Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-3393TRAVIS RICHARD COLLINS, : THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF RICHARD COLLINS, and : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TAMMY WARGO, Plaintiffs No. vs. MEGHAN RENEE BEAM, CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW Defendant CUSTODY AND NOW, the Plaintiffs, Travis R. Collins, Richard Collins, and Tammy Wargo, by and through their attorney, Jeannd B. Costopoulos, Esquire, make the following Complaint in Custody: 1. The Plaintiff, Travis Richard Collins, is a minor, sixteen (16) years of age, who currently resides at 6006 Hummingbird Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050. 2. The Plaintiff, Richard Collins, is an adult individual who currently resides at 6006 Hummingbird Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050. 3. The Plaintiff, Tammy Wargo, is an adult individual who currently resides at 6006 Hummingbird Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050. 4. The Defendant, Meghan Renee Beam, is an adult individual who currently resides at 241 W. Middlesex Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013. 5. Plaintiff Travis Richard Collins and Defendant have one dependent child, namely Riley David Collins, born July 23, 2004. 6. The Plaintiffs seek shared physical and legal custody of the following child: Name Present Residence Age Riley David Collins 241 W. Middlesex Drive 11 months Carlisle, PA 17013 (DOB 7/23/2004) 7. The child, Riley David Collins, is presently in the custody of his mother, Defendant, Meghan Rene6 Beam, at 241 W. Middlesex Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013. 8. Plaintiff Travis Richard Collins and Defendant lived together from September, 2004, until June 17, 2005. They are not married, thus the child was born out of wedlock. 9. The relationship of Plaintiff Travis Richard Collins to the child is that of natural father. The relationship of Plaintiff Richard Collins to the child is that of natural paternal grandfather. The relationship of Plaintiff Tammy Wargo to the child is that of natural paternal grandmother. Plaintiffs currently resides 6006 Hummingbird Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. Plaintiffs reside together with Adam Wargo, the child's natural paternal uncle. 10. The relationship of the Defendant to the child is that of natural mother. Defendant currently resides at 241 W. Middlesex Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013. Defendant resides together with her grandparents, Edwin and Cynthia Beam, her uncle, Todd Beam, and her brother, Drew Beam. 11. Since birth, the child has resided with the following people at the following addresses: Defendant 241 W. Middlesex Drive 6/17/2005 to Edwin Beam (Defendant's grandfather) Carlisle, PA 17013 present Cynthia Beam (Defendant's grandmother) Todd Beam (Defendant's uncle) Drew Beam (Defendant's brother) Plaintiff Travis R. Collins 241 W. Middlesex Drive 6/10/2005 to Defendant Carlisle, PA 17013 6/17/2005 Edwin Beam (Defendant's grandfather) Cynthia Beam (Defendant's grandmother) Todd Beam (Defendant's uncle) Drew Beam (Defendant's brother) Plaintiffs 6006 Hummingbird Drive Defendant Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Adam Wargo Defendant 241 W. Middlesex Drive Edwin Beam Carlisle, PA 17013 Cynthia Beam Drew Beam Josephine Beam (Defendant's great-grandmother) Greg Beam (Defendant's uncle) Stacy Salisbury (friend of Defendant's family) 9/04 - 6/10/05 7/23/2004 - 9/04 12. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or witness, or in another capacity, in other litigation concerning the custody of the child in this or another court. 13. Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of any of the child or claims to have physical custody or visitation rights with respect to the child. 14. The best interests and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting the relief requested because: (a) Plaintiffs have been the primary custodians of the child since September of 2004 and have provided for the physical, emotional, and financial needs of the child. (b) The child suffers from medical and developmental issues Defendant is unable to address on her own. (c) Plaintiffs are experienced in providing care for children who suffer from the same disabilities as the child. (d) Defendant moved out of Plaintiffs' home on June 10, 2005 and has been withholding the child from Plaintiff s since June 18, 2005. 15. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the child have been named as parties to this action. No other persons are known to have or claim a right to custody or visitation of the child to be given notice of the pendency of this action and the right to intervene. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an order granting to them shared physical and legal custody of Riley David Collins, born July 23, 2004. Respectfully submitted, BY: Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Telephone: (717) 790-9546 PA Supreme Ct. ID No. 68735 TRAVIS RICHARD COLLINS, RICHARD COLLINS, and TAMMY WARGO, Plaintiffs VS. MEGHAN RENEE BEAM, Defendant THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW CUSTODY We, Travis Richard Collins, Richard Collins, and Tammy Wargo, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint in Custody are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information, and belief. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: - - 015 Date: Signature: // Richard Collins Date: Signature• Tammy argo n N v ^.7 PJ W V r \ w 1 _ m? ??y1 /? LT TRAVIS RICHARD COLLINS, RICHARD IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF COLLINS, AND TAMMY WARGO CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFF V. MEGHAN RENEE BEAM DEFENDANT 05-3393 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY 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 Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. , the conciliator, at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle on Friday, July 22, 2005 at 8:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT, By: ls/ Hubert X. Gtlro 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 " ? rA ? So c c `;l> /*?/d'zlw "VOP/ -,Iev SoL? WIIIIVAIASNN1 d kU\!n;^, a Naa? se .E W8 L- Inr saat AdVIONO'H .ucd -Ni d0 TRAVIS RICHARD COLLINS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS RICHARD COLLINS, and TAMMY: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WARGO, Plaintiff No. 05-3393 VS. MEGHAN RENEE BEAM Defendant NOTICE TO PLEAD To: TRAVIS RICHARD COLLINS, Plaintiff RICHARD COLLINS, Plaintiff TAMMY WARGO, Plaintiff, You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint in Custody within twenty (20) days from service hereof or CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY a judgment maybe entered against you. Respectfully submitted, Saidis, Shuff, Flower & Lindsay SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA Date: ??'Gf?fl! I By: Carol J. Lin`tfsay, squir Attorney ID144 93 26 West Hi treet Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: 717.243-6222 Attorneys for Defendant TRAVIS RICHARD COLLINS, RICHARD COLLINS, and TAMMY WARGO, Plaintiff VS. MEGHAN RENEE BEAM Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 05-3393 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS COMES NOW Defendant, Meghan Renee Beam, by and through her counsel, Saidis, Shuff, Flower & Lindsay, and objects to the Complaint in Custody in the captioned case as follows: Richard Collins and Tammy Wargo, the paternal grandparents, do not have a standing to bring an action in custody pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5311, 5312 or 5313. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays This Honorable Court to dismiss the Complaint. Respectfully submitted, Saidis, Shuff, Flower & Lindsay SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATrOPMYS.AT.LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA Date: 22 5 By: Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, hereby verify that the statements made herein are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. !A Carol J. Lin sa Esquire For Defend Meqhan Renee Beam Date: SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA TRAVIS RICHARD COLLINS, RICHARD COLLINS, and TAMMY: WARGO, Plaintiff vs. MEGHAN RENEE BEAM Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 05-3393 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire, of the law firm of SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, Attorneys hereby certify that on thisZ--7,tay of , 2005, served the within Preliminary Objections this day by depositing same ' e United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 SAIDIS, SH , FLO R & LINDSAY Attorne s for ;Vefe By: '4141wz , Esquire SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA 2&'West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 f-=, f? t.7 ?,? `n -, c.? ?,? f r?: v» ra _^+?? ,? ?? N ?t-z ?, -Tr -. :i __ f' (' ? ? C.?i '^ ^~ ? i? i ti RECEIVED JUL 2" 1?U4 TRAVIS RICHARD COLLINS, A : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MINOR, BY RICHARD COLLINS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA AND TAMMY WARGO, HIS GUARDIANS, : Plaintiffs : NO 05-3393 V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW MEGHAN RENEE BEAM, Defendant IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this day of ?2005, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The caption to the above case is modified as set forth above to reflect the fact that the Plaintiff is a minor. 2. The Father, Travis Richard Collins, and the Mother, Meghan Renee Beam, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Riley David Collins, born July 23, 2004. 3. The Father shall enjoy physical custody with the minor child as follows: a. Alternating weekends from Friday at 5:00 p.na. until Monday at 7:00 a.m. b. On the other weekends, on Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. However, in the event Mother is not working on those weekends, Mother can give Father notice in advance that she will not be working and she can retain custody of the minor child during those weekends, subject, however, to the understanding that this schedule is based on Mother's current work schedule which is her working every weekend. c. At such other times as the parties may agree. 4. Mother shall enjoy custody of the minor child except as set forth above. 5. The parties may modify this schedule as they agree. Absent any agreement, the schedule set forth above shall control. r.14 j auv r" TAMMY J. WARGO RICHARD K. COLLINS Plaintiffs v. MEGHAN R. BEAM TRAVIS R. COLLINS Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO 05-3393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY PETITION TO MODIFY JOINT CUSTODY AND NOW, THIS DAY OF , 2007, UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ATTACHED CUSTODY CONCILIATION REPORT, IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED AS FOLLOWS. 1. THE CAPTION TO THE ABOVE CASE IS SET FORTH ABOVE TO RELECT A MODIFICATION OF THE PREVIOUS ORDER. 2. THE GRANDPARENTS, TAMMY J. WARGO AND RICHARD K. COLLINS, AND MOTHER, MEGHAN R. BEAM AND THE FATHER TRAVIS R. COLLINS SHALL ENJOY SHARED LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF RILEY DAVID COLLINS, BORN JULY 23, 2004. 