Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-5517Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., Plaintiff V. KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY NO. ? I - -5 C.cv? l CUSTODY COMPLAINT 1. The Plaintiff is Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as "Father"), who currently resides at 1116 W. Powderhorn Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 2. The Defendant is Kathleen M. Fanelli (hereinafter referred to as "Mother"), who currently resides at 405 Darla Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 3. Plaintiff seeks shared equal legal and physical custody of the following child: NAME PRESENT RESIDENCE DATE OF BIRTH Dominic C. Fanelli 1116 W. Powderhorn Road August 5, 1997 Mechanicsburg, PA 4. The child is presently in the custody of both parents who were residing together at 1116 W. Powderhorn Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Mother relocated without notice from the marital home on Friday October 21, 2005 and has moved to a separate location with Mother's brother, Joseph Ford, taking the child with her. 5. During the past five years, the child has resided with the following persons at the following addresses: DATES 8/5/1997-10/21/05 10/21/05-present ADDRESSES 1116 W. Powderhorn Road Mechanicsburg, PA 405 Darla Road Mechanicsburg, PA NAMES OF PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD Mother, Father, child and step-daughter, Kalene Besselman Mother, child, step- daughter, Kalene Besselman, brother, Joseph Ford, sister-in- law, Jill Ford, niece, Kylee Ford and niece, Kiersten Ford. 6. The Father of the child is Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr., currently residing at 1116 W. Powderhorn Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. 7. The Mother of the child is Kathleen M. Fanelli, currently residing at 405 Darla Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. The parties are currently separated from each other. 2 8. The relationship of the Plaintiff to the child is Father. The Plaintiff currently resides with the following persons: NAME Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr. Dominic C. Fanelli RELATIONSHIP Self Son 9. The relationship of the Defendant to the child is Mother. The Defendant currently resides with the following persons: NAME RELATIONSHIP Kathleen M. Fanelli Self Dominic C. Fanelli Son Kalene Besselman Daughter Joseph Ford Brother Jill Ford Sister-in-law Kylee Ford Niece Kiersten Ford Niece 10. 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. 3 11. The Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the child pending in any court of this Commonwealth. 12. Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child. 13. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting the relief requested because Plaintiff can provide a stable, loving environment for the child. He will remain in the marital home where the child will be familiar, secure and have continuous access to his friends. Plaintiff seeks to spend time with the child on a regular schedule, free from conflict with Defendant in such scheduling. Mother has been erratic and unstable and a fixed schedule is required. 14. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been terminated and the person who has physical custody of the child have been named as parties to this action. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests the Court to custody of the child to the Plaintiff. DATE: October 24, 2005 d equal legal and physical Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court I.D. 32317 4 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., Plaintiff V. KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY NO. VERIFICATION I, Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr., hereby certify that the facts set forth in the foregoing CUSTODY COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ?? U) 2005 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR. 'If r" ? .. t t -G Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., Plaintiff V. KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY NO. 2005-5517 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I, Charles E. Rector, Esquire, hereby accept service and acknowledge receipt of the above- captioned CUSTODY COMPLAINT on behalf of my client, Kathleen M. Fanelli, having received said Order on the L day of 2005. I hereby indicate I am authorized by my client to accept service on his behalf. Camp Hill 17011 Attorney for Defendant (717) 761-8101 ? P fl FTIC.. .G ?Tl ? N ? DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA V. KATHLEEN M. FANELLI DEFENDANT 05-5517 CIVIL ACTION LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Thursdlab November 03, 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 oft Friday, December 16, 2005 at 8:30 AM fora 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 rounds 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: lsl Hubert X. Gilroy Es Custody Conciliator f^ 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 'FHF. 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 ? ? ?7 ?? ??`, ???` ? l??te? ? - ??° S?'? c. ?r ? ? ??1 ? ?-?? ??r' ? k€'i?'? ???1?`???? x ????? a } L` „G .? ': t r? ???, ? ,? ? , ' ; ??`1?e1 ?t1Pd < r= 2006 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMO PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, NO. 05-5517 Defendant IN CUSTODY AND NOW, this z? W day of June, 2006, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A hearing is scheduled in Court Room No. 4 of the Cumberland County Courthouse on the 24th day of August, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. At this hearing, the father shall be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a memorandum setting forth the history of custody in this case, the issues currently before the Court, a summary of each parties position on these issues, a list of witnesses who will be called to testify on behalf of each party and a summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. This memorandum shall be filed at least five days prior to the mentioned hearing date. 2. Pending further Order of this Court, it is ordered and directed as follows: A. Father, Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr., and mother, Kathleen M. Fanelli shall enjoy shared legal and shared physical custody of Dominic c. Fanelli, born August 5, 1997. Physical custody shall be handled consistent with the schedule the parties have employed over the past seven months. B. The parties may through their counsel retain a professional to attempt mediation or any other counseling legal counsel for the parties desires to have performed in this case. The cost of this mediation or other professional services shall be shared equally between the parties. Upon the conclusion of any t ?-dra hL? '°n ?! "U J f0. ? wil ? ???? ?. ?? I_? a.? 4 mediation and in the event the attornTs for the parties believe another conciliation would benefit the situation in advance of the hearing, the attorneys may contact the Custody Conciliator directly to schedule such a Conciliation. BY THE COURT, -/? ;i Judge K in A. Hess c?rbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Xharles Rector, Esquire Ob P-V DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., Plaintiff v KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-5517 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: Dominic C. Fanelli, born August 5,1997. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on June 15, 2006, with the following individuals in attendance: The father, Dominic C. Fanelli, Jrwith his counsel, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, and the mother, Kathleen M. Fanelli, with her counsel, Charles Rector, Esquire. 3. The parties have been separated since the fall of 2005. They have worked under a verbal custody arrangement which essentially provides 50/50 physical custody shared between the parties. The father is of the opinion at this point that perhaps he should be primary custodian to provide a little bit more stability in the child's life. Mother is of the same opinion. A hearing is required and the Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. (,1(Q l op DATE Hu ert X. G' oy, Esquire Custody Co ciliator DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 05-5517 CIVIL KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant ORDER AND NOW, this 94 day of August, 2006, at the request of counsel for the parties, hearing in the above captioned matter set for August 24, 2006, is continued to Thursday, February 15, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA. /arbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire For the Plaintiff Xharles Rector, Esquire For the Defendant Am A? 0?\0 BY THE COURT, ,i b?NVA'MNN3d 9 h :01 add 01 9nv 9001 1MONOHiOW 3Nl ?O 300. Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant : NO. 2005-5517 ORDER ADOPTING STIPULATION OF PARTIES AND NOW, to wit, this 1' day of 2007, upon consideration of the Stipulation for Custody dated January 26, 2007 and on motion of Barbara Sumple- Sullivan, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, Dominic C. Fanelli, and Charles Rector, Esquire, counsel for Defendant, Kathleen M. Fanelli, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the terms, conditions and provisions of the attached Stipulation for Custody are adopted as an Order of Court. The Hearing scheduled for February 15, 2007 is cancelled BY THE COURT, Ke ' . Hess, Judge 11 1 # ?: ?? 1,.j C -.01 1'N-1 L- c93i L Z Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, . Defendant : NO. 2005-5517 STIPULATION REGARDING CUSTODY THIS AGREEMENT is made this 26`h day of February, 2007, by and between Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr., (hereinafter referred to as "Father") an adult individual residing at 1116 W. Powderhorn Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, and Kathleen M. Fanelli, (hereinafter referred to as "Mother") an adult individual residing at 5235 Winthrop Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Mother and Father are the natural parents of one (1) child, Dominic C. Fanelli, (born August 5, 1997); WHEREAS, Father filed a Custody Complaint on October 24, 2005 and a hearing before the Honorable Judge Kevin A. Hess is scheduled for February 15, 2007; 1 WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amicably resolve all matters concerning custody by agreement and avoid the need for a formal hearing; NOW THEREFORE, the parties intending to be legally bound, do agree as follows: The parties hereby agree that an Order of Court shall be entered setting forth the following terms: A. LEGAL CUSTODY. It is in the best interest of the minor child for the continuation of shared legal custody. The parties agree that major decisions concerning the child's health, welfare, education, religious training and upbringing shall be made by the parents jointly, after discussion and consultation with each other, with a view towards obtaining and following a harmonious policy to arrive at a decision that is in the child's best interest. B. PHYSICAL CUSTODY. Father will have primary physical custody of the parties' son at all times except for Mother's periods of partial custody as set forth as follows: 1) School Year: During the school year, Mother shall have periods of partial physical custody of the parties' son as follows: a) Commencing January 26, 2007, on alternating weekends from Friday after school until Tuesday morning to school; b) On the alternating Mondays following Father's weekend from after school until Tuesday morning to school; and c) On each Thursday evening from after school until 8:30 p.m. However, Mother shall have all of the child's homework complete prior to return to Father's residence at 8:30 p.m. 2) Summer: During the summer, the parties agree to share physical custody of their minor son. Mother shall have periods of physical custody during the summer as follows and Father shall have all other times: 2 w a) Commencing on Mother's first alternating scheduled weekend following the start of summer vacation from school, Mother shall have each alternating weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Tuesday morning to daycare; b) On alternating Mondays following Father's weekend overnight from after summer daycare until Tuesday morning to daycare; and c) On every Wednesday overnight from after summer daycare until Thursday morning to summer daycare. The summer schedule shall cease on the Monday morning before the actual commencement of school classes for the upcoming school year. 3) Summer Vacation: Mother and Father shall each have two (2) non- consecutive weeks of summer vacation. Each party shall provide the other with written notice of his or her choice of weeks sixty (60) days in advance of the actual time of the vacation. 4) Holidays: a. Easter: Easter shall be divided into two segments. Segment A shall be defined as 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. and Segment B shall be defined as 3:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. Father shall have Segment A each year and Mother shall have segment B each year. b. Memorial Day, July 0. Labor Day: The parties shall alternate the holidays of Memorial Day, July 4thand Labor Day. In even years, Father shall have Memorial Day and Labor Day and Mother shall have July 0. In odd years, Mother shall have Memorial Day and Labor Day and Father shall have July e. These holidays shall be defined as 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. C. Thanksgiving: Thanksgiving shall be divided into two segments. Father shall have the first segment of Thanksgiving each year which shall be defined as Wednesday from after release of school until Thanksgiving Day at 4:00 p.m. Mother shall have each Thanksgiving Day from 4:00 p.m. until Friday when the regular weekend exchange shall 3 occur. d. Christmas: Each year, the Christmas holiday shall be divided as follows: 1. Father shall have the child from 9:00 a.m. on Christmas Eve until following the Children's Mass at the child's parish; 2. Mother shall have the child from after the Children's Mass at the child's parish until: a. In even years, until 10:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve. b. In odd years, until 10:00 a.m. on Christmas Day. 3. In even years, Father shall have the child from 10:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve through 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Day. In odd years, Father shall have the child from 10:00 a.m. on Christmas Day until 10:00 p.m. 4. In even years, Mother shall have the child from 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Day until 10:00 p.m. 5) Other Times: Mother shall have all such other times as the parties can mutually agree upon. C. TRANSPORTATION: The party whose period of custody is commencing is responsible for transporting the child. D. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL: The right of first refusal to care for the child is provided to the non-custodial parent when the custodial parent is unavailable for two or more hours. E. CO-PARENTING COUNSELING: The parties shall re-enter co-parenting counseling to establish a co-parenting plan. The plan should include guidelines for consistency between the parents regarding how to manage specific aspects of the child's care with regard to homework, attendance at activities, and all other aspects of a shared lifestyle where consistency is necessary. The cost of this counseling shall be shared between the parties with Father paying 75% and Mother paying 25%. The parties agree to utilize Althea Stebbins of InterWorks for this purpose. 4 F. CHILD'S TIME WITH KALENE: The child shall only be left with Mother's daughter, Kalene, when absolutely necessary and for no more than one hour. Otherwise, another care giver or Father, by exercising his right of first refusal, should care for the child. G. SUBSEOUENT REVIEW: Mother reserves the right, at her sole cost and expense, to have a custody review update by Deborah Salem, the custody evaluator, in November, 2007. Father agrees to cooperate with this meeting. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto acknowledge that they are entering in to this Agreement with the full knowledge that this Agreement shall be entered as a court order with the same force and effect as if a full hearing on this matter has been held. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire ?arles Rect r, E ominic C. Fanelli r Kathleen M. Fanelfi 5 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant NO. 2005-5517 PETITION TO MOFIDY CUSTODY ORDER 1. The Plaintiff is Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr. who currently resides at 1116 W. Powderhorn Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Respondent is Defendant, Kathleen M. Fanelli, an individual residing at 5235 Winthrop Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. The parties are divorced. 4. Petitioner and Respondent are the natural parents of one (1) minor child, Dominic C. Fanelli, born August 5, 1997, age nine (9). 5. On or about October 24, 2005, Petitioner filed a custody complaint with a claim for shared equal legal and physical custody of the parties' minor child. 1 6. After Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC performed a full custody evaluation, the parties stipulated on February 7, 2007 to a Custody Order entered by the Honorable Judge Hess. A true and correct copy of this Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference. 7. The agreement of the parties awarded Petitioner and Respondent shared legal custody and Petitioner primary custody during the school year. Petitioner and Respondent share custody during the summer. 8. Respondent has repeatedly failed to comply with the Order of Court dated February 7, 2007 and taken other inappropriate actions to the detriment of the child's physical and emotional well being. 9. Respondent is continuously late for custody exchanges. This is violation of paragraph B(1)(c) of the February 7, 2007 Order by arriving late for custodial exchanges. Many of these occur are on school nights when an 8:30 p.m. return time is required by the Order to allow for the minor child's study and rest requirements. Respondent has been late on the following dates: A) April 11, 3007- Respondent arrived at 8:50 p.m. B) April 13, 2007- Respondent arrived at 9:35 p.m. C) April 16,2007- Respondent called Petitioner and advised that she had to take her daughter to a doctor's appointment and would not be able to be home for the child after school. Petitioner said he would keep the child after school. Respondent said she would be 2 thereto pickup the child at 5:00 p.m. She picked the child up at 6:15 p.m. D) April 18, 2007- Respondent arrived at 8:45 p.m. E) April 21, 2007- Respondent was late bringing the child to his soccer game. F) April 22, 2007- Respondent was late bringing the child to his soccer pictures and game. G) April 25, 2007- Respondent arrived at 9:25 p.m. because she had taken the child to Lancaster with her to get her hair done. H) May 17, 2007- Respondent arrived at 8:45 p.m. and the child's homework was not complete because they had been out to dinner a TGI Fridays. I) May 27, 2007- Respondent was to return the child in the morning but did not return him until 1:45 p.m. 10. Respondent continuously fails to have the child's sports equipment, homework and school projects ready. For example, on or about April 30, 2007, Respondent called Petitioner at 9:40 p.m. and asked him to take the child's project to school the next morning because she could not be late for work at 8:30 a.m. Petitioner agreed if Respondent would drop the project off in the morning at Petitioner's house. Respondent did not arrive until 8:50 a.m. to drop off the project. 11. Petitioner is presently seeking modification of the custody order to restrict Respondent's boyfriend, Robert Graybill, Jr., from driving the parties' child, allowing the child to drive an ATV and/or any other vehicle, and allowing the child to use welding equipment. All of these actions create a safety risk for the minor child. 12. In April, 2007, Petitioner learned through a third party of Respondent's boyfriend's reckless driving while the child is in the car. One of the child's friends was also in the car with Respondent's boyfriend and the child had described Respondent's boyfriend speeding and running 3 stop signs. The other child's parents attempted to address this issue with Petitioner, but she denied it. The issue has not been resolved due to Respondent's failure to give Petitioner an understanding of the offenses against Mr. Graybill's driver's license. 13. It is believed that Mr. Graybill had his license suspended recently and in February, 2007, was charged with driving with a suspended license which he plead guilty to. 14. Petitioner has significant safety concerns and believes that Petitioner is allowing the child to ride ATVs, drive cars on private property using a "board" to reach the pedals, weld with Respondent's boyfriend and allow the child to walk to school about a half a mile through a construction site to meet the school bus. 15. Petitioner also believes that the Respondent has and may continue to allow the minor child to sleep with her boyfriend's two minor daughters in the same room or bed. 16. Petitioner also has concerns with Respondent's lack of supervision of the child. The child has been left alone in Respondent's home to search the internet. For instance, he accessed a website called www.stickfiguresoncrack.com that talks about touching private areas. 17. Throughout the cold winter months, Respondent continuously sent the child to the bus stop without proper clothing (no gloves, no coat). 4 19. Petitioner is concerned about the exposure of the minor child to "adult behavior" in Respondent's home, both by Respondent and her teenage daughter. Petitioner is also concerned with Petitioner's encouragement of the child having a girlfriend in third grade. The child has told others that he wanted to go "skinny dipping" with his girlfriend. She also encourages a relationship between her daughter and her daughter's boyfriend, who is forbidden by his parents to speak to Respondent's daughter, by relaying text messages between them. 19. Respondent continues to discuss custody and support issues with the child and argue with Petitioner in front of the child. 