:00 p.m.; t (VINVAI.lWSd 1 ?? . ?}n^ ,ti, 9z • 11 WV 91 130 90U1 recess; (e) During any spring recess, for the second half of the I During the summer, (a) Primary physical custody shall be in the father; (b) Temporary or partial physical custody of the children shall be in the mother on alternating weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m.; (c) Each parent shall be entitled to one week of vacation during the summer months, said period to be noticed to the other party prior to May 1; 4. Transportation for purposes of custody exchanges shall be the responsibility of the party receiving custody; 5. Defendant's husband, David Drumm, shall not discipline either child physically, subject either child to physical contact which the child objects to, or threaten or menace either child; 6. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the parties from deviating from the custodial terms of this order by mutual agreement; and 7. A copy of the transcript of the children's testimony shall be provided to Dr. Arnold T. Shienvold by Plaintiff's counsel, and the children shall be submitted to Dr. Shienvold for a follow-up evaluation, the expense of which shall be shared equally by the parties. The parties shall provide such assurances of payment to Dr. Shienvold as he shall require, including a deposit of the full amount of his anticipated fee for the follow-up evaluation if requested. BY THE COURT, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esq. 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Max J. Smith, Jr., Esq. P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Attorney for Defendant AdVIC'ji'vO,?iCt?,'d 3HI Jo JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, (now STACIE L. DRUMM), Defendant NO. 05-2900 CIVIL TERM IN RE: COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17th day of October, 2006, a further day of hearing in the above matter is scheduled for Monday, February 26, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. 1 Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT, /Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esq. 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff .Max J. Smith, Jr., Esq. J P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Attorney for Defendant :rc 9E 8 t 130 9882 MVIO,?O; a()?14 3Ht dD ?L kPVVtAIAS' ,T,d h7 -1112- w . 0 0 JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Petitioner CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly 2005-2900 CIVIL TERM STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant/Respondent IN CUSTODY TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Proceedings held before the HONORABLE J. WESLEY OLER, J., Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, On October 16, 2006, In Courtroom Number 2. APPEARANCES: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire For the Plaintiff/Petitioner Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire For the Defendant/Respondent 1 01 •6 WV 0£ RON 90OZ MV1Qi C),H CW 3HI J0 n??O-U« FOR PLF/PET Jason A. Emlet Madison E. Emlet Jason A. Emlet, Jr. FOR DEF/RES Dr. Arnold Shienvold FOR PLF/PET 0 INDEX TO WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 39 54 -- 66 71 82 -- 85 89 -- DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 6 32 INDEX TO EXHIBITS 1 - Handwritten note 45 91 FOR DEF/RES 1 - Report 11 91 2 0 9 1 October 16, 2006 Carlisle, Pennsylvania 2 (The following proceedings were held at 9:51 a.m.) 3 THE COURT: This is the time and place for a 4 hearing in the custody matter of Emlet versus Drumm at No. 5 05-2900 Civil Term. 6 We will let the record indicate that the parties 7 are present in court with their respective counsel. I believe 8 counsel are able to stipulate to some of the basic matters in 9 the case. Mr. McKnight, do you want to read those 10 stipulations? 11 MR. MCKNIGHT: The names, addresses, ages, dates of 12 birth and occupations of the parties: We have Jason Emlet, 13 born 7/6/75, he currently is a technical support rep for 14 Ingersoll-Rand out of Shippensburg I believe. He is married to 15 Amy E. Emlet, she was born 11/16/78, she is a part-time teacher 16 at the Carlisle Christian Academy, and she is also a 17 stay-at-home mom. 18 They have Nicholas Adams, her child, living with 19 them, he is a student, he was born 9/1/2000, and their address 20 is 341 Old State Road, Garners, PA 17324. 21 MR. SMITH: Your Honor, on behalf of Stacie Drumm, 22 the names, addresses, age, dates and birth and occupation of 23 her and her husband are as follows: Stacie Drumm was born 24 October 6, 1975, making her age 31, she is employed as a 25 medical instructor. Her husband is David Drumm, born July 1, 3 0 1 1976, meaning that he is 30-years-old, he is a lead medical 2 assistant in the field of pediatrics, their address is 49 Johns 3 Drive, Enola, PA, 17025. 4 MR. MCKNIGHT: Originally, the parties were married 5 to each other, that is mother and father were married to each 6 other February 22, 1998, she separated 9/19/2002, they were 7 divorced in March of 2005. My client remarried 4/23/2005, and 8 I believe the date your client married? 9 MR. SMITH: Stacie and David were married on May 10 28, 2005. 11 THE COURT: All right. 12 MR. MCKNIGHT: The names, ages, dates of birth of 13 the children are: Madison Elaine Emlet, born August 8, 1997, 14 she is nine-years old. Jason Alan Emlet, Jr., he was born 15 December 22, 1998, he is 7-years-old. 16 THE COURT: Is Alan, A-L-A-N? 17 MR. MCKNIGHT: A-L-A-N. 18 THE COURT: All right. 19 MR. MCKNIGHT: Currently, the mother has primary 20 custody of the children during the school year, with my client 21 having alternate weekends. During the summer my client has 22 primary custody with the mother having alternate weekends. 23 THE COURT: All right, very good. This is the 24 father's request for a modification of custody, but I 25 understand that the parties have agreed that Dr. Shienvold will 4 0 0 1 be permitted to testify first, and I believe he would be called 2 by the mother's counsel, is that correct? 3 MR. MCKNIGHT: That is correct. 4 MR. SMITH: That is correct, Your Honor. 5 We would also ask that when the children arrive at 6 11:00 that we are able to interview them to get that finished 7 today. 8 THE COURT: Is that satisfactory? 9 MR. SMITH: That is satisfactory, Your Honor, and I 10 would ask that any other witnesses be sequestered. 11 THE COURT: That means they are going to be sitting 12 out in the hallway for a long time. If it is agreeable to both 13 counsel, I will do that, otherwise, I would not do that. 14 MR. MCKNIGHT: I think it is important that the 15 other parties hear this, and the only other witness we have, 16 except father, is his wife, and I think that is not a major 17 issue. 18 MR. SMITH: Very well. 19 THE COURT: All right. 20 MR. SMITH: We call Dr. Shienvold. 21 Your Honor, as Dr. Shienvold approaches, I would 22 like to report another stipulation, and that would be that Mr. 23 McKnight has agreed that Dr. Shienvold is qualified to be 24 admitted as an expert in the field of psychology, and 25 specifically, custody evaluations. 5 • • 1 MR. MCKNIGHT: I do agree to that, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: All right. 3 4 DR. ARNOLD T. SHIENVOLD, 5 having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 6 DIRECT EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. SMITH: 8 Q Please state your name and professional address? 9 A Arnold T. Shienvold, 2151 Linglestown Road, 10 Harrisburg, 17110. 11 Q Dr. Shienvold, how are you employed? 12 A I am a psychologist in private practice. 13 Q What is the name of your practice? 14 A Riegler, Shienvold & Associates. 15 Q How long have you been employed as a psychologist 16 there? 17 A Since 1980, so 26 years. 18 Q Are you an owner of the business? 19 A I am. 20 Q In your capacity as a psychologist do you do 21 custody e valuations? 22 A Yes, I do. 23 Q Even though we stipulated your qualifications, 24 could you indicate what percentage of your practice is devoted 25 to doing custody evaluations? 6 • i 1 A Well, probably 70 to 75 percent are involved in the 2 custody evaluation or custody mediation. 3 Q What is the balance of your practice then? 4 A The balance of my practice is working with -- I 5 come from families who are doing evaluations, mediations or 6 some sort of counseling. 7 Q During the course of these proceedings, were you 8 asked to do a custody evaluation involving Stacie Drumm and 9 Jason M. Drumm? 10 A Yes, I was. 11 Q Were you court-appointed to do an evaluation? 12 A Yes, the Court ordered the evaluation in August of 13 2005. 14 Q How was contact made with your office in order to 15 do this evaluation? 16 A The parties contacted the office for their 17 appointments after we received word -- 18 THE COURT REPORTER: I am having a problem hearing 19 you. 20 THE WITNESS: I have a little bit of a sore throat. 21 I will try to talk louder. 22 The parties contact the office for their 23 appointments after we receive word they are going to be 24 involved in a custody evaluation. 25 BY MR. SMITH: 7 • • 1 Q I assume you are being compensated for your 2 services in doing the evaluation, is that right? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Do you know who is paying that, how the costs are 5 apportioned? 6 A I can check. Often times it is equally paid by the 7 parties when they come in. I am not sure what it is at this 8 time. 9 Q If I would suggest that Mr. Emlet would agree to 10 pay your costs, would that -- 11 A That wouldn't surprise me. It is usually defined 12 ahead of time who is going to pay. 13 Q Then the testimony for today is being paid by 14 Stacie Drumm, is that correct? 15 A Yes. Generally, I am then called as a witness of 16 court. The initial costs are for the evaluation and not for 17 the testimony, because I am not sure if there is going to be 18 testimony in the case. The testimony may or may not be 19 divided. Often times the person who calls me as a witness is 20 the person who pays those fees. 21 Q That is the case in the instant case, is that 22 right? 23 A Yes, I know that Stacie Drumm is paying for my 24 services today. 25 Q When you are engaged to do a custody evaluation, 8 • a 1 could you report what the usual components of your evaluation 2 are? 3 A Sure, it is routine for me to interview both the 4 parents or guardians, whoever is primarily responsible for the 5 care of the children. I do that on multiple occasions, as I 6 did in this case. I interview any significant others. Again, 7 in this case there were stepparents involved, both Amy and 8 David. 9 I interview the children if they are old enough to 10 be interviewed. In this case I did interview the children. I 11 also do observations in the office of children with their 12 parents to -- that is in an unstructured play situation in my 13 office setting where there is a play area. 14 We do home visits. I have a social worker from my 15 office who visits the homes, evaluates them for safety and 16 structural issues, but also does an additional observation of 17 the children with the entire family so that we get a more 18 naturalistic view of the children's interactions. 19 I do psychological testing. The most recent 20 testing I do with parents is the Minnesota Multiphasic 21 Personality Inventory-2, which is kind of a broad spectrum of 22 personality inventory that helps me rule out any gross 23 mythology, gross psycho-mythology, or raise hypotheses about 24 any particular problems that I might have missed in the 25 interviews. 9 • 1 I also use and did in this case the Parenting 2 Stress Index, which is an instrument that looks at the 3 potential for stress within the parent/child dyad; by looking 4 at particular behavioral or personality factors of the children 5 and personality factors of the parent and how they interact to 6 create stress for the parents. 7 Then I would gather some collateral information, so 8 I had medical records for Madison and JJ, Jason, the child. I 9 did also get some dental records to see what dental care was 10 being done. I had their school records from East Pennsboro 11 School District for both of them. 12 I accept other information that the parents may 13 give me, so Jason provided a partial journal that he had 14 written and also kind of an introductory letter that was part 15 of that journal that further outlined some of his concerns with 16 respect to the custodial situation. So that is routine for me 17 to do it that way. 18 Q All of the general components that you just 19 mentioned, not including the specific items that you just 20 mentioned that the parties gave you, were they components of 21 this evaluation? 22 A Yes, those are routine components of my evaluation. 23 Q After you do everything that you have just 24 testified about, do you then formulate a report of it? 25 A Yes, I do. 10 • • 1 Q Is that a written report? 2 A It is. 3 Q That is a standard part of the evaluation 2 4 process? 5 A Yes, that is a standard part of the process. 6 Q Did you prepare a report in this case? 7 A I did. 8 MR. SMITH: May I approach the witness, Your Honor? 9 THE COURT: Certainly. 10 (Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 marked for 11 identification.) 12 BY MR. SMITH: 13 Q Dr. Shienvold, I am going to hand you what has been 14 marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit 1, and just 15 first ask you to identify that document. 16 A This is a copy of the report I issued on 5/18/06. 17 Q Could you indicate when you first met with either 18 Stacie Drumm or Jason Emlet? 19 A Yes. I met with them beginning in October of 2005. 20 Q If you could maybe just report and summarize your 21 interview process with the parties? 22 A Well, when I initially met with them I got a 23 background of the case. That background included concerns that 24 since Jason was the parent who was looking for a modification 25 of the cust ody arrangements, I got his concerns about why 11 0 0 1 custody needed to be changed. 2 As was stipulated to earlier, mother had primary 3 custody, had primary custody since the time of their separation 4 from one another. Father had had alternating weekends, but 5 informally, more time that, according to both of them actually, 6 that he would see them -- he might get them for extended 7 weekends as opposed to just the alternating weekends that he 8 had up until the time that he filed for a modification of 9 custody. 10 I don't know where to start this. It was Stacie's 11 feeling that Jason was doing this primarily because she had 12 requested child support, and that up until the time that she 13 requested formal child support, a Domestic Relations order, 14 that there was no challenge of custody and that, in fact, the 15 custodial arrangement had gone relatively well between them. 16 Q If I could interrupt you for a moment, I apologize 17 for that, you heard Mr. McKnight indicate that the parties 18 separated back in 2002? 19 A Correct. 20 Q Did you learn from the parties that their custody 21 arrangement was informally resolved between them up until just 22 last year? 23 A Yes. 24 Q There was no court order of custody until August of 25 2005, is that correct? 12 0 C 1 A That is correct. So it was Stacie's opinion that 2 this was all occurring because of her having gotten the child 3 support. 4 When I interviewed Jason, Jason admitted that, in 5 fact, was his stimulus to pursue the custody. He presented it 6 in a slightly different way in that he said that he would kind 7 of constantly live with a threat from Stacie that she was going 8 to ask him for increased support. 9 He stated that he felt that he had always taken 10 care of the children's financial needs and given Stacie money 11 when she would request it to the extent that he could. But 12 that when she did finally go for a Domestic Relations order 13 that he had kind of had it and that he was going to get primary 14 custody. So at that level he was kind of validating what 15 Stacie had to stay. 16 Jason also raised additional concerns at that point 17 in time. Jason felt that he could provide a more stable living 18 environment for the children. He pointed out that since 2002 19 when they had separated that Stacie had moved residencies four 20 or five times. 21 She had originally moved out of his home and moved 22 to her parents' home, her mother's home in Colonial Park. She 23 then moved to Lancaster where she lived with a man by the name 24 of Jay McClay I think for approximately 2 years. When that 25 relationship ended, she briefly moved back to her grandmother's 13 • • 1 home in Harrisburg before more permanently relocating to Enola; 2 then ultimately established her relationship with Mr. Drumm, 3 Dave Drumm, and has lived consistently with him for the last 2 4 years and they are now married. 5 So Jason was saying that he felt that was a pretty 6 unstable living situation, number one; number two, it had 7 exposed the children, most specifically Madison, the older 8 daughter, to three school changes. He said four school 9 changes, but it was actually three school changes. 10 She did her kindergarten schooling, I think that 11 may have been in Carlisle; but she then attended school when 12 she was in Lancaster in that area for a couple ye ars; and then 13 she has done her last two and a half years if you would include 14 this year in Enola, so she has been in Enola for the last two 15 plus years. 16 Actually, JJ had not started school yet, so he has 17 done alternate schooling in Enola, so he didn't have a school 18 change. In any case, that was one of the issues that Jason was 19 raising. 20 Beyond stability, Jason had concerns that Stacie 21 neglected the children's care. He felt that they did not have 22 appropriate hygenic care. In most recent interviews it was 23 probably he was concerned about their dental care. JJ in 24 particular had some significant dental problems around that 25 time. 14 0 1 Let me see what other concerns he had. He felt 2 that Stacie tried to influence the children against him. He 3 felt that she would buy them things when they wanted them in an 4 attempt to make him look bad financially, and that he had to 5 kind of defend himself to the children because they would 6 wonder why he didn't buy them things. He had concerns about 7 some of the general care. He felt that he would feed them 8 healthier food than she did. 9 I think that covers many of them, I am not sure I 10 got them all, but those were his areas of concern. 11 Stacie, on the other hand, stated that she had 12 always been the children's primary custodian, that she was a 13 stay-at-home mother for the time that she and Jason were 14 together. She did attend medical -- maybe she attended the 15 Computer Learning Network for schooling. I think she may have 16 attended the Medical Arts Facility for that. And that the 17 children have always been her greatest concern, and she has 18 always been primarily responsible for their care. 19 That was kind of her argument is that Jason had 20 never made her custody an issue prior to her filing for the 21 support, he had not raised these concerns to her in any 22 significant way prior to that time; that contrary to her 23 influencing the kids against him, she was very flexible in 24 allowing him time. She never tried to obstruct his time 25 perhaps prior to this time period of the custody complaint. 15 • 1 She was somewhat surprised and confused by this, by his 2 requesting this time. 3 She denied many of his claims. She stated that she 4 had been taking the children to the doctor regularly, there was 5 never issues around the fact -- that no agency had ever raised 6 issues around negligence; that although she did move around, 7 that she had established stability with her new husband, David, 8 and that she was providing a stable environment for the 9 children. 10 Q During the course of your evaluation, did you, 11 after hearing those concerns as expressed by the parties, did 12 you determine as between them which one of them tended to the 13 daily needs of the children maybe more than the other parent? 14 A Well, I think there was -- given the nature of 15 their custodial arrangement, there was no question that during 16 the school year Stacie was the parent most involved with the 17 primary care. Jason was seeing the kids alternating weekends 18 throughout what would be defined as the school year, so Stacie 19 was a parent who was primarily involved in meeting those needs 20 throughout that time. 21 Now the agreement reversed in the summer, so 22 certainly during the summertime, Jason was the parent who was 23 intimately involved with the children during that time period. 24 Q That would have just been the last summer, is that 25 right? 16 0 0 1 A June, July and August? 2 Q Yes, was it just the summer of 2006 that he had 3 primary custody of the children or did he have primary custody 4 before then during the summer? 5 A I thought that he had custody the summers even 6 before that. I may be wrong on that. 7 Q The last two summers? 8 A Yes. 9 Q But before then, Stacie had custody, primary 10 custody throughout the year? 11 A Yes, but Jason also had extra time during those 12 times. Jason also had a work schedule that had him very busy 13 in the summers. He apparently has switched jobs twice since I 14 saw him in my office with him, because the job that he 15 announced today is different than even the second one that he 16 had. 17 Q Let me ask a couple questions about Jason's 18 concerns about Stacie's stability if I might. You mentioned I 19 think when you testified that Stacie moved four times I believe 20 you said since the parties separated? 21 A It may have been four or five. 22 Q I think you said, when you have just went through 23 them, I think there were four that I counted, but be that as it 24 may. Is there anything about the moves that she had that 25 negatively impacted on the level of care, daily care that was 17 0 1 being provided by her during the past several years? 2 A No, I can't say that the moves impacted the level 3 of daily care, no. 4 Q Is there anything about Stacie's current situation 5 at her home in Enola that caused you concern about her 6 stability or ability to care for the children? 7 A No. In fact, what I really tried to focus on was 8 how stable the current environments were and how appropriate 9 the current environments were; how comfortable the children 10 appeared in their environments in each household. Whether 11 there was stable routines that existed within those 12 environments, what the relationships were like within those 13 environments, because they had existed for almost 2 years at 14 the time of my evaluation. So I think that would be the place 15 that I would focus primarily on stability issues. 16 Q Other than the dental care that Jason complained 17 about, were there any other issues about Stacie's care that he 18 complained about since she has been in her current Enola 19 residence? 20 A No, there were no other concerns that I saw with 21 respect to Stacie's care of the children. She had regular 22 routines with the children. She had rules within her house, 23 discipline within the house was appropriate. The children, in 24 observations of the children with Stacie and with Stacie and 25 David and their -- they have a half brother and a stepsister, 18 i ?? 1 their interactions with their half or stepsiblings was 2 appropriate. 3 The children were not complaining beyond what 4 children complain about. More with their stepsiblings, whether 5 it be Kyla or Carter or whether it was Nicholas in Jason's 6 household. There were typical complaints of either being 7 treated unfairly or somebody not sharing enough, but those were 8 typical, I guess when I say -- they were 7 or 8-year-old 9 complaints, as opposed to something that sounded much more 10 significant. 11 Q You mention that Stacie is married to Mr. Drumm, is 12 that correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Do you know whether they jointly own the house that 15 they live in? 16 A I believe they do. 17 Q And they have lived there for the past how many 18 years did you say, do you know? 19 A I think since 2004. 20 Q Do Dave and Stacie appear to be getting along well? 21 A Yes, the relationship as they reported it seemed 22 fine. In observations of them with the children, they 23 cooperated in their parenting and their care. They discussed 24 common parenting philosophies and approaches. There was 25 nothing to assume they didn't. But there was nothing raised 19 I even by Jason that suggested they weren't getting along well. 2 Q Any questions raised as to their finances, ability 3 to manage their family finances? 4 A No. Jason complained that he felt that he was a 5 source of their finances, that was his concern, was that -- his 6 concern was that he felt Stacie expected him to pay for her new 7 baby with David, she got pregnant and had Carter in 2005. 8 Q Were there any complaints made by Jason as to 9 Stacie's emotional state, and did you find any evidence of any 10 emotional problems that sh e is experiencing? 11 A I don't think he complained directly of any 12 emotional stated problems. Obviously, he raised the stability 13 issues, but beyond that he wasn't saying that she was severely 14 depressed or anxious or overly hostile. 15 I know there was hostility that he was concerned 16 about towards the end of this, especially since he filed, and 17 he felt that she had become much more restrictive in allowing 18 him additional time with the children since he had filed for 19 custody; but in general, no. 20 Her psychological testing, her responses to the PSI 21 indicated that there were no significant psychological issues. 22 In fact, none of these parents, Stacie, Jason, David or Amy, 23 present with any significant psychological problems that appear 24 through their testing or their interviews. 25 Q Have you pretty much found both parents to be 20 0 0 1 pretty well adjusted as adults in all ways? 2 A Yes, this is not a case where one of the concerns 3 would be that one or more of these people have significant 4 psychological problems, they do not, they are well functioning, 5 highly adequate individuals, who are relatively responsible and 6 caring. 7 Q Along those lines, is there any area of parenting 8 skills that you found either of them to be deficient in any 9 way? 10 A No, not particularly. They parent somewhat 11 differently. I think that -- and quite honestly, Stacie and 12 Dave raised this somewhat -- Jason and Amy have a somewhat more 13 conservative household. Amy, for example, is home schooling 14 her son, Nicholas, in a type of home school that is probably a 15 little more Christian based. 