3. THE GRANDPARENTS SHALL ENJOY PHYSICAL CUSTODY WITH THE MINOR CHILD AS FOLLOWS: A. ALTERNATING WEEKENDS FROM FRIDAY AT 6:00 p.m. UNTIL MONDAY AT 7:00 a.m. B. ON THE OTHER WEEKENDS, ON SATURDAY AT 5:00 p.m. UNTIL SUNDAY AT 8:00 p.m. THIS IS TO ASSURE THAT THE MINOR CHILD ATTENDS THE CHURCH HE IS A MEMBER OF AND ENJOYS REGULAR ATTENDENCE. C. AT SUCH TIMES AS THE PARTIES MAY AGREE. 4. THE PARTIES MAY MODIFY THIS SCHEDULE AS THEY AGREE. ABSENT ANY AGREEMENT, THE SECHEDULE SET FORTH ABOVE SHALL CONTROL. 5. IN THE EVENT EITHER PARTY DESIRES TO MODIFY THIS SCHEDULE AND IS UNABLE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE OTHER PARTY, THAT PARTY MAY BRING THE MATTER AGAIN BEFORE THE CUSTODY CONCILIATOR FOR A CONFERENCE. 6. FOR PURPOSES OF HOLIDAYS AND ASSUMING THE PARTIES DO NOT REACH AN AGREEMENT TO THE CONTRARY, THE PARTIES SHALL ALTERNATE MAJOR HOLIDAYS TO INCLUDE NEW YEAR'S DAY, EASTER, MEMORIAL DAY, FOURTH OF JULY AND LABOR DAY AS WELL AS THE CHILD'S BIRTHDAY. THE TIME SHALL BE FROM 9:00 a.m. UNTIL 7:00 p.m. THE PARTIES SHALL ALTERNATE THESE HOLIDAYS. 7. FOR THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY, IT SHALL BE ALTERNATED IN TIMES WITH THE FIRST TIME FRAME BEING 9:00 a.m. UNTIL 2:00 p.m. AND THE SECOND TIME FRAME BEING FROM 2:00 p.m. UNTIL 7:00 p.m. THE PARTIES SHALL ALTERNATE THOSE TIME FRAMES UNLESS THEY AGREE TO THE CONTRARY. IN THE. EVENT THERE IS NO AGREEMENT FOR 2007, PARENTS SHALL HAVE THE FIRST PORTION OF THANKSGIVING 2007 WITH THE FART ES ALTERNATING THEREAFTER. T. FOR THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY, TIDE TIME FRAMES SHALL BE DIVIDED BETWEEN TWO SEGMENTS; SEGMENT (A) BEING NOON ON CHRISTMAS EVE UNTIL NOON ON CHRISTMAS DAY, AND THE SECOND SEGMENT BEING NOON ON CHRISTMAS DAY UNTIL NOON ON DECEMBER 26TH. THE PARTIES SHALL ALTERNATE THOSE TWO SEGMENTS EACH YEAR WITH THE GRANDPARENTS TO HAVE SEGMENT (A) IN 2007 UNLESS THE PARTIES AGREE OTHERWISE. S. THE PARENTS SHALL ALWAYS HAVE CUSTODY ON FATHER'S AND MOTHER'S DAY. THE GRANDPARENTS SHALL HAVE CUSTODY ON GRANDPARENTS DAY THE FIRST SUNDAY AFTER LABOR DAY. THIS PROVISION SHALL SUPERCEDE ANY OTHER PROVISION IN THIS ORDER. 9. TRANSPORTATION FOR EXCHANGE OF CUSTODY SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY BETWEEN THE PARTIES WITH THE NON-CUSTODIAL PARTY PICKING UP THE CHILD UNLESS AGREED OTHERWISE BY THE PARTIES. 10. WE RICHARD K. COLL,INS AND TAMMY J. WARGO, THE PATERNAL GRANDPARENTS WITH WHOM THE MINOR CHILD RILEY D. COLLINS HAS RESIDED FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS ARE ASKING FOR THE MODIFICATIONS AS STATED IN THIS COURT ORDER THIS WILL ALLOW RILEY TO CONTINUE THE RELATIONSHIPS AND ROUTINES HE HAS COME TO ENJOY WITH US. WE FEEL THIS IS A NECESSARY ACTION AS HIS PARENTS ARE VERY HOSTILE TOWARD US FOR UNKNOWN REASONS AND REFUSING US ACCESS TO OUR GRANDSON. WE FEEL IF THIS IS LEFT IN THIS MANNER IT WILL DESTROY THE RELATIONSHIP WE HAVE ESTABLISHED WITH RILEY. WE HAVE PROVIDED FOR OUR GRANDSON FINANCIALLY, PHYSICALLY, EMOTIONALLY AND SPIRITUALLY AND WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO DO SO. WE FEEL WE HAVE ACTED FAIRLY AND JUST WHEN PROVIDING FOR RILEY AND HIS PARENTS AND ARE AT ODDS FOR WHAT TO DO. IN THE TWO YEARS THEY HAVE LIVED WITH US WE HAVE COME TO QUESTION THEIR ABILITIES TO CARE FOR RILEY SAFELY AND MATURELY. HE HAS SPECIAL NEEDS THAT ARE NOT ALWAYS ADDRESSED AND HE HAS BEEN "ABANDONED" IN PUBLIC PLACES. WE HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF "TAKING OVER", BUT WE FEEL IN THIS CASE IS JUSTIFIED. WE ASK THE COURT TO GRANT US JOINT CUSTODY SO THAT WE CAN ASSIST RILEY IN MEETING HIS FULL POTENTIAL: RICHARD K. LLINS APRIL 5, 2007 AMMY Y. APRIL 5'2 Cc: TAMMY J. WARGO RICHARD K. COLLINS MEGHAN R. BEAM TRAVIS R. COLLINS BY THE COURT: JUDGE • ? o W tJ:.: 6. In the event either party desires to modify this schedule and is unable to reach an agreement with the other parent, that party may bring the matter again before the Custody Conciliator for a conference. 7. For purposes of holidays and assuming the parties do not reach an agreement to the contrary, the parties shall alternate major holidays to include New Year's Day, Easter, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and Labor Day. The time shall be from 9:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. The Father shall have custody on Labor Day, with the parties alternating thereafter. 8. For the Thanksgiving holiday, it shall be alternated in times with the fast time frame being 9:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m., and the second time frame being from 2:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. The parties shall alternate those time frames unless they agree to the contrary. In the event there is no agreement for 2005, Mother shall have the first portion of Thanksgiving 2005 with the. parties alternating thereafter. 9. For the Christmas holiday, the time frames shall be divided between two segments, segment (a) being noon on Christmas Eve until noon on Christmas Day, and the second segment being noon on Christmas Day until noon on December 261h . The parties shall alternate those two segments each year with the Father to have segment (a) in 2005 unless the parties agree otherwise. 10. The Father shall always custody of the minor child on Father's Day, and the Mother shall always have custody of the minor child on Mother's Day. This provision shall supercede any other provision of this Order. 11. Transportation for exchange of custody shall be shared equally between the parties with the non-custodial parent picking up the child unless agreed otherwise by the parties. Cc: Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire BY THE COURT: TRAVIS RICHARD COLLINS, RICHARD COLLINS, AND TAMMY WARGO, Plaintiffs v MEGHAN RENEE BEAM, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-3393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW : 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/child who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Riley David Collins, born July 23, 2004 2. 3. A Conciliation Conference was held on July 22, 2005„ with the following individuals in attendance: The Father, Travis Richard Collins, with his counsel, Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire, and the Mother, Meghan Renee Beam, with her counsel, Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire On the Conciliator's recommendation, the parties agreed to the entry of an Order as attached. '?_a?-DSO DATE Hubert X. Gilroy, E Custody Conciliator f? TAMMY J. WARGO, RICHARD K. COLLINS PLAINTIFF V. MEGHAN R. BEAM, TRAVIS R. COLLINS DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 05-3393 CIVIL ACTION LAW . IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday, April 16, 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, 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 9:30 AM at for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort wilt be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to detine and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children afze 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: 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 4p " t, no LGOZ MAY 2 3 2007,4 TAMMY J. WARGO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF RICHARD K. COLLINS, as guardian : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA for THOMAS R. COLLINS . Plaintiff . v CIVIL ACTION - LAW MEGHAN R. BEAM, Defendant NO. 05-3393 IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this ZS ? day of May, 2007, 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 Courthouse on the P79 M, day of 2007 at ?.? _.m. At this hearing, the paternal grandparents shall be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties, or the parties themselves if they do not have legal counsel, 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. It is directed that the caption of the above case be modified to read: TAMMY J. WARGO and RICHARD K. COLLINS, Plaintiff v MEGHAN R. BEAM and TRAVIS R. COLLINS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-3393 IN CUSTODY j 3. In the event the parties retain legal counsel and legal counsel feel that this matter can go again back to the Custody Conciliator, that attorney may contact the Custody Conciliator to see if a Conciliation Conference could be scheduled in advance of the hearing scheduled above. 4. Pending further Order of this Court, this Court's Order of July 29, 2005 shall remain in place. BY THE COURT, Jude l Wesley Qjer, Jr. cc: ,14m-my J. Wargo and Richard K. Collins ,,Xeghan R. Beam and Travis R. Collins F:\FILES\DATAFILE\General\Current\12321\Wargo Collins v Beam Collins Conciliation Report-Order-Pd TAMMY J. WARGO, RICHARD K. COLLINS, as guardian for THOMAS R. COLLINS Plaintiff v MEGHAN R. BEAM, Defendant Prior Judge: J. Wesley Oler, Jr. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-3393 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. 2. 3. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Riley David Collins, born July 23, 2004. A Conciliation Conference was held on May 10, 2007, with the following individuals in attendance: The paternal grandparents, Tammy J. Wargo and Richard K. Collins and the mother, Meghan R. Beam, and the father, Travis R. Collins. None of the parties appeared with counsel. In July of 2005, this case was instituted by the paternal grandparents as guardian for their son Travis Richard Collins who was a minor at the time. A Conciliation Conference was held and legal counsel represented both parties. An agreement was reached and an Order was entered giving the mother and father shared legal custody, the father periods of temporary custody including alternating weekends J r and other times, with the mother enjoying what at that point would be primary physical custody. 4. It appears that the father was residing with his parents in July 2005. Since that time, father has moved out of his parents home and is now living with the mother. There is a disagreement between the natural parents and the paternal grandparents with respect to the rights of the paternal grandparents to exercise some visitation/temporary custody with the minor child. The paternal grandparents are seeking temporary custody on alternating weekends and at other times consistent with the Custody Order of July 29, 2005 with respect to the schedule that was provided to the natural father. 5. The paternal grandparents suggest that the minor child has resided with them for a period of twelve months and that they have standing to bring this Petition. 6. The caption on the case is somewhat irregular in that the paternal grandparents originally were merely in the case as guardians for their minor child. However, to avoid unnecessary filings in this case, the Conciliator recommends that the Court address this issue and schedule a hearing. 7. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: Esquire Hubert X. GilrKiator Custody Con ' TAMMY J. WARGO and RICHARD K. COLLINS Plaintiff V MEGHAN R. BEAM and TRAVIS R. COLLINS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-3393 IN CUSTODY MOTION TO DISMISS AND NOW comes the Defendants, Meghan R. Beam and Travis R. Collins, the parents and natural guardians of Riley David Collins, age 3 (DOB 7/23/2004), and move this Honorable Court to dismiss this matter for the reason stated below: 1. This matter was originally captioned "Travis Richard Collins, a minor by Richard Collins and Tammy Wargo vs. Meehan Renee Beam". At the time the action was filed, Travis was a minor living with his parents, Richard Collins and Tammy Wargo, and Meghan R. Beam, the mother of the child, had physical custody of the child. 2. Richard Collins and Tammy Wargo were not parties to this action in their own right, but rather were merely representing their son's interest as father of the child. 3. A Custody order was entered on July 29, 2005 by agreement of the parties giving mother and father shared legal custody, and the father periods of temporary custody including weekends and other times, during which mother would be primary custodian. 4. Richard Collins and Tammy Wargo, the paternal grandparents, were given no rights under that Order. 5. Since the July 29, 2005 Custody Order, Travis has become an adult, turning 18 years of age on March 23, 2007 and Megan and Travis have reconciled and are living together with their son since approximately October of 2006. Initially they lived with the paternal grandparents at 6006 Hummingbird Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA, but five months later, in March of 2007, they moved to 241 West Middlesex Drive, Carlisle, PA, where they are temporarily residing with the maternal grandparents, until renovations are complete on a new residence. 6. On April 16, 2007 an Order was entered directing Travis and Meghan to appear at a pre-hearing custody conference on May 10, 2007. No reason was given for scheduling the conference. The Order that was entered scheduling the conference referred to an "Attached Complaint", however, no complaint was attached to the Order and Travis and Meghan have not to this date been served with any such "Complaint". 7. The April 16, 2007 scheduling Order strangely had a different caption for the case. It was now being called "Tammy J. Wargo, Richard Collins, Plaintiff vs. Meghan Beam, Travis Collins, Defendant". No notice was given to Meghan and Travis that the caption was being changed and no reason was given for the change. Leave was not sought from the Court to change the caption of the case. It appears that Tammy J. Wargo and Richard Collins unilaterally and surreptitiously changed the caption to make it appear that they are the Plaintiffs in this case, which is at least false and misleading. It is believed that this was their way to avoid filing an action of their own, avoid paying a filing fee, etc. It is unknown how they were able to do this and why the Conciliator allowed it to happen. 8. On May 1, 2007 Meghan and Travis sent a letter to the Custody Conciliator, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire (copy attached as Exhibit A), which detailed the history of this case and raised objections to the proceeding. They asked that the letter be treated as a Motion to Dismiss the case. 9. The Conciliator did not even have the courtesy to reply to the letter and failed to address any of the matters raised in the letter prior to the conference. Instead, Travis and Meghan were forced to attend the conference, even though, the Conciliator told the paternal grandparents at the conference that he believed that this process was not the correct way to address the issue of whether or not they should have visitation with the child. However, for some unknown reason the Conciliator did nothing to correct the improper procedure. 10. Additionally, the Conciliator refused to allow the maternal grandparent, Edwin Beam (who had taken off work to be present to assist the parents) to even participate in the conference even though both of the paternal grandparents were allowed to participate. For some unknown reason, the Conciliator gave undo deference to the paternal grandparents in this case, both before, during and after the conference. 11. Following the conference, on May 23, 2007, a Conciliation Conference Summary Report was filed by the Conciliator (copy attached as Exhibit B). The report contains many errors or omissions: A. It fails to mention the fact that the maternal grandparent was present at the conference and was not allowed to participate. B. In paragraph 4, the Report states that the paternal grandparents are seeking visitation/temporary custody with the minor child "on alternating weekends and at other times consistent with the Custody Order of July 29, 2005...". This is erroneous. The July 29, 2005 Custody Order granted absolutely no rights to the paternal grandparents. C. Rather that recommending that the paternal grandparents' fraudulent changing of the caption should necessitate the dismissal of their "Complaint" (which again was never served on the parents), the Conciliator simply recommends that the Court schedule a hearing, giving credence and legitimacy to the actions of the paternal grandparents: D. In Paragraph 5, the Report states that the paternal grandparents have standing to bring this Petition (again, what Petition? A Petition was never served upon the parents.) because the child had resided with them for a period of twelve months. This is incorrect. The child lived in the same household as the paternal grandparents (along with his parents) from October 2006 to March 2007 a period of only five months. Additionally, the paternal grandparents do not have standing to seek visitation/partial custody since the parents are not separated (See the decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Helsel v. Puricelli, 2007 Pa. Super 144 (copy attached as Exhibit C), which is described in more detail below. 12. On May 25, 2007 an Order was entered by Judge Oler, which was prepared for his signature by the Conciliator (copy attached as Exhibit D), which changed the caption of the case and scheduled a hearing for August 27, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom #1 of the Cumberland County Courthouse. The Order directs the parties to file a pre-hearing memorandum at least 5 days prior to the hearing "... setting forth the history of 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 on behalf of each party and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness." 13. It is impossible for the Defendants to prepare this pre-hearing memorandum. As Travis and Meghan have stated consistently since this matter apparently turning to a parental grandparent action in April of 2007, they have received no notice of what this matter is about. They have not been served with a Petition or Complaint and to their knowledge no such Petition or Complaint has been filed by the paternal grandparents. 14. It is Travis and Meghan's opinion that this matter is being pursued by the paternal grandparents merely as an attempt to harass them. Violation of Due Process Riahts 15. It would be a clear violation of Travis and Meghan's Due Process rights to conduct the hearing that is scheduled for August 27, 2007 (or to demand that they prepare and file a pre-hearing memorandum pertaining to the hearing) since they have had no notice of what legal or factual issues will be involved at the hearing. They have not been served with a Petition or Complaint and to their knowledge none has been filed. 16. All that Travis and Meghan know is that the paternal grandparents are seeking visitation/partial custody. 17. What this Honorable Court should do at this point is dismiss the action and direct the paternal grandparents to commence a new action the correct way (i.e. by the filing of a Petition or Complaint) and provide proper service on the defendants. That is, if they have standing to do so. See the recent Superior Court case discussed below. Paternal Grandparent Lack Standing to Pursue this Matter 18. As set forth above, Travis and Meghan are not separated and have been living together with the child since October 2006. 19. Since the parents and the child are living together as an intact family unit, the paternal grandparents lack standing to seek visitation or partial custody pursuant to the "Grandparent's Visitation Act", 23 Pa.C.S. Section 5301 et seq. 20. This conclusion was recently reached by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Helsel v. Puricelli, 2007 Pa. Super 144 (attached as Exhibit Q. 21. Simply put, this matter should be dismissed now in order to avoid further harassment of and inconvenience and expense to the parents. Date: ©.?f /q - a2©o ?;, Respectfully submitted, egh Renee am Travis R. Collins May 1.200 7 Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Custody Conciliator 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Case 4 05-3393 (In Custody) Dear Mr. Gilroy: We recently received the enclosed Order of Court dated April 16, _100-7, directing us to appear before you for a pre-hearing custody conference on Thursday May l 0, 20077 at 9:30 a.m. in the Cumberland County Courthouse. Unfortunately, we are completely, in the dark as to what this is all about for the following reasons: 1. The caption that appears above the Order makes reference to the case 4 05-3393. However, the parties to that action were not "Tammy J. Wargo. Richard Collins. Plaintiff vs Meghan Beam. Travis Collins. Defendant". Rather the custody matter filed to 4 05-3393, and in which the Custody Order was entered on July 29, 2005, was captioned "Travis Richard Collins. a minor. by Richard Collins and Tammv Wargo vs. Meghan Renee Beam''. At the time that action was filed, Travis was a minor living with this parents and Megan had physical custody of their child, Riley David Collins (DOB 7/23/04). Richard Collins and Tammy, Wargo were not parties to that action in their oven right. Now, all of a sudden they, Richard Collins and Tammy Wargo, have unilaterally and surreptitiously changed the caption to make it appear that they are the Plaintiffs, which is false and misleading. 2. The Court Order dated April 16, 2007 refers to an "Attached Complaint". However, no complaint was attached to the Order and we have not been served with such complaint. Tammy Wargo and Richard Collins must have filed something to get this conference scheduled but we have no idea what that was. IT fillies in the face of Due Process to expect us to come to a hearing to respond to something that we have never seen. 3. Since the Court Order of July 29, 2005 was entered, Travis Collins has become an adult, turning 18 years of age on March 23, 2007 and Megan Beam and Travis Collins have reconciled and are now living together with their child. THE Court Order of April 16, 2005 is therefore Moot. 4. If Tammy Wargo and Richard Collins want custody or visitation in their own right, they need to file and incur the expense of their own new custody action and not try, to make it look like they are parties to this action. We view- Tammy Wargo and Richard Collins actions in this matter to be harassment and vexatious. This is a totally frivolous action on their part. If we have to incur any expenses, such as attorney fees or other out of pocket costs as a result of their fraudulent actions we veil] seek reimbursement from the Court pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. Section 8351. 