20. Respondent also continues to place the child in the middle of adult issues and has instructed the child to keep secrets from Petitioner by saying to the child in the background of a telephone conversation between Petitioner and Respondent, "don't tell him anything" and that Petitioner is to blame for the problems with the issues of her boyfriend's driving. This again only places the child in the middle of the problems between Petitioner and Respondent and causes more stress for him. 21. Efforts to address these safety and behavioral concerns directly with Respondent have failed. 22. Petitioner does not know of a person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child. 5 23. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting the relief requested because the order needs to be modified to spell out specific behaviors which need to be addressed for the protection of the minor child and/or Respondent's time with the child needs to be reduced. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that an Order be entered specifically addressing safety concerns to be abided by Respondent and/or result in a reduction of time for the child in Respondent's home. DATE: June 15, 2007 Barb umple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court I.D. 32317 Attorney for Petitioner 6 Exhibit A Barbara Sample-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant : NO. 2005-5517 ORDER ADOPTING STIPULATION OF PARTIES AND NOW, to wit, this Wkday of , 2007, upon consideration of the Stipulation for Custody dated January 26, 2007 an n motion of Barbara Sumple- Sullivan, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, Dominic C. Fanelli, and Charles Rector, Esquire, counsel for Defendant, Kathleen M. Fanelli, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the terms, conditions and provisions of the attached Stipulation for Custody are adopted as an Order of Court. The Hearing scheduled for February 15, 2007 is cancelled BY THE COURT, A. Hess, Judge TRIBE Cf`P` In Testimonv anAhe seal o PECORD ,?t my hand "sle, Pa. Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant : NO. 2005-5517 STIPULATION REGARDING CUSTODY THIS A GREEMENT is made this 26th day of February, 2007, by and between Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr., (hereinafter referred to as "Father") an adult individual residing at 1116 W. Powderhorn Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, and Kathleen M. Fanelli, (hereinafter referred to as "Mother") an adult individual residing at 5235 Winthrop Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Mother and Father are the natural parents of one (1) child, Dominic C. Fanelli, (born August 5, 1997); WHEREAS, Father filed a Custody Complaint on October 24, 2005 and a hearing before the Honorable Judge Kevin A. Hess is scheduled for February 15, 2007; WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amicably resolve all matters concerning custody by agreement and avoid the need for a formal hearing; NOW THEREFORE, the parties intending to be legally bound, do agree as follows: The parties hereby agree that an Order of Court shall be entered setting forth the following terms: A. LEGAL CUSTODY. It is in the best interest of the minor child for the continuation of shared legal custody. The parties agree that major decisions concerning the child's health, welfare, education, religious training and upbringing shall be made by the parents jointly, after discussion and consultation with each other, with a view towards obtaining and following a harmonious policy to arrive at a decision that is in the child's best interest. B. PHYSICAL CUSTODY. Father will have primary physical custody of the parties' son at all times except for Mother's periods of partial custody as set forth as follows: 1) School Year: During the school year, Mother shall have periods of partial physical custody of the parties' son as follows: a) Commencing January 26, 2007, on alternating weekends from Friday after school until Tuesday morning to school; b) On the alternating Mondays following Father's weekend from after school until Tuesday morning to school; and c) On each Thursday evening from after school until 8:30 p.m. However, Mother shall have all of the child's homework complete prior to return to Father's residence at 8:30 p.m. 2) Summer: During the summer, the parties agree to share physical custody of their minor son. Mother shall have periods of physical custody during the summer as follows and Father shall have all other times: 2 a) Commencing on Mother's first alternating scheduled weekend following the start of summer vacation from school, Mother shall have each alternating weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Tuesday morning to daycare; b) On alternating Mondays following Father's weekend overnight from after summer daycare until Tuesday morning to daycare; and c) On every Wednesday overnight from after summer daycare until Thursday morning to summer daycare. The summer schedule shall cease on the Monday morning before the actual commencement of school classes for the upcoming school year. 3) Summer Vacation: Mother and Father shall each have two (2) non- consecutive weeks of summer vacation. Each party shall provide the other with written notice of his or her choice of weeks sixty (60) days in advance of the actual time of the vacation. 4) Holidays: a. Easter: Easter shall be divided into two segments. Segment A shall be defined as 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. and Segment B shall be defined as 3:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. Father shall have Segment A each year and Mother shall have segment B each year. b. Memorial Day, July 4th Labor Day: The parties shall alternate the holidays of Memorial Day, July 4I` and Labor Day. In even years, Father shall have Memorial Day and Labor Day and Mother shall have July 0. In odd years, Mother shall have Memorial Day and Labor Day and Father shall have July 0. These holidays shall be defined as 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. C. Thanksgiving: Thanksgiving shall be divided into two segments. Father shall have the first segment of Thanksgiving each year which shall be defined as Wednesday from after release of school until Thanksgiving Day at 4:00 p.m. Mother shall have each Thanksgiving Day from 4:00 p.m. until Friday when the regular weekend exchange shall 3 occur. d. Christmas: Each year, the Christmas holiday shall be divided as follows: 1. Father shall have the child from 9:00 a.m. on Christmas Eve until following the Children's Mass at the child's parish; 2. Mother shall have the child from after the Children's Mass at the child's parish until: a. In even years, until 10:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve. b. In odd years, until 10:00 a.m. on Christmas Day. 3. In even years, Father shall have the child from 10:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve through 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Day. In odd years, Father shall have the child from 10:00 a.m. on Christmas Day until 10:00 p.m. 4. In even years, Mother shall have the child from 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Day until 10:00 p.m. 5) Other Times: Mother shall have all such other times as the parties can mutually agree upon. C. TRANSPORTATION: The party whose period of custody is commencing is responsible for transporting the child. D. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL: The right of first refusal to care for the child is provided to the non-custodial parent when the custodial parent is unavailable for two or more hours. E. CO-PARENTING COUNSELING: The parties shall re-enter co-parenting counseling to establish a co-parenting plan. The plan should include guidelines for consistency between the parents regarding how to manage specific aspects of the child's care with regard to homework, attendance at activities, and all other aspects of a shared lifestyle where consistency is necessary. The cost of this counseling shall be shared between the parties with Father paying 75% and Mother paying 25%. The parties agree to utilize Althea Stebbins of InterWorks for this purpose. 4 F. CHILD'S TIME WITH KALENE: The child shall only be left with Mother's daughter, Kalene, when absolutely necessary and for no more than one hour. Otherwise, another care giver or Father, by exercising his right of first refusal, should care for the child. G. SUBSEOUENT REVIEW: Mother reserves the right, at her sole cost and expense, to have a custody review update by Deborah Salem, the custody evaluator, in November, 2007. Father agrees to cooperate with this meeting. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto acknowledge that they are entering in to this Agreement with the full knowledge that this Agreement shall be entered as a court order with the same force and effect as if a full hearing on this matter has been held. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF: WITNESSED: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, lJsquire ?harles Rector, squire 1 '000" Dominic C. Fanelli Kathleen M. Fanelli 5 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY : NO. 2005-5517 VERIFICATION I, Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr., hereby certify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: OMINIC C. tANELLI, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY : NO. 2005-5517 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, BARBARA SUMPLE-SULLIVAN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that on this date, I served a true and correct copy of the Petition, in the above-captioned matter upon the following individual(s), by United States first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Charles Rector, Esquire 1104 Fernwood Avenue Camp Hill 17011 DATE: June 15, 2007 Ms. Kathleen M. Fanelli 5235 Winthrop Ayxt*e Mechanicsbur:'PA 7055 r i f. Barbara umple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931 (717) 774-1445 Supreme Court I.D. 32317 Attorney for Petitioner -?9- ^' ?? __, -?, ,. ? :? -.? lt?/ ? ? ?- ? ?? i lr./ ??l ? ? _ _ t, ?? ;r, ? ? ? ? {=?a (?' '.?....' "?--- ?•,._.-- DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 05-5517 CIVIL ACTION LAW KATHLEEN M. FANELLI IN CUSTODY DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, Monday, June 25, 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, July 13, 2007 at 10:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders, Special Relief orders, and Custody orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing. FOR THE COURT. By: /s/ Herbert X. Gilroy, Esq. , fY(? 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 ViNVMASNNId ,. ,. ll.Me..',-i-54 ' C :01 WV 9Z Nor LOOZ AdVIONvHIOW 3HI M 3,140-fl3llj Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant NO. 2005-5517 STIPULATION TO AMEND CUSTODY ORDER THISAGREEMENT is made this / b day of June, 2008, by and between Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr., (hereinafter referred to as "Father") an adult individual residing at 1116 W. Powderhorn Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, and Kathleen M. Fanelli, (hereinafter referred to as "Mother") an adult individual residing at 5235 Winthrop Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Mother and Father are the natural parents of one (1) child, Dominic C. Fanelli, (born August 5, 1997); WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Agreement on January 26, 2007 regarding the custody of their child. The Agreement was adopted as an Order of Court on February 7, 2007; 1 WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amicably resolve various issues relating to custody to add certain prohibitions to the Order of Court dated February 7, 2007; NOW THEREFORE, the parties intending to be legally bound, do agree as follows: The parties hereby agree that an Order of Court shall be entered setting forth the following terms: a) Communication Between Parents: Neither party shall involve the child in any adult issues. Each party shall insure that the child is not subject to any communication concerning disputed issues between the parties. Any issue that the parties need to discuss with the other party shall be directly through e-mail or by phone, if an immediate response is required. No requests or messages shall be forwarded through the child. b) Driving Restrictions: Mother's significant other, Robert Graybill, Jr., shall be restricted from transporting the child at any time. c) Contact with Robert Graybill, Jr.: Mother's significant other, Robert Graybill, Jr., shall be prohibited from having contact with the parties' son and shall not be present during her custodial periods pending completion of the custody evaluation, or after written recommendation by Deborah L. Salem; CAC, LPC, or earlier agreement of the parties, or further Order of Court. d) All other terms of the February 7, 2007 order shall remain in effect. 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto acknowledge that they are entering in to this Agreement with the full knowledge that this Agreement shall be entered as a court order with the same force and effect as if a full hearing on this matter has been held. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF: n say Gi ®rch ?6cfay, E ire Dominic C. Fanelli vie,, W. ?i , Kathleen M. Fanelli 3 WITNESSED: C ) Am S°- 1w? A ? ? ? ' pM ww . . y ?P ?'Y. i ?& It JUN 19100B ? 0 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY NO. 2005-5517 ORDER ADOPTING STIPULATION OF PARTIES AND NOW, to wit, this "` day of June, 2008, upon consideration of the Stipulation to Amend Custody Order dated June 1 , 2008 and on motion of Barbara Sumple- Sullivan, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, Dominic C. Fanelli, and Lindsay Gingrich Maclay, Esquire, counsel for Defendant, Kathleen M. Fanelli, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the terms, conditions and provisions of the attached Stipulation to Amend Custody Order are adopted as an Order of Court. BY THE COURT, 1?1(4. Ze Ke ' A. Hess, Judge Distribution: ZBarbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, 549 Bridge treet, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania X17070-1931, Attorney for Plaintiff Lindsay Gingrich Maclay, Esquire, DALEY ZUCKER MEILTON MINER & GINGRICH, LLC, 1029 Scenery Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17109, Attorneys for Defendant 7 CT3/08 AS,%, ,,id 9 NJ 0z Fin Boaz af'7J. jo r" Al Ir, 18 2008 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., Plaintiff v KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-5517 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN CUSTODY ORDER AND NOW, this le ' §01 day of August, 2008, the above case being previously assigned to the Conciliator and there being no activity on this case for a period of six months or more, the Conciliator relinquishes jurisdiction. Hu ert X. Gilroy, Esquire Custody Conciliator ? eza r, ? ar?a x Lindsay Gingrich Maclay, Esquire Supreme Court # 87954 DALEY ZUCKER MEILTON MINER & GINGRICH, LLC 1029 Scenery Drive Harrisburg, PA 17109 (717) 657-4795 ]maclu@dzmmQlaw com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., Docket No. 2005-5517 Plaintiff/Respondent Civil Action- Law V. KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, IN CUSTODY Defendant/Petitioner PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY AND NOW, this 2 q`? day of 2009, comes Defendant/Petitioner, Kathleen M. Fanelli, by and through her attorneys, Daley Zucker Meilton Miner & Gingrich, LLC, and petitions this Honorable Court as follows: 1. Defendant/Petitioner, Kathleen M. Fanelli (hereinafter referred to as "Mother"), is an adult individual who currently resides at 5235 Winthrop Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050. 2. Plaintiff/Respondent, Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as "Father"), is an adult individual who currently resides at 1116 W. Powderhorn Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050. 3. The parties are the natural parents of one (1) child, Dominic C. Fanelli (hereinafter referred to as "Child"), born August 5, 1997. 4. The child was not born out of wedlock. 5. The parties are the natural parents of the following minor Child: Name Present Residences Age d/o/b Dominic C. Fanelli 5235 Winthrop Avenue 11 8/5/97 Mechanicsburg, PA 1116 W. Powderhorn Road Mechanicsburg, PA 6. On June 23, 2006, an Interim Recommended Order was entered granting the parties shared legal and shared physical custody of the Child, consistent with the schedule under which the parties had operated since they separated in the fall of 2005 where Mother had custody of the Child on Mondays and Wednesdays and Father had custody of the Child on Tuesdays and Thursdays and alternated weekends. A copy of said June 23, 2006 Order of Court is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated by reference. 7. On or about January 15, 2007, Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC issued a Custody Evaluation Report (hereinafter "Initial Report"), recommending that the parties' share legal custody of the child. Ms. Salem recommended that during the school year, Father should have primary custody of the Child with Mother having periods of partial custody every other weekend from Friday after school until Tuesday morning drop-off at school, as well as on alternating Mondays from after school until Tuesday morning drop off at school, and on the Thursday evening preceding Father's weekend from after school until 7:30 p.m. During the summer vacation from school, Ms. Salem recommended that the parties' share physical custody of the Child on a week on/ week off basis. A copy of said Ms. Salem's January 15, 2007 Custody Evaluation Report is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and is incorporated by reference. 8. On January 26, 2007, the parties' entered into a Stipulation adopting Ms. Salem recommendations regarding the parties' custody schedule. Said January 26, 2007 Stipulation was then incorporated into a February 7, 2007 Order. A copy of said February 7, 2007 Order and the January 26, 2007 Stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and is incorporated by reference. 9. On or about June 16, 2008, the parties' entered into a Stipulation to Amend Custody Order which was adopted as a Court Order by the Honorable Kevin A. Hess on June 20, 2008. Said June 16, 2008 Stipulation addressed communication between the parties as well as driving restrictions and the Child's contact with Mother's significant other, Robert Graybill, Jr., pending the completion of an updated custody evaluation by Deborah L. Salem, CAC, LPC. A copy of said June 20, 2008 Order and June 16, 2008 Stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and is incorporated by reference. 10. On or about October 1, 2008, Ms. Salem completed the Custody Evaluation Update (hereinafter "Update"). In her Update, Ms. Salem recommended the parties' maintain shared legal custody of the Child. She recommended that the parties' custody schedule, pursuant to the February 2007 Custody Order, remain in effect for the present, but that 90 days later, a review of the status of Mother and Robert Graybill occur. After said 90 days, upon updates from the parties' therapists, Ms. Salem would issue a 90-day update indicating whether a change in the custody schedule was warranted. A copy of the October 1, 2008 Update is attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and is incorporated by reference. 11. Upon review of Mr. Graybill's psychiatric treatment and communication with Mr. Graybill's therapist, Ms. Salem recommended in said October 1, 2008 Update that the Child and Mr. Graybill could have contact with one another. See Exhibit "E". 12. Since the issuance of the Update, Mr. Graybill and the Child have had regular and consistent contact. 13. Ms. Salem issued an October 28, 2008 Review of Additional Information for Robert Graybill (hereinafter "Addendum") to her update after Father raised concerns about information in the update. A copy of the October 28, 2008 Review of Additional Information for Robert Graybill is attached hereto as Exhibit "F" and is incorporated by reference. 14. On April 15, 2009 Ms. Salem completed her 90-day review of the Update wherein she recommended that the parties revert to shared physical custody year-round. A copy of said April 15 2009 90-day review of the October 1, 2008 Custody Evaluation Update by Ms. Salem is attached hereto as Exhibit "G" and is incorporated by reference. 15. In light of Ms. Salem's recommendation, Mother seeks to revert back to year-round shared physical custody of the Child on a schedule where Mother has custody of the Child on Mondays and Wednesdays and Father has custody of the Child on Tuesdays and Thursdays and the parties shall have custody of the Child on alternating weekends. 16. Mother believes and therefore avers that she has continued to foster the Child's relationship with Father and has taken affirmative steps to help strengthen the Child's and Father's relationship. 17. Mother believes and therefore avers that the Child's best interest will be served by granting shared legal and physical custody of the Child to the parties. 18. Mother has no information of any other custody proceeding concerning the Child pending in any court of this Commonwealth. 19. Mother does not know of any other person not a party to the proceedings, besides those who have been notified by this Petition, who has physical custody of the Child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the Child. 20. Each parent whose parental rights to the Child have not been terminated and the person who has primary physical custody of the Child has been named as a party to this action. There are no other persons who are known to have or claim to have a right to custody or visitation of the Child. 21. The Child's best interests and permanent welfare will be best served by granting the relief requested because: a) Mother has consistently exercised her periods of shared physical custody with the Child; and b) Mother has an extremely strong bond with the Child; and c) Mother has taken an active interest in and has actively participated in the Child's life and activities and has fostered the Child's interests; and d) Mother continues to exercise parental duties and responsibilities and continues to enjoy the Child's love and affection; and e) Mother will continue to support and foster the Child's relationship with Father; and f) Mother believes that the Child will continue to prosper if he sees both parents on a more regular basis; and i) Mother has shown her willingness to work with Father in order to afford him greater custodial time; however Father has not shown the same willingness to work with Mother; and j) Mother has continued and will continue to put the Child's concerns and feelings ahead of her own to ensure that the Child is exposed to as little conflict as possible; and k) The Child has expressed a desire to spend more time with Mother. WHEREFORE, Defendant/Petitioner, Kathleen M. Fanelli, requests this Honorable Court enter an Order granting her shared legal and physical custody of the Child where Mother has custody of the Child on Mondays and Wednesdays and Father has custody of the Child on Tuesdays and Thursdays and the parties shall have custody of the Child on alternating weekends. DALEY ZUCKER MEILTON MINER & GINqRICH, LLC By: ze7k&AMd%] LL ' w?, LJ?llll? ttorney I. #87954 1029 Scenery Drive Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17109 (717) 657-4795 Attorney for Defendant/Petitioner VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Petition to Modify Custody are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: Ov D f '0' Kathleen M. Fanelli, Defendant/Petitioner Lindsay Gingrich Maclay, Esquire Supreme Court # 87954 DALEY ZUCKER MEILTON MINER & GINGRICH, LLC 1029 Scenery Drive Harrisburg, PA 17109 (717) 6574795 lmaclay(a*mmalaw.