16 So that leads to a somewhat more conservative 17 household. Jason raised some issues about the exposure of 18 Maddy and JJ to things he may not expose them to. Things he 19 raised was like the movie Grease, that he felt was 20 inappropriate for children their age. 21 Beyond that, these are parents who have rules 22 within their household, they have set limits for their 23 children. They have expectations around homework. The 24 children are certainly functioning within their achievement 25 levels within the school, so there has been sufficient 21 1 attention to their schooling. There is just not a lot of red 2 flags with respect to what is going on. 3 Q Was there any discussion with Jason as to how 4 schooling would be handled if primary custody during the school 5 year were transferred to him? 6 A Actually, Amy said that she wouldn't mind home 7 schooling the children, but that Stacie and Jason would have to 8 make that decision and probably they would go to Carlisle 9 public sch ool. 10 Q Right now I guess both children attend the East 11 Pennsboro Schools, is that correct? 12 A Yes. 13 Q They have been attending -- I guess Maddy has been 14 attending that school for the past two and a half years? 15 A Both have. 16 Q So he was school age, JJ was school age back two 17 and a half years ago? 18 A Yes. He had done kindergarten and first grade and 19 was now in second grade. 20 Q So JJ has never attended any other school other 21 than East Pennsboro? 22 A Correct. 23 Q You might have eluded to it before, have you 24 checked wi th the parents on the level of the academic 25 performanc e of the children in school? 22 • • 1 A Well, I checked their school records. None of the 2 parents raised concerns about their level of performance. JJ 3 had some reading problems that he was having with reading, but 4 he was progressing really well and was probably moving out of 5 any need for resource reading. Whether or not that is current, 6 I am not sure because I haven't seen him since then. 7 Maddy was certainly performing well, had some math 8 problems, but was generally doing well. The comments on the 9 report cards and the achievement within the school was all 10 satisfactory or above. 11 When I interviewed the kids, both children said 12 they liked school, they had friends at school. Part of the 13 recommendation was based on the fact that -- given the fact 14 that Maddy had not liked having to switch schools and change 15 friends, the idea of changing schools again because of another 16 change in custody to me was a negative factor. 17 She was pretty well established now in East 18 Pennsboro School District, was connected to that school and 19 made good adjustments in school, friends in the school. I 20 didn't feel it was best, therefore, to move her again. 21 Q When you interviewed the parents and the children 22 and looked at the school records, did you find any part of 23 their schooling at East Pennsboro to be deficient in any way, 24 not only academically, but behaviorally, emotionally, socially? 25 A No. 23 • 0 1 Q Any aspect of it? 2 A No. 3 Q No reports from teachers, counselors that they have 4 any special needs that need to be addressed? 5 A No. 6 Q Dr. Shienvold, do you have an opinion then as to 7 what the impact could be on either or both children if a change 8 of schools were to occur? 9 A I think there would be a more negative impact on 10 Maddy than JJ. Both parents see Maddy as having more 11 difficulty to new environments and change. They both admit 12 that she was probably the child who was more affected by the 13 whole separation and divorce situation. She is pretty 14 sensitive. 15 Jason calls her somewhat dramatic, that she can 16 kind of be dramatic in her presentations. So yeah, I think a 17 change would have a more negative impact on Madison. To be 18 honest, she has made a couple changes, so she certainly has 19 been able to adapt to those, but I do not see from my 20 evaluation a reason to make that change again. 21 Q I don't know if you commented earlier, but I 22 believe your report mentions another reason that Jason was 23 seeking a change in custody was the preference of the children? 24 A Yes, he indicated to me that JJ has kind of always 25 wanted to live with him, and Madison has at times said she 24 • • 1 wanted to. 2 Q How many times did you see these children? 3 A Twice. 4 Q Did you see them both when their mom brought them 5 in and dad brought them in? 6 A Yes, both parents brought the children. 7 Q About how much time have you spent with them? 8 A How much time individually with them? They come in 9 for a total of two hours, but the interviews are relatively 10 short with children this age. 11 Q Do you think that given the time that you spent 12 with them, given your overall report, do you think that the 13 children ar e old enough to give meaningful testimony, mature 14 testimony a bout their preference? 15 MR. MCKNIGHT: Objection, Your Honor, that is a 16 judgment of the Court, not for this man. 17 MR. SMITH: I think Dr. Shienvold is certainly 18 qualified a s a court-appointed psychologist to give his opinion 19 on whether the children are mature or old enough to give 20 testimony. 21 MR. MCKNIGHT: Your Honor, I think it is well 22 established that children of this age can be heard by the 23 Court, and that his opinion on this issue is not in his report, 24 this is bey ond the scope of his report. 25 THE COURT: The objection is sustained. 25 • • 1 BY MR. SMITH: 2 Q One of the main reasons that Jason gave in order to 3 get to custody of the children is th at they want to be with 4 him, is that correct? 5 A I don't know if it was a main reason, I think it 6 was one of the things he raised. 7 Q If you could refer to pa ge 16 of your report, 8 please. That would be the part that deals with your 9 recommendations. 10 A Yes. 11 Q On page 16 you indicate that there is no indication 12 that the children have a preference to live with their father, 13 do you see that? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Could you elaborate on t hat a little bit? 16 A Yes, the children never spontaneously presented a 17 preference to me. One of the things that I do with minor 18 children is try to get them to talk about their environment. 19 With children this age, I do not ask directly whether they have 20 a preference. I think it is unfair to ask them if they have a 21 preference. There is already enough stress in the situation 22 that I don't want to increase their stress and anxiety by 23 having them choose between a parent, or choose between parents. 24 The children will someti mes give me a spontaneous 25 statement regarding preference; or I have also seen how much 26 • • 1 they have been influenced in the interview situation, that they 2 walk through the door and say to me I want to live with my dad 3 or I want to live with my mom and then I will ask them, have 4 they talked about that with anyone and I may hear that they 5 have actually practiced their response. 6 In this case, I did not hear that either parent 7 according to the kids had done any preparation for them with 8 respect to that. In fact, neither child reported that their 9 parents talked to them negatively or a lot about the other 10 parent with them, other than what did you do this weekend or 11 what did you do this week. But there was no single preference 12 with respect to that. 13 Maddy talked a little bit about missing each of her 14 parents when she is with the other one. She is a child who is 15 pretty sensitive with respect to, number one, not wanting to 16 upset her parents; but, number two, with respect to being 17 attached to each of her parents. 18 So it doesn't surprise me that each parent can tell 19 me that at times Maddy has said I want to live here, or that 20 she has difficulty leaving one or the other locations to go 21 back home after an extended stay, or had difficulty in terms of 22 wanting to stay and expressing that because I think that is the 23 type of child she is, she is attached to both of them. 24 Q Did you explore with Jason at all the manner in 25 which either child may have stated their preference to him? 27 • • 1 A Well, Jason talked about his sister getting upset 2 at times, going to dad and crying before she went to dad's. 3 That was kind of in the context of how easy it is to go back 4 and forth, and I talked to them about that; again, not talking 5 about a pr eference, but about moving in terms of things. JJ 6 doesn't ha ve that problem according to them, it is okay with 7 him. 8 Q After your report was made and you made your 9 recommenda tions and sent out the report, was there any reaction 10 at all tha t Jason made to your report? Did he call you? 11 A I don't think so. I don't recall getting a call 12 from him. 13 Q Did he ask you to explain the recommendation at 14 all? 15 A No. 16 Q Did he ask for any follow-up meetings? 17 A No. 18 Q Your report is dated back May 18 of this year, 19 correct? 20 A Correct. 21 Q You haven't been asked by Jason to provide any 22 updates or interview the children again about preference issues 23 or any oth er issues? 24 A No. 25 Q Could you summarize what your recommendations are? 28 • • 1 A Yes. The recommendation was that there be no 2 changes in the primary custody, that the children remain during 3 the school year primarily with their mother, and during the 4 summer primarily with their father. 5 I did recommend that I think the children would 6 benefit if there was some increased time with Jason. Given the 7 distance that they live from each other, it is hard to figure 8 that time for the evening time; so I recommend that the 9 weekends be changed to two to three weekends, as opposed to 10 every other weekend with their dad, so he have an increase in 11 his time. 12 I recommend that since there is no specific holiday 13 schedule or vacation time schedule, that at least they share 14 the school recesses during the school year, Thanksgiving and 15 Christmas, those type of things, and certainly share the 16 holidays themselves. Those were the specific schedule changes 17 that I recommended. 18 I did say that if Stacie were to move again out of 19 the East Pennsboro Borough District so these children had to 20 experience a change in school districts, then I would recommend 21 that the Court or the parents consider changing the primary 22 residence to Jason's because at least, although there may have 23 been job changes, his stability -- there has not been a 24 residential change and that school district would then become 25 kind of fixed. 29 0 0 1 Q When you recommended the change from alternating 2 weekends during the school year to two of three weekends for 3 Jason, did you consider that that might effect the time that 4 these children would spend with their step-siblings? 5 A It may change that somewhat. I know that may be 6 problematic, but quite honestly, I felt that the time of the 7 kids with their dad took precedence over the time with the 8 step-siblings. Certainly, if they are staying primarily with 9 their mom during the school, they have plenty of contact with 10 their half brother, Carter, and even with Kyla during the week, 11 so that is not going to be an issue. 12 In the summertime when they are primarily with 13 their dad, they certainly spend additional time with Nicholas. 14 They might lose a weekend or two with Nicholas because of they 15 come on that off third weekend, but I don't see that as primary 16 care to the relationship with their dad. 17 Q Do you know if Madison and JJ are involved in 18 extracurricular activities now, both inside and outside of 19 school? 20 A They were. They were involved in soccer, baseball 21 1 believe. There was some question about a dance class, but I 22 think they did not get involved with dance. Jason wanted them 23 involved with dance, Amy is involved with dance, but Stacie 24 didn't like that. 25 Q Just a general question on what your opinion is 30 i • 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 about whether a parent not in custody has a responsibility to make sure that the children attend scheduled sport activities or really any scheduled extracurricular activity that isn't on their time? A Well, my general answer to that is it is certainly better if both parents agree to the activities that a child is going be involved in because I think then they both buy into having the child at the activity. Both of these parents, at least in their interviews, indicated that they saw it as important that the children had social contact and social activities. So it is not so much that either of them would be opposed to activities, I think it is a matter of getting agreement on seasons and activities and perhaps where those activities will be since one is in the Carlisle area and one is in Enola area. But personally, I would strongly recommend that once they put a child in an activity that regardless of whose custodial weekend it is, if there is a soccer game on Saturday, they don't live so far away from Carlisle to Enola that they can't get a child to a soccer game or for that matter a dance recital. It depends on what they decide. Q Dr. Shienvold, do you have an opinion as to looking at these parents historically, which of them, if either of them, has been more inclined to promote and encourage the relationship between the children and the other parent? 31 • • 1 A Historically, I think they both have been flexible 2 in terms of allowing contact and working together. I think 3 that certainly the current litigation has made them more ridged 4 and less flexible. 5 My hope would be that once this is resolved they 6 will go back to being much more flexible. I did not see 7 encouragement in the relationship as being a primary issue here 8 until litigation began. 9 Q Do you know of anything that Stacie has ever done 10 to thwart or undermine Jason's access or rights to see the 11 children? 12 A The only thing that occurred was in the 13 Thanksgiving of last year they had a lot of difficulty working 14 out a schedule. Quite honestly, I think bad decisions were 15 made on both of their parts with respect to that Thanksgiving 16 holiday. They both became rigid about wanting what they wanted 17 at that point, and I think the kids suffered emotionally. 18 MR. SMITH: Thank you. 19 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. MCKNIGHT: 22 Q Dr. Shienvold, I have reviewed your report and I 23 just have a few questions for you. I think it is fair to say 24 from your report that you find both parents to be good parents? 25 A Yes. 32 • 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 Q And that the children in this case have a strong relationship with both parents? A I believe they do, yes. Q You indicated that you tested both parents and I believe you gave them the MMPI-2 test, is that correct? A Yes. Q Can you describe for the record what that is? A The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 is a 567 true/false questionnaire, what would be referred to in the psychological literature as an objective personality inventory. Objective because it is scored on the basis of statistical analysis, as opposed to subjective interpretation. It is not a measure of parenting contents, so I don't want it to be confused in that way. It is a measure of specific personality factors aimed at leading to what is called an Axis I or Axis II diagnosis; Axis I diagnosis being acute mental disorders, Axis II being more chronic personal disorders. So what one is using it for in custody evaluation work is to insure that there are no either acute disorders or more pervasive personality disorders that would interfere with the ability of the parent. Q In your report you indicate that the results of the father's MMPI-2 was more valid and open. What does that mean? A That for the most part Jason was answering questions without a lot of defensiveness. 33 • • 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 Q You also indicated that the mother's results were very -- were defensive? A I am sure I didn't say very defensive. As long as you clarified that. It is not uncommon, in fact, it is actually common, if you look at the research with respect to custody litigants, that parents are trying to make a favorable impression, and they will show a certain degree of defensiveness. Stacie's result was kind of consistent with custody litigants, Jason's result was actually a little bit lower than custody litigants would show on defensiveness. Q So what you are saying is that based on that, that the mother was more concerned about the custody litigation than the father was, or what are you saying? A No. I think they were both very concerned about the custody litigation, and I certainly didn't need the test to tell me that. It is strictly a feature of the MMPI that mom was more protective about admitting to certain psychological problems, dad was a little more open about that. That is taking into consideration interpretation. Q You also indicated that your primary reason for not recommending a change of custody at this point was your concern especially about the daughter's expressed concerns about the difficulty she had in making three school changes? A I think that is not a good characterization. 34 i 0 1 Q Okay. 2 A One of the reasons that I recommended that primary 3 custody remain the same was because of those issues related to 4 Maddy's changes in schools. It was not the primary reason. 5 The primary reasons had to do with the fact that 6 Stacie is providing good care. I believe that her situation is 7 stable. I do not agree that she has discouraged the 8 relationship between the children and Jason. In fact, I 9 believe that for the most part she has encouraged it. The 10 proof of that is in a very good relationship they have with 11 him, in spite of an alternating weekend schedule. 12 So to characterize it as that being the primary 13 reason, it would not be true. But I do believe that given 14 those factors, exposing her to another school change is not in 15 her best interest. 16 Q But you did further indicate that if the mother 17 changed schools again, you would recommend that change of 18 custody to the father? 19 A Correct, I did. 20 Q Of course, Jason does not have, Jason the son, does 21 not have the same issues with moves because he didn't move 22 schools, change schools as much? 23 A Right. He has also got a different temperament in 24 general. You kind of describe him as more of a Teflon-type 25 kid, than a Velcro kid, things will slide off him a bit easier. 35 • • 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 Q You saw the two children on two occasions, January 16 of 2006 and January 30 of 2006? A Right. Q In your report you indicate that Jason loves his children very much and wants what is best for them, the children love their father and want to spend additional time with him. A That is true. Q So at some level the children did communicate they wanted to spend more time with their dad? A Yeah, they said they would like to see their dad more. Q So that was pretty obvious and that had to be pretty spontaneous because you didn't ask them that, did you? A I didn't ask them that directly, no. I asked questions about how do you like spending time with your dad, what do you think it would be like spending more time with your dad. I don't ask kids to make that choice between their parents, I believe that nobody should do that. Q Did either of the children in any way express to you concerns about their relationship with their stepfather? A No. Q You indicated in your report and your testimony that you thought one of the motivating factors in filing for the custody was father's concern about the support that he was 36 • • 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 paying? A I didn't think that, Jason told me that directly. Q Were you aware that he was paying voluntarily $150 a week to the mother prior to her going to the Domestic Relations; and that afterwards he was paying $30 more a week than he was before voluntarily, did you know that? A I knew he had been paying her something per week. I knew that it increased. There were several numbers thrown out, but I never checked the specifics. Q It is also true that the father, Jason, voluntarily agreed to pay your entire costs for this evaluation, which was no small amount, was it? A Part A, I guess he voluntarily agreed to pay. I don't know what negotiations went into his deciding to pay for the evaluation; number two, it was an amount I always bill. Q The bill was $4,565? A Actually, it was less than it should have been; but, yes, that is a lot of money. I admit that it is a lot of money. Q So he paid all that, so it shows at least that he was very interested in trying to get a view as to how these kids were doing and where they should be living, is that correct? A I absolutely wouldn't have said that he cared about his children and what was best for them if I hadn't meant that. 37 0 0 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 Q Your recommendation is that they spend increased time with their father at least three weekends a month? MR. SMITH: Objection, that is not what he said. THE COURT: Two out of three weekends I think. BY MR. MCKNIGHT: Q Two out of three weekends? A Yes. Q And that holidays be shared, that is extended holidays, spring break and Christmas break be shared by the parties? A Yes. Apparently, they had worked out a system prior to all this happening, but I think Jason became concerned as a function of the litigation and what happened at Thanksgiving time, that without a more set -- or I became concerned that without a more set idea of how to do that, that they would have to negotiate. And I believe that they should spend equal time with their parents during these times or something that is equitable, something around equal. MR. MCKNIGHT: Those are all the questions I have. THE COURT: Mr. Smith. MR. SMITH: Nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: Are all of the facts, recommendations and opinions and conclusions contained in your report still your conclusions and opinions, facts and otherwise, still in accordance with your views? 38 0 0 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 THE WITNESS: Yes, they are, Your Honor. There is one thing that you should change on your report and that is the notice that the date of birth of Madison is marked as 8/8/07, when it is 97. THE COURT: All right, you may step down, thank you. May Dr. Shienvold be excused? MR. MCKNIGHT: He may. MR. SMITH: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may stay or leave as you choose, thank you. MR. MCKNIGHT: We would like to begin with my client's testimony and then break when the children arrive at 11:00. THE COURT: All right. JASON A. EM T, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MCKNIGHT: Q Would you state your full name for the record, please. A Jason Alan Emlet. Q Where do you reside? A 341 Old State Road, Gardners, PA, 17324. Q How long have you lived at that residence? 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 • • A A little over a year, probably close to a year and a half. Q Do you own that property? A Yes. Q Who do you own it with? A It is supposed to be on there with Amy, but there was a mixup after settlement and she is not on the deed but... Q So it is in your name alone? A Yes. Q Are you married? A Yes. Q To whom are you married? A Amy Emlet. Q Who lives in your household with you? A Amy and Nicholas, her son. Q How old is Nicholas? A He is six. Q You see your children every other weekend right now during the school year? A That is correct. Q When do you pick them up and when do you drop them off? A They are dropped off at my place at 6:00 p.m. on Friday, and I drop them off at 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. Q During the summertime you have them primarily, is 40 • 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 that correct? A That is correct. Q Does that start right after school is over? A Yes, it does. Q Do you return them when school is to begin, is that correct? A That is correct. Q Your date of birth? A 7/6/75. Q How far have you gone in school? A I went through high school, 12th grade. Q What school did you graduate from? A Carlisle High School. Q Where do you work now? A Right now I am currently employed through Ingersoll- Rand of Shippensburg. Q What do you do for Ingersoll-Rand? A I am a technical support representative for milling. Q What do you do? A I provide service oriented support to the customers if they have any questions or problems. Q Are you paid hourly or a salary? A Salary. Q What is your current salary? 41 • • 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 A Q needs? A Q A Q benefits? A Yes, they are. Q How long do you have that position? A I have been there, today will be five weeks. Q Before that where did you work? A I worked for Pennsy Supply. Q How long did you work for Pennsy Supply? A I worked for Pennsy Supply from December of last year up until five weeks ago. Q What did you do for Pennsy Supply? A I was a paving foreman. Q Did you have long hours during the summertime? A Yes, I did. Q How do your hours differ now, what are your hours? A My hours now currently are 8:00 a.m. in the morning until 5:00 p.m. in the evening. Q Is the work currently with your current employer steady year round? Current salary is $46,500 a year. Is that adequate to take care of your family's Yes, it is. Does it include any health benefits? Yes, it does. Are the children covered under those health 42 • • 1 A Yes, it is. 2 Q Since the separation of you and the mother of these 3 children, you have seen them on a continual basis, is that 4 correct? 5 A Yes, for the most part. 6 Q Last year you were concerned enough to file a 7 custody petition in this case, is that correct? 8 A That is correct. 9 Q Why did you do that? 10 A I had been looking into it for quite some time. I 11 had actua lly started with an attorney back in January, 12 February, that area, and was just checking because I was 13 concerned about the moves and the stability with the kids, and 14 just hear ing some of their comments, wanting to start to live 15 with me. 16 It all just happened to work out that when I filed 17 it was ri ght around the same time as whenever the support was 18 filed but ... 19 Q Did the fact that you were having to pay support 20 have any impact on why you filed? 21 A No, none whatsoever. 22 Q What support were you voluntarily paying? 