5. We tried to obtain the services of an attorney and were referred by the Cumberland County Bar Association to Attomev Michelle Sommer with the law firm of Abom and Kutulakis. We met with her but she requires a $1500.00 retainer and we simple do not have that kind of money. Travis has been attending his final year of high school and working at a part-time job each night while trying to support his famih . Instead. we would ask -?,,ou to treat this letter as a Motion to Dismiss whatever it is that Richard Collins and Tammy Wargo filed in order to get this hearing scheduled in the first place. This is not their action and thevy.have no legal Ti t to ask for a hearing. Me any Ren' a Beam g 'Z' a , Travis Collins 241 West Middlesex Drive Carlisle. PA 17013 717-243-1244 Exhibit B TAMMY J. WARGO, RICHARD K. COLLINS, as guardian for THOMAS R. COLLINS Plaintiff v MEGHAN R. BEAM, Defendant Prior Judge: J. Wesley Oler, Jr. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-3393 IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Riley David Collins, born July 23, 2004. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on May 10, 2007, with the following individuals in attendance: The paternal grandparents, Tammy J. Wargo and Richard K. Collins and the mother, Megban R. Beam, and the father, Travis R. Collins. None of the parties appeared with counsel. 3. In July of 2005, this case was instituted by the paternal grandparents as guardian for their son Travis Richard Collins who was a minor at the time. A Conciliation Conference was held and legal counsel represented both parties. An agreement was reached and an Order was entered giving the mother and father shared legal custody, the father periods of temporary custody including alternating weekends and other times, with the mother enjoying what at that point would be primary physical custody.' 4. It appears that the father was residing with his parents in July 2005. Since that time, father has moved out of his parents home and is now living with the mother. There is a disagreement between the natural parents and the paternal grandparents with respect to the rights of the paternal grandparents to exercise some visitation/temporary custody with the minor child. The paternal grandparents are seeking temporary custody on alternating weekends and at other times consistent with the Custody Order of July 29, 2005 with respect to the schedule that was provided to the natural father. 5. The paternal grandparents suggest that the minor child has resided with them for a period of twelve months and that they have standing to bring this Petition. 6. The caption on the case is somewhat irregular in that the paternal grandparents originally were merely in the case as guardians for their minor child. However, to avoid unnecessary filings in this case, the Conciliator recommends that the Court address this issue and schedule a hearing. 7. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: , _a -? Ifubert X. Gilro , Esquire Custody Conciliator Search - 100 Results - grandparents visitation Page 1 of 6 Source: Legal > / ... / > PA Cases, Administrative Decisions & Attorney General Opinions, Combined Q Terms: grandparents visitation (Edit Search I Suggest Terms for My Search) ,'Select for FOCUSTM or Delivery r 2007 PA Super 144, *; 2007 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1192, * * DANIEL V. HELSEL, Appellant v. ROBERT P. PURICELLI AND DENISE L. PURICELLI, Appellees No. 1872 WDA 2006 SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 2007 PA Super 144; 2007 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1192 February 28, 2007, Argued May 21, 2007, Filed PRIOR HISTORY: [**l] Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, Civil Division, No. 2006-186. Before LEAHEY, J. DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant step-grandfather sought review of a finding by the Court of Common Pleas, Cambria County, (Pennsylvania), that he did not have standing to seek visitation with his grandchild. The grandfather argued that the trial court erred when it found the Custody and Grandparent's Visitation Act (GVA), 23 Pa.C.S. § 5301 et sea., did not confer standing upon him because appellees, the mother and father, were separated for more than six months. OVERVIEW: The grandfather filed a complaint for visitation. Unbeknownst to the grandfather, the parents had reconciled. The Master dismissed the grandfather's claim on the grounds that he lacked standing because Mother and Father were living together as an intact family. The grandfather filed exceptions, which the trial court denied. The grandfather argued that 23 Pa.C.S. § 5312 did not require that the parents remain separated or are separated at the time the grandparent sought visitation rights. The appellate court held that under a plain meaning reading of the statute, the GVA only applied where parents separated at least six months before the filing of the custody petition and remained separated at the time the petition was filed. The appellate court would not direct the parents, who were living together as an intact family, to allow visitation when they otherwise would not choose to do so. Even if the trial court had erred in its interpretation of the relevant language of the GVA, since the grandfather was the child's step-grandfather, and not a blood relative of the grandchild, mother or father, the grandfather did not have standing. OUTCOME: The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. CORE TERMS: grandparent, grandchild, visitation, custody, visitation rights, best interest, reconciled, living together, step-grandfather, intact, standing requirement, plain meaning, dissolved, marriage, Grandparent's Visitation Act GVA, case law, child's parents, citation omitted, interpreting, interfere, feelings, partial, sibling, inter alia http://www.lexis.comlresearch/retrieve?_m=b39797f8b54c7eb2ad767a92a2afc84b&docnu... 8/2/2007 Search - 100 Results - grandparents visitation LEXISNEXIS® HEADNOTES Page 2 of 6 e Hide Civil Procedure > A12oeals > Standards of Review > Abuse of Discretion ? 11 Family Law > Child Custody > General Overview C. HNI+On questions relating to an order of custody or visitation, the appellate court's scope and standard of review are broad: the appellate court is not bound by the deductions or inferences made by the trial court from its findings of fact, nor must the reviewing court accept a finding that has no competent evidence to support it. However, the broad scope of review does not vest in the reviewing court the duty or the privilege of making its own independent determination. Thus, an appellate court is empowered to determine whether the trial court's incontrovertible factual findings support its factual conclusions, but it may not interfere with those conclusions unless they are unreasonable in view of the trial court's factual findings; and thus, represent a gross abuse of discretion. More Like This Headnote Family Law > Child Custody > Visitation > Awards > Third Parties > Grandparents HlN2+See 23 Pa.C.S. § 5312. Governments > Legislation > Interpretation *« HN3; When interpreting the language of a statute, the court construes the language according to the plain meaning of the language. Words and phrases contained in a statute shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage. More Like This Headnote Family Law > Child Custody > Visitation > Awards > Third Parties > Grandparents t« HNa+ Under a plain meaning reading of 23 Pa.C.S. § 5312, the Grandparent's Visitation Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5301 et seq., only applies where parents separated at least six months before the filing of the custody petition and remain separated at the time the petition is filed. More Like This Headnote Family Law > Child Custody > Visitation > Awards > Third Parties > Grandparents *iu HNS+In regard to the Grandparent's Visitation Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5301 et seq., a grandparent will have standing in one of three situations (1) when a parent is deceased; (2) when parents' marriage is dissolved; and (3) when the child has resided with grandparents for a period of 12 months or more. More Like This Headnote Civil Procedure > Justiciability > Standing > Third Party Standing Family Law > Child Custody > Visitation > Awards > Third Parties > Grandparents HN6+In regard to visitation, the examination of the best interests of the child may occur only after the trial court has determined that a grandparent has standing. The courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are not permitted to "overlook" or ignore the standing requirement. More Like This Headnote COUNSEL: Timothy S. Burns., Ebensburt, for appellant. Andrew D. Gleason-., Johnstown, for appellee. JUDGES: BEFORE MUSMANNO, BOWES, and JOHNSON, JJ. OPINION BY JOHNSON, J. OPINION BY: JOHNSON http://www.lexis.comlresearchlretrieve? m=b39797f8b54c7eb2ad767a92a2afc84b&docnu... 8/2/2007 Search - 100 Results - grandparents visitation Page 3 of 6 OPINION OPINION BY JOHNSON, J.: [*P1] Daniel V. Helsel ("Grandfather") appeals the trial court's Order finding that he did not have standing to seek visitation with his grandchild. Grandfather argues that the trial court erred when it found a section of the Custody and Grandparent's Visitation Act ("GVA"), 23 Pa.C.S. section 5301 et seq., did not confer standing upon him because the mother and father of the child ("Mother" and "Father") were separated for a period of more than six months. After careful review and study, we find that the trial court correctly interpreted the relevant statutory language. Consequently, we affirm the trial court's Order. [*P2] Grandfather, who is actually grandchild's step-grandfather, filed a complaint for visitation on January 13, 2006, seeking visitation with grandchild. Grandchild's parents separated in May of 2004, however, they reconciled in May of 2005. Grandfather, apparently, was unaware that [**2] grandchild's parents had reconciled. [*P3] Following a pre-hearing custody conference, the Master issued a decision dismissing Grandfather's claim on the grounds that he lacked standing because Mother and Father were living together as an intact family. Grandfather filed timely exceptions, alleging that, inter alia, the grandchild's parents were not living together. The trial court remanded the matter to the Master for a determination of whether Mother and Father were living together and the state of their relationship. [*P4] The Master held a hearing on July 10, 2006. At that hearing, the Master heard testimony from Mother, Father, and Grandfather. During that hearing, Mother testified, inter alia, that she has negative feelings toward Grandfather. Following the hearing, the Master found that although Mother and Father had separated, they had reconciled, the divorce action had been terminated and the family was living as an intact family unit. The Master further found that because the parents had reconciled, Grandfather was without standing to seek visitation. Grandfather filed exceptions, which the trial court denied. [*P5] The trial court issued its opinion [**3] on August 29, 2006. In that Opinion, the Honorable F. Joseph Leahey agreed with the Master's report and recommendation and dismissed Grandfather's complaint for visitation because he did not have standing. Grandfather filed a timely notice of appeal and a timely Rule 1925(b) Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on appeal. In support of his appeal, Grandfather presents the following question for our review: I. Whether the Trial Court was in error in denying the Appellant's Exceptions from the Master's Report finding that he did not have standing to pursue visitation with his grandchild pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. 