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR, Docket No. 2005-5517 Plaintiff/Respondent Civil Action- Law V. KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, IN CUSTODY Defendant/Petitioner : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 30'day of Awl 2009, I, Amanda M. Shull, Paralegal, hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the Petition for Modification of Custody, by mailing same by first class mail, addressed as follows: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 DALEY ZUCKER MEILTON MINER & GINGRICH, LLC By:4aanndaM. _?G/' u Shull, Paralegal 1029 Scenery Drive Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17109 (717) 657-4795 Exhibit "A" JUN Y ?? zoos DOM RC C. FANELLI, JR., : IN THE COURT OF COMMO PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V CIVIL ACTION - LAW KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, : NO. 05-5517 Defendant IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this 23'? day ofJune, 2006, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A hearing is scheduled in Court Room No. 4 of the Cumberland County Courthouse on the 24th day of August, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. At this hearing, the father shall be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a memorandum setting forth the history of custody in this an, 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 bled at least five days prior to the mentioned hearing date. 2. Pending further Order of this Court, it is ordered and directed as follows: A. Fier, ' Demonic C. Fanelli, Jr., sad mo , Kafthem M. Fermi egoy shared<ftd and shored likysical cwb* of Dominic c. FaueEi born Avast 59 1997. Physical custody shall be handled consistent with the schedule the parties have employed over the past seven months. B. The parties may through their counsel retain a professional to attempt mediation or any other counseling legal counsel for the parties desires to have performed in this case. The cost of this mediation or other professional services shall be shared equally between the parties. Upon the conclusion of any 4 mediation and in the event the attornIfs for the parties believe another conciliation would benefit the situation in advance of the hearing, the attorneys may contact the Custody Conciliator directly to schedule such a Conciliation. BY THE COURT, '1-i.444 (/" Judge KpQn A. Hess cq;? ara Samp"allivan, Esquire ,lurles Rector, Esquire 0? ti !LLI yr ? .. - ..• .` i. j??:•..:, ,. rt} to DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., Plaintiff v KATIILEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL. ACTION - LAW : NO. 05-5517 : IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL. RULE OF PROCEDURE 1915.341(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information pertaining to the child who ls the subject of this litigation is as follows: Dominic C. Fanelli, born August 5,1947. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on June 15, 2006, with the following individuals in attendance: The father, Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr with his counsel, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, and the mother, Kathleen M. Fanelli, with her counsel, Charles Rector, Esquire. 3. The parties have been separated since the fail of 2005. They have worked under a verbal custody arrangement which essentiatiy provides 50/50 physical custody shared between the parties. The father is of the opinion at tbls point that perhaps he dwaid be prime y cudedim to pmd& a lima bit amore stn6 ft in the cad's lffe. Moiber is of dw sme @#bkjL A ham is required, and the C an Otder in the fin = aced. ool OD DATE 11X. G , Esquire Custody C r Exhibit "B" w w A ,r 0 G1a kw 0460FA L 3dN% CACO, LPC Ammada rs Andm L SUMMs, LOW Lamm IIMtDA 4335Nw& F wd ftmkmow . PA 17110 Tel 717-3364= FM 717-3114WY ft 01 DATE: 01/1907 4 TO.- Barbara Swx* SuNivw^ Esq. #x Cbrtea Rader, Esq. FROM: Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC a RE: Fanelli v Fanelli Enclosed please find the oo d report on your above relbraaced dxmt& Ahhoogh I edited 11. the fun tact am time. I admitio lly an forw ding the report for too soon for my pafa ionism. I3owaem, I am amm 69 the parties mod the opportunity to review the report and decide if they vmt to use dww agraed upon review option with Dr. ShimvokL As wall, I am aware that 7* you want time to papaw for trial if necessary. If you find blatant errors in the tend or confusing phmsin& -feed fire to contact me and I will .4% alter the report to be clew. I look forward to our confamm call this aftamoon. I will initiate the call at 3 PM. Thank you. cc: Nick Fanelli (cover leer only) Kathy Fanelli (cover letter only) V s A At }IY CUSTODY EVALUATION REPORT Plaintiff: Dominic C. Fanelli ("Nck' ) Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esq. Defendant: Kathleen M. Fanelli Minor Child: Dominic C. Fanelli (KNicky') Docket No.: 2005-5517 Charles Rector, Esq. Age 9, DOB 8/5/97 (Custody)/Cumberland County IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND PROCEDURE This evaluation was completed upon the agreement of both parties and their counsel. A conciliation conference was held on June 15, 2006 before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. This resulted in the parties agreeing to attend mediation as a means of reaching an agreement regarding their differing opinions about a custody schedule for their minor child, Nicky Fanelli, age 9. The parties each attended initial sessions with the Evaluator toward the purpose of utilizing mediation services to resolve their differences. Father's initial session was held on 9/7106 and mother's on 9/8/06. Within the three weeks following their initial sessions and prior to their first mediation session, it was determined that a full custody evaluation would be more beneficial as it appeared that the parties were not going to be able to agree on a custody schedule for Nick, even with facilitation. By October 26, 2006, the parties reached an agreement whereby a full custody evaluation would be completed by the evaluator. Since the parties had a strong disagreement about which evaluator to use, they further agreed that, in the event either party was dissatisfied with the results of the evaluation provided herein, they would be permitted to seek a review of the current evaluation by Arnold Shienvold, PhD. With regard to procedure, the full evaluation spanned the period from September 7, 2006 through January 2, 2007, when the final face-to-face session was completed. With regard to procedure, the following services were provided to the individuals listed below: 1. Nick Fanelli Jr. - Initial interview (x 2), MMP12, MCM12, psychosocial history, assessment of custody conflict (x 2), relationship history, observation with minor child (x 2), home study, final assessment; 2. Kathy Fanelli - Initial interview (x 2), MMPI2, MCM12, psychosocial history, assessment of custody conflict, parent relationship assessment, observation with minor child (x 2), home study, final assessment; 3. Nkky Fanelli - Clinical observation with parents (x 4), independent psychosocial interviews (x 2); 4. Nakne Hemelmaa - Clinical observation with mother and Nicky, independent interview (x 1) 5. Robert Grevbill - Consultation interview with Kathy regarding PFA and relationship issues; 6. .4 Ind Information - In addition to face-to-face interviews, the following adjunct information was reviewed as provided by the individuals listed below- 2 A. Nick Fanelli Jr. 1. Numerous a-mails between Nick and Kathy from 4/27/06 through 1/3/07; 2. Character reference letters from various individuals regarding how the individuals see Nick as a parent; 3. E-mails from Nicky's teachers documenting Nick's involvement in Nicky's schooling; 4. Documentation of Nicky's homework with various versions of signatures from mother and evidence that Nicky's 16-year-old sister did his homework; 5. Two police incident reports from Hampton Township verifying arguments between Nick and Kathy during the time of their separation; 6. A phone consultation with Betty Weinberger, LCSW who provided both couples therapy and individual therapy to Nick; 7. Phone consultation with Ed Horan, LCSW who provided couples therapy to Nick and Kathleen; 8. Completed questionnaires required by the evaluator as part of the assessment process. B. Kathleen Fanelli 1. A copy of a January 5, 2006 warning letter from Mid-Penn Legal Services to Nick Fanelli as a result of allegations made by Kathy that Nick was engaging in harassing and stalking behaviors; 2. A letter from Kathy's physician dated 3/29/01 describing the stressors in Kathy's life; 3. A copy of a prescription refill dated 8/29/01 for Xantac from Dr. Jane Weber, M.D.; 4. Documentation of an incident at the doctor's office dated 10/4/01; 5. A letter from Kathy Fanelli's sister-in-law, Grace, detailing an incident related to Nick's alleged anger and abuse from 11/15/06; 6. Numerous a-mails between Kathy and Nick between 1/11/06 and 12/06/06; 7. Phone consultation with Ed Horan, LCSW, who provided marital therapy to Nick and Kathy; 8. Phone consultation with Betty Weinberger, LCSW regarding couples therapy and individual therapy provided to Kathy; 9. Completed questionnaires required by evaluator as part of the assessment. Process. C. Robert Graybill (current romantic partner for Kathy Fanelli) 1. A notice of a hearing and an order for Robert to attend a hearing on 12/14/06 pursuant to criminal contempt charges as a result of allegedly violating a PFA; 2. A PFA petition with details provided by Samantha Graybill regarding Robert Graybill; 3. A copy of the temporary PFA for Robert Graybill dated 12/5/06; 4. A phone consultation with Marcy Brenner, MS, LPC therapist who provided individual sessions for Robert Graybill, as well as couples therapy with Robert Graybill and Samantha Graybill. D. Nicky Fanelli 1. Report cards from the past two sc69otl yews; 2. Various examples of Nick's hock assignments. E. Miscellaneous Documents 1. Review of various letters between the attorneys spanning dates from August, 2006 and October, 2006; 2. A copy of the agreement signed by both parents regarding the resolution of October 18, 2006 to proceed with the evaluation process; 3. A copy of the 6/23/06 court order with the conciliation conference summary report of 6/15/06 attached. FINDINGS The findings reported in this section are the result of numerous face-to-face interviews, a summary of the results from psychological tests taken by each of the parents, and a review of written questionnaires from both parents. They are also the result of face-to-face interviews with Nicky and observational sessions with Nicky and each of his parents. In addition, the findings are the result of the review of all adjunct information provided by both parents and other treatment professionals. It should be noted that although a volume of information was gathered during this evaluation, only those findings pertinent to the custody recommendations are included below. L Present Situation According to the reports of both parents, there are obvious differences in what each expects to gain from this evaluation. The current custody schedule is a "50150" shared arrangement where by Nicky is with his father every Tuesday and Thursday overnight; with his mother every Monday and Wednesday overnight; and alternates his weekends Friday through Monday morning with each parent. This arrangement is one that was agreed upon without litigation by both parents. However, prior to the conciliation conference held in June 2006, father requested primary physical custody of Nicky during the school year while wishing to maintain a shared arrangement for Nicky's physical custody in the summer. Father expressed significant concern that there is not enough consistency and stability in mother's care giving for Nicky during the school year. As a result, he believes that it will be in Nicky's best interest to be in his primary care for the school year. Conversely, mother believes that the custody schedule is working well as it is and does not believe any changes need to happen, with the exception that father needs to stop scrutinizing her parenting. Father expressed significant concern about a lack of consistency, stability, availability, and structure provided by mother when Nicky is in her care. Father cited several examples related to this concern. He stated that while in his mother's care, at times Nicky's homework is, not being completed. He added the following additional concerns occurring often enough to be distressing: • Nicky's lunches not being provided at school; • Nicky being required to walk four-tenths of a mile from his bus stop to his mother's house without mother being home to supervise him after school; • Nicky being left under the care of his older sister, Kalene, with whom he has a strained relationship. Father expressed an overall complaint that mother does not focus constructive one-on-one mew on Nicky. He expressed commn that mother is excessively self-focused, self-centered, and more inclined to consider the needs of Nicky second to her own. He cited several examples of mother being repeatedly late for Nicky's sports activities when he is in her care, and unprepared for attending to Nicky's educational needs, as well as his general needs for nurturance and attention when he is in her care. Father expressed concern that Nicky complains to him that he is "bored" and restless when in his mother's care. Father provided multiple examples, (some supported by e- mails between the parents) of Nicky returning to father's care early or being in father's care even though it is mother's custodial day because of activities that Nicky wants to do with his father or because Nicky is, as stated, bored and restless and wants to return to his father's home. Most specifically, the father expressed concern about mother's lack of parenting skills. He particularly focused on mother's lack of ability to provide structure, discipline, and boundaries for her older daughter, Kalene. Information provided by both gents and Betty Weinberger, LCSW 4 support that issues related to the strong differences between father and mother with regard to the ways to discipline Kalene, were the catalyst that ultimately resulted in the marital break up. According to father, Kalene was permitted adult-like freedoms too young. He described examples that Kathy allowed Kalene to wear sexualized clothing and to date at an early age. He added that he attempted to put much more structured guidelines on Kalene, fearing for her personal well being because of being permitted to rush into her adolescence, and not being provided adequate and important boundaries with regard to romantic relationships, self-respect, and positive choices with regard to sexuality. The common example reported by mother and father related to the style of undergarments that Kalene was permitted to wear. However, information provided by father, as well as Betty Weinberger, LCSW, indicated that issues of allowing a hurried development for Kalene created strong and irreconcilable tensions between father and mother. Father provided significant substantiated reports that the result of loosened boundaries by mother with Kalene was acting out behaviors, Kalene's resistance to parental authority, and at times an unmanageable and angry dynamic between Kalene and her mother. Which overshadowed Nicky's need for security and calm in his home environment. Of most concern to father is the fact that mother's laissez fair parenting style appears to minimi?E the dangers of a hurried development, provide poor monitoring of child decisions, and support decisions that are not in a child's best interests. This coupled with what father describes as mother's her high degree of attention to her own personal needs will result in a breakdown in Nicky's current respectful and positive functioning if he is permitted to remain in a shared custodial arrangement, particularly during the school year. Father's summarized that Nicky is not being provided positive role modeling with regard to consistency with important responsibilities such as completing schoolwork and being timely in his attendance at organized activities in which he is involved. Father expressed a concern that if he does not oversee Nicky's development at this time, that as Nicky gets older, the influence of mother's loosened boundaries will manifest in similar types of rebellion, as are seen in Kalene. In summary, father` forthrightly expressed a concern for his son's welfare specifically related to stability, consistency, and being nurtured while in his mother's care. He reported that he has a work schedule, a lifestyle, and a willingness to make Nicky his primary focus, and as a result, believes that there are multiple times when he is called in to provide care for Nicky even when he is in his mother's physical custody. Multiple e-mai s due indicate, that on a relatively high avee, fither is called in to provide mm bacluip cue for sky whm mother is the custodial pm=L Tl ' Wang things to school that Nicky has forgotten, gating Nicky to certain activities, p vviding care and meals for Nicky after school when mother is unavailable, and in fact; also providing for Kalene who calls father at different times requesting a ride, food, or other things because mother is unavailable. Father stated that Nicky needs and wants a relationship with his mother, and does not believe that disrupting the shared custody arrangement in the summer is necessary. In fact, he believes because there are fewer demands for structure in the summer that the custody schedule can return to a 50150 arrangement in the summer. According to mother, she believes that father's concerns and father's impressions regarding her parenting are inaccurate, and in fact shaded and colored by his resentment and embittered feelings about the fact that she left him and is currently in another relationship. She sees father's complaints about her parenting with Nicky running counter to Nicky's personal impressions of life with his 5 mother. It is mother's impression that Nicky is satisfied with the custody schedule as it is, and it is finther mother's impression that Nicky would make such a statement if he were required to do so in court. Mother described many examples of father's embittered communications with her regarding her adultery and regarding what he perceives as her self-centered, over-focus on her needs, her looks, her clothing, and her plans. Mother also cited examples of father being angry and controlling with regard to her current relationship, and at least several months ago attempting to stop Nicky from having access to her current partner. Mother did indicate as of November 2006, that father was less focused on her relationship and less hostile regarding his comments to her. Nonetheless, mother continues to believe that father's issues have little to do with her lack of parenting skill, and more to do with his reaction to the loss of a personal relationship with her. Mother did admit difficulty with rebellion with her older daughter, but minimized the extent of it, indicating that father overemphasized issues, desired to over control matters related to Kalene, and exaggerated much of what occurred between her and Kalene. Mother further denied that she is willfully unavailable to the children. In a review of mother's e-mail communications, she indicated that she believes that father should be more cooperative in helping her out and assisting in maintammg a shared custody arrangement since he has the land of job and availability where he can do so. Mother indicated in her e-mail that she believed father should put more effort into trying to help make a 50150 schedule work for Nicky's sake, as opposed to scrutinizing her unavailability at various times, because she works three jobs in order to afford housing and all that is required of a single parent. In summary, mother reported that she has a positive relationship with Nicky and denied difficulties in being able to provide attention, structure, or nurturance for Nicky. Instead, she indicated that complaints and allegations wagered by father are more related to father's animosity directed at mother and father's personal feelings toward mother regarding the end of their relationship. 2. Parent Robattah When father was offered the opportunity to rebut allegations made by mother, he did substantiate that early on in the initial stages of their separation, he was in fact, injured, hurt, felt a sense of betrayal, and expressed this in angry and/or exasperated communication with mother. He denied continued animosity or enit *1192 to mother with regard to the end of rolefi ' or her cuntmt new relation p iaE inificiad t my animosity t lar h is as a rawk of a protective feeling for his son and ray observing his son not receiving the kind of consistency and care that he was used to when they were in an intact family or that he needs especially because of the divorce situation Father admitted to previous hostility, particularly during the early stages of their separation (as evidenced by taped phone messages provided by mother that occurred in April 2006). Father also substantiated that there were hostile exchanges with both him and mother participating at the time that they physically separated their households and on a few occasions thereafter. He admitted to receiving a warning letter through Mid-Penn legal services based on allegations made by mother regarding his hostile communication with her. The warning letter dated 1/5/06, alleged verbally harassing communication from father to mother, as well as an incident where father allegedly threw mail at mother causing a cut on her head. No further action beyond the warning letter was ever taken. With regard to a rebuttal to the allegations in the warning letter, father provided two police incident reports indicating that on both occasions where altercations 6 occurred between him and mother, both of them where cited for inappropriate verbal expressions to each other and inappropriate pushing with each other. When mother was offered the opportunity to rebut her allegations, she stated that father's allegations about her unavailability and self-centered nature with regard to her children were "not true." She reported believing that allegations about her inappropriate discipline with Kalene are exaggerated and more the result of father's rigidity than of her being lax in her discipline. Mother's most prominent support for her parenting is her statement that Nicky wants the custody schedule to remain as it is. As stated previously, mother's primary defense of allegations regarding her parenting, is the fact that father's allegations are motivated by his animosity toward her as opposed to being the result of facts or the reality of her relationship with Nicky. 