23 A I was paying $150 a week voluntarily. 24 Q You separated back in September of 2002 according 25 to the st ipulation, is that correct? 43 • • 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 A Yes. Q And you were paying support voluntarily to the mother? A That is correct. Q There was never any concern raised about the amount that you were paying? A No, it was what she had asked for. I paid it up until then; any time she asked for more to help out, I did it voluntarily. Q So when she formally applied, did she apply for support before or after you filed for custody? A Before. Q But you had already seen an attorney about filing for custody? A Yes. Q The two aren't related that way, is that correct? A No, I was waiting until I was in a more stable environment to provide a better home for the children, that is why I waited as long as I did to file. Q How long have the children been asking you about coming to live with you? A Off and on over the last year. Primarily since they have came -- and from the start of school over the summer, when they came after school, they primarily since then in the last four months, four or five months, have been asking to come 44 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 • and live with me. Q When the children came to live with you, did Madison give you a note? A Yes, she did. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 marked for identification.) BY MR. MCKNIGHT: Q I will show you a note that we have marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 for purposes of identification. Could you tell us what that is? A Yes, this was a note that my daughter had given to me because she was afraid that -- she didn't know how to approach me, so she wrote a note to get the ball rolling so that I could go talk to her. Q When is the note dated? A The note is dated June 16, 2006. Q Basically, what does it say? A Dear Dad, I would like to live at your house for the year. I really want it to happen. Will you talk to me about it? Thank you, love Madison. Q Did you talk to her then about coming to live with you? A Yes. Q You had already filed for custody? A That is correct. 45 1 Q And had the evaluation come out yet when she gave 2 you that note? 3 A Yes, I believe it had. 4 Q So you saw the custody evaluation of Dr. Shienvold. 5 Why did you go ahead with this hearing? 6 A Coming from his evaluation, I was prepared to drop 7 everything until they came to me and said, look, we want to 8 live with you, that is the reason I am sitting here, because 9 they asked me. 10 Q You didn't sit them down and say or try to 11 influence them, is that correct -- 12 MR. SMITH: Objection, he is leading, he has been 13 leading. 14 THE COURT: Sustained. 15 BY MR. MCKNIGHT: 16 Q Tell us about your interaction with the children? 17 A My interaction with them is like any other father, 18 you talk to them, see what they have to say, how they feel. 19 They came to me asking to live with me -- 20 MR. SMITH: Objection, hearsay. 21 THE COURT: Mr. McKnight. 22 MR. MCKNIGHT: I think he certainly can indicate 23 that he was approached by the children. 24 THE COURT: For the limited purpose of showing why 25 he is pursuing the hearing, do you have any objection, Mr. 46 • • 1 Smith? 2 MR. SMITH: No. 3 THE COURT: All right. It will be considered for 4 that purpose only. 5 MR. MCKNIGHT: Okay. 6 BY MR. MCKNIGHT: 7 Q So continue with your answer. 8 A Like I said, Madison approached me about it. When 9 she approached me, up until that point I had never looked at 10 them, I never put them in a position to say where do you want 11 to live, because I would not do that to them. Since she 12 brought it up to me, I asked her, since you are bringing it up, 13 I said, where would you prefer to live? She said, I want to 14 live with you -- 15 MR. SMITH: Objection to hearsay. 16 THE COURT: Well, it is being admitted simply for 17 the purpose of showing why he acted in pursuing this case I 18 believe. 19 BY MR. MCKNIGHT: 20 Q Were you ever approached by your son? 21 A Yes, at a later point he came to me and had shown 22 his -- he doesn't always come right out and say what he wants, 23 but he slowly gave me his opinion that he would like to live 24 there also. 25 Q How consistent have they been with you about this? 47 1 A They have been adamant about it since she gave me 2 this note. 3 Q Have they expressed any concerns about their life 4 and their home with their mother? 5 A Yes, they have. 6 Q What have they expressed concern -- 7 A They have expressed concerns -- 8 MR. SMITH: Objection. 9 THE COURT: I think we are getting into now just 10 pure hearsay. Apparently, I am going to hear from the 11 children, so I will consider what they say in their testimony. 12 BY MR. MCKNIGHT: 13 Q Without going into specifics, could you tell me 14 whether or not their concerns have influenced you at all in 15 moving forward with this hearing? 16 A Yes, it has. 17 Q What kind of relationship do the children have with 18 your wife? 19 A They have a very good relationship. They get along 20 well. I would believe that they love her as well as she does 21 them. I think we function pretty well as a family given the 22 circumstances. 23 Q Why do you think it is the best interest that they 24 spend more time with you? 25 A Just for the stability reasons. The fact that they 48 • • 1 are wanting to spend more time with me. I am not going to 2 argue with them, if they want to be there, they want to be 3 there. I am looking out for their best interest. 4 Q What school district do you reside in? 5 A Carlisle School District. 6 Q Have you gone over with the children the fact that 7 they would have to move to a new school district if they came 8 to live wi th you during the school year? 9 A Yes, we have discussed that. 10 Q Do you think that would be a major issue for the 11 kids? 12 A At this point, no, I don't. 13 Q Why not? 14 A They are willing to make the move, they want to 15 make the move. They have both told me that, yeah, it is 16 another move, but it is what we want to do. 17 Q Your wife has a child, is that correct? 18 A That is correct. 19 Q The name of that child? 20 A Nicholas. 21 Q How old is Nicholas again? 22 A He is six-years-old. 23 Q How does he get along with your children? 24 A They get along well. Nothing more than the 25 squabbles you are going to have with kids of that age, brothers 49 • • 1 and sisters, minor differences of opinions, he is not sharing, 2 he did this or he did that, but they get along well. 3 Q Describe for the Court your living arrangements? 4 A We live in a two-story home in a country setting, 5 three bedrooms, one and a half bath. Each of the kids have 6 their own room, with the exception Jason shares a room with 7 Nicholas. 8 Q Do they have their own beds? 9 A Yeah, they have their own beds. Madison has her 10 own bed, JJ and Nicholas have bunk beds. 11 Q What activities are the children in right now? 12 A Right now they are in soccer. 13 Q Where is their soccer team located? 14 A In Enola. 15 Q Do you support their soccer playing in Enola? 16 A Yes. When I can be there, I am there; if I can't 17 be, I explain to them, I can't make it. 18 Q Do you think Stacie is supportive of your 19 relationship with the children right now? 20 A Right now, I do not believe so. 21 Q Why not? 22 A Just from the nature of the situation going into a 23 custody hearing, you know, I just don't believe so. 24 Q How has that manifested itself? 25 A I tried contacting them three times this week, left 50 0 i 1 three messages; and I saw the kids on Saturday and told them 2 that I called, and they said we were never told you called, we 3 did not know. 4 Q Do you think they are not permitting calls to go 5 through? 6 A No. 7 Q Was there an issue recently at a custody exchange 8 for the children? 9 A Yes, there was. It was on Monday, I went to pick 10 the kids up from soccer practice, I was there for the practice. 11 We were leaving, I asked their mother, would she come and pick 12 them up please, because on Tuesday evening that I was not going 13 to be able to make it there by 6:00 and it just worked out 14 better if she would come get them. She said, no, I am not 15 going to do it, you have got to have them here for 6:00 16 o'clock. 17 There was an exchange there. I had the kids in the 18 car and I locked the door. She started screaming at JJ to open 19 the door now, you are not going with him if he cannot bring 20 them back, you are not going to have them. There was a little 21 more exchange. I drove off as she was pounding on the glass on 22 my door. 23 Q Did that have an impact on the children? 24 A Yes, it did, severe impact. 25 Q What, in fact, happened? 51 • s 1 A They did not want to go home the next night, they 2 did not want to go to their mother's the next night. I had to 3 go in the house and bring them out to get them and take them 4 back. I had to assure them everything was going to be okay, 5 and that nothing was going to happen. I explained to them that 6 they did nothing wrong because they were scared to death that 7 they had done something wrong. 8 Q So you get information through the mother, Stacie, 9 about the children, about their school work? 10 A Most of the time I have to go to the school to get 11 it. Very rarely do I see -- their book bags never come to my 12 place, unless I happen to get them, or my wife gets them before 13 they go to their mother's. But usually I have to contact the 14 school and get the paperwork that way. 15 Q Do you try and foster a positive relationship with 16 the children and their mother? 17 A Yes, I do. 18 Q How do you do that? 19 A Well, I just, you know, try and tell them like it 20 is, it is okay to talk about your mother, because they have a 21 feeling that it is bad to talk about her at my house. I tell 22 them look, she is your mother, there is nothing ever going to 23 change that. I am not going to tell you that you can't do this 24 or that because of anything that your mother said or done or 25 anything like that. I try and, look, she is your mother, that 52 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 is the way it is, that is the way it always will be, and I am not going to try to keep them from ever, their relationship ever going... Q If you were provided primary custody of these children would you make sure they had a relationship with their mother? A Yes, I would. Q And she would have substantial time with them? A Yes. Q When she calls your home, do you put through the calls of the kids? A Yes, I do. In most cases the kids actually call her, and that is usually what happens. I let them call. I am not withholding them from her at all. Q Again, to summarize why it is you think that the kids would do well if they changed custody now during the school year? A I just feel that right now they are ready to, they want to. They are looking at it as a positive change, and I believe they are ready for it. If they wouldn't be ready for it, they wouldn't be asking to do it. Q How mature are your children? A Madison is -- she is very mature I believe for her age. She can get out what she -- she can think through what she wants and get it across very clearly. JJ for the most part 53 • • 1 can get his thoughts out as to what he is thinking. Sometimes 2 he gets a little off track, but that is just the nature of 3 being a kid. 4 Q JJ is your shorter version of his formal name, is 5 that correct? 6 A Yes. 7 MR. MCKNIGHT: Those are all the questions I have. 8 THE COURT: Mr. Smith. 9 MR. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honor. 10 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. SMITH: 13 Q Is it okay if I call you Jason? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Jason, you said that you had been working for 16 Ingersoll-Rand now for the past five weeks? 17 A Yes, that is correct. 18 Q When the custody evaluation was completed, you were 19 working at Wilson Paving, is that correct? 20 A That is correct. 21 Q Were you a paving foreman there? 22 A I wasn't titled as a paving foreman, I was more a 23 laborer type. 24 Q How long did you work at that job? 25 A I worked there from 1992 up until last year. 54 • • 1 Q Is that when you went to work for Pennsy Supply? 2 A That is correct. 3 Q What was the reason for that job transition? 4 A The reason I left was Wilson paid me as a small 5 family owned business, the owners are into their mid to late 6 60s, I asked, you know, where is the business going. I left 7 for stability reasons for a job to make sure that I was going 8 to have a steady job in the future. 9 Q That was in December of last year, is that correct? 10 A Yes. 11 Q You worked at Pennsy until just five weeks -- 12 A That is correct. 13 Q -- when you started to work at Ingersoll-Rand? 14 A That is correct. 15 Q What was the reason that you changed jobs then? 16 A The reason I changed jobs then is I felt it was 17 bettering myself to make this move, and the hours are much 18 better versus what I was working, which was the primary concern 19 of mine for the kids. 20 Q I think you said your hours are from 8:00 to 5:00? 21 A That is correct. 22 Q Is that Monday through Friday? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Does it ever involve weekend work? 25 A No. 55 1 Q Is there a chance that you could work weekends? 2 A I don't foresee it, other than maybe a phone call 3 from home, and that is it. 4 Q What about overtime? 5 A No. 6 Q No overtime, so just the 8:00 to 5:00 -- 7 A I am 8:00 to 5:00. 8 Q Are there any benefits that you get from your 9 employment at Ingersoll-Rand that you didn't have at Pennsy 10 Supply? 11 A As far as? 12 Q Health insurance, those kind of things? 13 A I have medical, dental, that is the same coverage. 14 Q Have you supplied Stacie with copies of the new 15 health insu rance cards and -- 16 A Not yet, I just received them in the mail, and I 17 will supply those. 18 Q If I were to suggest to you that Stacie filed the 19 support act ion through Domestic Relations at the end of May 20 last year, would that sound about right? 21 A I believe that is correct, yes, in that 22 neighborhood. 23 Q There was a support conference in June? 24 A Okay. 25 Q You filed the custody action in June of last year 56 • 1 as well, right? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Did you file that before or after the support 4 conference? 5 A I believe it was after. 6 Q After you knew that the amount of support that you 7 would pay would be more than you would be paying directly to 8 Stacie, correct? 9 A That is correct. 10 Q Is Dr. Shienvold accurate when he says that you 11 told him that one of the reasons you filed for custody was 12 because you were upset about the amount of support that you 13 were paying? 14 A No, he is not accurate. 15 Q So when he says on page 3 of his report that you 16 were very unhappy about the child support that you must pay, is 17 that accurate? 18 A His wording might not be accurate. I believe I was 19 more upset about the manner in which everything came together 20 for filing of the support, more so than paying the support. He 21 took that and did not accurately convey what was said. 22 Q Well, then when he goes on to note that you say 23 that Stacie considers the child support her money and you fear 24 that she doesn't spend it on the children, is that what you 25 told him? 57 • • 1 A That is accurate, because they were her words, not 2 mine. 3 Q So you are not happy about the amount of support 4 that you ar e paying, is that right? 5 A I am not saying that I am not happy. I am not 6 going to ar gue that I don't have to support my kids, I always 7 have and I always will. 8 Q You are saying here today that you're filing for a 9 modificatio n of custody is completely coincidental with the 10 amount of s upport that you were directed to pay by Domestic 11 Relations? 12 A That is correct. 13 Q If I am correct in understanding the children's 14 preference, the children weren't making a preference at that 15 time as the y are now, is that right? 16 A They were leaning my way, but they were a little 17 confused as to what would happen if they did voice their 18 preference. 19 Q Dr. Shienvold's report was dated May 18 of 2006, is 20 that right? 21 A That is correct. 22 Q Do you remember when you would have received it? 23 A I remember receiving it. 24 Q Did you receive it in May or did you receive it in 25 June, about when, if you know? 58 0 0 1 A I don't remember an exact date as to when I 2 received it. I would assume that I would have received it very 3 close to when it was dated. 4 Q How soon prior to this note dated June 16, 2 006, 5 that your daughter wrote? 6 A I had it for awhile. 7 Q So your daughter, what were the circumstances under 8 which she sent that note, that she wrote you that note? She 9 just came to you with that note? 10 A Yes, that is correct. 11 Q Did you ask her when you received that note, when 12 she wrote it and where she wrote it? 13 A She wrote it at my house. I don't know that that 14 date is completely accurate. I would assume that it is. If 15 she put it on there, I would assume that it is accurate, which 16 is shortly right after school had left out. 17 Q Less than a month after Dr. Shienvold wrote his 18 report, correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q As of the time that Dr. Shienvold completed his 21 evaluation, did all his testing, the home studies, the 22 interviews, he determined that neither of your children had 23 expressed a preference to be with you, they loved both o f you 24 and wanted to live with both of you, didn't he conclude that? 25 A He says that was his conclusion. 59 0 • 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 Q Thank you. So it just so happens that right after Dr. Shienvold's report, you are not happy about it, are you? You weren't real happy -- A I wasn't happy with it. Q So it just so happens after you are unhappy with Dr. Shienvold's report, less than a month after his report your daughter happens to write that note saying, Dad, I want to come live with you, that is what you are saying? A Yes, that is correct. Q All of a sudden as of that time in June you say both of your children from that time forward, they are adamant, your wording, adamant about coming to live with you, is that right? A That is correct. Q That doesn't have anything to do with it, does it, Jason, because of the discussions that you and/or Amy were having with the children about the report and about the custody arrangement? A No, it does not. Q Did you sit down with Madison and JJ or JJ and talk to them about the report? A Not about the report, no, I did not. Q Did you approach them and tell them that there had been a report made by Dr. Shienvold that said that he recommended that the custody arrangement pretty much stay the 60 • 0 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 way that it was, did you talk to them about that? A I told them that -- they knew what was going on. They knew there was a report going to be filed. They knew we were in the middle of -- I told -- between Stacie and I, I am not sure what she had told them, but they were told, look, there are some people looking at our living situation and where you are going to be living. So they knew that there was something going on. Am I not supposed to tell them, look, this is the decision made. Q Did you tell them that there was a report? A I don't recall if I told them that there was a report. Q You just said that they knew there was a report? A They knew they were going to see Dr. Shienvold, they knew they were going to see him for a reason which had to do with the custody. Q Did you tell them that Dr. Shienvold was going to make a recommendation about how custody would be arranged? A Maybe after the fact. Q What do you mean by that? A After his evaluation, yeah, I had maybe told them that there was a report made. Q Okay, so until Dr. Shienvold wrote his report, your children didn't know that he was going to make a report and make suggestive custody arrangements, did they? 61 0 0 1 A There is a possibility that they did know that. 2 Q You didn't tell them, did you? 3 A I don't recall whether I told them before or after. 4 I am not the only party in this that could have told them. 5 Q You approached the children after Dr. Shienvold 6 wrote his report, correct? 7 A Approached them in what manner? 8 Q Well, you told them that Dr. Shienvold recommended 9 that custody remain pretty much the same, didn't you? 10 A The most I would have told them is that nothing was 11 going to change. 12 Q It was at that point, from that point forward is 13 when all of a sudden they are making adamant statements about 14 wanting to live with you, isn't that true? 15 A That is correct. 16 Q To what extent do you think the reason they are 17 saying that is because of things that you and/or your wife are 18 telling them? 19 A That is incorrect. 20 Q Oh, it has nothing to do with it? 21 A When the children are told, depending on how you 22 answer Mr. Shienvold's questions as to it will determine 23 whether or not you stay with your dad for the summer, that has 24 a huge impact on kids whenever they are going in and talking to 25 someone. 62 0 0 1 Q What discussions did you have with Madison and JJ 2 about what they are doing here today? 3 A I have told them that this has everything to do 4 with where they are going to live, they understand that. 5 Q Did you tell them -- they already knew that Dr. 6 Shienvold said things are going to pretty much be the same, 7 correct? 8 A That is correct. 9 Q They knew they were going to come here today and 10 probably t alk to Judge Oler, correct? 11 A That is correct. 12 Q They also knew that they may be asked about what 13 they like about mom's house, what they like about dad's house, 14 didn't you tell them that? 15 A I told them they were going to be asked questions. 16 I didn't g et anything from them, I am telling them to be honest 17 and give t heir opinion on what they think. 18 Q Did you tell them the kinds of questions that you 19 thought th e judge might ask them? 20 A No, I did not. 21 Q Did you tell them that they may tell the judge 22 where they want to live? 23 A Of course, I told them. I told them that they will 24 be allowed to voice their opinion as to what they want to do. 25 Q Did you tell them that since they had been adamant 63 0 1 about wanting to stay with you, they better tell the judge that 2 today? 3 A No, I did not. I told them to tell the truth. 4 Q You indicated that you thought that if a change in 5 custody hap pens that the kids would be able to handle that 6 pretty well , correct? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Did you hear Dr. Shienvold testify about it not 9 being a rea lly good idea about their changing schools? 10 A He said it may be tough for Madison, not on both of 11 them. 12 Q Did you see fit maybe to check with a counselor, 13 perhaps the children's current school counselor or some other 14 counselor, about the possible impact that a change in custody 15 might have on the kids? 16 A I understand that there could be an impact of that. 17 Q My question is did you see fit to check with any 18 counselors about what a change in the custody arrangement, how 19 that could impact on the kids? 20 A No, I have not. 21 Q Have you ever talked to the children's current 22 school guid ance counselor? 23 A Yes, I have. 24 Q Who is that? 25 A Betsy Fox. 64 • 0 1 Q When did you talk with Betsy Fox? 2 A I talked to her in the last couple of weeks. 3 Q If you talked to her in the last couple of weeks, 4 why didn't you ask her about what she thought if she could give 5 an opinion about the impact on either of your kids if they were 6 to change schools? 7 MR. MCKNIGHT: Objection, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Mr. McKnight. 9 MR. MCKNIGHT: The response is not of a witness 10 here, she is not being called as an expert, and quite frankly, 11 what her opinion would be is hearsay. 12 MR. SMITH: My question wasn't what her opinion 13 was, my question was why didn't he see fit to ask her about 14 that. 15 THE COURT: The objection is sustained. I think 16 Mr. McKnight you wanted to speak with the children in chambers. 17 Perhaps we should do that so we can get that in. I think Mr. 18 Smith and you agreed that that could be done this morning. 19 MR. SMITH: Yes, that would be fine. 20 THE COURT: All right, we will take a short recess 21 and then interview the children in chambers. Do counsel wish 22 to be present without the parties being present? 23 MR. MCKNIGHT: Yes, Your Honor. 24 MR. SMITH: Yes, Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: All right. 65 ! f 1 (Recess.) 2 (The following proceedings were held in the 3 chambers of Judge Oler:) 4 THE COURT: We will let the record indicate that 5 the Court is meeting in chambers with Madison and counsel. 6 (Witness sworn.) 7 THE COURT: Madison, my name is Wesley Oler. As 8 you know, both parents would like to spend more time with you, 9 but, unfortunately, there is only one of you, so that is why 10 you are being asked some questions today about your own 11 feelings. 12 You don't have to express an opinion at all as to 13 where you would like to spend most of your time, that is 14 entirely up to you, but you may be asked that question. If you 15 want to answer it, you can. If you do answer it, I certainly 16 will take into consideration what you say, but I cannot promise 17 to do exactly what you want because there are a lot of other 18 factors as well. 19 Mr. McKnight. 20 21 MADISON EMI T1 22 having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 23 DIRECT EXAMINATION 24 25 BY MR. MCKNIGHT: 66 • 1 Q Hi, I represent your dad. I have never met you, 2 have I? 3 A No. 4 Q Well, relax. These are grownups that you have not 5 met, but we really care about what you want and care about your 6 best interests too. There is no wrong answer, any answer you 7 give is fine, okay, as long as it is the truth, of course, 8 okay? 9 A Okay. 10 Q You have spent the weekend with who? This past 11 weekend, where have you been? 12 A My mom. 13 Q Did she talk to you at all about this time that we 14 spend with the judge? 15 A No, not that weekend, but last night she did. My 16 dad told my everything I would be doing and stuff. 17 Q So you have some idea that you would talk to the 18 judge? 19 A Uh-huh. 20 Q As I understand it, you spend the school year most 21 of the time with mom? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Every other weekend with dad? 24 A Every other weekend with my dad. 25 Q Do you want to spend more time with dad? 67 0 0 1 A Yes. 2 Q Can you tell us why? 3 A Because I would rather spend the whole year, the 4 whole summer and every other weekend with my dad because I get 5 tortured at my mom's. It is just not very good there. I just 6 don't like it. Past few days, you know, about the hearing and 7 all they did was buy me stuff, buy me $30 clothes, which I am 8 wearing right now. They wouldn't stop buying me everything. 9 They even said make a list of what you want and I will buy it 10 for you. 11 Q You said you are being tortured at your mom's 12 house? 13 A Yes. 14 Q How are you being tortured? 15 A Very close to being injured in the hospital. About 16 broke me head once. 17 Q How did that happen? 18 A My stepdad threw me on my bed and about cracked my 19 head open on the wall. 20 Q Do you know when that happened? 21 A Like on his birthday party last year. I almost 22 took my e ar off on a bannister and he laughed. 23 Q Do you have problems with your stepfather? 24 A He is mostly the problem, my mom lies to me 25 sometimes and isn't too nice. He does all this stuff to me and 68 0 0 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 my brother and mom never stops it, she just watches it. Then when dad hears all about it, he asks mom and she says because I told him to. Q Have you told anyone else about these problems? A (Witness nods head affirmatively.) I tell family that would understand. I don't tell my mom, obviously, my mom's family or my stepdad's family. I just tell my stepmom's family and my dad's family all about it. Q Do you ever talk to Ms. Fox, the counselor at school? A Yes, I talk to her all the time. Q Have you told her about these problems? A Yes. It is hard to get through school with all these problems and worrying about them. Because one night when I was getting home from soccer practice my dad was taking me home and he asked mom very kindly if she could pick us up and mom totally flipped out. She tried to get us out of the car and keep us away from dad for the rest of the year. When we were leaving she punched the window where we were sitting and about shattered it all over us. Q Did that upset you? A Yeah, I was really scared. I thought I saw that other car coming to get us and just take us and I didn't want to go back that week because I thought I would get in big trouble and I would be injured or something. 69 0 • 1 Q If you want to live with your dad or spend more 2 time with him during the school year, you would have to change 3 schools, do you know that? 4 A Yes. 5 Q How do you feel about that? 6 A That would be nice. 7 Q Why? 8 A Because I want to get to be with my dad and I want 9 to spend more time with my stepbrother. He actually really 10 cares, and my stepmom cares a lot. She cares about me even 11 more than my mom does, that is what I think. 12 Q So you have a good relationship with your stepmom? 13 A Yes. If I go to that school I will have my 14 brother, my uncle and a lot of my family have been going there 15 to that school. There is also a private school called Bethel, 16 it is a Christian school. 17 My mom just started to take us to church and she is 18 doing that to say, hey, look at me, I am a perfect person, I 19 take my children to church every weekend. We are not there, 20 she said she would go, but she always makes up excuses why she 21 didn't go. 22 Q So when you have been with mom she hadn't taken you 23 to church until just recently, is that right? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Do you know what church she takes you to? 70 0 • 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 A She takes us to the one down by Enola. Q Do you know the name of it? A I think it is Sunset something, I don't know. Q When you are with your dad, do you go to church? A Every weekend we are there, and they go when we were not there either. Q Do you like the church that your dad takes you to? A Yes. Q Do you have friends there? A I have a lot of friends there. Q So in a perfect world, what would you like to see the judge do? A Let me live with my dad all year and summer. Q You would see your mom on weekends at least? A Yeah. Q You haven't changed your mind about this, this is what you want? A No, I haven't. It was awhile ago I asked dad if he could do this for me and he asked us many times, are you sure, and here we are now. He did all this for us. MR. MCKNIGHT: Those are all the questions I have. THE COURT: Mr. Smith. MR. SMITH: Thank you. CROSS-EXAMINATION 71 1 BY MR. SMITH: 2 Q Madison, how old are you? 3 A Nine. 4 Q What grade are you in? 5 A In fourth. 6 Q Is school going pretty well? 7 A Yeah. 8 Q Your grades are pretty good? 9 A Yeah, no lower than a C. 10 Q What is your favorite subject? 11 A Math, that has always been my favorite subject. 12 Q Do you get As in Math? 13 A A and Bs. 14 Q My name is Max, I should have told you that before, 15 I am your mom's lawyer, okay? 16 A Yeah. 17 Q You and I never met each other before today, did 18 we? 19 A No. 20 Q Do you know the difference between telling the 21 truth and telling a lie? 22 A Yes. 23 Q You know what lies are and you know what the truth 24 is? 25 A Yes. 72 • • 1 Q When the judge asked you to please swear to tell 2 the truth, you were telling the truth, right? 3 A Uh-huh. 4 Q Do you remember about a year ago that you went to 5 see Dr. Sh ienvold? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Do you remember you went in to see him a couple of 8 times? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Did somebody from Dr. Shienvold come out to your 11 house, do you remember? 12 A I don't think so. 13 Q But you saw him a couple of times? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Back when you saw him, did you tell him anything 16 about the problems that you were having at your mom's house? 17 A He didn't really let me speak. 18 Q He just didn't let you speak? 19 A He just asked me a couple questions and then we 20 only got to see him and ask him a couple questions, well, tell 21 him questions and we didn't get to say anything. And then the 22 last time he was seeing how we got along with each other. 23 Q Back about that time when you were seeing Dr. 24 Shienvold, did you tell your dad about that you were being 25 tortured at your mom's, all these problems? 73 • • 1 A Yes. He knows everything about what has been 2 happening and I have been so excited to go to my dad's every 3 other weekend. 4 Q Do you call Dave, Dave, or what do you call him? 5 A Dave. 6 Q You said that, if I get you right here, you are 7 saying that you were injured and when he threw you on the bed, 8 is that the time that you hurt your head? I just want to make 9 sure I am understanding. 10 A Uh-huh. 11 Q When did that happen? 12 A About a year ago on his birthday party because I 13 wasn't eating the rest of my sub for dinner. 14 Q Did you go to the doctor? 15 A No, I just had a headache for a couple days. 16 Q Did you tell your dad about that? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Did you tell anybody else about that? 19 A I told my grandma and a few other friends, family. 20 Q What happened when you almost got your ear taken 21 off, what happened there? 22 A He laughed. 23 Q What happened, tell me what happened? 24 A I was twirling around on my knees in the living 25 room by the stairs and I closed my eyes and this ear right 74 • • 1 here, I almost took it off and I had to get stitches. Dave 2 came out, laughed. My mom went running quick, got an ice pack, 3 and now i t still feels really bad. 4 Q When did that happen? 5 A About a year ago. 6 Q Is there a mark on it from where it almost got 7 ripped off? 8 A No, I don't think so, but there was -- it puffed 9 up. It hurts every now and then every time someone tr ies to 10 touch it or something. 11 Q You say that your mom lies to you? 12 A (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 13 Q What does she lie about? 14 A Like, she says this means something about dad and 15 things that he didn't really do, blames everything she did on 16 dad. 17 Q Did you tell Dr. Shienvold that? 18 A He wouldn't let me tell anything that I wanted to 19 say. He just made me answer his questions. 20 Q What about Ms. Fox, have you told her all this 21 stuff? 22 A I told her everything. 23 Q When did you tell her that? 24 A I just started this year because I didn't think -- 25 I wasn't going through such bad stuff last year, this year it 75 • • 1 is getting worse. 2 Q The bad stuff about thrown on the bed and the ear, 3 that happ ened last year, right? 4 A Yeah. 5 Q So when that happened, did you tell Ms. Fox? 6 A I told her. 7 Q Right there or did you wait until just -- 8 A I told her this year. I kept everything in mind, I 9 write it on pieces of paper. I wrote it about -- 10 Q Okay, but if -- you told her a long time after it 11 happened though? 12 A Uh-huh. 13 Q Why did you just tell her, and that was just pretty 14 recently, this year, because it is only October and school just 15 started in September, so why did you wait so long to tell her 16 about something that was so bad that happened a year ago? 17 A Well, I didn't think I could trust anybody really 18 then. 19 Q Did your dad say that it might be a good idea to 20 tell her now about it? 21 A Well, he didn't say anything about that. 22 Q Have you talked to both your mom and your dad about 23 why you are here today? 24 A My mom doesn't know about it. She knows why I am 25 here, she is just trying to act all nice about this. They both 76 0 0 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 know, I just didn't talk to my mom about it because I thought I would get in big trouble, because I get grounded for at least a week by my mom. Q Does she ground you? A She grounds me. Q For what kind of things? A Like if I do something bad like if my brother was on the stairs and I was supposed to watch him and he fell down, I would have been grounded. Q For how long? A A week probably. Q A week where you couldn't do anything? A Where I wasn't allowed to watch TV. If it was really bad, I would have never got to play with my Bratz, watch TV, I just had to sit there with a book. Q I probably didn't ask this in a really good way, but you knew you were going to come in here today? A Yes. Q Who told you that you were going to come in here today and talk to the judge? A My dad, because he said he set everything up and he is trying to make everything better for me. Q Is that what he told you? A He told me we are going to be in here, the judge and Mr. McKnight was going to be here. 77 • 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 Q What else did he tell you? A He just said, Are you sure about this? Mom keeps saying that it was all dad's fault, he is trying to set you up and do all this. Q Your mom told you that or did you dad tell you that your mom said that? A No, mom said that, something like that, but not exactly. Q Have you talked to Amy about custody? A She knows everything, what daddy's knows, she knows. Q Did either Amy or your dad tell you that to tell the judge that you wanted to live with your dad most of the time? A No. Q They didn't say that? A They didn't. I just wrote it on a piece of paper that I wanted to live here. And dad kept asking, Are you sure that you want to live here, I am not trying to push it? Q When you wrote that on the piece of paper, did you just do that at home? A I did it with my dad every other weekend. I am sitting down writing about two pages or one page a day. Q But when you wrote that, I think you wrote a paper that told your dad that you want to live with him, do you 78 0 • 1 remember that? Did you write a note to him on a piece of paper 2 that said that? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Why did you do that? 5 A Because I was kind of crying then, and I can't 6 really ta lk when I am crying, so I had to like do that because 7 I was so nervious and I usually get really nervious about these 8 things. 9 Q What were you crying about and nervious about when 10 you wrote that note, do you remember? 11 A That it would never happen. It is just really bad. 12 I was so scared to ask him because I have never done something 13 like that before and I get really scared to do something like 14 that. 15 Q You said earlier when Mr. McKnight was talking to 16 you that it is really hard for you to get through school? 17 A Yeah. 18 Q Was it hard to get through school last year? 19 A Sort of. 20 Q It was? 21 A (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 22 Q Did you ever tell anybody that it was hard to get 23 through school? 24 A I told my teacher, Mrs. Guida (phonetic) last year. 25 She was trying to make it a little bit easier for me. 79 0 s 1 Q Have you told your mom that it is hard, that you 2 are nervious about things? 3 A No. 4 Q You haven't told her that? 5 A No. 6 Q With school, do you have a lot of friends with your 7 class? 8 A Well, I have like two. The other ones, they are 9 not really friends, they say they are, but they don't act like 10 it. They are always away from me, always playing with somebody 11 else. The y don't like me really. 12 Q Was it that way last year too? 13 A A little bit. I only had one friend last year. 14 Q When you said about going to church, what church 15 does your dad go to? Do you know what church that is? 16 A No. 17 Q But you go to church when you are with him? 18 A (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 19 Q Has that always been the way, you always go to 20 church at that same church? 21 A Uh-huh. I was trying to get mom to go there but 22 she was just annoyed with me and she didn't want to go there 23 because dad was there. 24 Q You said that there is a church that your mom goes 25 to, but what I am hearing you saying is I think you said she 80 0 9 1 just says, hey, look at me, I am this perfect person? 2 A (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 3 Q And that is the only reason she is going to church? 4 A She is like, hey, look at me, I am the perfect 5 person now, why don't you come live with me. 6 Q Did she actually say that, or that is how you think 7 that she is acting? 8 A That is how she is acting. 9 Q Did anybody tell you to use those words? 10 A No. 11 Q You just came up with that on your own? 12 A (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 13 Q How many different times did you talk with your dad 14 about com ing here today? 15 A Well, when I first wrote that note, that is -- we 16 have been talking about it ever since. 17 Q When was that? It said, if we are talking about 18 the same note, there was one that said June 16? 19 A I think, I don't know. 20 Q Did something happen then that made you write that 21 note then as opposed to sometime before? 22 A Well, just thinking of how I get tortured. I 23 always think about that. I just thought that time I want to 24 make some changes, I don't want to live there any more, I am 25 going to live here, try to live here at least. 81 0 • 1 Q Does your little brother get tortured over this 2 too? 3 A More than me. I tried to break -- I try to get in 4 there. A nd JJ was being suffocated one time and he about 5 stopped b reathing. 6 Q When did that happen? 7 A Well, I think that was like during the summer 8 sometime. 9 Q This summer? 10 A Last summer. 11 Q The summer before this summer that just ended? 12 A Yeah. That weekend Dave put a blanket over his 13 head and JJ about passed out. 14 MR. SMITH: I don't think I have anything else to 15 ask. 16 THE COURT: Mr. McKnight. 17 MR. MCKNIGHT: Just a couple. 18 19 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. MCKNIGHT: 21 Q Are you afraid of Dave? 22 A (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 23 Q You are shaking your head, which way are you 24 shaking your head? 25 A Yes, I am very afraid. 82 1 Q Why? 2 A Because I don't want to get hurt any more. I come 3 back to my dad's sometimes with bruises and headaches. 4 Q Does he ever say anything to you that bothers you? 5 A He, at night sometimes, Dave, he says, you better 6 stay awake, I am going to come and get you and he like freaks 7 me out saying that. 8 Q Do you think he is just kidding? 9 A Well, sometimes I do, but he keeps me awake all 10 night because -- he never comes up, but I do stay awake all 11 night and I never get rest for school and he just freaks me out 12 a lot. 13 Well, just sleeping there, I can't sleep, I can't 14 close my eyes. Every time I close my eyes, I have a bad dream 15 and wake up, because I am up all night with nightmares, because 16 before bed they always put on scary, scary movies. So I try to 17 go watch some TV, other good TV to get it off my mind, but it 18 never works. 19 Q Have you told your mom any of your concerns about 20 Dave? Have you told her that he scares you sometimes? 21 A Yeah. I even told her that I don't like to watch 22 scary movies and she knows it. 23 THE COURT: You told her what? 24 THE WITNESS: I told her that I don't like scary 25 movies, and I don't want to be downstairs when the movies are 83 0 0 1 on because it freaks me out and I can't sleep. When I was 2 little I used to watch "IT" all the time with my mom, a scary 3 clown movie, and now Dave reminds me of "IT" and tries to get 4 me all spooked out. 5 BY MR. MCKNIGHT: 6 Q Before you went to Dr. Shienvold, did your mom say 7 anything to you about what that was about? 8 A No, I didn't know what it was about. 9 Q You did your best to answer his questions? 10 A Yes. 11 MR. MCKNIGHT: I have no other questions. 12 THE COURT: Mr. Smith. 13 MR. SMITH: Nothing else. 14 THE COURT: Okay, Madison, thank you very much. 15 Nice to meet you. 16 (The witness left the chambers of Judge Oler.) 17 (The following proceedings were held in the 18 chambers of Judge Oler:) 19 THE COURT: Hello, my name is Wesley Oler, and I am 20 the judge in this case. Would you raise your right hand, 21 please. 22 (Witness sworn.) 23 THE COURT: What is your full name? 24 THE WITNESS: Jason Alan Emlet, Jr. 25 THE COURT: Where do you live most of the time? 84 9 0 I THE WITNESS: With my mom. 2 THE COURT: Mr. McKnight. 3 4 JASON ALAN EM1 T, JR., 5 having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 6 DIRECT EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. MCKNIGHT: 8 Q I am Mr. McKnight, I am the attorney for your dad, 9 and we are here just to find out how you are doing. You 10 promised to tell the truth, you know that. But I want you to 11 know that we care about you, and there are no right or wrong 12 answers, whatever you say, as long as it is the truth, is fine, 13 okay? 14 A (Witness nods head affirmatively.) I5 Q You love both your folks, your parents, don't you? 16 You have to say yes or no. 17 A Yes. 18 Q Where would you like to spend most of your time? 19 If you had your choice, your choice, where would you like to 20 spend most of your time? 21 A With my dad. 22 Q Why would you want to spend most of your time with 23 your dad? 24 A Because my stepdad, Dave, he is really mean to me 25 and my sister. He really thinks that -- when he thinks we are 85 1 getting our way -- because he never gets his way, so we try to 2 help our mom when Dave is attacking her, but Dave just grabs us 3 too and then we can't get out. 4 Mom, sometimes when she has her baby, Carter, and 5 when Carter is doing something bad, she smacks Carter instead 6 of just taking him away and putting him somewhere else. 7 Q There is some information to sort through. You 8 said Dave is mean to you? 9 A (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 10 Q Say yes or no. 11 A Yes. 12 Q How is he mean to you? 13 A Like when -- he thinks picking is love, but it 14 really isn't, because it hurts me and Maddy when he picks on 15 people. 16 THE COURT: Sorry, but I just don't understand what 17 you are saying. Would you say that again? 18 THE WITNESS: Dave thinks picking is love, but it 19 really isn't, because when he like pinches us, he thinks we 20 like it, but we don't, so he just keeps doing it. 21 THE COURT: He pinches you? 22 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. So we say stop it, please, 23 but he never stops. 24 THE COURT: All right. Is that all he does? 25 THE WITNESS: (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 86 1 THE COURT: Yes? Is that all he does. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 THE COURT: All right. 4 BY MR. MCKNIGHT: 5 Q Does he ever say anything to you which bothers you? 6 A Well, if he says like really mean stuff to us, 7 because I have a sister, Kyla, and Maddy says, you little, and 8 then Kyla says the bad word add the next to it. Her stepdad 9 and her mom, and her mom and her dad teach her that stuff. 10 Q I got to sort through this. Who says a bad word? 11 A My little sister, Kyla, she is only 4-years-old. 12 Q She says a bad word? 13 A Uh-huh. 14 Q And you don't like her saying it? 15 A No. 16 Q This happens at your mom's house? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Can you tell us what the bad word is? 19 A It is shit, that is what she says. She says after 20 that, Maddy says, you little, and she says, shirt, and I don't 21 think she should be saying that. 22 Q Is she referring to a person when she says that? 23 A Well, sometimes, but mostly the cat, that is what 24 we have. 25 Q Do you tell your mom that that bothers you? 87 1 A Yes, because then she gets in trouble and then she 2 has to sit, because mom doesn't want her to be saying that. 3 Q You said earlier that there are times when Dave and 4 your mom fight, is that right? 5 A Yes. 6 Q How often does that happen? 7 A Like probably almost a little bit every day. 8 Q Is it just with words that they fight? 9 A Well, they fight with words too and they -- mom 10 ends up getting hurt, mom ends up getting hurt. 11 Q How does she end up getting hurt? 12 A Because then Dave like pulls her down, and then we 13 try to help her because mom yells, help, and then we can't 14 because Dave is really strong. And the only way that we are 15 going to be doing it is to help mom but we can't because Dave 16 is really mean to mom and mom doesn't really do anything so 17 then mom just doesn't -- just stays laying down until we come 18 and help her and then we can't because Dave is really strong 19 and we can't like really take him down because he is really 20 hard to take down, and we can't because it is too hard for us. 21 Q How do you feel about Dave? 22 A I don't really feel comfortable with him, because 23 he made mom really mean now to us. 24 Q Have you told your mom that you are not comfortable 25 with Dave? 88 1 A Yeah, but she doesn't really listen to what we are 2 saying. 3 Q How often does this happen with Dave and your mom? 4 A Well, they actually get really like mean to us, so 5 we either have to sit or we either have to clean, because when 6 -- we didn't make Carter's mess and there is toys everywhere, 7 they still make us clean it up. 8 Q Was there a time in the past few days when your mom 9 got really mad? 10 A Yeah. 11 Q Tell us about that? 12 A Well, when she -- when mom gets really mad, she 13 either gets really mad at Dave or us because we don't -- 14 because when we like push Kyla down and she is the one that 15 actually starts it, then me or Maddy get in trouble. 16 Q Was there a problem with a car when your mom and 17 dad were changing your custody? 18 A Well, when mom and Dave -- Dave wasn't paying 19 attention to when there was a red light, he went right through 20 it, but good thing, we could have got killed, but good thing 21 nothing happened, because if there was traffic, we probably 22 could have got killed. 23 Q So what would you like to see the judge do? If he 24 could do whatever you asked him to do, what would you like to 25 see him do? 89 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 A I don't know. THE COURT: Mr. Smith. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: Q JJ, is that what everybody calls you, JJ? A Uh-huh. Q Does your teacher call you JJ or Jason? A My teacher only calls me Jason. Q What do you like better? Either one? A My mom calls me JJ. Q We will call you JJ then, is that all right? A (Witness nods head affirmatively.) Q How old are you now? A Seven. Q So what grade are you in? A Second. Q Who is your teacher? A Mrs. Stobs (phonetic). Q Do you like her? A Uh-huh. I have a teacher named Mrs. Severt (phonetic) but she already had her baby. Q Okay, is she going to come back and teach again? A Yes, at the end of fall. Q Good. Do you like them both though? 90 • 0 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 A (Witness nods head affirmatively.) Q Do you like your school? A Uh-huh. Q Everything is going okay in school? A (Witness nods head affirmatively.) THE COURT: You are not getting answers to the question. I need at this point to recess for lunch anyway. Jason, very nice to meet you, thank you, and we will talk to you later also, probably not today though. All right. Thank you. (The witness left the chambers of Judge Oler.) THE COURT: We will let the record indicate that Jason has left the room. Mr. Smith, do you want to move the admission of Defendant's Exhibit 1, which is Dr. Shienvold's report? MR. SMITH: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. McKnight. MR. MCKNIGHT: I have no objection to that. THE COURT: All right, Defendant's Exhibit 1 is admitted. Mr. McKnight, do you want to move the admission of Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, which is the note from Madison? MR. MCKNIGHT: Yes. MR. SMITH: No objection to that. THE COURT: All right, Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 is admitted. Do counsel want a copy of the transcript filed from 91 • • 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 today's proceeding? MR. SMITH: I do, Your Honor. MR. MCKNIGHT: Yes. THE COURT: All right. MR. SMITH: With counsel and the Court's permission, I think in light of what we have heard today, I might want to subpoena Ms. Fox, the school counselor, to see what she has been told by Madison. THE COURT: All right. We will enter this order: And now, this 16th day of October, 2006, upon consideration of Plaintiff's complaint for custody in the above-captioned matter, and following an initial period of hearing on today's date which has not yet been completed, the record shall remain open, and counsel are requested to contact the Court's secretary for purposes of scheduling an additional day of hearing. It is noted that, at the time of adjournment on today's date, Defendant had presented the testimony of Dr. Arnold Shienvold out of order with the permission of Plaintiff's counsel, Plaintiff had commenced his case-in-chief and had presented testimony of the parties' child Madison Emlet (date of birth 9/18/1997), partial testimony of the parties' child Jason A. Emlet (date of birth 12/22/1998), and partial testimony of Plaintiff himself. It is further noted that at the time of adjournment on today's date, Defendant's Exhibit 1 92 0 0 1 (Dr. Shienvold's report), and Plaintiff Exhibit 1 (note written 2 by Madison), had been identified and admitted. No other 3 exhibits had been identified or admitted. 