5 5312 of the Grandparent's Visitation Act? Brief for Appellant at 5. [*P6] The question of whether a grandparent has standing to seek visitation rights in a case where the grandchild's parents had previously separated for a period of more than six months, but were reconciled at the time the grandparent sought visitation rights pursuant to the GVA, is an issue of first impression for this Court. [*P7] Preliminarily, we note that HN2*on questions relating to an order of custody or visitation, our scope and standard of review [**4] are broad: http://www.lexis.comlresearchlretrieve? m=b39797f8b54c7eb2ad767a92a2afc84b&docnu... 8/2/2007 Search - 100 Results - grandparents visitation Page 4 of 6 the appellate court is not bound by the deductions or inferences made by the trial court from its findings of fact, nor must the reviewing court accept a finding that has no competent evidence to support it. However, this broad scope of review does not vest in the reviewing court the duty or the privilege of making its own independent determination. Thus, an appellate court is empowered to determine whether the trial court's incontrovertible factual findings support its factual conclusions, but it may not interfere with those conclusions unless they are unreasonable in view of the trial court's factual findings; and thus, represent a gross abuse of discretion. Liebner v Simcox, 2003 PA Super 377, 834 A.2d 606, 609 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). [*P8] The language of GVA section at issue in this case is section 5312. That section is entitled "When parents' marriage is dissolved or parents are separated" and states as follows: HN27In all proceedings for dissolution, subsequent to the commencement of the proceeding and continuing thereafter or when parents have been separated for six months or more, the court may, [**5] upon application of the parent or grandparent of a party, grant reasonable partial custody or visitation rights, or both, to the unmarried child if it finds that visitation rights or partial custody, or both, would be in the best interest of the child and would not interfere with the parent-child relationship. The court shall consider the amount of personal contact between the parents or grandparents of the party and the child prior to the application. 23 Pa.C.S. § 5312. In support of his appeal, Grandfather argues that the language of section 5312 of the GVA's separation requirement does not require that the parents remain separated or are separated at the time the grandparent seeks visitation rights. Brief for Appellant at 11. Specifically, Grandfather argues that the trial court erred when it found he did not have standing to pursue the right to visitation with his grandchild because although her parents were not separated at the time he sought visitation rights, they had been separated for a period of more than six months in the past. Brief for Appellant at 11. Grandfather advocates a plain meaning interpretation of the language in the GVA in [**6] support of his position and provides citations to case law which discusses the importance of a child's relationship with his or her grandparents. [*P9] HN3-+When interpreting the language of a statute, we construe the language according to the plain meaning of the language. See Malone v. Stonerook, 2004 PA Super 48. 843 A.2d 1278, 1280 (Pa. Super. 2004). "[W]ords and phrases contained in a statute shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage." Id. (citation omitted). Grandfather argues that the use of the term "have been" in relation to the parents' separation references the past, and thus, the statute only requires that parents were separated for six months in the past and does not require that parents remain separated when the petition is filed. Brief for Appellant at 11. Although Grandfather is correct in that the statute does look to the past, the term upon which he relies, "have been," is a present perfect continuous form-which is used when a party references something that began in the past and continues to the present. HOWARD H. DUNBAR ET AL., WRITING GOOD ENGLISH 155-56 (1951). Thus, HN47under [**7] a plain meaning reading of the statute, which is advocated by Grandfather, the GVA only applies where parents separated at least six months before the filing of the custody petition and remain separated at the time the petition is filed. [*P10] Although Grandfather has cited case law discussing the importance of a http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve? m=b39797f8b54c7eb2ad767a92a2afc84b&docnu... 8/2/2007 Search - 100 Results - grandparents visitation Page 5 of 6 grandparent in the life of a child, this Court will not direct the parents, who are living together as an intact family, to allow visitation when they otherwise would not choose to do so. See Herron v Seizak, 321 Pa Super. 466, 468 A 2d 803, 805 (Pa. Super. 1983). Herron v. Seizak, wherein the grandparents sought visitation with their grandchildren despite the fact that they were part of an intact family, is instructive in this case. In Herron, this Court interpreted the GVA and found that HNS+a grandparent will have standing in one of three situations "(1) when a parent is deceased; (2) when parents' marriage is dissolved; and (3) when the child has resided with grandparents for a period of 12 months or more." Id. at 805. This Court further noted that although it was unfortunate that the grandparents and grandchild [**8] were unable to have a relationship, we refused to "legitimize[] such an intrusion by the courts into family life." Id. This is particularly true in the instant case, where Mother has very strong negative feelings toward Grandfather. Notes of Testimony ("N.T."), 07/10/06, at 5 (Mother testified that she "despised" Grandfather). [*1311] Finally, Grandfather's expansive interpretation of the GVA does not comport with the title of the relevant statute, which is clearly and unambiguously titled "When parents' marriage is dissolved or parents are separated." 23 Pa.C.S. § 5312 (emphasis added). The title of the relevant portion of the GVA clearly states that it applies when a child's parents are separated. See Commonwealth v Barnhart, 722 A.2d 1093, 1095 (Pa...Super. 1998) (looking at language in title of statute when interpreting the statute). [*P12] We also note that even if we found the trial court erred in its interpretation of the relevant language of the GVA, we would affirm the decision on the grounds that the fact that Grandfather is child's step-grandfather, and not a blood relative of grandchild, [**9] Mother or Father; thus, Grandfather does not have standing. See Hill v. Divecchio, 425 Pa. Super. 355, 625 A.2d 642, 648 (Pa. Super. 19931 (finding that step-grandfather must be dismissed from suit because "the unambiguous words of the statute which state 'upon application of the parent or grandparent of a party' preclude the mother's step-father, the child's step- grandfather, from asserting a cause of action.") [*1213] To the extent that Grandfather argues that this Court should abandon the standing requirement, and instead look at whether the best interests of the grandchild require that he be allowed to continue to seek visitation with his grandchild, we note that the "best interests" issue is entirely absent from his Rule 1925(b) Statement, and as such, we find the issue waived and will not address it. We further note that HN6*the examination of the best interests of the child may occur only after the trial court has determined that a grandparent has standing. See, e.g., Ken R on Behalf of C.R. v. Arthur Z., 438 Pa. Super. 114, 651 A.2d 1119, 1121 (Pa. Super. 19941 (noting that although a sibling relationship is of utmost importance, [**10] appellant did not have standing to seek custody or visitation with her siblings because "a moral or a personal interest is not a legal interest."); Welsh v. Welsh, 21 Pa D &C.4th 246, 247-48 (Pa. Com. PI. 1993) (noting that the best interest of the child is the primary concern in a custody case and that "before that paramount concern is addressed, the grandparent must first establish that he or she has standing to seek the relief requested."). Simply stated, courts of this Commonwealth are not permitted to "overlook" or ignore the standing requirement. Finally, to the extent Grandfather argues that our Supreme Court in Bishop v Piller, 536 Pa. 41, 637 A.2d 976 (Pa. 1994) "in a sense ignored the standing requirements of section 5312," Brief for Appellant at 13, he misstates the facts of that case because it was clear that the grandparents in that case had standing because the child's parents never married and never cohabitated. See Bishop, 637 A.2d at 976. [*P14] For all the foregoing reasons, [*1215] Order AFFIRMED. http://www.lexis. comlresearch/retrieve?_m=b3 9797f8b54c7eb2ad767a92a2afc 84b&docnu... 8/2/2007 Search - 100 Results - grandparents visitation Page 6 of 6 Source: Legal > / ... / > PA Cases, Administrative Decisions & Attorney General Opinions, Combined Terms: grandparents visitation (Edit Search Suggest Terms for My Search) View: Full Date/Time: Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 7:11 PM EDT * Signal Legend: - Warning: Negative treatment is indicated Questioned: Validity questioned by citing refs A - Caution: Possible negative treatment 0- Positive treatment is indicated 0- Citing Refs. With Analysis Available 0- Citation information available * Click on any Shepard's signal to Shepardize® that case. About LexisNexis ( Terms & Conditions LexisNex SO Copyright DE 2007 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve? m=b39797f8b54c7eb2ad767a92a2afc84b&docnu... 8/2/2007 Exhibit D MAY 2 3 2007 TAMMY J. WARGO, RICHARD K. COLLINS, as guardian for THOMAS R. COLLINS Plaintiff v MEGHAN R. BEAM, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION- LAW NO. 05-3393 IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this day of May, 2007, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A bearing is scheduled in Court Room. No. 1 of the Cumberland County 41 Courthouse on the day o 2007 at 00 --m At this bearing, the paternal grandparents shall e e the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties, or the parties themselves if they do not have legal counsel, 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 bearing date. 2. It is directed that the caption of the above case be modified to read: TAMMY J. WARGO and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF RICHARD K. COLLINS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V CIVIL ACTION - LAW MEGHAN R. BEAM and : TRAVIS R. COLLINS, : NO. 05-3393 Defendant : IN CUSTODY 3. In the event the parties retain legal counsel and legal counsel feel that this matter can go again back to the Custody Conciliator, that attorney may contact the Custody Conciliator to see if a Conciliation Conference could be scheduled in advance of the bearing scheduled above. 