3. History of Present situation Both parents give a relatively similar history of the beginning of their relationship, their dating life, their early marriage, and the lifestyle that they were able to create after their marriage. Both reported meeting in 1994, getting engaged in early 1996 and being married in June, 1996. They lived in the same home where father currently lives from the beginning of their marriage until their final separation in October, 2005. Both described the strength of their marriage as father's ability to be a good provider, and their ability to create a fun and enjoyable relationship both between them and with neighbors and friends. There is a divergence in the way each parent describes the demise of the relationship and his or her ultimate separation. According to father, the relationship began to show signs of weakness approximately three years ago. He described mother as disconnecting from him and resisting his opinion, particularly with regard Kalene, then age 12. He described their disagreements as becoming stronger and stronger and his sense of alienation from Kathy as also becoming stronger. He described her as becoming so involved in "self-enhancement" including her image, her weight, her clothing, and her desire to preserve her looks that she was essentially unavailable to him. During that three-year period, mother described father as becoming increasingly more insulting, angry, controlling, and verbally abusive. She substantiated that many of their arguments revolved around her daughter, Kalene, and the differences in their parenting style, however she indicated that the primary demise of the relationship for her was due to father's controlling behaviors. Finally, in September 2005 dW four months of nwital theaapy, to Wm" an affair and ult matesly left the marital -home in October 2W5. A t , , it is tn= she began her relationship with her current partner, Robert GraybK prior to l dw nwriage, she denies that her relationship with Bob is the reason for the end of the marriage. Instead, she continues to cite father's ongoing control and anger issues as her reason to leave the marriage. She described feeling suffocated and stifled by father's control. According to father, the issues that arose beginning when Kalene was 12 was profound differences in how to manage Kalene's mounting rebellion. He stated that it was so problematic that it created an ongoing source of disruption in their household and in his and mother's relationship. Father reported feeling excessive concern for Kalene's wellbeing, for Nicky's wellbeing because of the amount of tension and arguing and acting out that occurred with Kalene over that period. He described an environment where he felt somewhat desperate to change what was happening with 7 Kalene, while at the same time felt a sense of desperation about his inability to reach mother with regard to Kalene, and their relationship. He further described mother as beginning to go out with her friends and to go to nightclubs in the downtown Harrisburg area at an increasing rate. Although painful, it was not surprising to father that mother ultimately began a relationship with another individual prior to ending the marriage. Whereas mother describes father's behaviors as intentionally controlling and angry, father described a situation where he was feeling increasingly more out of control of his relationship and the care of the children. He said this resulted in him being more and more directive and forceful especially about managing the situation with Kalene. The Fanelli's attended therapy for the first time between 2003-early 2005 when Kathy attended a few sessions with Ed Horan, MS who then provided on going marital therapy that involved individual sessions with each party on occasion. According to Mr. Horan, the couple had multiple difficulties with contributions from each regarding their inability to use therapy to improve their. relationship. He described both as self centered, with Nick expressing contempt for Kathy while Kathy had extraordinary needs for attention that could not be fulfilled by Nick. The result was a failed therapy experience despite a strong therapeutic effort. Both parties were seen as entrenched in their dysfunctional perspectives. In a phone consultation with Betty Weinberger, LCSW, she reported providing marital therapy to the Fanelli's between May 2005 and September 2005. During that time, she reported having seven sessions with the parents. She then held individual sessions with each of the parents, three with mother and four with father. Ms. Weinberger indicated that she continued to see father until February 2006. She reported that mother stopped coming in shortly after the separation from Nick in October 2005. In describing the chief complaint of the couple when they first came into therapy, Ms. Weinberger indicated that mother complained of father's control with regard to her clothing, her actions, and her friends. Ms. Weinberger indicated that it became apparent in a short period that the primary issue was actually Kalene and the strong difference in their parenting styles. Ms. Weinberger described a dynamic where, although by Nick's attitude, voice tone, and presentation style, he would appear to be "controlling and impossible", in fact, it was Nick who showed a strong capacity to manifest positive parenting skills; to make good and thoughtful decisions with reed to what Kalene needed; and to provide nurturance and support to the chUdren. Con ly, she described nK&w as<b g " tie" with hear dmqMw with nprd to aedl oppunave and "eel . g sexual behavior in her daughter by minimi g and downphyng concems abate Kalen's acting out, and demibing her precocious behaviors as "normal coed to her peers." Aecording to Ms.Weinberger, part of the breakdown in the marriage occurred because the more Nick pushed for controls with Kalene, the more mother and Kalene withdrew from him. Ms. Weinberger indicated that in addition to the strong disagreement about Kalene, mother seemed to have an unrealistic perception of what is normal in a relationship, because she attempted to defend going out weekly with her girlfriends and flirting with other men and coming home and describing it to father. With regard to her individual sessions with each parent, Ms. Weinberger indicated that the primary focus of her three, sessions with mother revolved around Ms. Weinberger's concern about an increase in mother's drinking behaviors. They further focused on providing support to mother who was reporting that she was biding her time and gathering resources to get a divorce attorney and be 8 financially capable of living on her own. According to Ms. Weinberger, once mother separated from father she did not return to therapy. With regard to individual work with father, Ms. Weinberger indicated that she primarily focused on helping him with his reactions to the marital separation and particularly focused on his not using the children as a means of understanding what was happening with mother. She further worked with father on possible symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorder since father seemed to have a difficult time refraining from a need to gather information about mother after she left. As a result, father accepted a suggestion to take medication. She reported that there was a decrease in his symptoms due to medication, and a resulting increase and return of those behaviors once he stopped the medication. In summary, both parents report a relatively stable relationship from the time they were married in mid-1996 until approximately 2003. The relationship between mother, father and Kalene was central to the ultimate breakdown in their ability to seek solutions and keep their marriage intact. The differences in parenting styles exaggerated and highlighted the lack of connection that began to occur between mother and father. This ultimately resulted in mother withdrawing from the relationship and entering into another relationship prior to actually, physically separating. Results of conjoint therapy yielded little resolution in any of the differences that inspired the therapy, specifically revolving around parenting differences as well as revolving around mother's perception of father as controlling and father's perceptions of mother as self-possessed. Although less extreme at this time, those differences persist and are still a part of the co-parenting dynamic between mother and father. 4. History of Custody Conflict At the time of their separation in 2005, the parents reached a verbal agreement to share Nicky's custody in the schedule that currently exists. According to father, multiple issues occurred (as indicating that mother is not always available to provide consistent and stable care for Nicky during the school year. According to father through his attorney, he made multiple attempts to get mother to be more consistent and more stable and to better provide for Nicky to no avail. A conciliation conference held in June 2006, suggested mediation take place to discuss father's desire for increased custodial time during the school year and to discuss the differences of opinion between the parents with, mywd to wbodw woblaw exist with MWd to WW Ws _ i ag to nw6w, the only is tint has eve' exigbed -is loo .. b, and instead of trying to help her with her situation w" mpins hw to work more how then she has ever done, she alleges that he'd "rather use her unavailability asst her." As previously stated, following the June 2006 conciliation there was an attempt to begin the process of mediation. However, due to mounting issues that occurred with regard to Kalene and with regard to Nicky's care, it became apparent that no agreement could be through mediation. This evaluation is the result of the fact that neither parent was able to alter their position about a desired custody schedule for Nicky. INDIVIDUAL ASUSSi1 NTS L Dominic C. FwyM {Nick) 9 Nick was assessed in the course of seven face-to-face interviews. He also completed the MMP12 and the MCMI2. A review of his family composition and background, his work history, his medical history, his relationship history and his mental status were taken. In addition, Nick was observed in relationship to Nicky during a one-hour observational interview in the clinical setting and during a second one-hour observation during the home study. With regard to Nick's childhood, he is the oldest of three children born to his parents who were married for 41 years, when his father died in 1996. His mother recently died in September 2006. With regard to any significant tragedies, traumas, or problems, Nick reported that he had a relatively "normal" and positive childhood He cited the most significant adjustment issue during his childhood was the fact that because his father was a state police officer, they were required to move a lot when his father's job was transferred. He reported moving four different times during his childhood. In addition, although it occurred while Nick was in college, Nick also cited the death of his father's best friend, killed while directing traffic, as a significant family tragedy. With regard to his academic life, Nick attended private parochial school for the majority of his primary school education. In elementary school and throughout his schooling, he described himself as an average student academically who did not apply himself. He described himself as a well- behaved student who would not have considered acting out based on the structure in his family life and the values instilled in him. With regard to socializing and friendships, despite the fact that he moved a lot and had to adjust his social life, he described himself as always having friends and "plenty of them." In high school, he was a member of the wrestling team which was another aspect of his social life. He graduated in 1975 from Bishop Hafey High School in Hazelton, Pennsylvania. Directly after high school, Nick attended York College of Pennsylvania where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in police science, with an associate's degree in correction, with a minor in accounting. He attended college from 1975-1979. Nick reported leaving home for the first time when he was a college student. He lived at home for approximately three to four months right after graduating from college, but shortly thereafter moved out and did not return home. With regard to his work history, Nick has been in the financial industry for the past 25 years. In 1979, after graduation from York College of Pennsylvania, Nick suffered the disappointment of not being accepted at the police academy. He indicated that 7000 individuals took the test for only 25 pesWwwwAW". Ahbou& he was offered two. law amfimumajobs and was hired at the Dqedwout, of Drug , he optod to, iV w ' • ' , * 1981. Amw&ng to Nick, he has suffered two great in his life, one was never becoming a police officer and the second was never having a 30-year marriage. Returning to his work history, Nick reported that he began with Mutual of Omaha from 1981-1988. He then transferred to Mutual of New York where he remained for the next 14 years, from 1988-2002. He is currently employed and has been since 2002 with Mass Mutual Winken & Associates. Nick is a certified financial planner and a registered representative for mutual funds, a certified life insurance underwriter, and has other multiple certificates. He described liking his job and indicating that he is and has been successful in a full range of financial planning. With regard to his relationship history, Nick indicated that he had one prior marriage before Kathy. He met his first wife in 1984; they dated for four years until 1988, were married and then divorced in 1990. He described the marriage as ending because of her significant degree of investment in her 10 work training horses. Although they knew of her investment in her work prior to their marriage, Nick believed that she was committed to changing her number of work hours, however shortly into the marriage it was apparent that this was not going to occur. Nick reported that although they attempted brief marital counseling, the relationship ended It should be noted that Nick's first wife had two children, ages 5 and 3 when he married her. Nick reported a positive relationship with his first wife. He added that her two children maintain contact with him and visit him. Due to Nick's caution with regard to the end of his first relationship, Nick did not enter into a second serious relationship until his dating and marriage with Kathy. A history of that relationship has already been included in this report. With regard to his medical history, it is remarkable for the treatment of depression for a brief period in 2005 with the use of Effexor, an antidepressant. He reported taking Effexor for less than one year and has not taken it for several months. His family physicians are Doctors Thompson and Uniack at the Mechanicsburg Family Medicine Center. He is prescribed no medications on a regular basis, but does take vitamins and is committed to his health by working out three times a week and eating healthy foods. He has never had any serious accidents or illnesses with the exception of a torn rotator cuff in December of 2004, for which he had to wear a shoulder sling. There is significant family history in that his father had heart disease and his mother died of colon, bowel and bladder cancer. With regard to the use of mood altering substances, Nick reported that he has never tried illicit drugs. He further reported that he has never smoked cigarettes. He did report drinking alcohol occasionally, usually beer. He also reported the use of caffeine in the form of coffee and diet soda, although he does so in moderation. Neither Nick nor any of his family members have a history of addictive disease or substance abuse. With regard to current stresses in his life, Nick reported that the custody situation is the primary source of stress for him. He reported that he perceives himself as beyond the strain he experienced with the ending of his marriage, but feels continued distress regarding what he believes is a lack of care for Nicky. He indicated that he feels protective and concerned while at the same time helpless to create the kind of changes that he believes are necessary in order for Nicky to thrive when he is cared for by his mother. With regard to any current symptoms relied to his stress, Nick denied such. With re4prd to any therapy aqmwoces, as ' dwAmwj*, with Daffy , WSW km,May 20 to A"at 2M. He individual th ey with Betty Weinberger fiom October 2005 to Felt ry 2006. Nick also attended couples therapy with Kathy with Ed Horan, M.S. As reported in a previous section of this report, a phone consultation was held with Betty Weinberger, LCSW and Ed Horan, MS, relative to therapeutic issues. With regard to his presentation in numerous interviews, Nick was open, serious, intense, and highly focused on his desire to present a detailed series of events and circumstances to support his position that he should be primary physical custodian of Nicky during the school year. He presented as verbal, articulate, connected to the process of the evaluation and willing to give content specific responses to all of the evaluation questions asked. Of most significance to his presentation, was the presence of a concern that he was not getting his perceptions and concerns across, to the extent that it was at times slightly difficult to get Nick to focus on areas other than documenting his perceptions 11 and experiences with the current custody conflict with Kathy. However, with facilitation, he was able to engage in areas of focus designed and directed by the evaluator. Nick showed a capacity to express a broad range of moods and emotions, and to have a clarity and organization in his thoughts and actions that showed a congruency between his feelings and his manifest behaviors. He further showed no signs of any significant stress-related illness, affective disorder or psychotic disorder. As stated by Betty Weinberger, LCSW, he displayed a tendency to obsessive compulsive traits, which may have been contributing to his inability to feel secure that he had adequately presented his position with regard to custody. Results of Nick's MMPI2 revealed a valid profile in an individual whose test-taking attitude was considered slightly defensive, in that he showed a mild tendency to underreport pathology. This was not considered significant when comparing it to the reason for the test-taking itself. It is considered normal in job applicants, parents in custody evaluation procedures, and other "high-stakes" situations. All of Nick's clinical scales were within normal limits. A mild inability to be worry-free about whether he has filled his obligations and responsibilities. was noted In addition, he was described as conventional, responsible, and practical. Results of Nick's MCMI2, designed to show patterns of responsiveness that are predictable during periods of stress, also revealed a valid profile in an individual who was described as an essentially well-functioning individual with no major personality disorders, but who is currently undergoing significant psychological distress, and therefore exhibiting some troublesome symptoms that are situational and transient. The distress in Nick was described as manifesting in a high degree of concern for his public appearance and a desire to be seen by others as composed, virtuous and conventional in his behaviors. In addition, he was described as having a tendency to downplay distressing inner emotions or to deny troublesome relationships with others in his life. When comparing the results of Nick's psychological testing with his presentation in numerous interviews, it is notable that Nick is undoubtedly conventional, and a "by the books" individual. He finds distress in the custody situation because of what he perceives, by his standards, as Kathy's gross expressions of unconventional parenting. Also of significance, is the description of Nick as highly responsible and an individual who is prone to worrying about whether or not he has lived up to his responsibilities. Throughout the evaluation process, Nick appeared highly concerned about whether he had responsibly delivered the kind of information that was necessary to show his prom of the custody strain. In , his. 