4 Both counsel have requested that the notes of 5 testimony from today's proceeding be transcribed and filed. 6 The Court will enter a temporary order in the case 7 within the next several days based upon the testimony received 8 on today's date. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 93 E • 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. Patricia C. Barrett Official Stenographer The foregoing record of the proceedings on the hearing of the within matter is hereby approved and directed to be filed. ?3 vv (S . 2_0 o4 Date 94 JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, (now STACIE L. DRUMM), Defendant NO. 05-2900 CIVIL TERM IN RE: COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2007, upon relation of counsel in the persons of Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, on behalf of the Plaintiff, and Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire, on behalf of the Defendant, that the above-captioned matter is being amicably resolved by the parties, the continuation of hearing scheduled for this date is canceled. _urcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For Plaintiff /ax J. Smith, Esquire P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 For Defendant J :mae By the Court, Off it o? p06 A(# a co ? ? 09 I JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff V. STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, (now STACIE L. DRUMM), Defendant IN RE: COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this I Vh day of April, 2007, upon consideration of the attached letter from Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esq., attorney for Plaintiff, a hearing is scheduled for Monday, July 30, 2007, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT, /Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esq. 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 05-2900 CIVIL TERM tll'? Fl)// J. esley Olen ., J. ' Xax J. Smith, Jr., Esq. P.O. Box 650 , J Hershey, PA 17033 Attorney for Defendant v rS 0 c :Z r a J Z 6 `_I --IV LGJI Z J LAW OFFICES IRWIN & McKNIGHT WEST POMFRET PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 60 WEST POMFRET STREET HAROLD S. IRWIN (1925-1977) ROGER B. IRWIN CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-3222 HAROLD S. IRWIN, JR. (1954-1986) MARCUS A. McKNIGHT, III IRWIN, IRWIN & IRWIN (1956-1986) DOUGLAS G. MILLER (717) 249-2353 IRWIN, IRWIN & McKNIGHT (1986-1994) MATTHEW A. McKNIGHT FAX (717) 249-6354 IRWIN, McKNIGHT & HUGHES (1994-2003) WWW.IMHLAW.COM IRWIN & McKNIGHT (2003- ) April 9, 2007 The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Jason A. Emlet v. Stacie L. (Shambaugh) Drumm 2005-2900 Dear Judge Oler: The parties have been unable to reach the final terms on a permanent Custody Order. Please reschedule this case for the final hearing as soon as you are able to find the time on your calendar. The parties will seek an interim Order with Hubert X. Gilroy, until your hearing can occur. Very truly yours, MAM:min cc: Max J. Smith, Jr. Esq. Mr. Jason A. Emlet `' 2007 JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff V. STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-2900 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 30t' day of April, 2007, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief, this matter is referred to the custody conciliation process pursuant to C.C.R.P. 1915.12-1, and the Court Administrator is requested to facilitate this referral. BY THE COURT, .Xa'**rcus A. McKnight, III, Esq. 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Xaax,) J. Smith, Jr., Esq. P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Attorney for Defendant Court Administrator _ :rc ''ii?t!! !'1 .C tqd QE MV LGOZ HL ?O 311 JASON A. EMLET IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION LAW STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Wednesday, May 02, 2007 , 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, June 14, 2007 at 9:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. 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, Es q. 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 1 Z =Z Wd C - ;? 14 tO0Z hb13'ti ..tail. do JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff/Petitioner VS. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant/Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, comes the Defendant/Respondent, Stacie L. Drumm, formerly Stacie L. Shambaugh (hereinafter "Mother"), by and through her attorneys, James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP, to answer and oppose the Petition for Special Relief filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner, Jason A. Emlet (hereinafter "Father"). Mother avers as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied as stated. On February 28, 2007, counsel for Mother prepared a Custody Stipulation memorializing the parties' agreement reached during discussions between counsel and the parties on February 26, 2007. Said agreement was reached during discussions between counsel and the parties at the custody trial which had commenced before this Honorable Court. A true and correct copy of the draft Stipulation submitted to Father's counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. After minor revisions to the Stipulation were made by Mother as reflected in Exhibit "A", Father and his counsel reviewed the Stipulation and advised Mother's counsel by letter of March 24, 2007 that certain changes to the Stipulation were required before Father would execute the document. A true and correct copy of Father's counsel's letter of March 24, 2007 is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. Father's changes materially altered the terms agreed upon by the parties on February 26, 2007, including demanding that no daycare or child support be paid between the parties and dividing the children between the parties' for Federal income tax exemption purposes. Mother never agreed to the proposed changes included in Father's counsel's letter of March 24, 2007. Mother's counsel advised Father's counsel by letter of March 30, 2007 that the proposed changes that were never agreed to by the parties were unacceptable and had to be removed from the Custody Stipulation before Mother would agree to sign the Stipulation. A true and correct copy of Mother's counsel's letter of March 30, 2007 is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 4. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mother has interfered with any joint periods of custody to which Father is entitled. To the contrary, Father's attempts to incorporated provisions never agreed upon by the parties into the Custody Stipulation has frustrated the entry of a Custody Order replacing the existing Custody Order. Therefore, there is no agreement or Order which entitles Father to the periods of custody which he is currently demanding. Mother has complied with the standing Custody Order currently governing custody of the parties' children and will continue to do so until such time as the Custody Stipulation is entered as an Order of this Honorable Court. By way of further answer: a. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mother signed the parties' son up for baseball in Enola without the knowledge or consent of Father. To the contrary, the child has been signed up for baseball in Enola since January 2007. This is the second year the child has participated in the Enola league. All information was forwarded to Father from sign ups, including the photocopies of the registration documents. Father never objected to the parties' son being signed up in Enola for baseball this year, nor did Father ever object to the child playing baseball in Enola last year. In fact, on Saturdays during last baseball season when Father 2 had the parties' son in his custody, he or his mother transported the child to baseball games in Enola. b. Denied. It is specifically denied that the child is unable to attend practice or a game because of the driving distance from Gardners to Enola. To the contrary, Mother has offered to pick the parties' son up from school, take him to practice or a game, and then drive the child home to Father's custody in Gardners. Father never responded to the offer. The parties' son has missed practices while with Father and the first game. If Father refuses to transport the child to his baseball games, the child would miss eight (8) of his twelve (12) games. The child could come to Mother's home following school, do his homework, eat dinner, and attend the game. Mother has offered to drive the children to Gardners following the games, however, Father has refused or otherwise failed to respond to Mother's suggestions for accommodation of the child's baseball schedule. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mother removed the children from Father's custody during Father's custodial period. To the contrary, on Monday, April 23, 2007, both parents attended a dentist's appointment for the children. Mother advised Father that the extracurricular issue had to be resolved or there was no agreement and therefore the parties would have to revert to the standing Order of this Honorable Court governing custody between the parties. Father said he needed to make some phone calls. When Father returned, he did not say a word to Mother. Mother had to take the parties' son to a baseball game that evening and she took the children with her from the dentist appointment. Father did not come on Friday to pick the children up for his weekend custody pursuant to the standing Order. Father called on Friday evening to talk to the children. Father hung up and never requested to pick up the children. Mother has done nothing to impede Father's custodial rights pursuant to the standing Custody Order. 5. Denied. The averments of paragraph five (5) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Father's periods of partial custody are defined by the standing Custody Order until such time as the parties reach agreement as to the terms of a new Custody Order replacing the existing Order. Due to Father's insistence upon the inclusion of provisions in the Custody Stipulation to which the parties never agreed, no Stipulation has been finalized. Accordingly, Father's custodial rights are defined by the Custody Order of August 26, 2005 until further Order of Court. 6. Denied. The averments of paragraph six (6) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. 7. Admitted. It is admitted that counsel for Mother is not in agreement with the averments of the Petition for Special Relief or the relief requested therein. WHEREFORE, Defendant/Respondent, Stacie L. Drumm, respectfully requests that the Petition for Special Relief be denied. Respectfully submitted, JAMES, SMITH, DIETTERICK & CONNELLY, LLP Dated: S - 9-07 MAX J. SMITH, JR., ES UIRE Attorney I.D. #32114 JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. #82629 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 Attorneys for Respondent, Stacie L. Drumm 4 FxH,b,r A s JASON A. EMLET, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff/Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMSAUGH'.. CIVILACTION - LAW Defendant/Respondent CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 2007, upon presentation and consideration of the attached Custody Stipulation, it is hereby ordered and Decreed that said Stipulation as submitted and executed by the parties shall be incorporated herein and made part hereof. BY THE COURT: J. WESLEY OLER, J. JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff/Petitioner CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBA,UGH, :.CIVIL ACTION"LAW Defendant/Respondent CUSTODY CUSTODY STIPULATION THIS STIPULATION, made this day of , 2007, by and between STACIE L. DRUMM (hereinafter referred to as "Mother") and JASON A. EMLET (hereinafter referred to as "Father") WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Mother, Stacie L. Drumm is an adult individual who resides at 49 Johns Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. WHEREAS, Father, Jason A. Emlet is an adult individual who resides at 341 Old State Road, Gardners, Ads County, Pennsylvania. WHEREAS, Mother and Father are the natural parents of MADISON ELAINE EMLET, born August 8, 1997 and JASON ALAN EMLET, JR., born December 22, 1998. WHEREAS, Father had filed a Custody Complaint, a result of which a custody conference was held before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire, on August 11, 2005. WHEREAS, on August 25, 2006 a Court Order was issued by the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. directing the parties to participate in a custody evaluation. WHEREAS, the parties have participated in a custody evaluation completed by Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D., a result of which Dr. Shienvold has issued a report dated May 18, 2006 with recommendations as to a custody arrangement which is in the best interests of the children. WHEREAS; "a second conciliation conference'was held before Hubert,X. Gilroy; tsquire; on July 5, 2006. WHEREAS, on July 13, 2006 a Court Order was issued by the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. scheduling a hearing on October 16, 2006. WHEREAS, a hearing was held on October 16, a result of which on October 17, 2006 an Order of Court was issued by the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. scheduling a second hearing on February 26, 2007. WHEREAS, on October 18, 2006 an Order of Court was issued by the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. directing Dr. Shienvold to complete a follow-up evaluation of the children. WHEREAS, Dr. Shienvold has issued a Custody Re-Evaluation report dated February 17, 2007 with additional recommendations. WHEREAS, the parties have reached an agreement and therefore desire to have same incorporated as an Order of Court. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree and stipulate as follows: 1. The parties shall share legal custody of the children as that term is defined by 23 Pa. C.S.A. §5302 et seq. 2. The parties shall share physical custody of their children on a week on, week off basis, and shall exchange the children each Friday after school. If there is no school on Friday, the exchange time shall be at 4:00 p.m. During the summer, the exchange time shall be 6:00 p.m. Father's first custodial week under this schedule shall commence, Friday, March 9, 2007. 3. The parent receiving the children shall provide transportation. 4. The parties agree that the children shall remain in the East Pennsboro School District, and therefore, for school purposes, the primary residence of the children shall be considered Mother's residence. 5. The parties shall alternate the following holidays: (a) Father shall have custody during Easter in odd-numbered years beginning in 2007 from Saturday, April 7 at 8:00 p.m. until Easter Day, April 8 at 6:00 p.m. Mother shall have custody during Easter in even-numbered years from Saturday at 8:00 p.m. until Easter Day at 6:00 p.m. (b) Mother shall have custody during Thanksgiving in odd-numbered years beginning in 2007 from Wednesday, November 21 at 8:00 p.m. until Thanksgiving Day at 6:00 p.m. Father shall have custody during Thanksgiving in even-numbered years from Wednesday at 8:00 p.m. until Thanksgiving Day at 6:00 p.m. (c) In 2007 and in all even-numbered years beginning in 2008, Father shall have custody from Christmas Eve at 3:00 p.m. until December 25 at 3:00 p.m. During those years, Mother shall have custody from December 25 at 3:00 p.m. until December 29 at 3:00 p.m. In odd-numbered years beginning 2009, Mother shall have custody from Christmas Eve at 3:00 p.m. until December 25 at 3:00 p.m., and Father shall have custody from December 25 at 3:00 p.m. until December 29 at 3:00 p.m. (d) Mother shall have custody on Mother's Day and Father shall have custody on Father's Day, from 9:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. 6. Each parent shall be entitled to two weeks summer vacation, either consecutive or non-consecutive. Mother specifically shall have the children on vacation from June 29 through July 6, 2007. Notice of vacations shall be provided by one parent to the other by May 1 of each year. 7. The parent without custody of the child.mayhave the ability to enjoy reasonable telephone. calls, E=mail, -and -other:types of communication with the dhildren. 'It is ,expected that telephone calls will be no more frequent than once daily by the non-custodial parent. 8. The parent with custody has an absolute duty to provide the other parent with all information, copies of all documents and notice of all activities and/or meetings of and concerning the children. 9. Both parties shall ensure that the children attend all scheduled activities during his/her scheduled weeks. 10. The parent with custody may make emergency decisions in the best interests of the children. However, the parent has an absolute duty to contact the other parent as soon as reasonably possible, to share all information and enable that parent to have a part in the decision- making process. 11. The parties agree that neither will utilize his or her rights with respect to the minor children to harass and interfere with the other party, including the scheduling of custodial arrangements. The parties further agree that they will not harass or malign each other in the pres- ence of the minor children, as both parties recognize that such conduct is detrimental to the best interests and welfare of the children. 12. Each party acknowledges that this Stipulation is fair and equitable, that it is being entered into voluntarily, and that it is not the result of any duress or undue influence. This Stipulation and its legal effect have been fully explained to Mother by her legal counsel, MAX J. SMITH, JR., Esquire, and to Father by his legal counsel, MARCUS A. McKNIGHT, III, Esquire. {? ??`? MAR-24-2007 03:02PM FROM-IRWIN & McKNIGHT LAW OFFICES +T1T2496354 LAW OFFICES IRWIN & McKNIGHT WEST POMFRET PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 60 WEST POMFRET STREET ROGER B. IRWIN CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013222 MARCUS A. McANIGt1T, III DOUGLAS G. MILLrR (717) 249-2353 MA77NEWA. McKNIGIrr FAX (717) 249-6354 WWW.IMHLAW.COM March 24, 2007 Via Facsimile Transmission (533-2795) and Regular Mail Max J. Smith, Jr., Esq. James, Smith, Dieterick & Connelly, LLP P. O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Re: Jason A. Emlet v. Stacie L. (Shambaugh) Drumm No. 2005-2900 Dear Max: 7-910 P.002/003 F-274 HAROLD S. IRWIN (1925-1977) HARM-03. IRWIN. JR. (1954-19861 IRWIN.IRW/N 4 1RW1N (1936.1986) JRMN. IRWIN &McXN1GIfl (1986-1994) IRWIN. MtKNIGIrr&HUGH6s (lone-20031 IRWIN & McXNIGHT (2003• ) I have met with my client, Jason Einlet, and we have reviewed the Stipulation which you prepared. The changes are as follows: 6r 1. Page one (1): Jason A. Emlet resides in Cumberland County. 2. Paragraph four (4): The parties agree that the children shall remain in the East Pennsboro School District for the 2006-2007 school year and, therefore, for IV) school purposes, the primary residence of the children shall be considered Mother's residence at this time. 3 Paragraph five (5)(c): In even-numbered years, Father shall have custody of the n "IN children from 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve until 3:00 p.m on Christmas Day in 1v" ?,?( 2007 and 2008, since Mother has had the children for two consecutive years on C"' o Christmas Eve and Christmas morning,. Beginning in 2009 and odd-numbered ?r-- years thereafter, Mother will have the children on Christmas Eve co Christmas Day at the times specified herein. 4. Paragraph five (5)(d): Mother shall have custody of the children from 8:00 p.m. the evening prior to Mother's Day until 7:00 p.m. on Mother's Day. The Father shall have custody of the children from 8:00 p.m. the evening prior to F'ather's Day until 7:00 p.m. on Father's Day. 5. Paragraph six (6): Each parent shall be entitled to two weeks summer vacation, either consecutive or non-consecutive. Mother specifically shall have the children on vacation from June 29 through July 6, 2007. Notice of vacations must be U provided in writing by one parent to the other at least sixty (60) days prior to the beginning of a requested vacation. MAR-24-2007 03:02PM FROM-IRWIN & Mc KNIGHT LAW OFFICES +7172496354 T-810 P.OO3/OO3 F-2T4 Max J. Smith, Jr., Esq. Page Two March 24, 2007 6. Paragraph seven (7): The parent without custody of the child may have the 1 ability to enjoy reasonable telephone calls, E-mail, and other types of communication with the children. It is expected that telephone calls will be no more frequent than once daily by the non-custodial parent. The children must be permitted to enjoy telephone calls without interruption, interference, or monitoring by the custodial parent. 7. Paragraph eight (8) : The parent with custody has absolute duty to provide the other parent with all information, copies of all documents and notice of all 0't Ue ractivities and/or meetings of and concerning the children. No activities may be S&0' scheduled for the children without the knowledge and consent of the other parent. 8. New paragraph fifteen (15): The parties agree that each party will be responsible for the payment and arrangements of daycare during their weeks of custody. 9. New Para-araph sixteen (16): No child support will be paid by either parry to the other, and any medical expenses not paid by insurance will be equally payable by the parties. 10. New paraeraph seventeen (17) : The parties agree that in 2007 and thereafter Father will use Jason A. Emlet, Jr. as a Federal income tax exemption, and the Mother will use Madison E. Emlet as a federal income tax exemption Please review these changes with your client and let me know if they are acceptable. Very truly yours, IRWIN ?? ' MItftht, Esq. MAMlmin cc: Mr. Jason A. Emlet ?, k; ? ?-? JAMES SmTrH Dmm'1'ERicK & CONNELLY up Max J. Smith, Jr. Email: mis a isdc.com FAX 717.533.2795 March 30, 2007 P.O. BOX 650 HERSHEY, PA 17033 Courier Address: T? 134 SIPE AVENUE Irwin & McKnight HUMMELSTOWN, PA 17036 Attn: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire TEL. 717.533.3280 West Pomfret Professional Building WWW.JSDC.COM 60 W. Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3222 In re: Emlet v. Shambaugh No. 2005-2900 Custody Dear Marc: GARY L. JAMES Obviously Stacie and I were disappointed that your client chose not to attend the support MAX J. SMITH, JR. , conference on March 29, which concerned his frivolous petition to terminate support. We JOHN J. CONNELLY, JR.' SCOTT A. DIET IFRICK had hoped to discuss and finalize custody details following the conference. We remain JAMES F. SPADE MATTHEW CHABAL, III astounded that you and reed to terminate support as a our client maintain that Stacie had a SUSAN M. KADEL y g result of the shared custody arrangement. You and your client both know that is riot the case. JARAD W. HANDELMAN DONNA M. MULLIN We should not be surprised at your position regarding support, as Jason had admitted even to NEIL W. EY YAHN K. POWELL Dr. Shienvold that his request for increased time with the children was motivated in large KIMBERLY A. BONNER part by a desire not to pay child support. JEFFREY M. MCCORMICK KAREN N. CONNELLY OF COUNSEL: The following resPods to the numbered paragraphs of your March 24 letter: .. 'RYAN, RICHARD JR. BERNARD GREGORY A.' . 1. We shall make the correction you requested. 2. We see no reason to limit the children's school attendance in the East Pennsboro School District to the current academic year or to state that the primary residence of the children for school purposes shall be Mother's residence "at this time". Dr. Shienvold did not recommend any such limitation, and we will not agree to it. 3. We must insist that the Christmas schedule remain as stated in the draft Stipulation. Your elimination of the time spent by each parent from December 25 until December 29 will only lead to confusion and contention during the holiday period. 4. Agreed. 5. Agreed, except that it should be understood that this provision could lead to Stacie having custody for three (3) consecutive weeks in the summer. Obviously, we want to make sure that the children's weekend time with each parent coincides with the weekends of the respective half-siblings. Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire March 30, 2007 Page 2 of 2 6. Agreed, but your client needs to confirm, as was discussed with Dr. Shienvold when the shared arrangement was agreed, that Madison is able to use her cell phone while in her father's custody. 7. Your suggested language is fraught with problems. Given that your client has resisted the children's participation in baseball and soccer in East Pennsboro Township, he will never consent to them being involved in any activities. To be clear, my client has no problem with Jason scheduling activities for the children near his home that do not conflict with baseball and soccer. $.-10. Simply put, these paragraphs must be eliminated. Please advise no later than April 6, 2007 whether we have an agreement. If we do not have an agreement, please confirm that you have no objection to asking for Hubert Gilroy's assistance in settling any unresolved issues. I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, JAME MITH, DIETTERICK & CONNELLY LLP Max J. Smith, Jr. MJS,Jr.:ams cc: Stacie L. Drumm CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Petition for Special Relief upon the following below- named individual by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid at Hershey, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania this 9th day of May, 2007. SERVED UPON: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire Irwin & McKnight West Pomfret Professional Building 60 W. Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3222 By: :i?=K S JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. #82629 James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 C7 F T w-' .. CD . ?? " ; r- ?