4. Pending further Order of this Court, this Court's Order of July 29, 2005 shall remain in place. BY THE COURT. / / - • , 1. Judge J. Wesley Ole Jr. cc: Tammy J. Wargo and Richard IC Collins Meghan R. Beam and Travis R. Collins F:\FILES\DATAFILE\General\Current\12321\Wargo Collets v Beam Collvic Conciliation Report-Order.wpd TAMMY J. WARGO and RICHARD K. COLLINS Plaintiff v MEGHAN R. BEAM and TRAVIS R. COLLINS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-3393 IN CUSTODY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE We, Meghan Beam and Travis Collins, do hereby certify that we have served a copy of this Motion to Dismiss on the following: Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire 10 East High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Tammy J. Wargo and Richard K. Collins 6006 Hummingbird Drive, Mechanicsburg PA 17055 Edwin and Cynthia Beam 241 West Middlesex Drive, Carlisle PA 17013 Date: Travis R. Collins ti ;? G, »l ..,.? r» ? ? ?? ? ? .. `'_? ?? .?t - - ?^- F 1`4 . ?.. ? ? 1 1, ?: -?-lJ.) ?"? w RICHARD K. COLLINS, and TAMMY J. WARGO, Plaintiffs V. MEGHAN R. BEAM and TRAVIS R. COLLINS, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-3393 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 23`d day of August, 2007, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion To Dismiss, the issue raised in the motion is deferred to the hearing scheduled on August 27, 2007, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT, ammy J. Wargo Richard K. Collins 6006 Hummingbird Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Plaintiffs, pro Se Ieghan Beam 1 Travis Collins 241 W. Middlesex Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Defendants, pro Se 1 Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 :rc ?? ?;? -?Fi?, '-s?. ?+U ti ?:, RICHARD K and TAMMY V. MEGHAN R. TRAVIS R. COLLINS, J. WARGO, Plaintiffs BEAM and COLLINS, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-3393 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 27th day of August, 2007, upon consideration of the Petition To Modify Joint Custody filed in this case by Tammy J. Wargo and Richard K. Collins, and neither Petitioner having appeared for the hearing scheduled for this date and both natural parents in the persons of Meghan R. Beam and Travis R. Collins having appeared to oppose the Petition, the Petition To Modify Joint Custody is dismissed. By the Court, ?mmy J. Wargo Richard K. Collins 6006 Hummingbird Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Plaintiffs, pro Se P ghan Beam Travis Collins 241 W. Middlesex Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Defendants, pro Se Abert X. Gilroy, Esq. 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 pcb 4 1.?(1C?'f f; it a?1 3Hi 34 301+ :?'O-OPJ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW TRAVIS R. COLLINS, Plaintiff ) V. ) No. 05-3393 MEGHAN R. BEAM, ) Defendant ) Petition for Contempt 1. Petitioner is Plaintiff, TRAVIS R. COLLINS, who currently resides at 6006 Hummingbird Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, PA 17050. 2. Respondent is Defendant, MEGHAN R. BEAM, who currently resides at 19 Regency Woods North, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17015. 3. Petitioner and Respondent are the natural parents of the following child: Name RILEY D. COLLINS Age 3 years 4. A custody order was entered on 7/29/2005, in the Cumberland County- Court of Common Pleas. A copy of the custody order is attached. 5. Respondent has willfully violated the custody order, as follows: It was agreed that I would pick my son, Riley up at his mother's residence on December 14, 2007 at 5:00 pm. When I arrived there no one was there and I then proceeded to her grandparents home where she spends alot of time and was told that the defendant took our son out of town for the weekend. I was not able to have my visitation with my son. The defendants grandfather informed me that she nor he was not going to allow me to have my visitation and that she was taking this matter to court. This is not the first time she has kept my son from me and I want to have parenting time with him. I've done nothing to violate this order. Petition for Contempt Page 3 of 5 WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court find Respondent in contempt of Court. Date: TRAVIS R. COLLINS, Plaintiff Verification I, TRAVIS R. COLLINS, Plaintiff, verify that the facts stated in the foregoing Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Petitioner understands that false statements therein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 14904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: 1? TRAVIS R. COLLINS, Plaintiff Petition for Contempt Page 4 of 5 TRAVIS RICHARD COLLINS, RICHARD COLLINS, AND TAMMY WARGO, Plaintiffs v MEGHAN RENEE BEAM, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-3393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.3-0), the un? Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the children/child who are the subject of this litigation is as follows: Riley David Collins, born July 239 2004 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on July 22, 2005, with the following individuals in attendance: The Father, Travis Richard Collins, with his counsel, Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire, and the Mother, Meghan Renee Beam, with her counsel, Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire 3. On the Conciliator's recommendation, the parties agreed to the entry of an Order as attached. `?- -'? C -- or' DATE Hubert X. Gilroy, E Custody Conciliator RECEIVED 1U12 ? 2W5 'Y TRAVIS RICHARD COLLINS, A : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MINOR, BY RICHARD COLLINS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA AND TAMMY WARGO, HIS GUARDIANS, : Plaintiffs : NO 05-3393 V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW MEGHAN RENEE BEAM, Defendant IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW9 this .4f day of , 2005, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Repo t, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The caption to the above can is modified as set forth above to reflect the fact that the Plaintiff is a minor. 2. The Father, Travis Richard Collins, and the Mother, Meghan Renee Beam, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Riley David Collins, born July 239 2004. 3. The Father shall enjoy physical custody with the minor child as follows: a. Alternating weekends from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until Monday at 7:00 a.m. b. On the other weekends, on Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. However, in the event Mother is not working on those weekends, Mother can give Father notice in advance that she will not be working and she can retain custody of the minor child during those weekends, subject, however, to the understanding that this schedule is based on Mother's current work schedule which Is her working every weekend. c. At such other times as the parties may agree. 4. Mother shall enjoy custody of the minor child except as set forth above. 5. The parties may modify this schedule as they agree. Absent any agreement, the schedule set forth above shall control. 6. In the event either party desires to modify this schedule and is unable to reach an agreement with the other parent, that party may bring the matter again before the Custody Conciliator for a conference. 7. For purposes of holidays and assuming the Parties do not reach an agreement to the contrary, the parties shall alternate major holidays to include New Year's Day, Easter, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and Labor Day. The time shall be from 9:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. The Father shall have custody on Labor Day, with the parties alternating thereafter. 8. For the Thanksgiving holiday, it shall be alternated in times with the first time frame being 9:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m., and the second time frame being from 2:00 p.m. until 7:00. p.m. The parties shalt alternate those time frames unless they agree to the contrary. In the event there is no agreement for 2005, Mother shall have the first portion of Thanksgiving 2005 with the parties alternating thereafter. 9. For the Christmas holiday, the time frames shall be divided between two segments, segment (a) being noon on Christmas Eve until noon on Christmas Day, and the second segment being noon on Christmas Day until noon on December 26$. The parties shall alternate those two segments each year with the Father to have segment (a) in 2005 unless the parties agree otherwise. 10. The Father shall always custody of the minor child on Father's Day, and the mother shall always have custody of the minor child on Mother's Day. This provision shall supercede any other provision of this Order. 11. Transportation for exchange of custody shall be shared equally between the parties with the non-custodial parent picking up the child unless agreed otherwise by the parties Cc: Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire BY THE COURT: s dge TRUE COPY FROM RECORU to T ?mly wad, l two Uato .;d my hard Ct! TA "W of Ulri A C?cl?l?e, F8. ?rathonc?v 3 IPA 0 a C*j cr ?? ?t a O -c COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW TRAVIS R. COLLINS, Plaintiff ) } V. ) No. 05-3393 MEGHAN R. BEAM, ) Defendant } Petition for Modification I . Petitioner is Plaintiff, TRAVIS R. COLLINS, who currently resides at 6006 Hummingbird Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, PA 17050. 2. Respondent is Defendant, MEGHAN R. BEAM, who currently resides at 19 Regency Woods North, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17015. 3. Petitioner and Respondent are the natural parents of the following child: Name RILEY D. COLLINS Age 3 years 4. A custody order was entered on 7/29/2005, in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. A copy of the custody order is attached. 