'l ty alaO were em*pwnd in his amoem about ,'s in, of l and his need to have Nicky be cared for within a she where 6m is a high degree of responsibility and focus for Nicky's well-being. With regard to a direct observation of Nick's relationship with Nicky, this occurred on two separate occasions, once in the clinical setting and once during the evaluation of Nick and Nicky's home. In both observations, it was apparent, without reservation that Nick and Nicky are bonded, close, affectionate, comfortable with each other, and share a great deal in common. It was notable that Nick's most relaxed and open demeanor occurred in relationship to his son. It was further notable that there was nothing contrived about this attitude with Nicky, in that he showed an effortless styles at being able to follow Nicky's lead and delight in the relationship with his son. This was also noted during the home evaluation process where the relationship between Nick and Nicky was described as Nick showing a great deal of concern and caring for Nicky and the two of them being humorous, silly, 12 animated, and engaging with each other. There was a common understanding of each others body language, phrases, and shared experience. There were no noticeable problems in either observation that would cause concern about parenting skills expressed by Nick. With regard to observed parenting skills, Nick showed a good capacity to transit between being playful with Nicky and then being structured with him when needed. It is notable that Nick secured multiple letters of reference from various individuals who have observed his relationship with Nicky. Without exception, the observed behaviors by the evaluator and the home study evaluator were substantiated by several individuals all of whom highlighted Nick's caring for Nicky, his capacity to be both playful and at the same time exercise adult authority, and his clear love and protection for Nick. Significantly, Nick is the football coach for several of the individual's children who wrote recommendations for him. They all commented on the respect and attachment their children have for Nick and the amount of appreciation they feel for Nick in terms of what he provides in terms of role modeling, guidance, and fim for their children. In addition to an assessment of the relationship between Nick and Nicky, results of the home study yielded that, by Nicky's description, there are a variety of routines in father's home with Nicky being able to describe the morning routine, the after school routine, the dinner routine and the regular bedtime routine. The house was described as a large, nicely kept home about which Nicky is very proud He showed the home evaluator a large downstairs playroom with his toys, videogames, statues, certificates, etc. The house was described as homey with no apparent hazards with regard to traffic or any other issues. 2. Kathleen Fanelli Kathleen was assessed in the course of seven face-to-face interviews. She also completed the MMPI2 and MCMI2. A review of Kathleen's family composition and background, as well as her relationship history, her work history, her medical history, and her mental and emotional status were taken. In addition, because of issues raised with regard to how the parenting of Kalene may effect the parenting of Nicky, an assessment of Kathleen's relationship with Kalene was also completed. Because of issues raised about the status of Kathleen's relationship with Bob Graybill, a one-hour interview was held with Kathleen and Bob G ill to asuss ter r o . Fiery, Kathinn vms observed in two ai ,ed numm vx*.Koft a of in at mss= A$IW, I*wbk wwpuML Am 1, aw Cab'".V86 in teak place in the evaluation of ms's ham. It s, d be aftd that alb Kelow w#a pawat in the home, she had the flu and therefore stayed in her roman and was not observed by the home study evaluator. With regard to her childhood and any significant tragedies or traumas, Kathleen is the middle of three natural children born to her parents. She has two brothers, one older and one younger. She also has two older half-brothers. Kathleen described the marriage between her parents as highly dysfunctional describing her mother as very demanding and angry, which resulted in a complete lack of affection or kindness between the parents in Kathleen's presence. She described her mother as "really hard on her father." She further described her mother as "different, sheltered, fearfid, naive, and gullible." As a result, she indicated that she was not close to her mother and has grown to understand her over the years as being dysfumctional and has therefore learned to forgive her. She had a closer relationship 13 with her father describing him as gentle, hardworking, dependable and sentimental. She described him as her source of affection while she was growing up. Kathleen denied that there were any other serious tragedies or traumas, but indicated that certainly the pervasive dysfunction in her family was a form of trauma. Despite this, she described her childhood as ordinary because she was a tomboy who was outside playing and being adventuresome. With regard to her academic history, Kathleen is a high school graduate who attended the West Shore School District and graduated in 1981. She described herself academically as above average throughout school. She reported that as she got older and more social her grades declined slightly, but not to any severe extent. She described herself as well-behaved throughout elementary school and most of middle school with a few minor problems "here and there" in middle school culminating in some rebellion in high school, but never anything that went "too far." She cited skipping class as an example of her rebellion. With regard to her socializing, Kathy expressed that she always made friends "pretty easily." She did recall becoming increasingly more self-conscious as she entered middle school. By high school, she remained somewhat neutral in terms of being a part of a clique and considered herself as someone who could transit among a variety of different of peers. Kathleen left home for the first time right after high school at the age of 17 to live with her oldest half-brother. She indicated that she did so because she "wanted to do what she wanted to do." Shortly there after at the age of 18, Kathy moved in with her first husband, David Besselman. They lived together for four years then got married. They remained married for six years and had Kalene one year before they separated. With regard to what she believed ended the marriage, she indicated that she does not believe that Dave really ever wanted a child. She indicated that he had an affair shortly after Kalene was born and they separated when Kalene was 11-months-old resulting in severe heartbreak for Kathy. Kathy had her next serious relationship right before she met Nick indicating that she dated another gentleman for about one year "off and on." Her next serious relationship occurred with Nick, the history of which has previously been reported. With regard to Kathy's co-parenting relationship with Kalene's father, she indicated that they had a better co-parenting relationship prior to his recent remarriage. She indicated that they are currently barely able to relate. She recounted a recent incident at the beginning of the 2006/2007 school year where her ex-husband "convinced Kalene to move in with them." When this didn't work, she d=cribed her ex-husbovi as being wry about rebunM c of Kalene back to Key. Kathleen left her mares with Nick in October, 2005. She entmed into a relationship with Robert Graybill, age 33, who she met at a concert in late September, 2005. They admittedly began to date prior to leaving her marriage with Nick. Significantly, Kathy continued to date Robert and in January, 2006 discovered that he was married and had five children. This created a significant amount of emotional distress as well as mistrust for Kathleen despite the fact that she and Robert continued to see each other. They described having significant ups and downs because of both of them being embroiled in intense and hostile separations from their spouses. Both also reported that, despite the fact that they have been seeing each other since September, 2005 and clearly "love each other", Robert has been ambivalent and unable to be assertive with his estranged wife until very recently. According to both Kathleen and Robert, it was shortly after his assertion that he was choosing Kathleen over his wife, that Robert was served with a Protection from Abuse order. According to Robert, he believes there is a connection between his being adamant that he was not going to return to 14 his wife and the fact that she secured a PFA. It is notable that in a review of the petition for the PFA, some serious allegations have been wagered against Robert . The specific allegation that led to the PFA was not as serious as the historical information included in the petition alleging that Mr. Greybill has been physically violent with his estranged wife and in fact, has been sexually assaultive with her. When questioned about those areas Mr. Greybill adamantly denied such. Despite the many conflicts inherent in Kathleen and Robert's relationship, they both espouse a strong degree of attachment and love for one another. Both perceive their relationship as extremely different from any prior relationship in that they are able to talk for "unending" amounts of time. They both hope that they have a long-term future in their relationship, but clearly know that the current strain makes it hard to focus on the future. Robert is ten years younger than Kathleen is and has five children, three of whom are reacting very negatively toward him leaving the family. As a result, he has multiple custody issues which have not yet been addressed in any direct fashion. Despite the many complications in their relationship, both Kathleen and Robert report that they are committed to trying to make their relationship work. It should be noted that in a discussion with Robert Graybill about the history of his relationship, more specifically the breakdown of his relationship, he did indicate that he had been in therapy with Marcy Brenner, MS at New Passages. He voluntarily signed a release for the Evaluator to talk to Ms. Brenner. In a phone consultation with Marcy Brenner, she indicated that she had only four individual sessions with Robert and could not comment on any of the couple sessions since no release was signed by Robert's wife, Samantha With regard to her impressions of Robert and the individual therapy that they did, Ms. Brenner reported that because of experiencing family dysfunction in the form of needing to over strive for his father's love, Robert manifests addictive qualities related to his relationships. She reported that although Robert was participative during the times he was in therapy, he left therapy before it was completed. With regard to her work history, Kathy is currently employed at Community Banks as a receptionist. She has been there since May, 2006 and reports really enjoying her job since previous jobs that she has held have all been "repetitious." It should be noted that a decision was made for Kathleen to stay home during her marriage to Nick in order to take care of the children. As a result, her work history was predominantly part-time work in retail clothing. In the past, Kathy worked at Express Stores and currently maintains four hours a week at Express in order to maintain her clothing discount. In addition, Knew wwU some Saturdays at a.l l-bridal gip. She is considered a good employee at here job and has not been disdipNoad in aat . With regard to her medical history, it is significant that Kathleen has been treated long term for migraine headaches at the Philadelphia Headache Clinic at the Jefferson Hospital. Her physician there is Dr. Silberstein. She is prescribed a combination of Wellbutrin 300 mg, Lexapro 10 mg and Topamax 100 mg. The Wellbutrin and the Lexapro are both antidepressants although the Wellbutrin is also effective for treating migraine headaches. The Topamax is strictly a medication for migraine headaches. In addition to being treated to prevent migraine headaches, Kathleen is also prescribed Phenergan suppositories and other pain medications in the event that she does have a migraine headache. Kathleen's family physician is Dr. Thompson on Simpson Ferry Road in Mechanicsburg, PA. In addition to prescribed medications, Kathy reported taking all kinds of supplements for general 15 health and for skincare, including multivitamins, calcium, vitamin E, folic acid, alpha lipolic acid, and a baby aspirin each day. With regard to significant family medical history, her father died of throat and lung cancer. Her maternal grandfather had serious heart disease and her paternal grandmother suffered with cancer. With regard to her use of mood altering substances, Kathleen reported that she uses caffeine in the form of one cup of coffee per day. Her headache physician indicated that the use of a small amount to caffeine could help keep migraine headaches at bay. Kathleen further reported that if she has a "really stressful" day, she would drink a beer or a glass of wine at night or sometimes two. She denied the use of any other mood altering substances for many years, although admitted that she had tried marijuana when she was in her late adolescence. It is significant to note that in the phone consultation with Betty Weinberger, LCSW, she expressed some concern for the level of alcohol that Kathleen was consuming toward the end of her marriage to Nick. Kathleen denied current or past drinking to excess. She described herself as a social drinker who only has 1-2 drinks and only occasionally. It is significant that in her own writing, she describes her treatment for a very stressful day as drinking a beer or a glass of wine or two. With regard to the current significant stressors in her life, Kathleen reported that the primary stress for her is both of her ex-husbands; finances; and exhaustion from not having much help, especially with things and decisions that she doesn't know a lot about. With regard to symptoms related to her stress, she reported that she used to get a lot more headaches but they are controlled well with medication now. She also reported having difficulty with loss of appetite and some difficulty concentrating and sleeping. Kathleen is not in therapy at this time but is being prescribed antidepressant medication as listed previously. With regard to her presentation in numerous interviews, Kathleen was verbal, open, friendly, and readily able to focus on the purpose of the interview sessions. Kathleen expressed a range of emotions and showed specific guardedness when she was attempting to displace sadness or pain related to relationship matters. Her responses to evaluation questions were thoughtful and content specific. Kathy had a hard time focusing on issues related to Nick's parenting and focused much more on issues related to their primary marital relationship and her perceptions of Nick's controlling nature. Of significance to Kathleen's presentation in numerous interviews was the observance of her being pmooempied wi*t mwaw reWAd to the readtal re' p and less so about custody and Results of Kathy's MA+fl'12 revealed a valid profile in an individual whose test-taking attitude was considered balanced between her ability to be frank and open and her ability to be self-protective. There was no tendency to over or under-report pathology in her test-taking attitude. Of most significance to her test results was the presence of a high degree of sensitivity to the reactions of others. This results in rationalization and projection of blame onto others about her responsibility for difficulties that are occurring in her life. Also of significance was a strong tendency to subvert responsibility for stress in her life into manifest physical symptoms. She is also described as somewhat self-centered and narcissistic yet enthusiastic, friendly, talkative and open. Results of both Kathy's MM912 and her MCM12 revealed a strong need to be seen as acceptable and desirable to the point that her anger and hostility about situations is often pushed below the surface. As a result, her anger and resentment, which can be legitimate, are expressed in more covert ways. 16 When comparing Kathy's presentation and life circumstances to the results of her psychological tests, it is clear that Kathy tends to focus a great deal of her concern about the custody situation on Nick's behaviors, projecting that his hostility is the central theme of the custody concerns. She fails to identify legitimate issues involving her that arouse fiustration in Nick. She does appear, at times, to be highly self-focused, particularly around her appearance and her desire to preserve her looks. Most specifically, there is the tendency in Kathy to attempt to repress uncomfortable and extreme feelings resulting from having recently left a marriage; starting a new relationship with an individual where there are significant barriers and complications; and being a single mother with all that it requires. In two separate one-hour sessions, Kathy was observed in interactions with Nicky. The first observation occurred in the clinical setting and included Kathy's older daughter, Kalene Besselman, age 16. The second observation occurred during the home evaluation, and although Kalene was home, she was sick in bed and, therefore, was not observed in interactions with Kathy and Nicky. During the observation in the clinical setting, mother brought photo albums for the three of them to view. Notably, both Kalene and Nicky were resistant to looking at the albums at first, although within 5-10 minutes from starting, mother was successful at getting both of them engaged. Within another 10 minutes, Nicky again separated out, and although he was cajoled, reprimanded, and directly demanded by Kathy to participate in the activity, he never did so. Instead, Nicky played with various games in the Evaluator's office or his own game of stacking cups. Nicky appeared to become the most involved in the photo albums when they contained pictures of him where he was old enough to be reminiscent about what had happened in the pictures. Otherwise, he was clearly uninterested in pictures of him when he was a baby. Also of note was the fact that mother and Kalene observed the pictures often from the point of view of describing their hair styles, how they looked, their clothing, etc. Also of note was the fact that, on three separate occasions, Kalene had a warm and reminiscent memory of an activity with her stepfather, Nick. In summary, although Nicky separated out for most of the observation, there was the presence of behaviors that indicate a covert but comfortable and safe bond between Nicky and his mother. He did not display aversive behaviors, but rather a sense that he could command his own set of behaviors and isolate from what was occurring with his mother and sister. There was also verbal and nonverbal evidence of a strained and tense relationship between Nicky and Kalene. Kalene's tone was y when mak:iag comments to Nicky and Nic responded, in kind, with a modking tone. Observations of Nicky and his mother in the home evaluation resulted in a description of hesitant and reserved interactions when Nicky and Kathy were asked to describe their daily routines. Neither seemed able to identify routines. Nicky was described as far less expressive and spontaneous within his mother's home than he appeared to be in his father's home. In addition, so too was mother's home described as far less child-centered than father's with a note from the home study evaluator indicating that with only rare exceptions, if one were to review the home, one would not guess that a 9-year-old boy lived in it because of the lack of presence of any child-centered decor or child-centered activities. Also notably, the house was described as beautifully and impeccably decorated with a strong sense of order to the extent that mother's clothing is arranged by style and color, and Nicky made more than one comment about how many clothes his mother had. Also of note was the fact that one of Nicky's chores was described as "lining up his shoes" in his closet. 17 These examples were raised to describe what was seen as a somewhat compulsive tone in mother's home and a more constrained level of communication for Nicky when in his mother's home. Also of note was the fact that the home itself is surrounded by construction sites that were noted by Nick as one of the reasons that he often leaves work to drive Nicky from his bus stop at his mother's to his mother's home. 3. Robert Graybill Robert Graybill is the 33-year-old partner of Kathy Fanelli. Robert and Kathy do not co-habit. Robert spends time with Nicky on multiple occasions and does spend some overnights at Kathy's when Nicky is there. He was interviewed due to the fact that he has become a part of Nicky's life but also because in the course of the evaluation, he was served with a Protection from Abuse order by his estranged wife, Samantha Graybill. In addition, after being served with the PFA, he was arrested for criminal contempt because of a violation of that PFA. IT should be noted that the PFA was subsequently dropped by the Samantha Graybill. Nonetheless, a request was made to assess whether or not he may be unsafe or a poor influence on Nicky. The content and result of this interview was described in previous sections of this report. With regard to his presentation style, it is notable that Mr. Graybill is ingratiating, friendly, and open in his dialog style. He showed a tendency to minimize the content of information in the PFA petition and, as well, to indicate and suggest that the PFA because his estranged wife has such a strong sense of injury not because he perpetrated the allegations. He felt vindicated when his estranged wife withdrew the PFA. He reported that his estranged wife and his older children are waging a vendetta against him for leaving the marriage and that their allegations are fueled by their feelings of rejection. Robert and Kathy both indicated that his estranged wife and Nick were collaborating. It was their belief that their estranged spouses are working together to try and disrupt Kathy and Bob's relationship. Nick Fanelli denied that he is over-involved in communications with Robert's wife although he did admit that they have talked. He denied an investment in anything other than Nicky's safety. Reports from Nicky directly to the Evaluator do indicate that he has a positive connection with Robert and does not experience caution directly related to Robert, although he experiences tension knowing that Robert is a source of consternation for his father. W W, W A. Ninky ..r. r Nicky is the 9-year-old son of Dominic C. Fanelli and Kathleen Fanelli. Nicky was interviewed independently in two one-hour face-to-face interviews. Both of these interviews followed one-hour observations one time with his father and the second time with his mother and his half-sibling, Kalene Besselman, age 16. Nicky was interviewed two additional times during the evaluation of his home environment with each parent. In addition, records were reviewed from Nicky's school. In his interviews, Nicky was open, verbal, cooperative, and showed a good capacity to be content- specific in his responses. He was not resistant nor did he display any oppositional behaviors relative to the evaluation process. Nicky did display sensitivity to the conflict surrounding his custody and showed some anxiety in his non-verbal and verbal responses when asked questions specifically 18 related to his custodial preferences. In addition, notably, Nicky showed a better ability to focus when he was engaged in some activity with