- T ? nom. JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff V. . STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. 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 children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Madison E. Emlet, born August 8,1997 Jason A. Emlet, Jr., born December 22,1998 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on May 25, 2007, with the following individuals in attendance: The father, Jason A. Emlet, with his counsel, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, and the mother, Stacie L. Drumm, with her counsel, Max J. Smith, Esquire. There is a hearing scheduled before the Court on July 30, 2007, and the Conciliation merely addressed scheduling for some holidays and vacation between the parties prior to July 30, 2007. 3. Based upon the discussions of the Conciliation Conference, the Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: May 30, 2007 Hdbert X. Gilfoy, Esquire Custody Cgiiciliator C7 C?. r=:' p Z ?y 44.. ^I/ rl 13 tom' s s ? f a rs? ' ru all 2Z, A A . JUN 0520071J'4V JASON A. EMLET, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly NO. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant : IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this day of j urn c? , 2007, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The hearing scheduled in this case on July 30, 2007, at 1:30 p.m., shall remain as set. 2. The existing Order of October 18, 2006, shall remain in place subject to the following clarifications: a. For the Memorial Day weekend of 2007, mother shall have the children for the weekend subject, however, to mother returning the children to the father on Monday, May 28, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., and father then having custody of the children until Tuesday morning when he shall deliver the children to school. b. Mother may exercise her one week of vacation from June 29, 2007 through July 6, 2007. Mother shall pick up the children on June 29 at or about 11:00 a.m. unless agreed otherwise by the parties. C. For clarification, father shall have custody of the children the weekend of June 15, 2007; mother shall have the weekends of June 22 and June 29; and father shall have the weekends of July 6 and July 13. Thereafter, the normal alternating weekend schedule shall continue. d. Jason shall continue to participate in the baseball program at East Pennsboro, and father will ensure that he gets Jason to the games/practices as required. If father is unable to get the child to the games/practices in a timely fashion, he will notify mother to personally, or through another family member, transport the child as needed. As soon as mother receives information with respect to the baseball schedule including the playoffs, the mother shall provide that information to father in hard copy and via e-mail. y WC = r- a- LU LL Ca 0 U N 3. In the event either party desires to again retain Dr. Arnold T. Shienvold to provide any evaluation/mediation services in connection with this matter prior to the July 30, 2007 hearing, the other party shall cooperate in that session and both parties shall share the cost for Dr. Shienvold. BY THE COURT, "- Al L4 J. esley Oler, Ji cc: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire Max J. Smith, Esquire ?- G .1a1-e 7 , JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly NO. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. 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. 2. 3. The pertinent information pertaining to the children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Madison E. Emlet, born August 8,1997 Jason A. Emlet, Jr., born December 22,1998 A Conciliation Conference was held on May 25, 2007, with the following individuals in attendance: The father, Jason A. Emlet, with his counsel, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, and the mother, Stacie L. Drumm, with her counsel, Max J. Smith, Esquire. There is a hearing scheduled before the Court on July 30, 2007, and the Conciliation merely addressed scheduling for some holidays and vacation between the parties prior to July 30, 2007. Based upon the discussions of the Conciliation Conference, the Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: May 30, 2007 Hubert X. GiWoy, Esquire Custody Cociliator o .11, JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff V STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY NO. 05-2900 CIVIL TERM IN RE: COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 2007, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Complaint for Custody in the above-captioned matter, and following a second day of hearing on today's date, which has not yet been completed, the record shall remain open, and a third day of hearing in this matter is scheduled for Thursday, October 25, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom Number 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. It is noted that at the time of adjournment on today's date that Plaintiff had rested his case-in-chief, with the exception of receipt of further testimony from the parties' daughter, Madison Emlet, and had secured the admission on today's date of Plaintiff's Exhibits 2, 3, 6 and 5. It is further noted that Defendant, who was about to commence her case-in-chief, had secured the admission of Defendant's Exhibit 2 on today's date. No additional exhibits had been identified or admitted, with the exception of those referred to in the Order of Court dated October 16, 2006. It is further noted that both counsel have requested that the stenographer prepare and file the transcript of the notes of testimony from today's proceeding. Pending further Order of Court, the terms of the ViNVS"'%S'NN3d i z' I i wY 1 L In Loot AMONOH i Odd 3Hl J0 Boi± - m Order of Court dated October 18, 2006, shall remain in full force and effect. By the Court, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire ??60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For Plaintiff ./-ax J. Smith, Esquire P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 For Defendant J :mae JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant CUSTODY MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND NOW come the Defendant, STACIE L. DRUMM, by her attorney, MAX J. SMITH, JR., Esquire and respectfully states as follows: 1. On July 30, 2007, an Order was issued by this Honorable Court scheduling a hearing for October 25, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. 2. Among other testimony to be taken at the October 25 hearing is Defendant's testimony. 3. Defendant herein is on maternity leave from employment, and her doctor has directed that she not attend the October 25 hearing due to pregnancy complications. While her "due date" is December 6, 2007, she is expected to deliver her baby in advance of that date because of said complications. 4. If required by the court, Defendant is able to obtain written confirmation from her physician of the aforesaid pregnancy complications. 5. Neither parry will be prejudiced as a result of this hearing being continued, as the status quo in the current custody arrangement is being maintained. 6. Counsel for Plaintiff, Marcus A. McKnight, 111, Esquire, has been advised by voice mail from counsel for Defendant herein of this request, but as of the filing of this Motion, it is not known whether Mr. McKnight consents to the case being continued. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the aforesaid hearing be continued. Respectfully submitted, Date: October 15, 2007 ILAA- MAX J. SMITH, ., Esquire I.D. No. 32114 JARAD W. HANDELMAN, Esquire I.D. No. 82629 James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this l day of October, 2007, I, MAX J. SMITH, JR., Esquire, Attorney for Defendant, hereby certify that I have this day sent a copy of Motion for Continuance by depositing a certified copy of the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Hummelstown, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Irwin & McKnight Attn: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire West Pomfret Professional Building 60 W. Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3222 MAX J. SMITH, JR.' squire I.D. No. 32114 JARAD W. HANDELMAN, Esquire I.D. No. 82629 James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 N C o t'1 r 11 CTI I-TI °a o s JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant NO. 05-2900 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of October, 2007, upon consideration of Defendant's motion for continuance, the motion is denied. Defendant may participate telephonically, at her expense, in the hearing scheduled for October 25, 2007,E BY THE COURT, J. d Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esq. 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff ?ax J. Smith, Jr., Esq. P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Attorney for Defendant eoP,iEs /m,« /0/2;L/r,? ?INAJA 1W -3d Ail 1. 60 :C WJ ZZ 130 LOOZ AUVIQNL ? j_- 7Jj 3HI JO 3 0:-l - C_?: 111 1 r ..7 JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff V. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-2900 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 26th day of October, 2007, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Custody Complaint, with respect to the parties' children, Madison E. Emlet (d.o.b. August 8, 1997) and Jason A. Emlet, Jr. (d.o.b. December 22, 1998), and following a final period of hearing held on October 25, 2007, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. Legal custody of the children shall be shared by the parties; provided, that in the event the parties can not agree upon the location of the children's schools, the mother's choice shall prevail; 2. Physical custody of the children shall be shared by the parties on an alternating weekly basis, from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m.; 3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the noncustodial parent shall have custody of the children on Christmas Day, Thanksgiving Day, and each child's birthday, from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 4. Transportation for purposes of custody shall be the responsibility of the party receiving custody; 5. Plaintiff's request for partial reimbursement for Dr. Sheinvold's fee is denied; and 6. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the parties from deviating from the term of this order by mutual agreement. BY THE COURT, 'A 311-a JO ?i + 1..^? .: -fr H Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esq. 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Max J. Smith, Jr., Esq. P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Attorney for Defendant rc JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff v STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY NO. 05-2900 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CUSTODY COMPLAINT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of October, 2007, upon to consideration of Plaintiff's custody complaint with respect to the parties' children, Madison E. Emlet (d.o.b. August 8, 1997) and Jason A. Emlet, Jr., (d.o.b. December 22, 1998) and following a final period of hearing held on this date, the record is declared closed, and the matter is taken under advisement. Xrcus A. McKnight, III, EsquirE 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For Plaintiff J. Smith, Esquire P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 For Defendant :mae By the Court, n r? t JASON A. EMLET, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY STACIE L. (SHAMBAUGH) DRUMM, : DefendanVRespondent NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL TERM PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, this 17' day of December 2007, comes the Plaintiff/Petitioner, Jason A. Emlet, by his attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, and makes the following Petition for Special Relief against the Defendant, Stacie L. (Shambaugh) Drumm: 1. The Plaintiff/Petitioner is Jason A. Emlet, an adult individual who resides at 141 Old State Road, Gardners, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17324. 2. The Defendant/Respondent is Stacie L. (Shambaugh) Drumm, an adult individual who resides at 49 John's Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. 3. On October 26, 2007, an Order of Court was entered by Judge J. Wesley Oler, Jr. The Order of Court provides for physical custody of the children alternating one week with Mother and one week with the Father with the children remaining in Enola in order to avoid changing schools. A copy of the Order of Court is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A". 4. The parties had been unable to finalize the details of the joint custody since that date and the Respondent, Stacie L. (Shambaugh) Drumm, has taken the following actions to interfere with the periods of joint custody the children were to enjoy with their Father. a. The Respondent refuses to share the transportation of the children to and from Petitioner's residence during his week of custody unless it is Court Ordered. 2 b. If Petitioner is unable to provide transportation on time throughout the week of his custody due to his schedule, the Respondent threatens to keep the children for the entire week of his custody. c. The Respondent admits that she has intentionally failed to cooperate with transportation in order for the joint custody arrangements to fail so that she will maintain primary custody. d. The Respondent has failed to cooperate with custody transferal by refusing to provide any transportation to maintain the joint custody arrangements. 5. The Petitioner, Jason A. Emlet, also seeks reasonable legal fees for bringing this Petition for Special Relief. 6. It is assumed that counsel for the Defendant/Respondent will not be in agreement with this Petition. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff/Petitioner, Jason A. Emlet, seeks immediate relief pursuant to the requests made above. By: Date: December 17, 2007 Respectfully submitted, IRWIN A. 60 Weft Pomfref Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222 717-249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. No: 25476 3 EXHIBIT "A "-27-2M7 09:54 FROM:BIC CARLISLE 7172436408 TO: 2496354 P:2/2 JASON A. EMLET, : IN THE COURT Or COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV V. cfVIL ACTION - LAW . ? ..._ STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly OCT 27 200 STACIE L. SI}AMBAUGI-I, Defendant NO. 05-2900 CIVIL TERM AtFhN & HT ORDER OF COURI' AND NOW, this 26`h day of October, 2007, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Custody Complaint, with respect to the parties' children, Madison E. Emlet (d.o.b. August 8, 1997) and Jason A. Emlet, Jr. (d.o.b. December 22, 1998), and following a final period of hearing hold on October 25, 2007, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. Legal custody of the children shall be shared by the parties; provided, that in the event the parties can not agree upon the location of the children's schools, the mother's choice shall prevail; 2. Physical custody of the children shall be shared by the parties on an alternating weekly basis, from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m.; 3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the noncustodial parent shall have custody of the children on Christmas Day, 77ianksgiving Day, and each child's birthday, from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 4. Transportation for purposes of custody shall be the responsibility of the party receiving custody; 5. Plaintiff's -request for partial reimbursement for Dr. Sheinvold's fee is denied: and 6. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the parties from deviating from the term of this order by mutual agreement. BY THE COURT, IP b -'I j J. -ley 0 er. J . TR XOPY? F.&OM RECORD In, Testi y_; i*mcf,.4 byte unto set my him and seal /of said Court/a e, Pa. VERIFICATION The foregoing Petition is based upon information which has been gathered by 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 IS Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. JA ON A. EMLET Date: DECEMBER 17, 2007 JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff/Petitioner V. STACIE L. (SHAMBAUGH) DRUMM, Defendant/Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marcus A. McKnight, do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the person, and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing the same with the United States Post Office in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire JAMES SMITH DIETTERICK & CONNELLY, LLP P. O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 By: December 18, 2007 6 60 West Pomfret Strlel Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. # 70216 Attorney for the Plaintiff/Petitioner IRWIN & McKNIGHT s . % ij, DEC 19 2007 r AY JASON A. EMLET, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant/Respondent NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL TERM `? ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this k 'l ` day of "?>e-r- . 200, upon consideration of the attached Petition for Special Relief, a Conference before the Custody Conciliator, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq., is scheduled for the low-- day of , 2008' at . on the 4' floor of the Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthouse ?quare, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Thiy- _ C Jo ae co er cc: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esq. Attorney For Defendant/Petitioner Max J. Smith, Jr. Esq. Plaintiff/Respondent tES M;5tLECL ?a1 z c?o7 By the Court: ino 91 :01 WV 1 Z 330 LOOZ AdViON'_L? i m.Hl d0 3; U,0--0111A JAN 2 2 2008 /Pf ` JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff vs. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant COURT ORDER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN CUSTODY AND NOW, this 2 t day of January, 2008, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: A hearing is scheduled in Courtroom No. 1 of the Cumberland County Courthouse on the jJa day of '7"a L64 ? , 2008 at = 3v ___/. M. At this hearing, the father 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, each party's 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 five days prior to the mentioned hearing date. 2. Pending further Order of this Court or agreement of the parties, this Court's Order of October 26, 2007 shall remain in place. 3. In the event father retains Dr. Arnold T. Sheinvold to do an updated custody evaluation in this matter, such evaluation shall continue to be independent and shared with the parties. However, the costs should be paid by the father. The mother shall cooperate with any scheduled evaluation sessions and, if the children are in her custody at that time, the mother shall insure the children attend scheduled evaluation sessions. BY THE COURT, Cc: Max J. Smith, Esquire Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire ????los fr. CO, JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff vs. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. 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 children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Jason A. Emlet, born December 22, 1998 Madison E. Emlet, born August 18, 1997 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on January 18, 2008 with the following individuals in attendance: The mother, Stacie L. Drumm, with her counsel, Max J. Smith, Esquire The father, Jason A. Emlet, with his counsel, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire 3. The issue at this time is a Petition for Special Relief filed by the father relative to transportation. By Order of October 26, 2007, the Court directed that the parties would have shared legal custody and shared physical custody with custody alternating on alternating weeks. Father suggests that he understood based upon testimony at the hearing in this case that mother would provide assistance with respect to transportation of the children to school during the week when father had custody. Mother suggests to the contrary. The parties have had a telephone conference call with the Conciliator and a second Custody Conciliation and the matter is unable to be resolved and a hearing is required. 4. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: January C)LI 9 2008 /??/ Hurt X. Gilr , Esquire Custody Conc' iator JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, (now STACIE L. DRUMM), Defendant NO. 05-2900 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17th day of March, 2008, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief, and following a hearing held on this date, the record is declared closed, and the matter is taken under advisement. By the Court, J. Wesley er, r., J. /Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For Plaintiff ?/Max J. Smith, Esquire P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 For Defendant :mae Lo ?'es rn? c LC4CL L)- 4 C 65 :,rte L l..l L?k_'_y ? rv JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, (now STACIE L. DRUMM), Defendant NO. 05-2900 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, 18th day of March, 2008, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Petition for Special Relief, and following a hearing held on March 17, 2008, the petition is denied. By the Court, (/! Mesley Oa ? Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For Plaintiff ?Max J. Smith, Esquire P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 For Defendant :mae "CS rna i L-Cr,L. 3??v?v8 , Jr.', i. ' CV ) (-+ L.S.. c Max J. Smi , Jr., Esquire Attorney I. D . #32114 Jarad W. H andelman, Esquire Attorney I. D . #82629 James, Smi , Dietterick & Connelly, LLP P.O. Box 65 0 Hershey, P 17033 Telephone: 717-533-3280 Fax: 717-5 33-2795 e-mail: mi Qisdc.com_ JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff/Respondent CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL STACIE L.1 DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant/Petitioner CUSTODY I PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE SAID COURT: NOW comes the Defendant/Petitioner, STACIE L. DRUMM, by her attorney, MAX J. SMITH, JR., Esquire, and respectfully represents the following: 1. Defendant/Petitioner is STACIE L. DRUMM, who resides at 49 Johns Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Plaintiff/Respondent is JASON A. EMLET, who resides at 341 Old State Road, Gardners, dams County, Pennsylvania. 3. Petitioner and Respondent are the natural parents of MADISON ELAINE EMLET, b rn August 8, 1997 and JASON ALAN EMLET, JR., born December 22, 1998. 4. On October 26, 2007, an Order of Court was issued by the Honorable J. Wesley Oler settings forth a schedule of the parties' custody with respect to the minor children. (See copy of Order m, 5. ALAN EM reasonable 6. physical cu custody on the parties 1 7. years: (a) Cumberlan (b) Pennsylvar 8. concerning the heretof 9. litigation a State, other number. Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made part hereof). The best interests and welfare of MADISON ELAINE EMLET and JASON , JR., require that primary physical custody be with Petitioner, subject to custody privileges for Respondent. Since the date of the current Order, Petitioner has enjoyed de facto primary of the children during the school year, with Respondent exercising partial ate weekends, usually from Friday until Sunday. During the summer months, alternated custody on a week-on, week-off basis. The minor children have resided at the following addresses for the past five (5) From August 2003 until December 2004 at 320 Shady Lane #1, Enola, l County, Pennsylvania with Petitioner. From December 2004 until present at 49 Johns Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, a with Petitioner and her husband, David Drumm. Petitioner does not have any information of any custody proceeding said minor children in any court in Pennsylvania or any other State, other than referenced proceedings entered to the within term and number. Petitioner has not participated as a party, witness or otherwise in any other the custody of said minor children in Pennsylvania or any other f than the heretofore referenced proceedings entered to the within term and 10. physical cu? with respec physical anALAN EM Date: Petitioner does not know of any person not a party to these proceedings who has lv of the said minor children or who claims to have custody or visitation rights to them. REFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays that your Honorable Court order that shared legal custody of the minor children, MADISON ELAINE EMLET and JASON , JR., be placed with Petitioner. RespectfMsubm* ed, 27, 2009 MAX J. SMITH, ., Esquire I.D. No. 32114 JARAD W. HANDELMAN, Esquire I.D. No. 82629 James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 I verify that the statements made in this Petition are true and correct. I understand false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, to unworn falsification to authorities. JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STACIE L. D UMM, formerly STACIE L. S AMBAUGH, Defend nt NO. 05-2900 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND MOW, this 26th day of October, 2007, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Custody Complaint, with respect to the parties' children, Madison E. Emlet (d.o.b. August 8, 197) and Jason A. Emlet, Jr. (d.o.b. December 22, 1998), and following a final period of hearing held on October 25, 2007, it is ordered and directed as follows: Legal custody of the children shall be shared by the parties; provided, that in the event the parties can not agree upon the location oft the children's schools, the mother's choice shall prevail; . Physical custody of the children shall be shared by the parties on an alternating weekly basis, from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m.; . Notwithstanding the foregoing, the noncustodial parent shall have custody of the children on Christmas Day, Thanksgiving Day, and each child's birthday, from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Transportation for purposes of custody shall be the responsibility of the party receiving custody; 5. Plaintiff's request for partial reimbursement for Dr. Sh invold's fee is denied; and 6. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the parties from deviating from the term of this order by mutual agreement. BY THE COURT, TRU 6 COPY FROM RECORD In Tastimony whereof, I hare nto et my han and a se/?al f said ourt C rlis , Pa. T... l`. da of. .. Prothonotary Marcus A. McjKnight, III, Esq. 