Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-3318 JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 36461 24 N. 32nd.Street CampHil~ PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Plaintiff NATHAN P. ROSS, Plaintiff :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Defendant :NO. (),j~ 331 'i :CIVIL ACTION - LAW :IN CUSTODY ~j~ v. CHlPHAM, 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 custody action 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 or visitation of your children. YOU SHOULD TAKE TIDS 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, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 NATHAN P. ROSS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. NO. OS - J3/? C;u;L <-r~ Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CUSTODY CHIPHAM, COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY 1. Plaintiff Nathan P. Ross is an adult individual residing at 813 Old Silver Spring Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17050. 2. Defendant is Chi Pham, residing at 813 Old Silver Spring Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17050, 3. Plaintiff seeks custody of the following children: Name Present Address Date-of-Birth Baby girl I 813 Old Silver Spring Dr. Mechanicsburg, P A 17050 Week ofJuly I, 2005 Baby girl 2 813 Old Silver Spring Dr. Mechanicsburg, P A 17050 Week ofJuly I, 2005 4. The children will be born out of wedlock. The children are presently in the custody of Defendant, residing at 813 Old Silver Spring Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. 5. During the past five (5) years, the children have resided with the following persons the following address: Name Address Dates Children due to be born first week of July, 2005. 6. The mother of the children is currently residing at 813 Old Silver Spring Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17050. She is single. 7. The father of the children is currently residing at 813 Old Silver Spring Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17050. He is single. 8. The relationship of Plaintiff to the children is that of natural father. Plaintiff currently resides with the following person: Name Relationship Chi Pham live-in former girlfriend 9. The relationship of Defendant to the children is that of natural mother. Defendant currently resides with the following person: Name Relationship Nathan Ross ex boyfriend 10. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or a witness, or in any other capacity in other litigation concerning the custody of the children in this or any other Court. 11. Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the children pending in a court of this Commonwealth. 12. Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the 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 the relief requested because. a. Defendant Chi Phan has announced her intention to pace the twin baby girls for adoption immediately after birth through Adoption Services, Inc. and father does not consent to an adoption; and 2 b. Defendant Mother has a 10 year old son currently in the custody of her parents and has repeatedly stated she does not want three (3) children and will not raise these children; and c. Defendant Mother has recently threatened Plaintiff Father to take action against him to try to pressure or force him into agreeing to consent to adoption; and d. Plaintiff Father is 28 years old, is gainfully employed owns his own home, and is ready and able to provide a loving, safe home for his daughters immediately upon birth and intends to raise his daughters and will not agree under any circumstances to voluntarily relinquish his parental rights or agree to an adoption; and e. Plaintiff Father has extended family including his mother, father, sister and other relatives who all support him in his decision to seek custody of and raise his twin daughters; and f. Defendant Mother is estranged from her family. 14. Each parent whose parental rights to the children have not been tenninated and the person who has physical custody of the children have been named as parties to this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court to grant him custody of the children. 3 Respectfully submitted, JO ,PC Date: ~ ~-J--1/oS Joanne Harrison Cloug Attorney ill No.: 3646 24 N. 320d Street Camp Hill, P A 17011 (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Plaintiff 4 0 ~ 'IV "- *t. ~ ~ , ") ..... ...... D 6"- ?J S - r? ..c: ~ r- -4 J () S ". ""1:Jj'-b IT1 {t I 2-'" '~7' 0? -< c:: )i,C) ?; t:~ J>C ~j ..... = = c.n '-- c::: 2: N \.D o " ~:n mr- -om -06 C:) . -lL .,.. -+1 (5~ :i::fn ~ .- 51 -<. ." :x r:-? (~ Ln NATHAN P. ROSS PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA V. 05-3318 CIVIL ACTION LAW CHI PHAM IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Thursday, July 07, 2005 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Dawu S. Suuday, Esq. , the conciliator, at 39 West Main Street, Mechanicsburl!:, PA 17055 on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 at 1:30 PM 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 furnisb any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT. By: Isl Dawn S. Sundav, Esq. Custody Conciliator ;r 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 HA VE AN ATTORNEY OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249,3166 ~p ~ J'ti_7''''' ~SCl'I?J'c. 7 ~ ~~ .0-/l-t.. ;4'w ~ ~ ~ ~ -rP 5r7ll'(, ViNv'/'iHS'NN:Jd 'r ~' "., "/'''''w'nJ I 'N HJ'. I < ;',;1' ~ "i.",i"~ Yl ~ ,I...,.,'.,..... ..."" 28 :8 f4d L - lnr SOOl AtlVlONOHlOCid 3H1 dO 3013D{l31ld .j'RECEIVED AUG 312005 Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NATHANP. ROSS vs. 05-3318 CIVIL ACTION LAW CHI PHAM Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this 29th day of AUl!ust, 2005 , the conciliator, having received no request from counselor either party to reschedule the custody conciliation conference initially set for August 3, 2005, hereby relinquishes jurisdiction. FOR THE COURT, D'g,;::,.~ Custody Conciliator AJj\{-; (Y :'.::;/",,1(;8 BZ :8 H~' 1- d3S gnnZ AH110,<C,Udd 31-11::JO :1:JI:J~Ci-{]31!::l - ;y NATHANP. ROSS Plaintiff OEe 0 \l L\)\)5 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 05-3318 CIVIL ACTION LA W CHI PHAM Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ day of ..DeL.i' '-"'oLe) , 2005, consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: upon I, The Father, Nathan p, Ross, and the Mother, Chi Pham, shall have shared legal custody of Scarlett Xiun Pham Ross and Samantha Xiun Pham Ross, both born July 6, 2005, The parties shall consult with each other in making all major non-emergency decisions affecting the Children's general well-being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion. The Father shall have final decision making authority after consultation with the Mother. Pursuant to the terms ofthis paragraph each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the Children including, but not limited to, school and medical records and information, 2. The Father shall have primary physical custody ofthe Children. 3. The Mother shall have partial physical custody of the Children every Tuesday and Thursday, when the Mother shall pick up the Children at daycare through the following morning when the Mother shall transport the Children to the Father's residence before work. In addition, the Mother shall have custody of the Children every Sunday from 12:00 noon until 6:00 p,m. for which the Mother shall provide transportation to and from the Father's residence. It is intended that the partial custody periods set forth in this Order shall be a minimum and that the Mother may have custody of the Children for additional times and days as arranged by agreement. 4. The parties shall share having custody of the Children on holidays as arranged by agreement. 5. The Mother shall provide the Children's social security cards and birth certificates to the Father within 15 days ofthe date of this Order. 6, The Mother may file a request with the Court for the scheduling of an additional custody conciliation conference to review the custodial arrangements, 7. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control. BY THE COURT, cc: 4e Harrison Clough, Esquire - Counsel for Father ~i Pham, Mother I~\lc'~ . NATHAN P. ROSS Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 05-3318 CIVIL ACTION LAW CHI PHAM Defendant IN CUSTODY CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subjects of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Scarlett Xiun Pham Ross Samantha Xiun Pham Ross July 6, 2005 July 6, 2005 Father Father 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on December 6, 2005, with the following individuals in attendance: The Father, Nathan p, Ross, with his counsel, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire. The Mother, Chi Pham, who is not represented by counsel in this matter, neither attended the conference nor contacted the conciliator. 3. The Father filed this Complaint for Custody requesting that the current arrangements which the parties have established by agreement be formalized into a Court Order, with minor adjustments. The proposed adjustments include the Father's proposal that the Mother pick up the Children after work at daycare rather than at the Father's residence to prevent the Father from having to transport the infant twins to his residence for a matter of minutes before the Mother picks them up. The proposed change does not require the Mother to drive any additional distance. The second proposed change includes scheduling a time frame for the Mother's Sunday afternoon visits which had previously been set by agreement each week. 4, The Mother received notice of the conciliation conference through an individual acting as counsel in negotiations but who did not ultimately enter an appearance in this matter. 