his hands. As a result, he was permitted to work with puzzles and other things with the Evaluator while he was being questioned and this did not interfere with his attentiveness or his responsiveness. There was a notable difference in Nicky's presentation style alone with the Evaluator immediately following the session with his father as compared to the session with his mother. His affect, level of expression, and openness was more apparent following the observation with his father than it was following the observation with his mother. After the observation with his mother, Nicky showed increased anxiety and caution with regard to responding to questions related to custodial preference. In addition, Nicky admitted that he had been up all night at a sleep over the night before his session with his mother which was apparent and did affect his concentration during the session. Nicky showed no overt behaviors that would indicate that he had been directly coached by either of his parents with regard to the content of his responses during the evaluation process. However, he did show that he had a great deal of adult information which is indicative of overhearing and being unprotected from the adult conflict that surrounds him. For example, Nicky indicated that his mother described his father as "a horrible man" in front of him on multiple occasions. In addition, he described his parents' relationship prior to their separation as one in which they "yelled, swore, and just didn't have anything in common." Most specifically, Nicky described that when he was upset about missing a certain activity while he was in his mother's care, his father suggested the possibility of Nicky increasing his time with his father. Nicky described to the Evaluator that he thought this might be a good idea and he suggested it to his mother. He reported that her response was to look sad and say, "Why? Don't you like me?" Finally, with regard to any complicated feelings or coaching with regard to the evaluation procedures, Nicky directly stated that he does not want to hurt anybody's feelings which was displayed in his response style about custodial preferences. With regard to questions about his current custody schedule, Nicky was clear and precise about what days of the week he spends with his father and what days of the week he spends with his mother. He described the current schedule as "ok." Nicky was asked for his ideal preference for a custody schedule. It should be noted that, as with all children of Nicky's age, he was advised by the Evaluator that if there was information that he wanted to speak about but did not want included in the boa Wit, t ft,,Ewuatar would prey to hear from him n er than to palish what he and. $ e of fis apwmMt, l y would prefer not to have his specific requat for a custody published. He gave permission for the evaluator to state that he yr 't satisfied with the schedule as it is. When Nicky was asked to describe some of the reasons for his dissatisfaction with the current schedule and his desire to change it, he indicated that he has more friends and a computer that he likes at his father's house. In addition, he described issues of efficiency and stability in that he described being able to get his homework done faster and to be certain that he would get to soccer on time and to many activities on time, describing his mother as often late because she spends "too much time doing her hair." He further described a difficult relationship with his sister with whom he spends time after school alone and whom he states kicks him, punches him, and acts as if she just doesn't like him at all. Nicky reported that he doesn't really like his sister very much either. When asked what he thought his parents' preferences were for a change in the custody schedule, Nicky 19 was certain that his father would be happy with increased time with him and certain that his mother would be mad and sad if he wanted to decrease his time because "she loves him." Nicky was asked to compare specific elements of his home life at his mother's and his father's homes. Comparisons were specifically related to his living space as well as certain aspects of each of his parents' styles of relating to him. With regard to physical housing itself, Nicky described both of his parents' homes as "good" with regard to him having his own room. He indicated that he likes the neighborhood within which his father lives better than his mother's in that he has been there for awhile, has a lot of good friends and he knows things there. He indicated that there are some things that are familiar in mom's house because she got some of the furniture and the computer and the CDs but he still prefers the way his room is and his familiarity with the neighborhood at his father's. In a follow up interview, Nicky stated that his mother took him for a walk and introduced him to a boy in her neighborhood which improved his feelings somewhat about her neighborhood. With regard to each of his parents' discipline styles, he indicated that his father tends to remain calm but stern with discipline and generally takes things away from him when there are infractions large enough that speaking to Nicky about it is not enough. He described his mother as not allowing him to go outside or to be with friends when she is upset with him and also described her as someone who can "scream really loud" when she is upset. When asked about each of his parents' investment in his homework, his grades, and his schooling, Nicky responded that his mother "can't really help him with homework because she has to work a lot to make money to keep her house." He indicated that his father is the individual who helps him because he has enough money and, therefore, he can help. With regard to needing advice from either of his parents or being able to seek out some comfort when he feels afraid and worried, he described both of his parents as equally positive in their ability to provide things for him in that regard. When asked to describe how each of his parents are in terms of promoting kindness and warmth about the other parent, Nicky indicated that his mom often says bad stuff about his father but that his father rarely says bad stuff and often says good stuff about his mother to him. With regard to his parents' involvement and acceptance in his extracurricular activities, Nicky clearly sees his father as far more involved and more capable of being involved in his activities than mother. Nicky was also asked to discuss his parents in terms of his perception of their strengths and weaknesses. Because of his exposure to Robert Graybill, who is mother's boyfriend, he was also as l to list any shuMths and wealmenes that he poanives in that relaiQnsltip rvgwdku of the fact 6# #; is l y ww. With m bis nw&Ws skmSths, NidLy ind eamd "she cars for me; she Ids me stay up Iate; and she recently helped me make a fiiend in our ne4 rhood." When asked to list his mother's areas where she needs improvement, he indicated "she needs to stop yelling; she needs to stop being late for all of my activities." When asked to list his father's strengths, Nicky indicated "we always get my homework done; we love to watch movies together; and he always helps me be with my friends." When asked what areas his father may need improvement, Nicky said that "he doesn't like it when his father yells." When asked to describe what he perceived as strengths in his relationship with Bob Graybill, Nicky indicated "I like to ride his truck; and he's pretty friendly." Interestingly, when asked what he thought Bob needed to change, Nicky indicated "sometimes I think he's cheating on my mom." When Nicky was asked to describe why he thought that, he indicated "well, he's sometimes saying he'll be at the house to see my mom and then he doesn't come." 20 With regard to his medical history, Nicky is treated by Brian Uniacke at the Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg Family Practice. He has been treated there since birth. His medical history is unremarkable with no serious accidents or illnesses. He takes no medications and generally enjoys good physical health With regard to his education and social functioning, Nicky is currently a 3w Grade student at St. Joseph's Parochial School in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. He has attended St. Joseph's from the time he began school. It should be noted that emails read between the parents indicate that according to father, Nicky is requesting to attend public school because most of his friends in his neighborhood do so. Mother strongly disagrees with a change in schools, believes that Nicky will have the best education at St. Joseph's, and further believes that his grades indicate that he is thriving there. With regard to his grades, Nicky reported that he is an AB student and a review of his report cards from last year and the first quarter of this year validate such. He reported that his current teacher is Mrs. Bernstein, who he described as nice and "not much trouble at all" With regard to his favorite subject in school, Nicky reported that he really likes math because he is "really good" at it. With regard to his least favorite subject, he indicated that he doesn't like social studies because he doesn't like to have to do projects. When asked about his behavioral compliance or any discipline problems in school, Nicky reported that he generally does well. Nicky's report cards also substantiate that he is no a behavioral problem in school. It should be noted that Nicky's current classroom teacher was offered the opportunity to comment on Nicky's educational progress and to specifically comment on whether one parent or the other was more participative in his education. She opted not to respond. With regard to his school work, notably father supplied copies of homework papers signed by mother which were completed but clearly not in Nicky's handwriting. According to father, the handwriting is allegedly Kalene's. In addition, father supplied other homework papers where it appeared that the name on the signature was mothers but, again, the handwriting was different. Father expressed concern that Kalene, with whom Nicky does not have a good relationship, is left to take care of him. Nicky verified in various ways that he and his sister do not get along and also verified that he is left with her after school for a brief period of approximately an hour. Wbw ailed if he has any educadmal plus for his futum, Nicky reported that he would like to be a p or, ,' = FEd, ate. VOw =ked 11?vhlwj-, to him abat t y he stated `you get to shoot gains, arrest bail people, diSWVW hard &W that pie do, drive really fast, wear a badge, and have all kinds of high-tech weapons and a sniffing dog." With regard to socializing and peer relationships, Nicky described himself as someone who makes friends "very easily." He indicated that he has several friends, all of whom are on his football team, which is the primary activity that he likes to do with his friends in addition to having sleepovers, playing video games and otherwise being outside. With regard to what his personal favorite activities are when he is alone, it is to play video games on his PlayStation and practice his Speed Staks (stacking cups) about which he is the class champion. With regard to Nicky's mental status, when asked what the most common feeling is that he has on any given day; Nicky reported that he is usually "happy." When asked what the most common feeling he has related to the custody situation, Nicky responded that he feels "sad because he wants 21 his parents to be back together." With regard to the last time he had a strong feeling of anger, Nicky reported that it was on the very morning of the interview about his anger. He indicated that it was related to starting a tree house with his friends and one of his friends kicking part of it down. With regard to what generates sadness in addition to his feelings about his parents separating, Nicky indicates that he gets sad when he's yelled at, when people die, and when he loses things that he really likes. With regard to any coping strategies for his strong feelings, Nicky said that sometimes he takes a strong breath or he lies down on his bed. Nicky was asked whether he had experiences of anxiety or worry. He said that he is, at times, worried when it is "pitch black" and he can't see anything at night. He reported that he, at times, sleeps with both of his parents when he is in their custody. He said he is the most inclined to sleep with his mother when he has a bad headache or after they have watched a scary movie like Alien vs. Predator. Finally, he said that he gets increased anxiety when he is playing a video game on his PlayStation and he is about to "beat the last level" and he loses. Nicky reported that when he is worried about anything other than his video games, he usually seeks out support from the people around him. With regard to projective questions, when asked what he would wish for if he came upon a family genie who would grant him three wishes about his family life, Nicky reported that first he would wish "that everyone could be rich; that his parents were back together; and that he could have three more wishes." When asked what he might wish for if he were granted three general wishes for him, Nicky reported that he would again first, wish "to be rich; to have his dog back; and to have 500 more wishes." When asked what he would do if he could chose one thing for one day that he was allowed to do without any consequence or without any possibility of being in trouble, Nicky indicated that he would drive a car. Nicky was also asked to name three things that he likes about himself and he reported that he likes that "he's famous in activities with his friends; that he has the money to have the things he wants; and that he's pretty perfect about most things." When asked if he could change one thing about himself, what he would change, Nicky indicated that he wouldn't change anything. In an observation of Nicky with both of his parents, as stated previously, both during the home evaluation and in the observation in the clinical setting, Nicky showed a difference in his level of expressiveness, connectedness, and spontaneity when comparing him with his father over his mother. As reported, Nicky is more relaxed, spontaneous, connected, and open in his relationship wi his fatha wee: he is more detacbed, quiet, and leers spentommms in his inkmwtions with his nomber. It that Nic ky does ;l e a loves bond and a so& bowl w M both of his parents; however, his level of animation and expressiveness with each is distinctly different. When all of Nicky's responses are viewed in a total pattern, it is apparent that Nicky is experiencing sadness and adjustment distress related to his parents' separation and ultimate divorce. Nicky is also displaying distress and guilt related to expressing his custodial preferences because of his attachment to both of his parents and sensitivity to not wanting to hurt either of his parents and a desire to remain loyal to both of them. Nicky is aware either through direct communication or indirect communication about what each of his parents prefers with regard to custody. He is also aware of what he prefers but is less comfortable taking responsibility for that because of his desire to avoid either conflict or responsibility for hurting his parents. With regard to Nicky's custodial preferences, he clearly described a desire for consistency, predictability, and stability in his living environment. Because of his guilt and concern over hurting his parents, Nicky asked that his 22 specific discussion about his preferences not be included in the written report; however, he was able to be clear with the Evaluator about what his specific desire is for a custody schedule. There was a brief period at the beginning of this school year and shortly following the death of his maternal grandmother, that Nicky was experiencing some adjustment difficulties as was described in a discussion he had with the guidance counselor at school. Although Nicky was sad and distressed both about the death of his grandmother and his adjustment to his parents' separation, he seemed to show improvement about his feelings in a relatively short period. Although Nicky is not experiencing any symptoms of a stress-related illness that would be strong enough to warrant a diagnosis of an adjustment disorder, it is notable that Nicky is clearly sad and able to discuss his sadness about the breakup of his family. He has strong wishes for his parents to reunify and realizes that this is not going to occur, which creates additional distress for him. Nicky is a sensitive and articulate young boy who will benefit from the strain of the relationship between his parents improving. Kalene Beseelman, Age 16 Kalene is the 16-year-old daughter of Kathy Fanelli and her ex-husband, David Besselman. Kalene was interviewed independently for one hour following her participation in the observational session with mother and Nicky. In addition, an email from the father of Kalene's boyfriend was reviewed. In her interview, Kalene was verbal and responsive. Her responses were obviously focused on a set of facts that she was intent on providing rather than giving responses that were thoughtful and in direct relationship to each question asked by the Evaluator. Although there was no admission of any overt and direct coaching of Kalene from anyone, it was apparent that she came with the intention of making sure that the Evaluator knew that her position on Nicky's custody was clearly aligned with her mother's. For example, when Kalene was asked what her current schedule for custody is, her response was "my dad's nothing like Nick, he's open to, what my mom wants." Her statement is despite the fact that this evaluation was the result of issues relaxed to Kalene's custody and the disagreements that were occurring between Kalene's parents. When asked what she believed would be an ideal preference for Nicky, she said "I think what's going on now is fine. Big Nick is being greedy. He wants Nick fidl time." VAwn asked how she that her modier would feel about her ideal pe ence, she indicated that heumedw d fedfine. a is about an ideal schedule for Nicky, she indicated "he's really mean to my mom. One time he threw a remote control at mom. He has major anger management issues." When asked whether, in fact, it was true that she contacts Nick on multiple occasions to help her out when her mother is unavailable, she indicated that it was true; however, it was because she "thought Nick had changed after the divorce but he really hasn't." She added that he leaves angry messages about her mother's boyfriend on the phone and one time called her mother a name. Kalene added that although she dislikes Nick, she knows that he has a good relationship with Nicky but doesn't think that this means that he ought to be able to stop her mother from seeing Nicky as much as him. Kalene was asked about the incidents that revolved around her transfer to her father's custody over the summer of 2006 in preparation for her to switch high schools from Trinity High School to Mechanicsburg High School. Kalene admitted that she requested the transfer to her father and that 23 she wanted the transfer because she wanted to go to the high school where her boyfriend lived and attended. Kalene admitted that shortly after attending Mechanicsburg High School, she had issues in her relationship with her boyfriend and realized that she felt severed from her other friends and her familiar high school. By her report, she decided to return to Trinity and her mother's custody. It should be noted that issues that were reported back in September that resulted in this evaluation indicated that Kalene also returned to her mother because Kalene was arguing with her father and dissatisfied with issues that were occurring in her father's home. It should also be noted that Kalene admitted that she and her mother argued a great deal because of Kalene's desire to transfer her custody to her father. Kalene indicated that she did not believe her mother was as upset about Kalene leaving as she might have been about a loss of child support. Despite Kalene's initial statement that her father is, "nothing like Nick" and "open to what her mother wants." Kalene reported that when she left to come back to her mother's after she decided that she wanted to leave her father's home, her father wouldn't talk to her anymore and has persisted in this. Kalene reported that her father told her "call me when you're 18." When Kalene was asked why her father had such a strong reaction to her leaving, Kalene stated "Something happened last Christmas. My step mom's family is very rich and they didn't like the way I was acting. I was calling my boyfriend to come over and see me and then I called my mother and they overheard and got upset." In order to further verify his concerns about the volatile relationship between Kalene and her mother and its negative impact on Nicky, Nick provided an email dated 11/8/2006 from the father of Kalene's boyfriend. The email recounted a series of lies, manipulations, and maneuvers by Kalene and her boyfriend which were clear indications of Kalene's acting out behaviors. This acting out was the source of conflict between Kalene and her father that resulted in Kalene's transfer back to Kathy. In addition, the email stated that Kathy was actually aware of the incident where Kalene and her boyfriend both skipped school and spent time together According to Nick, there have been ongoing rebellion and discipline issues between Kalene and her mother. In fact, he reported that the issues with. Kalene were the central theme of the beginning of the disparagement between him and Kathy that ultimately resulted in their divorce. It is notable that Kathy also indicated that from the time Kalene was 12, the strain between Kathy and Nick was extreme because of a difference in their parenting styles and their perceptions of what was appropriate or inappropriate for a preteen, age 12. This was also verified by Betty Weinberger, the marital therapist for Nick and Kathy, who indicated that the primary reason for their therapy revolved wound their stag merits about how to discipline Kalene and about what issues to di , ' _ . Accord%g to Ms. W , she perceived Kathy as permissive to a fault and perceived Nick's desired discipline structure for Kalene appropriate. Kalene was asked if she had an idea as to why her mother and Nick were divorced. She responded with a sophisticated set of statements including that "they weren't in the same room for a year and their relationship had ended four years ago." She added that her mother told Nick that she couldn't live and be treated the way Nick treated her. Kalene added that Nick alleges that her mother cheated on him but Kalene said that she didn't. Kalene also added that her mother told her about a lot of negative comments that Nick made to her when she was moving out. When asked how she thought her mother felt about Nick, she stated "she hates him." When asked how she believes Nick feels about her mother, she said "I think he still loves her but they could only be back together if he would make drastic changes." 