5. Petitioner seeks to modify the custody order because: I believe the custody orders should be changed because the defendant is not a stable parent. The defendant has not allowed me to see my son and because she doesn't "like" my parents they are not allowed to see him. The defendant, my son and myself resided for two years with my parents and they treated her as one of their own. She can become irrational and unpredictable. My son is disabled as are my brothers and I have ample experience in caring for a special needs child. I feel as though she is not doing all that can be done for our son so that he can reach his maximum potential. I would like more time with him and more say in what goes on in his life. 6. Petitioner believes the custody order should be changed as follows: I would like Joint physical and legal custody of my son. One week on and one week off. Shared major Petition for Modification Page 3 of 5 holidays, Riley's birthday alternating all others. Child with father for father's birthday and Father's Day with mother on her birthday and Mother's Day. . WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court modify the Order as requested. Date: r? v j 7 ` © 7 TRAVIS R. COLLINS, Plaintiff Verification I, TRAVIS R. COLLINS, Plaintiff, verify that the facts stated in the foregoing Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Petitioner understands that false statements therein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. ' 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 07 zTRAVIS R. COLLINS, Plaintiff Petition for Modification Page 4 of 5 Alom &' LILII.AKIS Michelle L. Sommer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 93034 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-0900 'T'RAVIS R. COLLINS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA V. NO. 05-3393 MEGHAN R. BEAM, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant IN CUSTODY TO THE HONORABLE J. WESLEY OLER, JR., JUDGE OF SAID COURT: AND NOW, comes the Petitioner, MEGHAN RENEE BEAM, by and through her attorney, Michelle L. Sommer, Esquire, of ABoM & KUTULAKIS, L.L.P., and respectfully petitions for modification of custody, and in support thereof avers the following: 1. Defendant is Meghan R. Beam, who currently resides at 241 West Middlesex Drive, Carlisle, 17013, which is in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Plaintiff is Travis R. Collins, who currently resides at 6006 Hummingbird Drive, Mechanicsburg, 17050, which is in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. On July 29, 2005, an Order of Court was entered wherein the Plaintiff at that time was still a minor child and; therefore, his parents, Richard Collins and Tammy Wargo, were listed as Guardians on the Order. 4. The Court Order stated that the Plaintiff, Travis Collins and the Defendant, Meghan Beam shall share legal custody of Riley David Collins, born July 23, 2004; Mother was given primary physical custody and Father was given partial physical custody on alternating weekends from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until Monday at 7:00 a.m. and on the weekends that Mother was working Father could exercise custody on Saturday or Sunday depending on Mother's work schedule. (A copy of the Custody Stipulation is attached hereto as `Exhibit A'). 5. The Order was signed by The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr., on July 29, 2005. COUNT I - MODIFICATION FOR CUSTODY 6. Paragraphs one (1) through five (5) of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 7. This Agreement should be modified because: a. Father is no longer a minor and as a result, his parents should no longer be listed as guardians on this Petition. b. Father and Mother reconciled in August 2006 and continued to reside together until December 4, 2007. c. During that time, Father and his family had a very strained relationship. d. It is believed and therefore averred that Father and his Mother, Tammy Wargo, do not get along well, in fact Father has stated in the past to Mother that he has wanted to "kill his Mother [Tammy Wargo]". e. It is believed and therefore averred Father has anger management issues and cannot control his temper. f While Mother and Father where together, Mother was the primary caregiver of the child. i. She has: 1. Planned and prepared meals; 2. Bathed, groomed and dressed the child; 3. Purchased, cleaned and cared for the child's clothing; 4. Arranged medical care, including trips to physicians; 5. Arranged alternative daycare; 6. Put the child to bed nightly, attended the child in the middle of the night, and awakened the child in the morning. g. The Mother will be able to ensure for the children's safety and care. h. The Mother can provide a stable home for the child. i. The child suffers from a Trisomy-17, a chromosome disability which delays development. i. As a result, the child needs special care and attention. ii. The child currently receives SSI because of his disability. iii. The child, who currently is 3 1/z years old, began to walk only at age 2 '/z and still is not speaking due to the disability. iv. It is believed and therefore averred that because Father has never fully cared for the child in the past on his own and suffers from anger issues, Father should not be allowed to have unsupervised custody of the child. j. The child attends Walnut Bottom Daycare and receives special attention therapy through the CAIU while attending the Daycare facility. i. Mother drops off and picks up the child at the Daycare facility. k. Currently, neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent are employed. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Court modify the existing Order to grant primary physical custody of the child to the Petitioner/Mother because it will be in the best interest of the child and supervised partial custody to the Respondent/Father. DATE 1n. lQ 104 --r Respectfully submitted, ABOM & KUTULAMS,,L.?. Michelle L. Sommer Supreme Court ID 93034 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-0900 Attorney for Petitioner I, MEGAN R. BEAM, verify that the statements made in this Custody Modification are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 54904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date I S/ /0 -f Z? MEG . BEAM AND NOW, this 19`h day of December, 2007, I, Michelle L. Sommer, Esquire, of Abom & Kutulakis, LLP., hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition for Modification of Custody, upon the Defendant by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the United States Mail, First-Class, postage prepaid addressed to the following: Travis R. Collins 6006 Hummingbird Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Pro Se Defendant Respectfully submitted, Abom & Kutulakis, L.L.P. Michelle L. Somm , Esquire Attorney ID No.: 93034 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-0900 0 D 90 v.: cn, W 71 TRAVIS R. COLLINS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2005-3393 CIVIL ACTION LAW MEGHAN R. BEAM IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Friday, December 21, 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 Friday, January 18, 2008 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 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 6 ? ! I 33 330 IOOZ P TRAVIS R. COLLINS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2005-3393 CIVIL ACTION LAW MEGHAN R. BEAM IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday, December 31, 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, January 24, 2008 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. Gilroy, Es q. ilij 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 6 Z: I I WV I£ 33O LOOZ M` IONC)HiOdd 3HI JO 30i: X31#3 TRAVIS R. COLLINS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2005-3393 CIVIL ACTION LAW MEGHAN R. BEAM IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday, December 31, 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, January 24, 2008 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. Gilroy Esq. .)jdj 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 14 vi 14 vAlkSN IN -:11d 9Z :I! WV 1 C 330 LQOZ Lt ii?d ?LOW alli ?O P TRAVIS R. COLLINS, Plaintiff V. MEGHAN R. BEAM, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 05-3393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Travis Collins 6006 Hummingbird Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE WITHIN PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS PLEADING. & KMom LAKIS Michelle L. Sommer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 93034 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-0900 TRAVIS R. COLLINS, Plaintiff V. MEGHAN R. BEAM, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 05-3393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY TO THE HONORABLE J. WESLEY OLER, JR., JUDGE OF SAID COURT: PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY AND PETITION FOR CONTEMPT under Pa.R.C.P.1028(a)(1) AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2008, comes the Defendant, Meghan R. Beam, in the above-named case, by and through her attorney, Michelle L. Sommer, Esquire, and respectfully objects to the PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY and PETITION FOR CONTEMPT that was filed by the Plaintiff and scheduled for Conciliation on January 24, 2008, and in support thereof, avers the following: 1. A Petition for Modification of Custody and a Petition for Contempt were filed by the Plaintiff/Petitioner, Travis R. Collins, on December 18, 2007, for one minor child, Riley D. Collins, (age 3 - D/O/B: July 23, 2004). 2. The Plaintiff/Petitioner failed to properly serve the Defendant/Respondent with the Petition for Modification of Custody and the Petition for Contempt as required by Pa.R.C.P. 402 and 403. 3. The Plaintiff/Petitioner only filed the Petition for Modification of Custody and Petition for Contempt with the Cumberland County Office of the Prothonotary but failed to do anything further with the Petitions once he received the necessary timestamped documents. 4. A Conciliation Conference based on Plaintiff/Petitioner's Petition was scheduled for January 24, 2008, before Custody Conciliator Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire. 5. The Defendant/Respondent, through her undersigned counsel, filed a Petition to Modify Custody on December 19, 2007. 6. On December 19, 2007, a copy of the Petition to Modify Custody was sent to the Plaintiff/Petitioner by Certified Mail, Restricted Delivery. 7. Mr. Collins received a copy of the Petition on December 22, 2007, as evidenced by the signed green card. 8. A Conciliation Conference based on the Defendant/Respondent's Petition was scheduled for January 18, 2008, before Custody Conciliator Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire. 9. It is believed and therefore averred that the Plaintiff/Petitioner's Petition for Modification of Custody and Petition for Contempt should be dismissed since it 2 was not properly served upon the Defendant/Respondent as required by Pa.R.C.P. 402 and 403. 10. It is believed and therefore averred that any issues regarding a modification of custody can be addressed through the Defendant/Respondent's Petition to Modify Custody and upcoming Custody Conciliation on January 18, 2008. 11. It is believed and therefore averred that the Plaintiff/Petitioner's Petition for Contempt should be completely dismissed at this time since the Defendant/Respondent failed to comply with the PA Rules of Civil Procedure. 12. Based on this, the Defendant/Respondent believes that she should not have to attend such a hearing; however, if she is forced to do so she will be seeking reimbursement for counsel fees and costs to attend such a hearing. 