5. The conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached, including a provision for the scheduling of an additional custody conciliation conference at the Mother's request. {J; f~ ,r-{ .;l.(::o5 Date u.--d- ~ Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator ...~ -':'D MAR 0 " ,. h___--,_I:( L. ,. y 9 ,... NATHAN P. ROSS Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 05-33] 8 CNIL ACTION LAW CHI PHAM Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ day of (v1 2J I, L , 2006, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The prior Order of this Court dated December 13,2005 is vacated and replaced with this Order. 2. The parties shall participate in a course oftherapeutic counseling with a professional selected by agreement between the parties, The purpose of the counseling shall be to improve communication between the parties and address underlying issues and conflicts arising from the parties' separation to enable the parties to progress toward establishing an effective co-parenting relationship for the benefit of their Children. The parties shall attend a minimum offour counseling sessions under this provision. All costs of counseling which are not reimbursed by insurance shall be shared equally between the parties. The parties shall select the counselor and contact the counselor's office on or before March 13,2006 to schedule the first session, 3. The Father, Nathan p, Ross, and the Mother, Chi Pham, shall have shared legal custody of Scarlett Xiun Pham Ross and Samantha Xiun Pham Ross, both born July 6,2005. The parties shall consult with each other in making all major non-emergency decisions affecting the Children's general well-being including, but not limited to, all decisions regarding their health, education and religion, Pursuant to the terms of this paragraph each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining to the Children including, but not limited to, school and medical records and information. In the event the parties are unable to reach an agreement on a major legal custody decision under this provision, counsel for either party may contact the conciliator to schedule an additional custody conciliation conference. 4, The Father shall have primary physical custody of the Children. 5. The Mother shall have partial physical custody of the Children every Tuesday and Thursday, when the Mother shall pick up the Children at daycare after work through the following morning when the Mother shall transport the Children to the Father's residence before work. In addition, the Mother shall have custody of the Children every Sunday from 10:00 a,m. until 4:00 p.m, for which the party receiving custody shall provide transportation for the exchange at each party's residence. It is intended " that the partial custody periods set forth in this Order shall be a minimum and that the Mother may have custody of the Children for additional times and days as arranged by agreement between the parties. 6, The parties shall share having custody of the Children on holidays as arranged by agreement. 7. The Mother shall provide the Children's original social security cards and original birth certificates to the Father within 15 days of the date ofthis Order. 8. Communications concerning the Children shall be made directly between the parties. 9, Neither party shall do or say anything which may estrange the Children from the other parent, injure the opinion of the Children as to the other parent, or hamper the free and natural development of the Children's love and respect for the other parent. Neither party shall speak derogatorily of the other parent or the other parent's family members. Both parties shall ensure that third parties having contact with the Children comply with this provision. 10. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of mutual consent, the terms ofthis Order shall control. BY THE COURT, J, Wesley vU cc: ~ne Harrison Clough, Esquire - Counsel for Father ..}illian Woodward and William Martin, Esquire - Counsel for Mother . NATHAN p, ROSS Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 05-3318 CIVIL ACTION LAW CHI PHAM Defendant IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: J. Wesley Oler, Jr. CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: I. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subjects of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Scarlett Xiun Pham Ross Samantha Xiun Pham Ross July 6, 2005 July 6,2005 Father Father 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on March 1,2006 with the following individuals in attendance: The Father, Nathan P. Ross, with his counsel, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, and the Mother, Chi Pham, with her counsel, Jillian Woodward and William Martin, Esquire. 3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached, f~c/..._ 7{ aOOf, f)~-~-&(J Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator Date C'.1 ?? N Y ri - JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH, PC zm r?? rn -a N -? r`' BY: JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 36461 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Z c- C;? c Telephone: (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Plaintiff NATHAN P. ROSS, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. :NO. 05-3318 CHI PRAM, :CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant :IN CUSTODY STIPULATION TO SUSPEND CUSTODY ORDER OF MARCH 10, 2006 DUE TO RECONCILIATION OF THE PARTIES AND NOW, this day of September, 2011, come the Plaintiff, Nathan P. Ross by and through his attorney, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire and Defendant Chi Pham, Pro Se and file this Joint Stipulation to Suspend Custody Order of March 10, 2006 Due To Reconciliation of the Parties and in support thereof aver as follows: 1. Nathan P. Ross is an adult individual and the natural father of Scarlett Xiun Pham Ross and Samantha Xiun Pham Ross, twins born on July 6, 2005. 2. Chi Pham is an adult individual She is the natural mother of Scarlett and Samantha Pham Ross. 3. On March 10, 2006 a Custody Order was entered granting Plaintiff Nathan Ross primary physical custody and granting the parties shared legal custody 4. Approximately one and one half years ago the parties reconciled and have been residing together with the minor children at 13 Lismore Place, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, PA 17050 and the parties have been equally sharing the de facto physical and legal custody of the minor children. 5. The parties both desire to suspend the Court Order of March 10, 2006 since the parties have been residing together for the past one and a half years with the minor children and have been parenting them together. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Father, Nathan P. Ross, and Defendant Mother Chi Pham respectfully request this Court suspend the March 10, 2006 Custody Order in light of the parties' successful reconciliation. Respectfully Submitted, HARRISON CLOUGH, Dated: ?? ?' l Joanne son Clough Attorney I.D. No. 36461 3 820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 %ey 1 'tiff Nathan Ross Att Nathan Ro Plainti f Date 711s Chi Pham, Defendant Date CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Connie Lee Limric, secretary to, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of the foregoing document by United States First Class Mail to the following individual set forth below: Chi Pham 13 Lismore Place Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Date: 7-7?? Connie Lee Limnc, Secretary to Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire Attorney ID No. 36461 3 820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Nathan Ross NATHAN P. ROSS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF' PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVApiA?r ' C= A` I J 1 p.. w9 U) T- s .-..-. 2005-3318 CIVIL ACTION LAW < cs g <f - CHI PHAM IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Friday, June 08, 2012 upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Dawn S. Sunday, Esq. , the concili; ioi at 39 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 on Tuesday, July 10, 2012 at 4:00 IM - -- for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot he accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a tempos-,, order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporarv or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT. By: /s/ Dawn S. SundAy,_Es _ Custody Conciliator fhe Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the American: 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 schedule( 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 Count,, Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 ?Gsey Ad, led 5?n? - Con??/?a ?0V,yj W?1 lyd ? ?? ? ` ?? biz NATHAN P. ROSS, Plaintiff V. CHI PHAM, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION (CUSTODY) : NO. 2005-3318 IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, this 3rd day of July, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant's Petition for Special Relief, and it appearing that a custody conciliation conference in this case is scheduled for the near future, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The parties shall share legal custody of the minor children, Samantha. Xuan Pham Ross (d.o.b. July 1, 2005) and Scarlett Xuan 2. The Custody Conciliator shall conduct an evaluation pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. §5329, in the course of performing the other custody Pham Ross (d.o.b. July 1, 2005). conciliation duties at the forthcoming conference. 