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 117013 Attorney for Plaintiff M J. Smith, Jr., Esq. :O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Attorney for Defendant :rc JASON A. ?MLET, Plaintiff/Respondent vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL STACIE L. RUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant/Petitioner CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE NOW, this 21 day of May, 2009, I, MAX J. SMITH, JR., Esquire, Attorney for itioner, hereby certify that I have this day sent a copy of Petition to Modify Custody by depositing a certified copy of the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Pennsylvania, addressed to: Irwin & McKnight Attn: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire West Pomfret Professional Building 60 W. Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3222 4 MAX J. SMITH, , Esquire I.D. No. 32114 JARAD W. HANDELMAN, Esquire I.D. No. 82629 James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 THE LWt?J 'lam{`) 4 1 1 i.° ?? ?i f -Z0?- 0 / a 5" 7 571 JASON A. EMLET IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2005-2900 CIVIL ACTION LAW STACIE L. DRUMM FORMERLY STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Tuesday, June 02, 2009 , 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, June 26, 2009 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. 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. Grlro Es q. 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) 249-31.66 k FILI??a. .s F?Ew Ter- , , r,AR, 2009 JUN -2 PH Cu V, ?. .? JUL ? 0 2009 4 JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff VS. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant : NO. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this 71 day of July, 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that this Court's prior Order of October 26, 2007 is vacated and replaced with the following Order: 1. The father, Jason A. Emlet, and the mother, Stacie L. Drumm, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Jason A. Emlet, Jr., born December 22, 1998 and Madison Elaine Emlet, born August 8, 1997. 2. Physical custody shall be shared between the parties on an alternating week basis. During the school year, exchange of custody shall be after school on Fridays with the non-custodial parent picking the children up at that time. During the summer months, the exchange of custody shall be at 6:00 p.m. on Friday. 3. For the Christmas Holiday, the parties shall split Christmas into two segments: Segment `A' shall be from noon on Christmas Eve until noon on Christmas Day with Segment `B' being from noon on Christmas Day until noon on December 26. The parties shall alternate those segments each year pursuant to a schedule as they agree. 4. The parties shall alternate major holidays to include New Years Day, Easter, Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day and Thanksgiving. The parties shall work out a schedule between themselves to alternate those holidays and communicate that schedule in writing. 5. The parties shall work between themselves to arrange an equitable custody situation for the children's birthdays to include, at a minimum, the non-custodial parent having the children for approximately five hours a day before or the day after their birthday unless some other arrangement is made. 6. Transportation for exchange of custody shall be handled with the non-custodial parent picking up the children. 7. Both parents shall insure that the children are transported to all school and community athletic and social events that are scheduled for the children. 8. The children shall attend counseling at Pennsylvania Counseling Services. Costs of these services shall be split equally between the parties with the understanding that these costs shall only include co-pay in light of applicable insurance that will pay most of the charges. 9. Father shall always have custody of the minor children on Father's Day and mother shall always have custody of the minor children on Mother's Day with this provision to supercede any other provision of this Order. 10. The father shall have custody of the minor children from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m on August 30, 2009. 11. Neither parent shall inflict physical discipline on the children or allow any step parent to inflict physical discipline on the children. JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff vs. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. 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 children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Jason A. Emlet, Jr., born December 22, 1998, and Madison E. Emlet, born August 8, 1997. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on July 17, 2009 with the following individuals in attendance: The mother, Stacie L. Drumm, with her counsel, Max J. Smith, Esquire, and the father, Jason A. Emlet, with his counsel, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire. 3. The parties agree to the entry of an Order in the form as attached. "? X 0 Date: July , 2009 u ert X. Gilroy, Esquire stody Conciliator 12. The parties may modify this schedule as they agree. Absent an agreement, the parties shall follow the schedule above. In the event either parent desires to change the schedule and the parties are unable to reach an agreement, that parent may petition the Court to have the case again scheduled with the Custody Conciliator for a conference. Cc: A x J. Smith, Esquire rcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire BY THE COURT, BLEU-OFFICE OF THE PPOT'1MOTARY 2009 JUL 20 PM 3: 3 U PENNSYLVANIA Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire Attorney I.D. #32114 Jarad W. Handelman, Esquire Attorney I.D. #82629 Jessica E. Lowe, Esquire Attorney I.D. #208041 James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Telephone: 717-533-3280 Fax: 717-533-2795 E-mail: mjs@jsdc.com; jwh@jsdc.com; jel@jsdc.com JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff/Respondent, VS. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant/Petitioner O RL.ED-0!--PC 2010 MAR 19 Pfj 3: 3 2 cum ?., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN CUSTODY PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AND NOW, comes the Defendant/Petitioner, Stacie L. Drumm, formerly Stacie L. Shambaugh ("Mother"), by and through her attorneys, James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP, to petition this Honorable Court to hold Plaintiff/Respondent, Jason A. Emlet ("Father"), in contempt of the Order of July 20, 2009 issued by the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. In support thereof, Plaintiffs/Petitioners aver as follows: 1. The Parties currently share custody of their minor children, Jason A. Emlet, Jr., born December 22, 1998 ("JJ") and Madison Elaine Emlet, born August 8, 1997 (collectively, "Children"). 70.00 M . 4 G'4l, iltA Il 3 XOF 2. On July 20, 2009, an Order was entered pursuant to the agreement reached by the parties during Custody Conciliation with Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire. A true and correct copy of the Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated herein by reference. 3. Mother and Father agreed to share custody of the Children on an alternating week basis pursuant to the terms set forth in the Order. The Children attend school in Enola, Cumberland County, where Mother resides. Father resides in Gardners, Perry County. 4. Paragraph 7 of the Order specifically states, "Both parents shall insure that the children are transported to all school and community athletic and social events that are scheduled for the children." 5. JJ plays baseball in Enola. This is JJ's fourth year with the league, as he has played baseball in Enola since January 2007. Father was aware of JJ's intention to play baseball with the same organization again in 2010. 6. Mother avers that Father is refusing to transport JJ to baseball games and practices due to the extra expense that he would incur as a result of the transportation from Gardners to Enola. 7. One of the material representations made by Father at the time the Order of July 20, 2009 was that he could facilitate transportation of the children to and from their activities, notwithstanding the location of his residence and the distance between such residence and the children's school and other activities. Had Father not been able to provide transportation for the children that would permit their continued and routine participation in school community, and sports activities that occurred in proximity to Mother's residence and the location of the children's schools, the shared arrangement to which Mother agreed would never have been feasible nor agreeable. 9. In 2010 thus far, JJ has missed tryouts and practices. If Father continues to refuse to provide transportation, JJ will miss additional practices and games scheduled throughout Spring and Summer 2010. 10. JJ's absence from his team on a bi-weekly basis is detrimental to his social well- being. 11. Father is scheduled to begin a custodial period with the Children after conclusion of the school day on Friday, March 19, 2010. 12. Father has informed Mother that he will not transport JJ to baseball practices and/or games scheduled for the week of March 19, 2010 through March 26, 2010. 13. Father has flaunted his blatant defiance of the Custody Order by advising Mother that he will not transport the child to baseball until someone makes him, apparently the command of this Honorable Court contained within the Custody Order not being something with which Father believes he is obliged to comply. 14. Father's failure to comply with Paragraph 7 of the Order of July 20, 2009 is willful and in direct violation of the directives agreed to by the parties and issued by this Honorable Court. 15. Petitioner has incurred attorney fees in resulting from Father's failure to comply with the Order and for the preparation and presentation of the within Petition for which Father should be liable. 16. Father's failure to comply with the Order of July 20, 2009 warrants a finding of contempt against Father and sanctions in the nature of an award of attorney fees, imposition of fine, modification of custody and/or any additional sanction deemed appropriate by this Honorable Court and necessary to compel Father's compliance with the Ordered custody arrangement, including but not limited to Father's relinquishment of custody to Mother during the weeks he is unable to transport the child to baseball as required by the terms of the Order. 17. Petitioner further requests that the scheduling of the Custody Conciliation be expedited to avoid further detriment to the child by Father's continued and expected violation of the Order. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court adjudge Plaintiff/Respondent Jason A. Emlet, in contempt of the Order of July 20, 2009 and order additional sanction as follows: (1) direct Father to comply with Paragraph 7 of the July 20, 2009 Order and arrange for JJ's transportation to and from all scheduled extracurricular activities; (2) should Father be unable to provide the transportation required to facilitate the child's participation in baseball or any other school, community, or sports activity during any particular period, that Father be required to relinquish custody of said child to Mother during any such period in order for Mother to transport the child to the activity; (3) direct Defendant to pay a fine in an amount to be set by the Court; and (4) direct Defendant to pay any and all costs, expenses, and attorney fees incurred by Mother for the preparation and presentation of the within Petition for Contempt. Respectfully submitted, JAMES, SMITH, DIETTERICK & CONNELLY LLP Date: March 19, 2010 By: J. S IT , JR., ESQUIRE t. b. No. 3 4 JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE I.D. No. 82629 JESSICA E. LOWE, ESQUIRE I.D. No. 208041 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 Attorneys for Defendant/Petitioner Stacie L. Drumm VERIFICATION The undersigned, JESSICA E. LOWE, ESQUIRE, of the law firm of James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly LLP, Hershey, Pennsylvania, hereby certifies that the foregoing pleading has been prepared by me by knowledge and information acquired during the course of my representation of Petitioner, Stacie L. Drumm; that I execute this verification as a signature of Petitioner cannot be obtained in the time necessary for the filing of this pleading; that the Verification of Petitioner 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. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. AA ? E J SICA LO , ES r JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff VS. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant JUL ? 0 2009G IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this 7-0 1 day of July, 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that this Court's prior Order of October 26, 2007 is vacated and replaced with the following Order: 1. 2 3 4 The father, Jason A. Emlet, and the mother, Stacie L. Drumm, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Jason A. Emlet, Jr., born December 22, 1998 and Madison Elaine Emlet, born August 8, 1997. Physical custody shall be shared between the parties on an alternating week basis. During the school year, exchange of custody shall be after school on Fridays with the non-custodial parent picking the children up at that time. During the summer months, the exchange of custody shall be at 6:00 p.m. on Friday. For the Christmas Holiday, the parties shall split Christmas into two segments: Segment `A' shall be from noon on Christmas Eve until noon on Christmas Day with Segment `B' being from noon on Christmas Day until noon on December 26. The parties shall alternate those segments each year pursuant to a schedule as they agree. The parties shall alternate major holidays to include New Years Day, Easter, Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day and Thanksgiving. The parties shall work out a schedule between themselves to alternate those holidays and communicate that schedule in writing. 5. The parties shall work between themselves to arrange an equitable custody situation for the children's birthdays to include, at a minimum, the non-custodial parent having the children for approximately five hours a day before or the day after their birthday unless some other arrangement is made. 6. Transportation for exchange of custody shall be handled with the non-custodial parent picking up the children. 7. Both parents shall insure that the children are transported to all school and community athletic and social events that are scheduled for the children. 8. The children shall attend counseling at Pennsylvania Counseling Services. Costs of these services shall be split equally between the parties with the understanding that these costs shall only include co-pay in light of applicable insurance that will pay most of the charges. 9. Father shall always have custody of the minor children on Father's Day and mother shall always have custody of the minor children on Mother's Day with this provision to supercede any other provision of this Order. 10. The father shall have custody of the minor children from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m on August 30, 2009. 11. Neither parent shall inflict physical discipline on the children or allow any step parent to inflict physical discipline on the children. 12. The parties may modify this schedule as they agree. Absent an agreement, the parties shall follow the schedule above. In the event either parent desires to change the schedule and the parties are unable to reach an agreement, that parent may petition the Court to have the case again scheduled with the Custody Conciliator for a conference. Cc: x JSmith, Esquire ?7arcu's A. McKnight, III, Esquire BY THE COURT, JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff vs. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. 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 children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Jason A. Emlet, Jr., born December 22, 1998, and Madison E. Emlet, born August 8, 1997. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on July 17, 2009 with the following individuals in attendance: The mother, Stacie L. Drumm, with her counsel, Max J. Smith, Esquire, and the father, Jason A. Emlet, with his counsel, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire. 3. The parties agree to the entry of an Order in the form as attached. Date: July , 2009 X 0 u rt X. Gilroy, Esquire stody Conciliator JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff/Respondent CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly ; STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant/Petitioner CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 19th day of March, 2010, I, JESSICA E. LOWE, Esquire, Attorney for Defendant/Petitioner, hereby certify that I have this day sent a copy of Petition for Contempt by depositing a certified copy of the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Hummelstown, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Irwin & McKnight Attn: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire West Pomfret Professional Building 60 W. Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3222 Martson, Deardorff, Williams, Otto, Gilroy & Faller Attn: Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3015 J. SMI , J .,Esquire I. No. 32114 JARAD W. HANDELMAN, Esquire I.D. No. 82629 JESSICA E. LOWE, Esquire I.D. No. 208041 James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-3280 JASON A. EMLET IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2005-2900 CIVIL ACTION LAW STACIE L. DRUMM, FORMERLY STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, _ Friday, March 26, 2010 , 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 oil Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 9:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: /s/Hubert X. G&,_, sT_ Custody Conciliator The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to cornply 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 atten he sMedulo- conference or hearing. ?. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR ATTORNEY AT ONCE. IF YOjgb N(9 * HAVE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFI .;E=SETn , ,? ? a 1... FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. ?- Cumberland County Bar Association ?6 c:r r? < { MCA-Aked 32 South Bedford Street - , Carlisle Pennsylvania 17013 ro 'dD A+k%? R.. , 3 . 42(o. 1 d N O) \ ` C-'- "N44 l -b n AAC-Kn I (ff? 3-42cP•1 o copy p1OCR-8 In Telephone (717) 249-3166 JASON A. EMLET, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Petitioner :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION -LAW ~. -- ~ ~ i STACIE L. DRUMM, form rly IN CUSTODY "' J~'~,~ =~ ~,~ -~ STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH _~ _ _ Defendant/Responde t N0.2005-2900 CIVIL TER1V~ °. w PETITI N FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY AND NOW comes a Plaintiff/Petitioner, Jason A. Emlet, by his attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, P.C., and presents a following Petition for Modification of Custody. 1. The Petitioner is Jaso~ A. Emlet, an adult individual residing at 341 Old State Road, Gardners, Cumberland Count, Pennsylvania 17324. 2. The Respondent is St cie L. (Shambaugh) Drumm, an adult individual residing at 49 Johns Drive, Enola, Cumberl d County, Pennsylvania 17025. 3. The parties aze the born August 8, 1997, and -a1 parents of two (2) minor children, namely Madison E. Emlet, A. Emlet, Jr., born December 22, 1998. 4. The parties aze cw copy of which is attached governed by a custody Order of Court dated July 20, 2009, a and mazked as Exhibit "A". 5. The Petitioner desires the parties have shared legal custody of the minor children, Madison E. Emlet and Jason A~. Emlet, Jr. s~~~, o e~Od ~-~r c~c ~~~~~ 6. The Petitioner desires Emlet, with periods of minor child, Madison E. with the Respondent. The best interests and the Court grant the Petiti WHEREFORE, the primary physical custody and periods of temporary physical primary physical custody of the minor child, Madison E. physical custody to Respondent as the parties can agree. The may have been inappropriately touched by the stepfather residing 7. welfaze of the minor child, Madison Emlet, requires that request as set forth above. tioner, Jason A. Emlet, respectfully requests that he be awazded gyred legal custody of Madison E. Emlet as provided herein, with ~tody to Respondent as provided herein. By: Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & Ms~1IGHT, P.C. Date: August 11, 2010 60 West Pomfret Street Cazlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court I. D. No. 25476 • , . JASON A. EMLET, Plainti~ vs. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant JUL 2 0 Z009G IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.OS-2900 CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, ~ is day of July, 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that this Court's prior Order of October 26, 2007 is vacated and replayed with the following Order: 1. The father, Jason A. l~mlet, and the mother, Stacie L. Drumm, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Jason A. l~mlet, Jr., born December 22, 1998. and Madison Elaine Enilet, born August 8;,1997. 2. Physical custody shah be shared between the parties on an alternating week basis. During the school year, exchange of custody shall be after school on Fridays with the non-custodial parent puking the children up at that time. During the summer months, the ~~ exchange of custady shall be at 6:00 p.m. on Friday. 3. For the Christmas Holiday, the parties shall split Christmas into two segments: Segment `A' shall be from noonlon Christmas Eve until noon on Christmas Day with Segment `B' being from noon on hristmas Day until noon on December 26. The parties shall alternate those segment each year pursuant to a schedule as they agree. 4. The parties shall altern to major holidays to include New Years Day, Easter, Memorial Day, July 4, Labor D y and Thanksgiving. The parties shall work out a schedule between themselves to alternate those holidays and communicate that schedule in writing. 5. The parties shall wor between themselves to arrange an equitable custody situation for the children's birthd s to include, at a minimum, the non-custodial parent having the children for approxirr~ately five hours a day before or the day after their birthday unless some other arrangement is made. 6. Transportation for exlchange of custody shall be handled with the non-custodial parent picking up the children. 7. 8 9. 10 11. Both parents shall in ure that the children aze transported to all school and community athletic and social ev is that aze scheduled for the children. The children shall att d counseling at Pennsylvania Counseling Services. Costs of these services shall be split qually between the parties with the understanding that these costs shall only include co}pay in light of applicable insurance that will pay most of the charges. ~ j Father shall always ha a custody of the minor children on Father's Day and mother shall always have custody f the minor children on Mother's Day with this provision to r supersede any other prevision of this Order. The father shall have ~ustody of the minor children from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m on August 30, 2009. Neither pazent shall inf~ict physical discipline on the children or allow any step parent to inflict physical on the children. i 12. The parties may m 'dify this schedule as they agree. Absent an agreement, the parties shall follow the sch ule above. In the event either parent desires to change the schedule and the parties are nable to reach an agreement, that parent may petition the Court to have the case again s~Cheduled with the Custody Conciliator for a conference, i BY THE COURT, 1s , J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J ge Cc: Max J. Smith, Esquir Marcus A. McKnight III, Esquire t ~~~ ~~P~' rt~tC>i~1 l~~r:Ua.~~ ~ 1 t~mt;~:y whateo~. 11~ ~to ~t tali na~x . , JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff vs. STACIE L. DRUMM, former~y STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, ~; Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.OS-2900 CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. IN ACCORDANCE' WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), ~he undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent infornla~ion pertaining to the children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Jason A. Emlet, Jr., >born December 22, 1998, and Madison E. Emlet, born August 8, 1997. 2. A Conciliation Conferience was held on July 17, 2009 with the following individuals in attendance: The mother, Stacie L. rumor, with her counsel, Max J. Smith, Esquire, and the father, Jason A. Emlet, with is counsel, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire. 3. The parties agree to th entry of an Order in the form as attached. D J 1 ~ ~ 200 ate. u y 9 u ert X. Gilroy, Esquire ~ stody Conciliator VERIFICATION The foregoing and myself in the and they are true and correct is based upon information which has been gathered by counsel of this action. I have read the statements made in this document the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein ade are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsificati n to authorities. JASON A. EMLET Date: August 11, 2010 i e~ JASON A. EMLET IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v' 2005-2900 CIVIL ACTION LAW STACIE L. DRUMM F/K/A STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday, August 16, 2010 ,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, September 24, 2010 at 10:30 AM for aPre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: /s/ 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 1.990. 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 ~\ f..> ..._, p ~' • ~ `7 • ~ Q ~-..~-. ~~~ ~~ 32 South Bedford Street _ [-~-~ S ~- --, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 ~ ; ~. 1 "'~'0 ~ MCrh1 ~(~' Telephone (71.7) 249-3166 '' `r' - ^ ~ - ~, ~S• 1 ~ ' I o IU ~u n~cu ~e.~ ~-40 ~ I~ahc~l~ `~5 ..