24 Kalene was asked to list the strengths and weaknesses of her mother, Nick, and mother's boyfriend, Bob Graybill. With regard to her mother's strengths, Kalene reported "she's responsible; she helps with friend issues; and she takes me places." With regard to mother's weaknesses, Kalene indicated "she can flip out over stupid things; she's not a good cook, and she's too into herself." With regard to Nick's strengths, Kalene indicated "he's responsible; he's really caring when I'm sick; and he's helpful with homework." She added that she doesn't always miss Nick but she does miss having a family that's together, which was a feeling that she had when Nick was still with her mother. With regard to Nick's weaknesses or areas where he may need improvement, Kalene reported "he has anger issues; he pouts; and he didn't want anything to do with the family." With regard to mother's boyfriend, Robert Graybill, Kalene could not list any strength and indicated "I don't really like him because he treats my mother really bad. He's getting out of a marriage and has five kids and he's only around my mom about one time a week which really upsets my mom. I wish she would find somebody else. There are so many other guys who like her." When asked about her relationship with her brother Nicky, Kalene indicated "we don't really talk all that much and he's pretty irritating." She did admit that she is left alone to watch him after school and tries to be responsible to that assignment. She denied his allegations that she hits him, leaves him alone at times, and calls him names. When reviewing all of Kalene's responses as a total pattern, she presents with a strong mixed message about many aspects of her relationship with her mother, her natural father, her stepfather, Nick, and her brother. She also displayed a response style that was flat, affectless, and contained information reported to her by her mother. She showed an overt desire to skew her presentation to stand firmly in the position that her mother needed. She denied being coached to do so. She described her mother as the victim of an anger management problem from Nick and a victim of false allegations by Nick. At the same time, she also described her mother as too self-centered and someone who gets unnecessarily upset over small things. On the one hand, she described her stepfather, Nick, as an individual who was angry and unfair to her mother. On the other hand she described him as someone who provided a family feeling for her and who has a positive relationship with her younger brother, Nicky. It was notable that reports indicate that when Kalene is in need and cannot find her mother, she regularly calls Nick as opposed to her father. With regard to other mixed messages, Kalene at one point described her father as someone who was much fairer with her medw ton Nick and who is more willing to accept mother being in charge of the custody and co- pmenting the same time, she also descril3ed her father as someone who recently uirly rejected her because of discipline problems. CLINICAL IMPRESSIONS The purpose of this evaluation was to answer a question as to the most appropriate custodial arrangement for Nicky Fanelli, age 9. When reviewing the findings in this case, it is notable that the dysfunction that pervaded the relationship between Nick and Kathy Fanelli for several years provided a strong and overshadowing impact on the issues that were important to Nicky, his needs, and ultimately, his custody. The Evaluator was required to sift through the long term dysfunction between the parents which manifested in their desire to prove that the other was wrong and they were right about the conflicts that persisted for years in their relationship. Reports of two previous marital therapists revealed that during therapy experiences there was little to no movement on either 25 parent's part to change their accusatory stance and to negotiate a more compromising solution about their differences. It is significant that both therapists who had involvement with the Fanelli's prior to their separation independently formed very similar clinical impressions of the couples entrenched dysfunction and also formed clinical impressions that match the current dysfunction that permeates the co-parenting environment and the disagreement about Nicky's custody. In their more competitive style, Kathy identified Nick's short coming as that of wanting to control and micromanage the custody situation with Nicky. He was also perceived this way by Kathy during the conflicts that began several years ago related to parenting Kalene. Nick was also described as having a need to prove his perceptions were accurate by providing volumes of documented facts. With regard to evaluation procedures, Nick did had a difficult time knowing whether he made "his case" for Nicky needing to be in his care during the school year and showed a desire to provide as much documentation as possible. Because of his intensity, Nick was accused of carrying a vendetta for Kathy because of the way she left him and his resulting injury. However, when Nick's total presentation was reviewed using an objective set of criteria, it was apparent that as a parent and co-parent Nick was protective, concerned, stable, and determined to provide for Nicky. Indeed, in relationship to his marriage to Kathy and its ending, he was at times despairing and helpless early in the separation and at other times contemptuous and injured. His personal style is that of an individual who highly values responsibility and stability. He experiences personal failure and loss of stability (such as divorce) very intensely. His sense of injury with regard to the end of his marriage disarmed his sense of responsibility for a period. Throughout the evaluation process, Nick appeared to gain a better sense of control over the strong feelings that resulted from the marital break up. However, he remained focused and concerned about Nicky's well being. Nick identified Kathy as self centered, self possessed, chaotic and uncentered in her ability to provide routine and stability in her home. He added that she was also preoccupied with her new relationship to the point that she was not making decisions that were in the best interest of Nicky. Nick also described Kathy as making decisions that were not financially feasible for her in order to try and maintain a life style that she was used to but that made her have to work hours that kept her from providing direct care for Nicky. Nick added that Kathy's lack of structure and predictability was reflected in the problems which persist with Kalene. However, when Kathy's total presentation was reviewed using an objective set of data, it was apparent that Kathy's parenting competency is affefted by her gog fteugh s ificant life O ts. These A is include the marital sepwaWa; tin a a d=V in Rfe rho; and a vvl le now rabdionobip with an individual with five chiMm who is only recently sepamed and facing a complicated divorce: and custody process himself. She also has a personal style than is self-centered first and other-centered second. This is not an indication that Kathy is a selfish individual, but rather an individual that cannot be other centered until she finds security in her primary relationship and security about her needs. She does this through attending to her appearance, making sure her home environment is neat, orderly and attractive and clearly establishing that her romantic relationship is intact. When these aspects of her life appear stable, Kathy is better able to reach out to others including her children. Unfortunately, her need to work, the complicated nature of her current relationship and her higher degree of needs for security render Kathy unable to establish herself as child-centered at this time. She was perceived as "wanting to be such" but not having the capacity to do so. When comparing the differences in each parent's perception of issues leading to the custody 26 conflict, Kathy's complaints about Nick related to their adult relationship, not poor parenting skills. Kathy focused her attention on Nick's disdain for her and his reaction to her at the time of the marital separation. She also focused on what she termed his desire to "bring her down" as opposed to helping her be successfid sharing Nicky's custody. Kathy, who described herself as victimized by Nick's petition for primary custody during the school year does not believe that there is anything wrong with wanting Nicky in her care and asking Nick to be her back-up when she is unavailable to meet Nicky's needs when he is in her custody. Conversely, Nick's issues revolved almost solely around issues related to poor parenting decisions and unavailability on Kathy's part. The main issues that necessitated his desire to ask for primary custody of Nicky for the school year persist. There are multiple examples of Kathy's unavailability caring for Nicky during her custodial time. These include her request for Nick's help transporting Nicky to activities when he is in her care while she is working; going to the school and taking something Nicky forgot while he was in her care, etc. Nick and Kathy have very different parenting styles which also affects the way they see the current custody conflict. Their styles fall on a continuum that places them at opposite ends of the spectrum. Nick is authoritative and fosters a nurturing division between adult and child, which leaves little confusion as to who is in charge in the household. Nick's philosophy is that a child or adolescent's sense of freedom is earned through following a set of guidelines and rules that are strictly spelled out. In addition, Nick's parenting style is designed to consider and to maintain a grasp on the developmental needs of children at specific ages. For example, in the past, he was very sensitive to what he perceived as Kathy hurrying the advancement of Kalene's adolescence by allowing her to dress and act in ways that were older than her 12 years. He feared this would not be in Kalene's best interests and would take a child with the emotional age of 12 and the physical stature of someone older and place them in precarious social situations. He is equally concerned about Kathy's presuming that at the age of 9, Nicky is capable of being left on his own or with his 16 year old sister without adequate supervision of his homework or adequate attention to his needs for connection and individual attention within the home environment. Kathy's parenting style is strongly laissez faire taking a position that being permissive with a child is what keeps them in control. Kathy believed that by allowing certain freedoms in Kalene, she would gain a stronger bond and connection with Kalene and, therefore, have a better ability to coHebo=W wilt her . She also believed that by fostering a positive feeling in both children toward her wMagau to A weir neaps and to allow i too amt in neng t r noeds a wants she would 1 better cooperation from them. She believed and continues to believe that Nick is over-controlling and confining with the children, especially Kalene. Unfortunately, Kalene's current acting out behaviors do not support that such freedom was effective. Nicky's fairly consistent requests to go to his father's earlier than his schedule requires and the clear difference in Nicky's expressiveness with his father over his mother indicate that Nick's authoritative and routinized style is currently more effective with Nicky. The overall clinical impression of the Evaluator and Betty Weinberger, LCSW is that, despite one's ability to perceive Nick's actions as "controlling," his stance with regard to parenting is well founded in appropriate parenting strategies. Kathy's minimizing the impact of her permissiveness is seen as more dangerous and not in Nicky's best interest. For example, allowing Nicky and Kalene to spend after school time together knowing the volatile relationship between them is unfair to both.. 27 In addition to a style of authority that was different with each parent, it was also apparent that Nick's lifestyle is predictable, routine, and yet flexible in terms of his time and availability to care for Nicky. His career is established to the point that he can work from his home, leave his office if needed to attend to Nicky's needs and at the same time provide financial resources so that he does not have to worry about being able to provide for Nicky. Kathy's lifestyle is far less predictable. She is working three jobs, and, for the first time, adjusting to being a single mother who is solely responsible for managing her own finances. As a result, practically speaking, Kathy is less available and less capable of providing a structured and consistent daily routine for Nicky. In fact, on many occasions throughout the evaluation Kathy needed to contact Nick for assistance in taking something to school that Nicky forgot; with completing homework assignments late and at the last minute because she did not provide help to Nicky when he was with her; or transporting Nicky to certain activities. The fact that there are multiple occasions where Nicky asks and is permitted to return to his father's early, and complains of boredom and lack of excitement at his mother's all point to a level of estrangement from connection and warmth that Nicky is experiencing when he is with his mother. Behaviors such as going to Nicky's bus stop at his mother's and providing a ride for Nicky to his mother's home were perceived by Kathy as attempts by Nick to show his superiority and availability as compared to mother. However, it is the perception of the evaluator that Nick's overt behaviors are more the result of a desire to protect Nicky than a desire to prove a pervasive flaw in Kathy's parenting. His dialog can at times appear to the observer as if he is trying to malign Kathy when, in fact, his motive is much more directly related to protecting Nicky. For example, Nicky's bus stop is 4/10 of a mile from his mother's home which was described by the home evaluator as being surrounded by construction sites. If one looks at what his request is for custody, Nick is not trying to excessively limit Kathy's time with Nicky but rather trying to maximize on the strength that he brings to the process and a strength that, in fact, Kathy relies on during her custodial time with Nicky. In essence, by asking for his assistance, Kathy is admitting that she can not always meet Nicky's needs without Nick's help. In this regard, it appears that Kathy had a blind spot about what would occur when she left her marriage and forged a life on her own. It was naive of her to think that she could terminate a relationship with Nick then ask him to assist her in being able to have shared custody. in spite of tie pwmts bAW that the custody decision would be deterinkmd. based on tbeir abilities, NWs noads w of Obe 's a aien about the most date custody schedule. Whweas the t inn was to fom on whether or not father's desire to have custody of Nicky were inappropriately hole or whether mother's current lifestyle stressors expressed a lack of desire to focus her energies on parenting, the real issue was Nicky's best interests. All confusion regarding which parent is "right or wrong" was diminished by listening to Nicky (and, to some extent, Kalene). Nicky is very clear about his needs for routine, stability, predictability and security. He is also clear about his stated love for both of his parents, his wish for their reunification, and his knowledge that he can't express his needs about his custody without some disloyalty to one of them. Nicky displayed classic security needs in a child who is struggling to accept that his family is permanently divided. He is coping well but does best when he is in familiar surroundings with predictably familiar routines and a sense that he is being cared for no matter how things have changed. Psychologically speaking, in times of family crisis, consistency replaces love for many children Nicky's age. He is no exception. Nicky is showing 28 nonverbal signs of palpable anxiety with strong fears of appearing disloyal because he doesn't feel as secure that his mother can meet his needs as his father. He is a sensitive and loving young man who wants his needs met but who doesn't want to be made responsible for any changes in the custody schedule. The heartfelt way that Nicky showed a reluctance to have his custody preferences published showed his desire to protect himself from such responsibility. Nicky genuinely feels that his need for structure and his need for a parent who attends to his nurturance, his homework, his practical needs, and his desire to have fun all are all currently much better met by his father than his mother. Whereas his feelings of love for his parents are equal, what he currently receives from each of them is not. He was able to portray this clearly to the Evaluator, although he is far too young to understand this or have insight in any way that would relieve his guilt. The fact that his mother has advised him that she would be sad and think that he didn't like her if he wanted more time with his father further complicates Nicky's already sensitive and protective love for his mother. Nicky also perceives his mother as disliking his father while his father attempts to be nice and helpful with his mother. This also fuels Nicky's issues with parental loyalty. In direct observation of Nicky in interactions with both his mother and his father, it is apparent that Nicky loves both of his parents. The way that he loves each of them is manifested differently and his current manner of expression of love with his mother is expressed through his desire to protect her rather than through comfort and relaxation in her care. Conversely, his current relationship with his father is expressed through spontaneous enjoyment of his relationship, on his being able to be a child, and on his looking forward to numerous activities either in the neighborhood where his father lives or directly with his father. The problematic relationship between Nicky and his sister, Kalene, was highlighted clearly and spontaneously by Nicky and, as well, highlighted by Kalene. The relationship is strained at best with Nicky feeling that the rebellion and arguments that are instigated by Kalene and directed at his mother far overshadow his ability to get his needs met and are also extremely upsetting within the home environment. Secondarily, Nicky reported times when he is cared for by Kalene where she treats him poorly, both with verbal assaults and alleged physical assaults. He also indicated that there were times when she left him alone in the house. The co-parenting relationship between mother and father is affected by their history and the strong . 