3. Pending the court's receipt and issuance of a recommended order from the Custody Conciliator, primary physical custody of the children shall be m Defendant and partial or temporary Physical custody shall be in Plaintiff at such times as the parties mutually agree. Dawn S. Sunday, Esq. Custody Conciliator 39 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 r, Z zc? BY THE COURT, Pamela L. Purdy 1820 Linglestown Rd. Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Defendant 4-1 ,5 x4a ,'% 7/3`A /0t/ c- 1658 Airport Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Plaintiff, pro Se A NATHAN P. ROSS, IN THE COURT OF CO1V1M0N PLEA ;.:, C_ Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL TIC v. NO. 2005-3318-c= CHI PRAM, CIVIL ACTION - LAW: Defendant IN CUSTODY r\ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY AND NOW, this _ day of July, 2012, comes Respondent/Plaintiff, Nathan P. Ross, by and through his attorney, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, and respectfully files this Answer to Petition to Modification of Custody and avers as follows: I. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. By way of further explanation, Mother initially attempted to place the children for adoption without Father's consent or permission and when Father refused to cooperate in the adoption process, Mother agreed that Father would have primary physical custody of the parties' children. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 6. (sic) Admitted. It is admitted that on or about Mother's Day Mother directed Father to vacate the premises. 7. Denied. It is specifically denied that Father would regularly drink or drink to the point I of intoxication in front of the children. It is further denied that Father became hostile and physically aggressive towards Mother or the minor children at any time and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. To the contrary, Petitioner/Defendant Mother displays wild mood swings, becomes verbally and physically abusive to Respondent Father and has physically attacked him, shoved him and hit him in the presence of the minor children and on other occasions. Respondent Mother also frequently abuses alcohol and would drink to the point of intoxication and passing out during the past two years. 8. Admitted. By way of further explanation, the incident for which Father was convicted occurred in 1995 when he was eighteen (18) years old. Father has never had any problem with his probation or parole subsequent to his release from incarceration and Petitioner Mother agreed to Father having primary physical custody of their children for the first five (5) years of their life despite the previous criminal connection he had for events that occurred more than ten (10) years before the children were born. 9. Father was released from incarceration in 2003. 10. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the standard terms of parole include a prohibition against alcohol. It is denied that Respondent Father must be drug and alcohol tested monthly. To the contrary, in the past four years he has been tested annually and passed each test. 1 l . Denied. It is specifically denied that it is in the best interest and permanent welfare of the minor children that Mother be granted primary physical custody and that Father have periods of partial physical custody. To the contrary, immediately prior to and upon the birth of the children, Mother was ready, willing and attempted to abandon the children and place them for adoption, and attempted to circumvent Father and deny him his parental rights at that time. Father interceded and had primary custody of the parties' children for the first four and a half years of the children's lives, 2 Respondent Father was the sole physical custodian of the minor children except for a sporadic visitation schedule where Petitioner Mother saw the children approximately ten waking hours a week. At numerous times throughout that schedule Mother failed to show up to daycare or otherwise pick up the children or exercise her periods of custody. The prior Court Order in this case clearly substantiates the fact that Petitioner Father was the primary caretaker of the minor children. and continued to be the shared caretaker of the minor children once the parties reconciled. It is further averred Mother has exhibited periodic episodes of a settled hatred of Father in the presence of the minor children that is clearly contrary to the best interests of the minor children. 12. Petitioner Mother has volatile mood swings and frequently "flies off the handle" and in the past has thrown a cell phone in her son's face and otherwise behaved in physically and verbally abusive manner to Respondent Father and in the presence of all three of her children. Mother's other child, her sixteen year old son was raised by her parents from birth until approximately two years ago when he moved back in with Mother. Mother has a long standing of history of significant emotional and behavioral problems and periodic alcohol abuse which impacted upon her ability her to properly care for he children or provide custodial environment for her three children. NEW MATTER 13. Respondent Father has lived with the minor children from their birth until Mother's Day 2012 when Petitioner/Defendant Mother ordered Father out of her home. 14. Petitioner/Defendant Mother has repeatedly spoken of Father in disparaging manner to the minor children and Mother has repeatedly attempted to alienate them from their Father by her dreadful conduct. A sampling of the disgusting manner in which Petitioner Mother speaks of Father in and out of the presence of the children is evident in the emails attached hereto as Exhibit A. 15. Petitioner/Defendant Mother expressed no interest to be a :parent for the minor children when they were born and only exercised periods of partial physical custody and did not exercise all her periods of partial physical custody she sought in March of 2006 after the entry of that Order until the parties reconciled. 16. Respondent Father has been the primary caretaker of the children from birth until the parties reconciled approximately two (2) years ago when the parties cohabitated together and co- parented the children until Mother ordered Father out of her residence on Mother's Day 17. Petitioner Mother is now attempting to interfere with Respondent Father's custodial access to the minor children by raising past criminal acts that occurred in 1995, ten years prior to the birth of the minor children. 18. Petitioner's concern over Respondent's past criminal conviction is disingenuous since she had full knowledge of the conviction and terms of parole prior to the birth of the children and prior to the entry of the March 2006 Custody Order and agreed that Respondent would have primary physical custody of the minor children from birth for a period of approximately five (5) years where upon the parties reconciled and lived together with the children until Mother's Day when Petitioner Mother ordered Respondent Father out of her residence. 19. Petitioner Mother has violent mood swings and is at times emotionally unstable and has a long history of periodically abusing alcohol. 20. Police reports attached to Mother's Petition for Special Relief indicate she had been drinking and/or intoxicated in the presence of the children when she called the police. 21. Petitioner Mother did not have primary custody of her son for many years and her 4 parents had physical custody of her son until approximately two years ago. 22. Petitioner Mother only had visitation with the parties' minor twin daughters and later periods of partial physical custody until the parties' reconciled approximately two years ago at which time they had de facto shared physical custody. WHEREFORE, Respondent Father respectfully requests this Honorable Court deny Petitioner/Defendant Mother's Petition for Modification of Custody and reinstate the Custody Order that was previously entered by the Court of Common Pleas on March 10, 2006 and grant Respondent Father primary physical custody and shared legal custody of the minor children and grant any further relief this Court deems appropriate. n lly Submitted, HARRISON CLOAH JOANN14 HARRISON CLOUG SQUIRE Attorney I.D. No.: 66378 3 820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 763-1383 Attorney for Nathan Ross 5 From: <7172756212@VTEXT.COM> To: <Nathan.Ross@keentransport.com> Date: 3/20/2012 3:14 PM Subject: FWD: Like I said the FWD: Like I said the girls don't need to be around a worthless pig 4F- X14 ? & r .4 From: <7172756212@vzwpix.com> To: <Nathan. Ross@keentransport.com> Date: 3120/2012 3:13 PM FWD: U know what don't bother picking up my daughters. We don't need a male pig like u around. If my girls ever went out with a guy who said such disrespectful things in front of them about other woman then he would be kicked to the curb. What a shitty example u r of a true man. I don't want my girls around some ignorant pig like you. From: <7172756212 c@VTEXT.COM> To: <Nathan.Ross c@keentransport.com> Date: 3/20/2012 3:13 PM Subject: FWD: U don't appreciate shit FWD: U don't appreciate shit u spoiled piece of trash. I won't be doing shit for u anymore From: <7172756212@vzwpix.com> To: <Nathan. Ross@keentransport. com> Date: 5/31/2012 7:42 AM FWD: I will be letting the school principal know that u r on parole for armed robbery and u will no