~ . ~o _, ~~ JASON A. EMLET, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSN@,V k1NIA v v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY STACIE L. (SHAMBAUGH) DRUMM, ,1- -? Defendant/Respondent NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL TE ' r? C.- N ) ,-n PETITION FOR CONTEMPT ? `; ..? AND NOW, this 30th day of August 2010, comes the Plaintiff/Petitioner. Jason A. Emlet, by his attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, P.C., and makes the following Petition for Contempt against the Defendant, Stacie L. (Shambaugh) Drumm: The Plaintiff/Petitioner is Jason A. Emlet, an adult individual who resides at 141 Old State Road, Gardners, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17324. 2. The Defendant/Respondent is Stacie L. (Shambaugh) Drumm, an adult individual who resides at 49 John's Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. On July 20, 2009, an Order of Court was entered by Judge J. Wesley Oler, Jr. The Order of Court provides for physical custody of the children alternating one week with Mother and one week with the Father with the children remaining in Enola in order to avoid changing schools. A copy of the Order of Court is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A" 4. The minor child, Madison E. Emlet, is currently residing with Father pursuant to an agreement with the parents and the Children and Youth Office of Cumberland County. The Respondent has refused to permit said minor child, Jason A. Emlet, Jr., to spend the custody week with the Petitioner as required by the Court Order. The Respondent, Stacie L. (Shambaugh) Drumm, has interfered with the periods of joint custody with Jason A. Emlet, Jr. and his father, the Petitioner, Jason A. Emlet. o d 3?5. 6. The Respondent refuses to allow the minor child, Jason A. Emlet, Jr. to exercise his Court Ordered custody with his father, the Petitioner, Jason A. Emlet.. The Petitioner requests that an Order of Court be issued granting him a week of custody beginning September 5, 2010. 7. The Petitioner, Jason A. Emlet, also seeks reasonable legal fees for bringing this Petition for Contempt. 8. It is assumed that counsel for the Defendant/Respondent will not be in agreement with this Petition. 9. The Plaintiff/Petitioner seeks the following relief: A. The Defendant/Respondent shall comply with the Order of Court dated July 20, 2009 with regard to the Petitioner's custody periods of Jason A. Emlet, Jr. with immediate custody to the Plaintiff/Petitioner. B. The contempt issue presented in this Petition, shall be heard at the Custody Conciliation Conference currently scheduled for Friday, September 24, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. C. The Respondent shall pay the sum of $500.00 to Petitioner's counsel within ten (10) days of the date of this Order for attorney fees incurred in the preparation and presentation of the Petition for Contempt. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff/Petitioner, Jason A. Emlet, seeks immediate relief pursuant to the requests made above. Respectfully su IRWIN By: l-- / Marcus . Me might, I, Esquire Attorn for Pe tioner 60 West Pomf S t Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222 717-249-2353 Date: August 30, 2010 Supreme Court I.D. No: 25476 4 JUL 2020096 JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : NO. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant : IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this day of July, 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that this Court's prior Order of October 26, 2007 is vacated and replaced with the following Order: 1. The father, Jason A. Emlet, and the mother, Stacie L. Drumm, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Jason A. Emlet, Jr., born December 22, 1998 and Madison Elaine Emlet, born August 8; 1997. 2. Physical custody shall be shared between the parties on an alternating week basis. During the school year, exchange of custody shall be after school on Fridays with the non-custodial parent picking the children up at that time. During the summer months, the exchange of custody shall be at 6:00 p.m. on Friday. 3. For the Christmas Holiday, the parties shall split Christmas into two segments: Segment `A' shall be from noon on Christmas Eve until noon on Christmas Day with Segment `B' being from noon on Christmas Day until noon on December 26. The parties shall alternate those segments each year pursuant to a schedule as they agree. 4. The parties shall alternate major holidays to include New Years Day, Easter, Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day and Thanksgiving. The parties shall work out a schedule between themselves to alternate those holidays and communicate that schedule in writing. 5. The parties shall work between themselves to arrange an equitable custody situation for the children's birthdays to include, at a minimum, the non-custodial parent having the children for approximately five hours a day before or the day after their birthday unless some other arrangement is made. 6. Transportation for exchange of custody shall be handled with the non-custodial parent picking up the children. 7. Both parents shall insure that the children are transported to all school and community athletic and social events that are scheduled for the children. 8. The children shall attend counseling at Pennsylvania Counseling Services. Costs of these services shall be split equally between the parties with the understanding that these costs shall only include co-pay in light of applicable insurance that will pay most of the charges. 9. Father shall always have custody of the minor children on Father's Day and mother shall always have custody of the minor children on Mother's Day with this provision to supercede any other provision of this Order, 10. The father shall have custody of the minor children from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m on August 30, 2009. 11. Neither parent shall inflict physical discipline on the children or allow any step parent to inflict physical discipline on the children. 12. The parties may modify this schedule as they agree. Absent an agreement, the parties shall follow the schedule above. In the event either parent desires to change the schedule and the parties are unable to reach an agreement, that parent may petition the Court to have the case again scheduled with the Custody Conciliator for a conference. BY THE COURT, J. Wesley Oler, Jr., Ju ge Cc: Max J. Smith, Esquire Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire f? 1,?si?mcrY w+, qt w, I twj qtc, set mV nano JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff VS. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. 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 children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Jason A. Emlet, Jr., born December 22, 1998, and Madison E. Emlet, born August 8, 1997. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on July 17, 2009 with the following individuals in attendance: The mother, Stacie L. Drumm, with her counsel, Max J. Smith, Esquire, and the father, Jason A. En-let, with his counsel, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire. 3. The parties agree to the entry of an Order in the form as attached. Date: July_ , 2009 ?4x P u ert X. Gilroy, Esquire stody Conciliator VERIFICATION The foregoing Petition is based upon information which has been gathered by 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. JA ON A. EMLET Date: August 30, 2010 4 JASON A. EMLET, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY STACIE L. (SHAMBAUGH) DRUMM, Defendant/Respondent NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Marcus A. McKnight, do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the person, and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing the same with the United States Post Office in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire JAMES SMITH DIETTERICK & CONNELLY, LLP P. O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 IRWIN 4YAcKNIGHT, P.C. By: Marcus Mc fight, III, Esq. 60 West Pom ret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. # 70216 Attorney for the Plaintiff/Petitioner August 31, 2010 6 JASON A. EMLET : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEffi OFD , Plaintiff/Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNS VAMA `n ..0u:, "'n v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW 2 .. IN CUSTODY r' - L 3 STACIE L. (SHAMBAUGH) DRUMM, -'' 1 Defendant/Respondent NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL TERW cn PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, this 30th day of August 2010, comes the Plaintiff/Petitioner, Jason A. Emlet, by his attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, P.C., and makes the following Petition for Special Relief against the Defendant, Stacie L. (Shambaugh) Drumm: The Plaintiff/Petitioner is Jason A. Emlet, an adult individual who resides at 141 Old State Road, Gardners, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17324. 2. The Defendant/Respondent is Stacie L. (Shambaugh) Drumm, an adult individual who resides at 49 John's Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. On July 20, 2009, an Order of Court was entered by Judge J. Wesley Oler, Jr. The Order of Court provides for physical custody of the children alternating one week with Mother and one week with the Father with the children remaining in Enola in order to avoid changing schools. A copy of the Order of Court is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A". 4. The minor child, Madison E. Emlet, is currently residing with Father pursuant to an agreement with the parents and the Children and Youth Office of Cumberland County. The Mother has refused to permit the son, Jason A. Emlet, Jr., to spend the custody week with his father as required by the Order of Court. 2 5. The Respondent, Stacie L. (Shambaugh) Drumm, has interfered with the periods of joint custody with Jason A. Emlet, Jr. and. his Father, the Petitioner, Jason A. Emlet. 6. The Respondent refuses to allow the minor child, Jason A. Emlet, Jr. to exercise his Court Ordered custody with the Petitioner, Jason A. Emlet. The Petitioner requests that an Order of Court be issued granting him a week of custody beginning September 5, 2010. 7. The Petitioner, Jason A. Emlet, also seeks reasonable legal fees for bringing this Petition for Special Relief. 8. It is assumed that counsel for the Defendant/Respondent will not be in agreement with this Petition. 9. The Plaintiff/Petitioner seeks the following relief: A. The Defendant/Respondent shall comply with the Order of Court dated July 20, 2009 with regard to the Petitioner's custody periods of Jason A. F,mlet. Jr. with immediate custody to the Plaintiff/Petitioner. B. The issues presented in this Petition shall. be heard at Hearing for Special Relief to be scheduled by the Court. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff'Petitioner, Jason A. Emlet, seeks immediate relief pursuant to the requests made above. Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & UMNIGHTdIP.C. By: i - '-? `-j Marc A. cK ' ,squire AttorI1 r Petitioner 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222 717-249-2353 Date: August 30, 2010 Supreme Court I.D. No: 25476 3 JUL 2 0 20096 JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant NO. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this day of July, 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that this Court's prior Order of October 26, 2007 is vacated and replaced with the following Order: 1. The father, Jason A. Emlet, and the mother, Stacie L. Drumm, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Jason A. Emlet, Jr., born December 22, 1998 and Madison Elaine Emlet, born August 8; 1997. 2. Physical custody shall be shared between the parties on an alternating week basis. During the school year, exchange of custody shall be after school on Fridays with the non-custodial parent picking the children up at that time. During the summer months, the exchange of custody shall be at 6:00 p.m. on Friday. 3. For the Christmas Holiday, the parties shall split Christmas into two segments: Segment `A' shall be from noon on Christmas Eve until noon on Christmas Day with Segment `B' being from noon on Christmas Day until noon on December 26. The parties shall alternate those segments each year pursuant to a schedule as they agree. 4. The parties shall alternate major holidays to include New Years Day, Easter, Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day and Thanksgiving. The parties shall work out a schedule between themselves to alternate those holidays and communicate that schedule in writing. 5. The parties shall work between themselves to arrange an equitable custody situation for the children's birthdays to include, at a minimum, the non-custodial parent having the children for approximately five hours a day before or the day after their birthday unless some other arrangement is made. 6. Transportation for exchange of custody shall be handled with the non-custodial parent picking up the children. 7. Both parents shall insure that the children are transported to all school and community athletic and social events that are scheduled for the children. 8. The children shall attend counseling at Pennsylvania Counseling Services. Costs of these services shall be split equally between the parties with the understanding that these costs shall only include co-pay in light of applicable insurance that will pay most of the charges. 9. Father shall always have custody of the minor children on Father's Day and mother shall always have custody of the minor children on Mother's Day with this provision to supercede any other provision of this Order: 10. The father shall have custody of the minor children from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m on August 30, 2009. 11. Neither parent shall inflict physical discipline on the children or allow any step parent to inflict physical discipline on the children. 12. The parties may modify this schedule as they agree. Absent an agreement, the parties shall follow the schedule above. In the event either parent desires to change the schedule and the parties are unable to reach an agreement, that parent may petition the Court to have the case again scheduled with the Custody Conciliator for a conference. BY THE COURT, Is J. Wesley Oler, Jr., Ju ge Cc: Max J. Smith, Esquire Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire s U E COPY it riff h c:?;?('J Rte n 1 i?mcry whereof, l hAt' -ta Lei my rta?x ,?, T JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff VS. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 05-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. 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 children who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Jason A. En-let, Jr., born December 22, 1998, and Madison E. Emlet, born August 8, 1997. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on July 17, 2009 with the following individuals in attendance: The mother, Stacie L. Drumm, with her counsel, Max J. Smith, Esquire, and the father, Jason A. Emlet, with his counsel, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire. 3. The parties agree to the entry of an Order in the form as attached. Date: July , 2009 144 V u ert X. Gilroy, Esquire stody Conciliator VERIFICATION The foregoing Petition is based upon information which has been gathered by 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. JASON A. EMLET Date: August 30, 2010 4 JASON A. EMLET, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY STACIE L. (SHAMBAUGH) DRUMM, : Defendant/Respondent NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marcus A. McKnight, do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the person, and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. by depositing the same with the United States Post Office in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire JAMES SMITH DIETTERICK & CONNELLY, LLP P. O. Box 650 Hershey. PA 17033 IRWIN & McKNLGHT, P.C. By: Marcus A. Mc night, II, Esq. 60 West Pom et Str Carlisle, PA 717-249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. # 70216 Attorney for the Plaintiff/Petitioner August 31, 2010 5 JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant NO. 05-2900 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 3rd day of September, 2010, upon consideration of Defendant's Petition for Emergency Relief To Restore School Attendance, and following a telephone conference on this date in which Plaintiff was represented by Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esq., and Defendant was represented by Jared Handleman, Esq., the Petition is granted to the extent that the parties' minor child, Madison Elaine Emlet, shall immediately and until further order of court reenter East Pennsboro Middle School. BY THE COURT, J ?Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esq. 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff _,,Iared Handleman, Esq. P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Attorney for Defendant Ebert X. Gilroy, Esq. 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Custody Conciliator r, i j 401er? Gories? ynai LL 4?3 ?!C) rn T' Court Administrator '- "Jie "k T'3" to JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant NO. 05-2900 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 3rd day of September, 2010, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Petition for Special Relief, this matter is referred to the custody conciliation hearing scheduled in this matter for September 24, 2010, at 10:30 a.m., before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. BY THE COURT, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esq. 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff ared Handleman, Esq. P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Attorney for Defendant Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. 10 East High Street a Carlisle, PA 17013 Custody Conciliator Court Administrator :rc CIO 1 ?S ni-a I LcL -13 r_... ` J , N rn C- JASON A. EMLET IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF' PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2005-2900 CIVIL ACTION LAW STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH DEFF,NDANT IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW. Thursday, September 09, 2010 _ 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, September 24, 2010 at 10:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute, or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders. and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearinLy. FOR THE COURT. By: _ /s/ Hubert X. !#p( y_1 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 fiacilities and reasonable accommodations a-, al table to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our oil-ice. AII 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. Il- ?'OU 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 C? CS4''t"• 0-ing 'MOtn kQ? 32 South Bedford Street ..? aLu. Carlisle Pennsylvania 17013 :r7 rTT) t Telephone (7 1 7) 249-3 166 c? c s C.D lD- lv Co Qk c' Q G??r4 71 iP ~. ' OCT 0 6LU10 JASON A. EMLET, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO.OS-2900 CIVIL ACTION -LAW STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. COURT ORDER AND NOW, this ~_day of October, 2010, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A hearing is scheduled in Court Room No. 1 of the Cumberland County ao // Courthouse on the,,l~,~G day of ~ `'' -° ~ at ~,~p~.m. At this hearing, the father 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 five days prior to the mentioned hearing date. 2. Pending further Order of this Court, this Court's Order of July 20, 2009, is modified TEMPORARILY as follows: A. The father, Jason A. Emlet, shall have primary physical custody of Madison E. Emlet, born August 8, 1997. B. The mother, Stacie L. Drumm, shall have primary physical custody of Jason A. Emlet, Jr., born December 22, 1998. . . C. The parties shall alternate custody with the two minor children on weekends from Friday through Sunday such that both children are together on each weekend. 3. The above Order authorizes the father to enroll Madison in the school district where father resides and the mother to enroll Jason in the school district where Jason resides. BY THE COURT, i J. esley Oler, J udge Cc: '~ Jared Randleman, Esquire Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire 7't~~~d !o' ~-ro ~ ~4Pi ~5 rna-.,~~d 10/7~/v c~ l~L ~ ~ ~ .~,.~c, ~ ~__ =~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ _ - o `~° ~ '~_~ c~ f~~ :gym., "~ c-> .. ~ -- ,-~ JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff vs. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.OS-2900 CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. 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 Conciliator conducted a telephone conference with the attorneys for the parties. A lot has been going on in this case including a Children's Services investigation which, apparently, has been dismissed. The existing order provides for a week on/week off basis with both children. However, the current situation is that Madison is living with the father and Jason is living with the mother. There has been some dispute between the parties with respect to failure of the non- custodial parent under the current situation having custody. A hearing is required, but the Conciliator recommends that the existing Order be modified pending the hearing. 2. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: October ` , 2010 Hubert X. ' roy, Esquire Custody C nciliator JASON A. EMLET, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY STACIE L. DRUMM, Defendant NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT k? AND NOW, this ? day of February 2011, upon presentation and consideration of the attached Custody Stipulation and Agreement, it is hereby Ordered and Directed that it be entered as an Order of Court as follows: 1. The father, Jason A. Emlet, and the mother, Stacie L. Drumm, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Jason A. Emlet, Jr. born December 22, 1998, and Madison E. Emlet, born August 8, 1997. 2. The father, Jason A. Emlet, shall enjoy primary physical custody of Madison E. Emlet. The mother, Stacie L. Drumm, shall enjoy temporary periods of physical custody of Madison E. Emlet as the parties are able to agree with the consent of Madison E. Emlet. 3. The mother, Stacie L. Drumm, shall enjoy primary custody of Jason A. Emlet, Jr. The father, Jason A. Emlet, shall enjoy temporary periods of physical. custody of Jason A. Emlet, Jr. as the parties agree with the consent of Jason A. Emlet, Jr. 4. Neither parent shall inflict physical discipline on the children or allow any step-parent to inflict physical discipline on the children. 5. The parties may modify this Order as they agree. cc: "Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffjg5 Jarad W. Handelman, Esq. S/I1 Attorney for Defendant a'l! f11 - rr rL.:? ?": .. may 'tom By the Court, JASON A. EMLET, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY STACIE L. DRUMM, Defendant NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL TERM CUSTODY STIPULATION AND NOW, this day of February, 2011, the parties, JASON A. EMLET and STACIE L. DRUMM, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to the following modification of the Custody Order dated July 20, 2009 regarding their minor children, Madison E. Emlet and Jason A. Emlet, Jr.: 1. The father, Jason A. Emlet, and the mother, Stacie L. Drumm, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Jason A. Emlet, Jr. born December 22, 1998, and Madison E. Emlet, born August 8, 1997. 2. The father, Jason A. Emlet, will enjoy primary physical custody of Madison E. Emlet. The mother, Stacie L. Drumm, will enjoy temporary periods of physical custody of Madison E. Emlet as the parties are able to agree with the consent of Madison E. Emlet. 3. The mother, Stacie L. Drumm, will enjoy primary custody of Jason A. Emlet, Jr. The father, Jason A. Emlet, will enjoy temporary periods of physical custody of Jason A. Emlet, Jr. as the parties agree with the consent of Jason A. Emlet, Jr. 2 4. Neither parent shall inflict physical discipline on the children or allow any stepparent to inflict physical discipline on the children. 5. The parties may modify this Order as they agree. By: Marcus A. hht. It'd for. Plaintiff, 496n A. Emlet 8y: • JaradW. Hu Attorney for Defendant, Stacie L. Drumm Fh_E0-C€`F IU , c 117 PROTHONOTAR'l Jarad W. Handelman, Esquire Attorney I.D. #82629 James, Smith, Dietterick & Connelly, LLP P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Telephone: 717-533-3280 Fax: 717-533-2795 e-mail: jwh@isdc.com 2011A R21 M11:1 CUMBERLANO COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA JASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff vs. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL AND ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of the Defendant, Stacie L. Drumm, formerly Stacie L. Shambaugh, with respect to the above-captioned matter. JAMES, SMITH, DIETTERICK & CONNELLY, LLP Dated: (A- N ? Z a) I By: JARAD W. HANDELMAN) ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. #82629 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of the Defendant, Stacie L. Drumm, formerly Stacie L. Shambaugh, with respect to the above-captioned matter. JAMES, SMITH, DIETTERICK & CONNELLY, LLP Dated: 1-1119111 By: J. S I H, JR., ESQUIRE torney I. . #32114 JESSICA E. LOWE, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. #208041 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 .1ASON A. EMLET, Plaintiff/Petitioner VS. STACIE L. DRUMM, formerly STACIE L. SHAMBAUGH, Defendant/Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2005-2900 CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Withdrawal and Entry of Appearance upon the following below-named individual(s) by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid VI/ at Hershey, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania on the ., 0?. day of April, 2011: SERVED UPON: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire Irwin & McKnight West Pomfret Professional Building 60 W. Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3222 JAMES, SMITH, DIET E & CONNELLY, LLP By: JARAD W. HANDELM ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. #82629 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280