3 WHEREFORE, the Defendant/Respondent requests that the Petition for Modification of Custody and Petition for Contempt be Dismissed with Prejudice. In the event a Conference is held, it is further requested that the Plaintiff/Petitioner be responsible for all costs associated with the bringing of these Petitions, including attorney's fees. DATE jj?jo q Respectfully submitted, AROM & KUTULAK7S, L.L.P. Michelle L. So er, Esquire Supreme Court ID No. 93034 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 Attorney for Defendant/ Respondent 4 AND NOW, this 3' day of January 2008, I, Michelle L. Sommer, Esquire, of Abom & Kutulakis, L.L.P, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objections, upon the Plaintiff/Petitioner by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the United States Mail, Certified Mail, Restricted Delivery, postage prepaid addressed to the following: Travis R. Collins 6006 Hummingbird Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Pro Se Plaintif/Petitioner Respectfully submitted, Abom & .Kutulakrs, L.L.P. Michelle L. Sommer, Esquire Attorney ID No.: 93034 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-0900 5 C") rs r- m a? co ? t ?t --Jj JAN 2 2 2008#4 1 JAN 2 2 2008 TRAVIS R. COLLINS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 05-3393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW MEGHAN R. BEAM, Defendant IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this ,7 S day of January, 2008, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that this Court's prior Order of July 29, 2005, is vacated and replaced with the following Order: 1. The father, Travis Richard Collins, and the mother, Meghan Renee Beam, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Riley David Collins, born July 23 2004. 2. The mother shall enjoy primary physical custody of the minor child. 3. The father shall enjoy periods of temporary physical custody of the minor child as follows: A. On alternating weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. commencing Friday, January 25, 2008. B. At such other times as agreed upon by the parties. 4. For exchange of custody, the non-custodial parent shall pick up the child. 5. This Order shall be a temporary Order and is subject to modification by the Court. The parties shall meet again with the Custody Conciliator on April 4, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. At that time, the parties will meet with the Conciliator to determine the status of this Order and see if it needs to be modified in any way. BY THE COURT, J 6 Z, ? 'J'', ?;, -; //, J Wesley Ole , r., Ju g cc: Michelle L. Sommers, Esquire 0,6F Travis R. Collins I iLg ?i?av?D8 ?: ''' ? ?? - -_. ?. ?,?? t??,. _ u-- ?, c? ?' TRAVIS R. COLLINS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : NO. 05-3393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW MEGHAN R. BEAM, 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. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Riley David Collins, born July 23, 3004 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on January 18, 2008 with the following individuals in attendance: The mother, Meghan R. Beam, with her counsel, Michelle L. Sommers, Esquire The father, Travis R. Collins, appeared without counsel 3. Based upon the strong recommendation of the Custody Conciliator, the parties agreed to the entry of an Order in the form as attached. Date: January 2008 Hubert X. Gil y, Esquire Custody Co iliator d y TRAVIS R. COLLINS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 05-3393 CIVIL TERM MEGHAN R. BEAM, : IN CUSTODY Defendant PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE To Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary: Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff, Travis Collins, in the above captioned case. Respectfully submitted, J ica Holst, Esquire MidPenn Legal Services 401 E. Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 Date: 5• Ao-O'd A TRAVIS R. COLLINS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 05-3393 CIVIL TERM MEGHAN R. BEAM, : IN CUSTODY Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jessica Holst, Esquire, of MidPenn Legal Services, attorney for the Plaintiff, Travis R. Collins, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE on the following date and in the manner indicated below: U.S. First Class Mail, Postage Pre-Paid Michelle L. Sommer, Esquire 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: Jes-sica Holst, Esquire MidPenn Legal Services 401 E. Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-9400 t` "'' ? ? C? ?? ? ? -,:_ .-?, ?? ,??? ?. ? E""1 r : ^ _ ? ?g -'} ??'> ??1ti APR 0 B 2008 TRAVIS R. COLLINS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 05-3393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW MEGHAN R. BEAM, Defendant IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this t`' day of April, 2008, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed that this Court's prior Order of January 23, 2008, is vacated and replaced with the following Order: I. The father, Travis Richard Collins, and the mother, Meghan Renee Beam, shall enjoy shared legal custody of Riley David Collins, born July 23 ,2004. 2. The mother shall enjoy primary physical custody of the minor child. 3. The father shall enjoy periods of temporary physical custody of the minor child as follows: A. On alternating weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. B. On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of each week from noon until when mother gets off work. C. At such other times as agreed upon by the parties. 4. For exchange of custody on the weekdays, custody shall be exchanged at the Sheetz store on Route 11 and Wolfs Bridge Road. Exchange of custody on the VIsNVA ISSN ! A l.N' r ";"'`'! ? 1191 ZC :ZI Wd 6- NJV 8I0Z MViON(ALCW 3Hl JO 9011444 weekends shall be at the Sheetz store at the corner of Route 11 and Route 114. The parties may agree between themselves to modify the exchange location. 5. The holiday schedule shall be handled as follows: A. For the Christmas Holiday, Christmas shall be divided into two segments; segment `A' shall be from December 24 at noon until December 25 at noon and segment `B' shall be from December 25 at noon until December 26 noon. For Christmas 2008, the father shall have segment `A' and the mother shall have segment `B' and the parties shall alternate thereafter. B. The parties shall alternate custody on other major holidays to include New Years Day, Easter, Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day, the Halloween evening, and Thanksgiving Day. Father shall have Memorial Day in 2008 with the parties alternating the schedule as set forth herein. C. Mother shall always have custody on Mother's Day and father shall always have custody on Father's Day. This provision shall supercede the alternating weekend provision. D. For the child's birthday and assuming the parties are unable to work out an arrangement where they split the day, the non-custodial party shall have custody of the child either the day before or the day after the child's birthday for a birthday celebration. E. For vacation, each party shall have two non-consecutive weeks of vacation upon thirty day notice to the other party. 6. The parties may modify or change the custody schedule set forth above if the parties agree. Absent an agreement, the parties shall follow the schedule set forth above. In the event either party desires to modify this order, that party may petition the court to have the case again scheduled with the Custody Conciliator for a conference. BY THE COURT, J. klesley Oler, J ., Judge cc: ,Xfichelle L. Sommers, Esquire essica Holst, Esquire TRAVIS R. COLLINS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 05-3393 CIVIL ACTION - LAW MEGHAN R. BEAM, 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. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Riley David Collins, born July 23, 3004 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on April 4, 2008 with the following individuals in attendance: The mother, Meghan R. Beam, with her counsel, Michelle L. Sommers, Esquire The father, Travis R. Collins, with his counsel, Jessica Holst. 3. The parties agree to the entry of an Order in the form as attached. ov Date: April , 2008 Hubert X. Gilroy, E uire Custody Conciliat TRAVIS R. COLLINS, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vs. :NO. 05-3393 CIVIL ACTION-LAW MEGHAN R. BEAM, Defendant :IN CUSTODY CUSTODY STIPULATION REPORT C% CJ The Custody for Riley David Collins, born July 23, 2004 shall be as follows: 1. The father, Travis Richard Collins, and the mother Meghan Renee Beam, shall enjoy "red4egal :=I custody of said child. 2. The mother shall enjoy primary physical custody of the minor child. 3. The father shall enjoy periods of temporary physical custody of the minor child as follows: A. Every Friday at 4:00 pm until Sunday at 6:00 pm. B. At such other times as agreed upon by the parties 4. For exchange of custody, the exchange shall take place at the Sheetz store at the corner of Route 11 and Route 114. The parties may agree between themselves to modify the exchange location. 5. The holiday schedule shall be handled as follows: A. For the Christmas Holiday, Christmas shall be divided into two segments, segment 'A' shall be from December 24"' at noon until December 25"' at noon and segment "B' shall be from December 25th at noon until December 2e at noon. For Christmas 2010, the father shall have segment 'A' and the mother shall have segment '8' and the parties shall alternate thereafter. B. The parties shall alternate custody on other major holidays to include New Years Day, Easter, Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day, the Halloween evening (trick or treat night), and Thanksgiving Day. Father shall have Memorial Day 2011 .with the parties alternating the schedule as set forth herein. C. Mother shall always have custody on Mother's Day and father shall always have custody on Father's day. This provision shall supersede the weekend provision. D. For the child's birthday and assuming the parties are unable to work out an arrangement where they split the day, the non-custodial party shall have custody of the child either the day before or the day after the child's birthday for a birthday celebration. E. For vacation, each party shall have two non-consecutive weeks of vacation upon thirty day notice to the other party. 6. The parties may modify or change the custody schedule set forth above if the parties agree. Absent an agreement, the parties shall follow the schedule set forth above. in the event either party desires to modify the order, that party may petition the court to have the case again scheduled with a Custody Conciliator for a conference. 7. The parties have also agreed that neither party will seek a child support order. The parties will share expenses of the child's care. TRAVIS R. COLLINS MEG AN R. BEAM AU", I 8N11.1 TRAVIS R. COLLINS, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vs. :NO. 05-3393 CIVIL ACTION-LAW MEGHAN R. BEAM, Defendant :IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this 15 day of August, 2010, upon agreement by the undersigned parties, Travis R. Collins, and, Meghan R. Beam, the following Custody Stipulation Report will replace any and all previous court orders for custody of Riley David Collins, born July 23, 2004. lr0 a i ES m? i ?o UJ,uS g j?Q jtv ME AN R. BEAM o 4 ` TRAVIS R. COLLINS