longer pick up the girls from school This message has been sent using the picture and Video service from Verizon Wireless! To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture. Note: To play video messages sent to email, Quicktime@ 6.5 or higher is required From: <7172756212@vzwpix.com> To: <Nathan. Ross@keentransport. com> Date: 5/31/2012 7:47 AM FWD: U got kicked out for being an asshole and taking me for granted. U don't control me. Assholes like u will get kicked out anywhere. Also I don't want the girls around an asshole like you. The girls see the way u treat me and my girls will not be taught that's it's ok to treat women the way u treat me. Also I'll be sure to tell ur parents the truth very soon on what u did. I'm not dealing with ur bullshit sunday morning. I will be taking the girls this weekend. VERIFICATION I, Nathan P. Ross, hereby verify and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn verification to authorities. DATE: ?U?? CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Connie Lee Limric, secretary to, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of the foregoing document by United States First Class Mail to the following individual set forth below: Pamela L. Purdy 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Date:--1 "- Connie Lee Li c, Sec to Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire Attorney ID No. 36461 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Nathan Ross NATHAN P. ROSS, CHI PHAM, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS (2 = 3 Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL *1'r =-n r*, cy F -73 V. NO 2005-3318 `"r- + -ur" 't=-' . s .? CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant IN CUSTODY RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF NATHAN P. ROSS'S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, this U day of July, 2012, comes Respondent/Plaintiff, Nathan P. Ross, by and through his attorney, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, and respectfully files this Response to Petition for Special Relief and Custody and avers as follows: Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is specifically denied this Custody Action commenced in March of 2006. To the contrary, Respondent. Father filed a Custody Action with the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County on June 29, 2005 and simultaneously filed a Custody Complaint approximately seven days prior to the birth of the minor twin children, the subject of this custody action because of Mother's repeated attempts to place these children for adoption without Father's consent or permission. Father's legal counsel also notified the adoption agent, the adoption attorney for the adoption agency, and Harrisburg Hospital and the attending physicians to notify them that under no circumstances were the minor twin children to be released to adoptive parents because Father intended to assume primary physical custody of the children. Father had primary physical custody of the children from shortly after their birth on July 6, 2005 until the parties reconciled in February of 2010 at which time Father and Petitioner Mother resided with the children until Mother's Day of 2012. It is admitted that in March of 2006 the parties attended a Custody Conciliation Conference with the specific purpose of having a Court Order entered specifically setting forth a schedule for Mother to exercise her periods of partial physical custody with the minor children since Mother had a repeated established habit of failing to abide by any particular schedule to see the minor children from birth until said time. 5. Admitted. By way of further information, Petitioner Mother repeatedly insisted, demanded and threatened and berated Respondent Father to request the Court suspend the Custody Order of March 10, 2006 and Father finally acquiesced to Petitioner Mother's demands and did so on the dates averred. 6. Admitted in part. By way of further information, the parties did separate for a period of time during said twenty eight month time period. 7. Denied. It is specifically denied that Father would regularly drink to the point of intoxication in front of the children. It is farther denied that Father often became hostile and physically aggressive towards Mother and the minor children. By way of further information, Petitioner Mother frequently drank to the point of intoxication in the presence of the children. The Exhibits attached to Mother's Petition for Special Relief from the SilverSpring Township Police Department clearly indicate on the several occasions police officers responded to Mother's calls, she had been drinking and/or was intoxicated. 2 Admitted. By way of further explanation, Father's 2000 conviction as alleged in the Petition was for an incident that occurred in 1995, ten years before the birth of the children that are the subject of this custody action. Petitioner Mother was well aware of Father's criminal convictions and his thirty six months incarceration resulting there from and the terms of his parole prior to the time that she permitted and agreed that Respondent Father could be the primary physical custodial parent of these children for five (5) years prior to the parties' reconciliation. 9. Denied. It is specifically denied Father was released from. incarceration in 2004. To the contrary. Father was released from incarceration in 2003, two years prior to the birth of these children. It is further averred Father has been successful after release from incarceration, has no parole violations, no new criminal charges and has maintained steady employment and received promotions and was an excellent primary physical custodial parent for his minor children from birth to February of 2010 when the parties reconciled and has been an excellent parent thereafter to the present date. 10. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that there are standard prohibitions against the use of alcohol on the terms of father's parole. It is specifically denied that Father must be drug and alcohol tested monthly. To the contrary, for the past four plus years Father has been annually tested and has never failed the drug or alcohol test. 11. Denied. It is a blatant lie that Mother did not become aware of Father's terms of his probation until June 7, 2012. To the contrary, Mother repeatedly threatened Father immediately prior to the birth of the minor children and since the birth of the minor children any time she was upset with him that she was going to contact his parole officer and inform him that Father had been drinking and/or associating with felons in an effort to try to have his parole revoked. Petitioner Mother has repeatedly mentioned Father's parole and the alcohol provision in his parole to Father's current counsel and her prior legal counsel, Carol Lindsay, and also discussed this issue at Custody Conciliation Conferences and in correspondence to the Court. By way of further information, Mother has a lengthy history of binge alcohol drinking and alcohol abuse and has been repeatedly intoxicated on numerous occasions since Respondent Father met her. 12. Denied. It is specifically denied that Father has had any incident of alcohol abuse and further denied Father has had any incident of domestic violence in the presence of the parties' minor children. To the contrary, despite Petitioner Mother repeatedly contacting the police, there has been no documentation by police of "alcohol abuse" or "domestic violence"; to the contrary, the police report indicated on occasions that Mother was intoxicated or had been drinking„ 13. Admitted.. It is further admitted that Petitioner Mother frequently, after drinking, threatens Respondent Father and contacts the police and tries to have Respondent Father arrested for drinking when Mother is intoxicated. 14. Denied. It is specifically denied Father was requested to leave the home by responding police officers. To the contrary, Father volunteered to go to stay with his parents on several occasions where Petitioner Mother was drinking and she called the police. 15. The two police reports attached by Petitioner stated "Both parties were intoxicated" on December 23, 2010 and on April 21, 2011 "Patrol units arrived on the scene and found both parties to be relatively calm, though both had been drinking". By way of further information, Petitioner Mother's lack of good faith in being candid in her pleading is clearly indicated by the fact she attached the police reports for December 23, 2010 and April 21, 2011 which both reference both parties were drinking as 4 ., evidence that Father was intoxicated. 16. Denied. It is specifically denied that one of the minor children "accidentally ingested Father's alcoholic beverage, believing it to be apple juice", while in Father's custody. It is specifically denied this incident ever occurred and further averred that Petitioner Mother blatantly made this lie up in an attempt to gain advantage in this custody litigation. 17. Denied. It is specifically denied that Father "has continued to drink alcohol to the point of intoxication during his periods of partial custody" since the parties' separation. To the contrary, Father has consumed absolutely no alcoholic beverages during his periods of time with the children since he separated from Petitioner Mother because he is well aware of the fact that Petitioner Mother repeatedly attempts to fabricate and embellish stories of his alleged drinking in an attempt to gain control in custody issues with Father and/or in an attempt to cause Father, problems with his parole. 18. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is specifically denied that Mother recently learned of Father's probation or parole, or its terms and conditions. To the contrary, in 2005, Mother discussed the terms of Father's probation with Father's current legal counsel and it is a blatant lie for her to claim she learned of Father's probation, or his parole terms in 2012 as she frequently discussed this issue in the presence of counsel, and the custody conciliator in 2005 and in 2006 addressed the issues with the Court. It is however admitted that Mother had her legal counsel contact Father's State Parole Officer in an attempt to revoke his parole in another sick attempt to thwart Father's right to continued custodial access to his children who he was the primary caretaker from birth till February 2010 when the parties reconciled and he co-parented from that date until Mother's Day 2012 when Mother ordered him out of her home and since then Mother has unilaterally attempted to thwart and prohibit his ability to have any meaningful regular contact with his children. 19. Denied. It is specifically denied that Father's State probation/parole officer has not addressed any issues he needs to address with Father. By way of further explanation, Respondent Father is of the belief and therefore avers that he is a model parolee and has been in good standing with his parole officer since his release from incarceration in 2003 and has been a model citizen and an excellent single father who prevented the placement of these minor children in an adoption, and Father personally performed as the primary physical caretaker of these twin children from the time they were released from the hospital after birth until the parties reconciled five (5) years later. 18. (sic) Denied. Respondent Father and his counsel are of the belief and therefore aver that the Custody Conciliation was scheduled for July 10, 2012 and subsequently rescheduled for July 9, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., before Custody Conciliator, Dawn Sunday. By way of further explanation, since June 18, 2012, Mother has unilaterally acted in a manner to completely deny Father any physical custodial access to the minor children despite the fact she does not have any Custody Order granting her custody of the children and the last Custody Order existing in this case granted Father primary physical custody of the parties' children. By way of further explanation, Respondent Father's legal counsel contacted the Custody Conciliator, Dawn Sunday, and determined that she could meet with the parties for an expedited custody conciliation conference on July 6`n, at 3:00 p.m., or July 91n 19. (sic) Denied. It is specifically denied that "given the gravity of Father's criminal convictions" and/or his recent behavior, that it is necessary pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. Section 5329. To the contrary, Father's criminal conviction in 2000 was for an incident that occurred in 1995 ten years prior to the birth of the children and seventeen years prior to the present date. Father was released from 6 prison in 2003 and has been a model citizen since, and has not had one single parole violation, has been gainfully employed with the same employer for eight plus (8+) years and received promotions. By way of further explanation, Mother has an additional minor child, 16 years old, who from birth to age thirteen (13) was raised by her parents and Petitioner Mother did not have physical custody of that child due to her lack of parental skills, and her significant emotional, behavioral and mental health issues and her frequent binge drinking and alcohol abuse. It is further averred that clue to Mother's inability to maintain any regular steady employment, and her repeated bouts of unemployment and repeated job changes, her social instability and failure to regularly parent her three children and her abusive use of alcohol, Father is requesting a custody evaluation, including an evaluation of Mother's emotional condition(s), parenting history and social history, including an alcohol evaluation. Petitioner Father also believes it is Mother's attempts to raise his criminal conviction for events that occurred ten (10) years prior to the birth of these children is disingenuous and a blatant attempt on Mother's part to further disparage Respondent Father's reputation despite the fact that since he was released from prison in 2003, two years prior to the birth of these minor children, he has been an exemplary citizen. 19. (sic) Denied. It is specifically denied that it is in the best interest of the children to be in Mother's primary physical custody pending said evaluation. To the contrary, Petitioner Mother has periodically demonstrated a settled hatred for Respondent Father and contempt and a complete disregard for his role of Father in the presence of the minor children and has frequently referred to him as a pig, criminal, a worthless loser and repeatedly berated the twin girls to not date or marry a "worthless loser like their Father". A true and correct sampling of the manners in which Mother speaks of Father are included in the emails attached hereto, made part of and incorporated by reference as 7 Respondent Father's Exhibit No. 1. NEW MATTER 20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full here below. 21. Prior to the birth of the minor children Petitioner Mother and Father discussed the possibility of placing the children for adoption and Respondent Father refused to place the children for adoption. 22. Despite Respondent Father's refusal to place the children for adoption, Mother attempted to proceed with the adoption anyway through an adoption counselor and an adoption legal counsel, necessitating Respondent Father to file a Custody Action against Mother on June 29, 2005, seven days before the birth of the children, to assure that the minor children could not be placed in the hands of adoptive parents or any third party intermediary. 23. Respondent Father secured legal counsel to place Harrisburg Hospital, the obstetricians, the adoption agent, and the adoption agency attorney on notice that he intended to exercise his rights as the birth Father and secure physical custody of the parties' children, which he did when they were released from Harrisburg Hospital. 24. Respondent Father was the sole custodial parent of the infant twin daughters from their birth until March of 2006 at which point Petitioner Mother attended a custody conciliation conference to "firm up" the partial physical custody schedule she wanted to exercise with the minor children. 25. Respondent Father was the primary physical custodial parent of the minor children from birth until age five (5) when the parties reconciled in February of 2010 and moved in together with the minor children. 26. Until Mother's Day 2012 when Petitioner Mother ordered Respondent Father out of his home, he has always lived with and been the primary caretaker and for the past two years, shared caretaker, of the parties' minor children. 27. Petitioner Mother has repeatedly exhibited bouts of emotional instability and lashes out at Respondent Father and his family, many of which incidents of said emotional instability have occurred in the presence of the minor children. 28. Petitioner Mother has repeatedly been visibly intoxicated in. the presence of the children, missed periods of partial custody as a result of her intoxication which is contrary to the best interest and permanent welfare of the minor children. 29. Petitioner Mother's vengefulness against Father is so severe that she actually requested her attorney to contact Respondent Father's State parole officer in an attempt to have his parole violated in hopes of returning him to incarceration for an incident that occurred in 1995, in an attempt to gain an advantage in this custody action. 30. Respondent Father is of the belief and therefore avers that Petitioner Mother will stop at nothing in an attempt to completely annihilate and destroy his relationship with his minor children which is clearly contrary to the best interest and permanent welfare of the minor children. 31. But for the responsibility, maturity and love of Respondent Father, these minor children would have been placed for adoption and/or had no one to care for them from birth until age five (5) because Petitioner Mother repeatedly demonstrated a settled indifference to the care and welfare of her minor children. 9 32. From the birth of the children to the parties' reconciliation in February of'2010, Petitioner Mother frequently failed to exercise her periods of partial physical custody, failed to pick the children up at daycare on numerous occasions resulting in emergency calls being invade to Respondent Father and/or his family, and otherwise failed to act in the best interest of the minor children. WHEREFORE, Respondent Father respectfully requests this Honorable Court deny Petitioner Mother's Petition for Special Relief, chastise or otherwise hold Petitioner Mother accountable for the vicious lies she placed in the pleadings regarding her claim to have only recently learned of the terms of Respondent Father's parole and incarceration and grant primary physical custody of the minor children to Respondent Father until such time as Petitioner Mother has sought counseling and is able to conduct herself in such a manner in the presence of the minor children so as to not act contrary in their best interest and permanent welfare, and grant any further relief this Court deems appropriate. lly Submitted, HARRISON CLOU JOANN"ARRISON C,O?LJfGH, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No.: 66378 ?? 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 763-1383 Attorney for Nathan Ross 10 From: <7172756212@VTEXT.COM> To: <Nathan.Ross@keentransport.com> Date: 3/20/2012 3:14 PM Subject: FWD: Like I said the FWD: Like I said the girls don't need to be around a worthless pig /VG7. / From: <7172756212@vzwpix.com> To: <Nathan. Ross@keentransport.com> Date: 3/20/2012 3:13 PM FWD: U know what don't bother picking up my daughters. We don't need a male pig like u around. If my girls ever went out with a guy who said such disrespectful things in front of them about other woman then he would be kicked to the curb. What a shitty example u r of a true man. I don't want my girls around some ignorant pig like you. From: <7172756212 c@VTEXT.COM> To: <Nathan. Ross@keentransport. com> Date: 3/20/2012 3:13 PM Subject: FWD: U don't appreciate shit FWD: U don't appreciate shit u spoiled piece of trash. I won't be doing shit for u anymore From: <7172756212@vzwpix.com> To: <Nathan.Ross@keentransport.com> Date: 5/31/2012 7:42 AM FWD: I will be letting the school principal know that u r on parole for armed robbery and u will no longer pick up the girls from school This message has been sent using the picture and Video service from Verizon Wireless! To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture. Note: To play video messages sent to email, Quicktime@ 6.5 or higher is required From: <7172756212@vzwpix.com> To: <Nathan.Ross@keentransport.com> Date: 5/31/2012 7:47 AM FWD: U got kicked out for being an asshole and taking me for granted. U don't control me. Assholes like u will get kicked out anywhere. Also I don't want the girls around an asshole like you. The girls see the way u treat me and my girls will not be taught that's it's ok to treat women the way u treat me. Also I'll be sure to tell ur parents the truth very soon on what u did. I'm not dealing with ur bullshit sunday morning. I will be taking the girls this weekend. VERIFICATION I, Nathan P. Ross, hereby verify, and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn verification to authorities. ? ?3 DATE: -I IVA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Connie Lee Limric, secretary to, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of the foregoing document by United States First Class Mail to the following individual set forth below: Pamela L. Purdy 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 b' Date: ?'? .__- c ?-?_^•. Connie Le imric, S cr ry to Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire Attorney ID No. 36461 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Nathan Ross NATHAN ROSS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-3318 CIVIL CHI PRAM, ; Defendant ORDER AND NOW, this P" day of July, 2012, the above-captioned case is assigned to the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr., Senior Judge. ? The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. t/ Joanne Clough, Esquire For the Plaintiff j/ Pamela Purdy, Esquire For the Defendant Court Administrator :rlm (lop' 5 Ak&,' 1-,59 7/ 9// 4 BY THE COURT, Kevin. . Hess, P. J. t? c rn C G ?C. r i ra r -4 C Lk NATHAN P. ROSS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 2005-3318 CIVIL ACTION LAW CHI PHAM Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 12 &- day of Au I " , 2012, consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is dered and directed as follows: 1. The Mother, Chi Pham, and the Father, Nathan P. Ross, shall submit themselves, their 1 Children, and any other individuals deemed necessary by the evaluator to a custody evaluation performed by a professional selected by agreement between the parties. The purpose of the evah shall be to obtain independent professional recommendations concerning ongoing cus arrangements which will best meet the Children's needs in light of concerns raised by both p? Unless otherwise agreed, all costs of the evaluation shall be shared equally between the parties. parties shall select the evaluator and contact the evaluator's office within two weeks of the date custody conciliation conference to schedule the initial sessions. The parties shall participate evaluation in a timely manner. If, in the course of the evaluation, the evaluator determines th interim custody arrangements are not serving the immediate needs of the Children, the parties follow any recommendations issued by the evaluator governing the custodial arrangements pe completion of the evaluation. be The the the the 2. Pending completion of the custody evaluation and further Order of Court or agreeme t of the parties, the parties shall have shared legal and physical custody of the Children in accordance with the following schedule: The parties shall alternate having custody of the Children on a weekly basis, wit the exchange to take place every Sunday at 6:00 p.m. with the parent receiving custody to provide transportation for the exchange of custody unless otherwise agreed. The alternating weekly schedule shall be arranged to begin promptly upon entry of this Order in such a manner that the Mot er's vacation period falls within the Mother's regular weekly period of custody. The Mother shall be entitled to have custody of the Children for vacation from A gust 11 through August 19, 2012 with the specific times to be arranged by agreement between the p rties depending on the Mother's travel plans. The Father shall be entitled to have the same amount of time for vacation custody pon providing at least one week advance notice to the Mother. The Father shall schedule his vac tion period of custody to include his regular week of custody. Both parties shall provide to the other in advance an address and telephone number where the Children can be contacted during the vac tion period, including a general itinerary. 3. The Father's custodial time periods under this Order are conditioned upon a ne tive alcohol test result (indicating zero consumption of alcohol) on the test conducted on the date of the custody conciliation conference as well as a subsequent random alcohol test as provided i the following provision. The Father's periods of custody are also conditioned upon his continued residence at his parents' home although there is no requirement of supervision. The Father shall provide the test results to the Mother through counsel. 4. Neither party shall consume alcohol whether or not he or she has custody of the 5. Within six months of the date of this Order, the Father shall undergo a random alcohol test if requested by the Mother through counsel. The Father shall obtain the alcohol test within 24 ho rs of notification of the request. The Father shall provide the test results to the Mother through co nsel. The cost of the alcohol testing shall be paid by the Father. 6. Within 60 days of receipt of the evaluator's written custody recommendations, couns l for either party may contact the conciliator to schedule an additional custody conciliation confere ce if necessary. 7. Neither party shall do or say anything which may estrange the Children from the other parent, injure the opinion of the Children as to the other parent, or hamper the free and natural development of the Children's love and respect for the other parent. Both parties shall ensure the parties having contact with the Children comply with this provision. 8. No party shall be permitted to relocate the residence of the Child which significantly i pairs the ability to exercise custody unless every individual who has custodial rights to the Child consents to the proposed relocation or the Court approves the proposed relocation. A person proposing to rel Cate MUST comply with 23 Pa. C.S. § 5337. 9. This Order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a custody conciliation conference, with the exception of the interim custodial schedule pending completion of the evaluation. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent in writing. In the absence of mutual consent in writing, the terms of this Order shall control. BY THE COURT, S,J. 3. Wes?e? C? erg cc: Joanne Harrison Clough Esquire -- Counsel for Father -? ? Pamela L. Purdy Esquire - Counsel for Mother cn - o c r ? ra -rt 7> c-> 3c z C-) N CD NATHAN P. ROSS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CHI PHAM 2005-3318 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY Defendant Prior Judge: J. Wesley Oler Jr. CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subjects of this follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Samantha Pham Ross July 1, 2005 Mother Scarlett Pham Ross July 1, 2005 Mother is as 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on July 9, 2012, with the following indiv' uals in attendance: the Father, Nathan P. Ross, with his counsel, Joanne Harrison Clough Esquire, arid the Mother, Chi Pham, with her counsel, Pamela L. Purdy Esquire. 3. This Court previously entered Orders in this matter on March 10, 2006 under which the Father had primary physical custody of the Children and the Mother had custody on two overnights per week and some daytime periods on weekends, and on October 2, 2011 which suspended the March 10, 2006 Order due to the parties' reconciliation. This Court subsequently entered an Order on July 3, a ry 2012 in response to the Mother's Petition for Special Relief under which the Mother has pF physical custody pending the Court's receipt and issuance of a recommended Order fro the conciliator. 4. Pursuant to the direction of the Court in the Order dated July 3, 2012, the and conciliator has conducted an evaluation pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. §5329 in the course of the conciliation conference and has made an initial determination as follows: It is the opinion of the undersigned conciliator, based on information provided by the partie and counsel at the conciliation conference and the past history of this custody matter, that the Fathe does not pose a threat of harm to the Children and that counseling, at least prior to resuming contact wit the Children pending the custody evaluation, is not necessary. While the Father had serious criminal convictions in 2000, five years before the Children were born, the Father's counsel noted that the Father was 18 years old at the time of the events leading t the convictions and he is now 35 years of age. In the interim period, the Father assumed primary ph sical custody of the Children for the first four and one-half years after their birth, when the Mother attempted to place them for adoption as she was not able to care for them at that time. The Fathe was the Children's primary parent until the parties' reconciliation in 2010. The parties separated in May 2012. The Mother alleged in her Petition for Special Relief that the police were called on three occ ions and the Father was determined to be intoxicated and requested to leave the home by the respo ding police officer. However, the police reports attached to the pleadings indicated that both parties were intoxicated or had been drinking on those occasions, that there had been no physical altercations and that the Father left for the night on both occasions either by agreement between the parties or o his own volition. Both parties acknowledge having consumed alcohol during that time period but both report that they have been alcohol free for months prior to the conciliation conference. The conciliator inq ired whether the Father would be willing to have an alcohol urine test (which should cover the period f the prior weekend) at the time of the conciliation conference and the Father readily agreed. The F ther made extensive efforts to locate a lab to perform the test on the same day. The Father's course has advised that the results were negative for alcohol consumption. The Mother indicated both i her pleadings and at the conference that she was not aware that the Father was not permitted to drink under the terms of his parole. However, the Father's attorney provided a letter from the Mother to the Court in 2005 which places her credibility in question. The Father also provided emails from the Mot r to the Father indicating that the relationship problems between the parties may be having a subs ntial influence on the custody issues. The proposed recommended Order includes safeguards regarding alcohol consumption and also akes into consideration the Mother's expressed trust and positive views of the Father's parents, with horn he currently resides. Finally, the parties agreed to undergo a custody evaluation which is expected to delve more deeply into addressing the Mother's stated concerns as well as the Father's concern, and perspective on the custodial situation. 5. The conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. l( v ? Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator (~ :,-.. NATHAN P. ROSS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMF3ERLAND COUNTY, PE)`d'_~1SYLVANIA vs. 2005-3318 CIVIL ACTION LAS' CHI PRAM Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COUR'X_ AND NOW. this _ day of __~~~_ _ 2012, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The prior Order of this Court dated July 18, 2012 shall continue in effect as modified by this Order. 2. Paragraph 3 of the prior Order of this Court dated July 1 f3, 2012 is hereby modified to remove the requirement that the Father's periods of custody be conditioned upon his residence at his parents' home. The Father may exercise his periods of custody with the Children at his new residence. 3. The parties shall share having custody of the Children on the upcoming holidays in accordance with the following: A. Tha~ilcs ig ving: In 2012, the Father shall have custody of the Children on Thanksgiving Day from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. and the Mother shall have custody beginning at 3:00 p.m. on "['hanksgiving Day and continuing throughout the Mother's regular period of ci.zstody. B. Christmas: In 2012, the Mother shall have custody of the Children on Christmas Eve from 7:15 a.m. through 5:30 p.m., for which the Father shall transport the Childrer~~ to and from the Mother's residence before and after work. The Father shall have custody of the Children from Christmas Eve at 5:30 p.m. through Christmas Day at 3:C10 p.m. and the Mother shall have custody from Christmas Day at 3:00 p.m. through December 26 at 5:30 p.m., at which time the Father shall pick up the Children at the Mother's residence after work. C. The holiday custody schedule shall supersede and take precedence over the regular custody schedule. 4 The Mother shall have custody of the Children for her grandfather's birthday party on Saturday. January 29, 2013 with the specific times to be arranged by agreement between. the parties. 'The Father shall have custody on the next Saturday in February 2013 which would otherwise be the Mothers custodial day as a makeup period of custody. ~ The parties shall continue to further consider and discuss the option of participating in co- parenting counseling to improve their communications and protect the Children's well-being. 6. No party shall be permitted to relocate the residence of the CIuId which significantly impairs the ability to c~:ercise custody unless every individual who has custodian rights to the ~~:hind consents to the proposed relocation or the Court approves the proposed relocation. A person proposing to relocate MUST comply with 23 Pa. C.S. § 5337. ?. This Order i.s entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a cus1:ody conciliation conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent in writing. In the absence of mutual consent in writing, the terms of this Order shall control. BY THE COURT, ;: / -_ ~ ~ __ ~, - J, J. cc: / Pamela L. Purdy Esquire -Counsel for Mother . t;'' Joanne Harrison Clough Esquire -Counsel for Father ~~ ~ , ,, z _~ ~ © rn ~ ~ / ~ ~" Crl ~ 1' O 'F'8 .~" C ., ti ~ ~ .,~, r - ~~ ~ ~. _,i' t NA"THAN P. ROSS IN THE CO[JRT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMIERLAND COUNTY. PE~dNSYI,VANIA VS. CHI PHAM Defendant 2005-318 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: ,J. Wesley Oler Jr. in Custody No prior judges in any other capacity. CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-3, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following n•eport: l .The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subjects of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Samantha Pham Ross July 1, 2005 Mother/Father Scarlett Pham Ross July 1, 2005 Father/Mother 2. A. custody conciliation conference was held on October 18, 2012, with the following individuals in attendance: the Father, Nathan P. Ross, with his counsel, Joanne IIarrison Clough Esquire, and the Mother, Chi Pham, with her counsel, Pamela L. Purdy E~,squire. 3 - The parties agxeed to entry of an Order in the form as attached. Date __ Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire `--~-- Custody Conciliator o NATHAN P. ROSS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. 2005-3318 CIVIL ACTION LAW CHI PHAM Defendant IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of im 21 G L 2013, upon consideration of the attached Custo y Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The prior Orders of this Court dated July 18, 2012 and October 25, 2012 are vacated and replaced with this Order. 2. The Father, Nathan P. Ross, and the Mother, Chi Pham, shall have shared legal custody of Samantha Pham Ross and Scarlett Pham Ross, both born July 1, 2005. Major decisions concerning the Children including, but not necessarily limited to,their health, welfare, education, religious training and upbringing shall be made jointly by the parties after discussion and consultation with a view toward obtaining and following a harmonious policy in each Child's best interest. Neither party shall impair the other party's rights to shared legal custody of the Children. Neither party shall attempt to alienate the affections of the Children from the other party. Each party shall notify the other of any activity or circumstance concerning the Children that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to the other. Day to day decisions shall be the responsibility of the parent then having physical custody. With regard to any emergency decisions which must be made,the parent having physical custody of the Child at the time of the emergency shall be permitted to make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby. However, that parent shall inform the other of the emergency and consult with him or her as soon as possible. In accordance with 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5336, each party shall be entitled to complete and full information from any doctor, dentist, teacher, professional or authority and to have copies of any reports or information given to either party as a parent as authorized by statute. 3. The parties shall share having physical custody of the Children on an alternating weekly basis with the exchange to take place every Sunday at 6:00 p.m. with the parent receiving custody to provide transportation for the exchange of custody unless otherwise agreed. The non-custodial parent shall have custody of the Children from Thursday, when that parent shall obtain custody of the Children directly from school through Friday morning when that parent shall return the Children directly to school. 4. The parties shall share having custody of the Children for holidays as arranged by agreement on an ongoing basis. In the event the parties are unable to agree, the parties shall share or alternate having custody of the Children in accordance with the following schedule: A. Thanksgiving: The parent who has custody of the Children under the regular schedule on the Wednesday overnight preceding Thanksgiving shall retain custody of the Children on Thanksgiving Day until 3:00 p.m. and the other parent shall have custody from 3:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day continuing throughout that party's regular period of custody. B. Christmas: The Christmas holiday shall be divided into Segment A, which shall run from 7:15 a.m. through 5:30 p.m. on Christmas Eve, Segment B, which shall run from Christmas Eve at 5:30 p.m. through Christmas Day at 3:00 p.m., and Segment C which shall run from Christmas Day at 3:00 p.m. through December 26 at 5:30 p.m. In even numbered years, the Mother shall have custody of the Children during Segments A and C and the Father shall have custody during Segment B. In odd numbered years, the Father shall have custody of the Children during Segments A and C and the Mother shall have custody during Segment B. C. Easter: The parent who has custody of the Children on the Saturday overnight period before Easter shall retain custody of the Children until 3:00 p.m. on Easter Sunday and the other parent shall have custody beginning at 3:00 p.m. on Sunday through the remainder of that parent's regular period of custody. D. Memorial Da.. /may 4`n/Labor Day: The holiday period of custody on Memorial Day, Labor Day and July 4`n shall run from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on the day of the holiday, with the exception of July 4`n which shall run until after the fireworks. In even numbered years, the Father shall have custody of the Children on Memorial Day and Labor Day and the Mother shall have custody on July 4`n. In odd numbered years, the Mother shall have custody of the Children on Memorial Day and Labor Day and the Father shall have custody for July 4`n E. Mother's Day/Father's Day: In every year, the Mother shall have custody of the Children on Mother's Day and the Father shall have custody on Father's Day from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. F. The holiday custody schedule shall supersede and take precedence over the regular and vacation custody schedules. G. In the event a parent's regular period of custody runs immediately preceding or immediately following a holiday period of custody, both periods of custody shall run continuously without interruption. 5. Each parent shall be entitled to have up to two nonconsecutive weeks of vacation with the Children each year upon providing at least 30 days advance notice to the other parent. Each parent shall schedule his or her vacation periods during his or her regular weeks of custody unless otherwise agreed. The parent who provides notice first shall be entitled to preference on his or her selection of vacation dates. In the event either party intends to remove the Children from that parent's residence for an overnight period or longer during vacation, that parent shall provide advance notice of the address and telephone number where the Children can be contacted. 6. The noncustodial parent shall be entitled to have liberal, reasonable telephone contact with the Children. During periods of vacation, the custodial parent shall have the Children contact the non- custodial parent once time per day by telephone. 7. Within 10 days of the date of this Order, each parent shall send an email to the other parent designating the telephone number at which that parent would like to receive the telephone calls from the Children. 8. In the event either parent intends to remove the Children from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,that parent shall provide advance notice of the address and telephone number where the Children can be contacted. 9. The parties shall participate in a course of therapeutic family counseling with Frank DiPrima, PhD. The purpose of the counseling shall be to assist the parties in establishing sufficient communication and cooperation to enable them to effectively co-parent their Children. The parties shall attend a minimum of four joint sessions unless otherwise recommended by the counselor. The parties shall make available all insurance coverage which applies and any costs which are not covered by insurance shall be equally shared between the parties. The parties shall contact the counselor within two weeks of the date of this Order to schedule the initial sessions. 10. In the event of teacher in-service or inclement weather days or other circumstances resulting in school closings,the custodial parent shall provide care for the Children during the school day. If the custodial parent is not available, that parent shall first offer the other parent the opportunity to provide the care for the Children during the school day. In the event both parties are unavailable, the paternal grandmother or maternal grandmother may provide care for the Children during the school day while both parents are unavailable. 11. Neither party shall consume alcohol or use illegal drugs whether or not he or she has custody of the Children. Neither party shall expose the Children to cigarette smoking in the Children's home, motor vehicles or other enclosed spaces. 12. Neither party shall do or say anything which may estrange the Children from the other parent, injure the opinion of the Children as to the other parent, or hamper the free and natural development of the Children's love and respect for the other parent. Both parties shall ensure that third parties having contact with the Children comply with this provision. 13. No party shall be permitted to relocate the residence of the Child which significantly impairs the ability to exercise custody unless every individual who has custodial rights to the Child consents to the proposed relocation or the Court approves the proposed relocation. A person proposing to relocate MUST comply with 23 Pa. C.S. § 5337. 14. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent in writing. In the absence of mutual consent in writing,the terms of this Order shall control. BY THE COURT, -1 1pu"" , cl "// J. Aid-sley Oler Jr J cc: ✓Joanne Harrison Clough Esquire—Counsel for Father rnw -^- ✓Joseph D. Caraciolo Esquire—Counsel for Mother av __J —{c L° a' - r NATHAN P. ROSS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 2005-3318 CIVIL ACTION LAW CHI PHAM Defendant IN CUSTODY Prior Judge: J. Wesley Oler, Jr. CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8,the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the Children who are the subjects of this litigation is as follows: NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Samantha Pham Ross July 1, 2005 Mother/Father Scarlett Pham Ross July 1, 2005 Father/Mother 2. A custody conciliation conference was held on March 11, 2013 with the following individuals in attendance: the Father, Nathan P. Ross, with his counsel, Joanne Harrison Clough Esquire. Neither the Mother, Chi Pham, nor her counsel, Joseph D. Caraciolo Esquire, attended the conference. The Mother's counsel contacted the conciliator on the morning of the conference to advise that neither of them would be in attendance although he was unable to disclose the reason. The Father indicated that he had received a text message from the Mother the morning of the conference concerning one of the Children's belongings but there was no mention of not being able to attend the conference. After obtaining guidance from the Court,the conciliation proceeded as scheduled. 3. The conciliation conference was scheduled at the request of the Father(as permitted by the prior Order) following receipt of the custody evaluation report submitted by Steven P. Lindenberg PhD. The Father requested that the evaluator's recommendations concerning the basic schedule be implemented with some minor adjustments without changing the substance. 4. The custody evaluator indicated in his report that the Children are thriving and are bonded to both parents. He concluded that both parties are independently excellent parents although they appear to be engaged in a never ending power struggle. The evaluator specifically addressed the Mother's concern regarding the Father's alleged use of alcohol but concluded that there is no evidence that the Father suffers from alcoholism or has even used alcohol since the parties' separation in May 2012. It should be noted that a police report from an incident occurring at the time of separation indicated that both parties had been consuming alcohol. 5. Based upon the custody evaluation report and recommendations, the Father's representations at the conference, and the fact that neither the Mother nor her counsel attended the conference, the conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. It should be noted that the proposed Order reflects the recommended schedule provided by the evaluator (which continues the alternating weekly shared schedule currently used by the parties), with the adjustment that the mid- week custodial period for the non-custodial parent would take place on a Thursday overnight period rather than the two evening (Tuesday and Thursday) periods of custody to minimize the midweek transitions for the Children and additional contact between the parties. � 4�2 1 Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire Custody Conciliator