10 1 FIJI is that they currently eaence with rrd to Nicky's custody. This will be a barrier top ductAve c o- 'cam , _ b wing to ,o oft,aft =On towcowd mmipts to alter their attitude toward the other. It is hoped` that with a r on of '&e conflict that the parents will be able to return to working on their co-parenting mmmunication and to establish a plan that helps Nicky be removed from the middle of their tension. If the parents focus directly on Nicky's heartfelt expressions of love and of his needs, the custody recommendation will make sense as a direct reflection of the need to make Nicky as comfortable as possible in the midst of their change. It may be secondary to what mother needs right now, but if perceived as a step that may be temporary while she adjusts to the multitude of changes in her life, perhaps everyone can thrive in the new custody schedule. It may inspire guilt in Nicky no matter what is told to him. However, it should not be viewed as a win for Nick and a loss for Kathy. Additionally, Nicky should not be made to feel at all responsible for a decision made by the Evaluator at the request of his parents. Nicky is obviously a sensitive, joyful, and highly expressive young man who deserves the freedom of expression that can only come when both parents appear to 29 be working together for his good and where both parents can appear to graciously accept a custody schedule that benefits Nicky even when it does not necessarily benefit them. The recommendations set forth below will provide an opportunity for the parents to return to co- parenting counseling to increase their ability to work together for Nicky's benefit. Although a major smoke screen to the real issues related to Nicky's needs, the level of discord between the parents and their style of expressing that discord pales in comparison to the presence of Nicky's needs. It will be important for the future that the parents realize that their dissatisfactions and complaints must be put aside in order to pay closer attention to Nicky and what he is displaying with regard to his unmet needs and his distress at trying to please two people who so obviously disagree. It is an impossible emotional situation for Nicky who is seeking to return to the playful and spontaneous expressive child that he was over the years. One gets the sense that Nicky's wishes for reunification are clearly his desire to return to an internal sense of his life that was more peaceful for him. In summary, the custody recommendations set forth below are a primary reflection of Nicky being able to show the Evaluator his wants and needs in an overt as well as a covert, nonverbal and affective way. Nicky's sadness and sensitivity are obvious and his desire to be removed from the conflict that surrounds him regarding his custody is very apparent. In addition, it is also apparent that Nicky's emotional and nurturance needs are best served by predictability, structure, and the knowledge that his needs will be attended to when they occur. At this time, father is better able to provide this for Nicky. RECOMMENDATIONS In light of all of the information presented in this report, the following recommendations are made: 1. Dominic Fanelli and Kathleen Fanelli will share the legal custody of Dominic Fanelli, age 9; 2. With regard to physical custody, the following schedule will apply: School Year A. Father will have primary physical custody of Nicky during the school year. B. w e Oontody +a Wy - V"O6"O llMWISy after school VaO TuaWi ty ow-viing drab off at se ; on at Mondays from after school until Tuesday morning drop-off at school; and on the Thursday evening preceding father's weekend from after school until 7:30 p.m. Summer The parents will share the custody of Nieky on a week ontweek off basis with exchange days on Fridays at 5:80 p.m. The particular structure of the shared custody for the summer can be altered by the parents and their respective counsel if they so choose a different way to carry out the shared anwagement; 3. Both parents will have two (2) non-consecutive weeks of vacation with the dates for each provided to the other parent sixty (60) days in advance of the time of the vacation; 30 4. A standard holiday schedule will be utilized providing the parents with alternating times with Nicky for all major holidays. A template for a standard shared holiday schedule has been attached to this report. The parties and their respective counsel can am this template or determine any other shared holiday arrangement agreed upon by the parties; 5. The parents will share transportation with the receiving parent providing transportation for Nicky's custodial access; 6., The right of first refusal. to care for Nicky is provided to the non-custodial parent when the custodial parent is unavailable two or more hours; 7. It is recommended that the parents re-enter co-parenting counseling now that the custody schedule has been established. Initially, the parents are directed to use the counseling to establish a co-parenting plan. The plan can include guidelines for consistency between the parents regarding how to manage specific aspects of Nicky's care with. regard to homework, attendance at activities, and all other aspects of a shared lifestyle where consistency is necessary. It is hoped that after a period of adjustment to the custody recommendations that the parents will be able to work on resolving their mistrust to the extent that they will be able to improve their ability to communicate and to ultimately negotiate decisions about Nicky without the use of outside professionals; 8. The issues expressed by Nicky and Kalene regarding the strain in their relationship must be taken seriously. It appears that there is a volatile relationship between them especially when they are left alone together. It is recommended that Nicky be left in Kalene's care only when necessary and for no more than the 45 minutes to an hour as has been occurring. Otherwise, another care giver or Nick by exercising his right of first refusal should care for Nicky until Kathy is home from work; 9. This skeleton set of recommendations can be changed at the request of either party or their attorneys. If the changes necessary are only those of adding clarification-to what is already in the report, there will be no need for additional services or an additional charge, However, if new information and new decisions are needed, it may be necessary for the Evaluator to do will be assigned to the parties further investigation at which time a cost . Respectfully submitted, Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC Clinical Evaluator Date of Dictation: 1/7/07 Date of Transcription: 1/11/07 Date of Final Edit: 1/14/07 31 Stim sized Shared HQi? Scheduie (The holiday schedule takes precedence over the regular schedule. ) (Compiled from Previous Court Orders) The parties shall share holidays as follow: Easter Sunday Schedule A Easter Sunday Schedule B Memorial Day July 4m Labor Day Thanksgiving Day Christmas Schedule A Christmas Schedule B Even-Vd Years F M F M F M M F Odd Wd Years M F M F M F F M Defined times for the respective holidays are as follow: Easter Sunday Schedule A: Easter Sunday Schedule B: Memorial, July 4?k Labor Day: Thanksgiving Day: Christmas Schedule A: Christmas Schedule B: 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. Dec 24,3:30 p.m. to Dec 2511 a.m. Dec 25, 11 a.m. to Dec 26,11 a.m. 32 Exhibit "C" Bates Sumple-Sullivan, Enquire Snprome Court #32317 549 Bride Street Now Cumherlmd, PA 17070 (717) 7741445 - DOM1NIC C. FANEL" JR., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL. ACTION -CUSTODY KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant : NO. 2005-5517 ORDER ADOPTM STIPULATION OF PARTIES AND NOW, to wit, this .7 - day of ?t? 2007, upon consideration of the Stipulation for Custody dated January 26, 2007 and on motion of Barbara Sumple- Sullivan, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, Dominic C. Fanelli, and Charles Rector, Esquire, counsel for Defendant, Kathleen M. Fanelli, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the terms, conditions and provisions of the attached Stipulation for Custody are adopted as an Odder of Court. The Hearing scheduled for Febmary 15, 2007 is cancelled BY THE COURT, Ke Huns,, b C :01 WV L- 93.E LOOZ At(i?l?v:?d 3Hi 3O 30i2 --,T-nLj Bubara S=pb•quWy=4 Enquire S%K aw Court #32317 549 Bddr Shad Now Combediand, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 - - DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant : NO. 2005-5517 SITPULATION REGARDING CUSTODY THIS AGREEMENT is made this 266 d ay of February, 2007, by and between Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr., (hereinafter referred to as "Father") an adult individual residing at 1116 W. Powderhorn Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, and Kathleen M. Fanelli, (hereinafter referred to as "Mother") an adult individual residing at 5235 Winthrop Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. HTTNESSETH VAREREAS, Mother and Father are the natural parents of one (1) child, Dominic C. Farm, (bean August 5,1997); WHEREAS, Father filed a Custody Complaint on October 24, 2005 and a hearing before the Honorable Judge Kevin A. Hess is scheduled for February 15, 2007; WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amicably resolve all matters concerning custody by agreement and avoid the need for a formal hearing; NOW THEREFORE, the parties intending to be legally bound, do agree as follows: The parties hereby agree that an Order of Court shall be entered setting forth the following teams: A. LEGAL CUSTODY. It is in the best ingest of the minor child for the continuation of shared legal custody. The parties agree that major decisions concerning the chills health, welfare, education, religious braining and upbringing shall be made by the parents jointly, after discussion and consultation with each other, with a view towards obtaining and following a harmonious policy to arrive at a decision that is in the child's best interest. B. PHYSICAL CUSTODY. Father will have primary physical custody of the parties' son at all times except for Mother's periods of partial custody as set forth as follows: 1) School Year: During the school year, Mother shall have periods of partial physical custody of the parties' son as follows: a) Comm?mang January 26, 2007, on aftemfing was from Friday Aw ;cheol =0 'l y 100111* to b) On the al o following Fm's wedowd *am a - school until Tuesday nmuing to school; and c) On each Thursday evening from after school until 8:30 p.m. However, Mother shall have all of the child's homework complete prior to return to Father's residence at 8:30 p.m. 2) Sommer: During the summer, the parties agree to share physical custody of their minor son Mother shall have periods of physical custody during the summer as follows and Father shall have all other times: 2 a) Commencing on mother's first alternating scheduled weekend following the start of summer vacation from school, Mother shall have each alternating weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Tuesday morning to daycare; b) On alternating Mondays following Father's weekend overnight from after summer daycare until Tuesday morning to daycare; and c) On every Wednesday overnight from after summer daycare until Thursday morning to summer daycare. The summer schedule shall cease on the Monday morning before the actual commencement of school classes for the upcoming school year. 3) Summer Vacation: Mother and Father shall each have two (2) non- consecutive weeks of summer vacation. Each party shall provide the other with written notice of his or her choice of weeks sixty (60) days in advance of the actual time of the vacation. 4) Holidays: a. Ems: Easter shall be divided into two segments. Segment A shall be defined as 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. and Segment B shall be defined as 3:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. Father shall have Segment A each year and Mother shall have segment B each Year- b. MenroM- Day. Jih? 0. Laker Day: The parties shall alternate the holidays of Memorial Day, July 0 and Labor Day. In even years, Father shall have Memorial Day and Labor Day and MWw shall leave July 4'h. In odd yes, Mo sal haw Mwwd Day and Labor Day and Fad shall have July 4a`. Thwe holm l be & as 9.00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. C. Thaukowng: Thanksgiving shall be divided into two seg?neat 1. Father shall have the first segment of Thanksgiving each year which shall be defined as Wednesday from after release of school until Thanksgiving Day at 4:00 p.m. Mother shall have each Thanksgiving Day from 4:00 p.m. until Friday when the regular weekend exchange shall 3 Each year, the Christmas holiday shall be d Christmon, divided as follows: 1. Father shall have the child from 9:00 am. on Christmas Eve until following the Children's Mass at the child's P 2. Mother shall have the child from after the Children's Mass at the child's parish until: a. In even years, until 10:00 p.m on Chistmas Eve. b. In odd years, until 10:00 a.m on Christmas Day. 3. In even years, Father shall have the child from 10:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve through 3:00 p.m on Christmas Day. In odd years, Father shall have the child from 10:00 a.m. on Christmas Day until 10:00 p.m. 4. In even years, Mother shall have the child from 3:00 p.mm, on Christmas Day until 10:00 p.m. 5) Other Times: Mother shall have all such other times as the parties can mutually agree upon. C. TRH TATION: The party whose period of custody is commencing is responsible for transporting the child D. _,GIff OF FAT RRFI UL: The right of firstreNsal to care for the child is Wevided to the non-custodial parent when the moo" past is unavailable for two or mm hours. E. C & MPUM CQUK UL M The pales shall r -enter co-parenting counseling to establish a co-parting plan. The plan should include guidelines for consistency between the parents regarding how to manage specific aspects of the child's care with regard to homework, attendance at activities, and all other aspects of a shared lifestyle where consistency is necessary. The cost of this counseling shall be shared between the pasties with Fatter paying 75% and Mother paying 25%. The parties agree to utilize Althea Stebbins of InterWorks for this purpose. 4 F. CHILD'S TIME WITS KALEN : The child shall only be left with Mother's daughter, Kalene, when absolutely necessary and for no more than one hour. Otherwise, another care giver or Father, by exercising his right of first refusal, should care for the child G. S T= REVIEW: Mother reserves the right, at her sole cost and expense, to have a custody review update by Deborah Salem, the custody evaluator, in November, 2007. Father agrees to cooperate with this meeting. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto acknowledge that they are entering in to this Agreement with the fiill knowledge that this Agreement shall be entered as a court order with the same force and effect as if a full hearing on this matter has been held. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Ifominic C. Fanelli 4AA24,1, AV I 4? KnAlsen AL PlawsM P? Exhibit "D" JUN 192008 Barbara Sumplo-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, nL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION CUSTODY KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant : NO. 2005-5517 ORDER ADOPTING STIPULATION OF PARTIES AND NOW, to wit, this day of June, 2008, upon consideration of the Stipulation to Amend Custody Order dated June 2008 and on motion of Barbara Sumple- Sullivan, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, Dominic C. Fanelli, and Lindsay Gingrich Maclay, Esquire, counsel for Defendant, Kathleen M. Fanelli,-it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the terms, conditions and provisions of the attached Stipulation to Amend Custody Order,are adopted as an Order of Court. BY THE COURT, r evin A. Hess, Judge Distribution: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, 549 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070-1931, Attorney for Plaintiff Lindsay Gingrich Maclay, Esquire, DALEY zucKER MEILTON MINER & GiNGRICH, LLC, 1029 Scenery Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17109, Attorneys for D fl RUE n * - aye s there upto my h.'o RLED-Or a 0' THc" p40rHnt lOTAAY Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 2008 JUG! ! 8 A?j 11: Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 PENINSYLVrW DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant NO. 2005-5517 STIPULATION TO AMEND CUSTODY ORDER THISAGREEMENT is made this / b day of June, 2008, by and between Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr., (hereinafter referred to as "Father") an adult individual residing at 1116 W. Powderhorn Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, and Kathleen M. Fanelli, (hereinafter referred to as "Mother") an adult individual residing at 5235 Winthrop Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Mother and Father are the natural parents of one (1) child, Dominic C. Fanelli, (born August 5, 1997); WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Agreement on January 26, 2007 regarding the custody of their child. The Agreement was adopted as an Order of Court on February 7, 2007; 1 WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amicably resolve various issues relating to custody to add certain prohibitions to the Order of Court dated February 7, 2007; NOW THEREFORE, the parties intending to be legally bound, do agree as follows: The parties hereby agree that an Order of Court shall be entered setting forth the following terms: a) Communication. Between Parents: Neither party shall involve the child in any adult issues. Each party shall insure that the child is not subject to any communication concerning disputed issues between the parties. Any issue that the parties need to discuss with the other party shall be directly through e-mail or by phone, if an immediate response is required. No requests or messages shall be forwarded through the child. b) Driving Restrictions: Mother's significant other, Robert Graybill, Jr., shall be restricted from transporting the child at any time. c) Contact with Robert Graybill, Jr.: Mother's significant other, Robert Graybill, Jr., shall be prohibited from having contact with the parties' son and shall not be present during her cudial periods pending completion of the custody evaluation, or after written recommendation by Deborah L. Salem, CAC, LPC, or. earlier agreement of the parties, or further Order of Court. d) All other terms of the February 7, 2007 order shall remain in effect. 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto acknowledge that they are entering in to this Agreement with the full knowledge that this Agreement shall be entered as a court order with the same force and effect as if a full hearing on this matter has been held. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF: WITNESSED: 1 Barbara umple-Sullivan, Esquire ,f. Dominic C. Fanelli n say Gi ch clay, E ire Kathleen M. Fanelli 3 Exhibit "E" •1NTERMORK5 VV -R- M t 4M ili 0 .1.. I V> -ft DATE: 10/01/08 Clinical Director OCT 0 7 2008 Deborah L Salem, CACD, LPC Associates Andwea L Stebbins, LSW Heather Duncan, BS 4335 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel 717-236-6630 Fax 717-236-6677 fmWeskOinterworksoniine.com TO: Barbara. Sumple Sullivan, Esq. Lindsay Gingrich-Maclaye,Bs . FROM: Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC RE: Fsnc i v Famdli Evaluation Update Enclosed please find the completed report on your above referenced clients. You will note that I focused my recommendations on a review of Robert Graybill's psychiatric history; a review of the on-going co-parenting conflict between the parents; and a perception of the changes in Micky Fanelli and his adjustment to the parental conflict. After you have reviewed it with your clients, feel free to schedule a conference call if heeded. I am available most Mondays between 10 AM and Noon for calls. Thank you. cc: Nick Fanelli (cover letter only) Kathy Fanelli (cover letter only) ri Clinical Director Deborah L Salem, CACD, LPC VV • Plaintiff.- Defendant: a Minor Child: ` Docket No.: Associates Anthea L Stebbins, LSW Heather Duncan, BS 4335 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel 717-236-6630 Fax 717-236-6677 frontdeskOimerworksonIine.com Custody Evaluation Update Synopsis of Impressions and Recommendations SAkmiffird 4 Drbaak L Sdae, CUM LPC IMM Dominic C. ("MrcV) Fanelli, Jr Kathleen M. Fanelli Dominic C. ("Micky") Fanelli 2005-5517 Cumballand County, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esq. Lindsay Gingrich Maclay, Esq. Age 11, DOB 8/5/97 Civil Action, Custody Identifviog Information and Procedure This is an update of the original custody evaluation, completed 1/15/07. It is the result of the 6/20/08 order of the Honorable Kevin Hess of the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. The purpose of the update is twofold: (1) to determine what, if any, changes should be made to the current custodial schedule for Kicky Fanelli, age 11; and (2) to determine whether it is necessary to continue the prohibition of contact between Mother's significant other, Robert GraybR Jr., and Micky. c??i. With regard to procedure, each pmt had a lace to facie interviewed for one hour. In addition, each parent was required to comae written queer res and to provide and eve doer ion r+ o ea& afthic y's cam-and about coft bahv= A .y and art ChayW 3r. bfi*y was ntavwwed for one hour, and as well, his • school records were reviewed- In addition to pw=W i ws, the interview with Micky, and a review /`A of all information provided by the pa mots, Robert Gmybdl, Jr. was interviewed for one hour and was + required to produce inpatierrk psychiatric records, current therapy records, and complete questionnaires regarding his psyc hosocial history and his drug and alcohol usage. In service to the evaluator's request for supporting documentation, the following adjunct information was reviewed as provided by each of the persons listed below_ 9 At 1. Kathy Fanelli: A. A 08101/08 summary from Kathy's MrO t therapist, Joanne Ellenb9W, LCSW, of Guidance Associates; B. A 0721108 summary from Kathy's ongaing Psydiatiist, Ivarreaoe Maker, MID; C. A 1029107 notice, supplied by Kathy to attmW Sumplo-Sullrvan, showing that Robot Graybill did not lose his driving privileges; D. Numerous e-mail ewchanges, dated from April 2008 to June 2005, cuing awnpies of the poor co-parenting I I I ication between Kathy and Nuts E. Six character-td hence kilos for Kathy, two fivm family members, three fioom work associates and one firm Robot Graybill's mother, F. A copy of Nicky's report card. 2. Nick Fanelli: A. Copies of test results for Nic ky, provided to dhow that try's scores are often affected the day after his custodial time with Kathy; B. May, 2008, e-mails from Nutt to Kathy, asking her to put more focus on Nxtcy's academic needs or to send Nutt' to him after school to provide such supervision; C. Examples of school projects completed by Nick and Micky; Nick and D. Examples of various e-mail exchanges to provide cumWles of the poor co-parenting between relationshp E.A notice of Nicky's dietary needs due to migraine headaches, provided by Kathy, with infarme tionfitim Mick to show diet while Kathy asked for these requinements to be cngx ed, she violated them; F. A copy of an e-mail from Kathy to Nutt, provided to highlight the fact that she had copied the e-mail to her brother and sister-in-law, with Nick allegingdu tthis isevidence thatKathy's brother and mster-in-law help her wn am] to him; G. Copies of two newspaper articles, one dated 127/08 and the other dated 619/08, showing that Robert Graybill was charged with harassment; Ii A copy of cell phone records from 10/10007, to support Nick's allegation that he received nine phone calls fi»m Robot Graybill in a Sew minutes time. The record showed three phone calls and one text message received with ante from Nick indicating that the other calls went to voicemail; 1. A 12/30/07 custody-conciliation conference report for Robot Graybill vs. Samantha Graybill, showing dw rcaustody agreement; 3. Robert Graybill: A Complete hospital record from Robert's plc hospitalization at the Pennsylvania Psychiatric hhstiUrte, with an admission date of GI O 08 and a discharge dale of N13/118; B. A 09/15108 phom ©onsnbaraaat air Kaaaun E. Ldp, Robert's caarant tlrerap?iat ap<I t' C.Phonaoo mwilh)Awg mtgbmhlc Bmt.aliomapllarRobwtEiraffim] aen"OPA by his estranged wc; D. E-mail messages fmmbel mmvunding additional filed against Robert Graybill by Iris estranged ante during the coarse far the evaluation update; E. A completed psyahosomal-bistaiy Wcsh mair+e and drug and alcohol usage questionnaire, as provided by the evaluator, F. A 06/10/08 order of custody between Robert Graybill, Jr. and Samantha, GrayW G. A 0821108 continued temporary oast order for a PFA filed by Samantha Graybill against Robert Graybill; 4. Legal documents perdtinia.g to the ettnretst costedy conflict: A. The February 2007 and time 2008 custody acders; B. The 06/15/07 petition to modify custody, filed by Nock Fanelli; C. Numerous letters between the attorneys, dated from May to October 2007; D. Letters between Nick's and Kathy's attorneys, dated &um May to June 2008. Page-2-of 18 f adi- The findings reported in this section are the result ofthe one-hour face to face interviews with each ofthe parents, with Micky, and with Robert Graybill. Additionally, the findings are the result of a significant amount of written information required by the evaluator for both parents and Robert GrayLill, m response to a series of specific questions related to their preferences and other pmt mformet<on related to the current custody conflict. 1. Current Custody Schedule The current custody scheduler set forth in the 2/26107 orb provides for shared legal custody for both parents, with Father having primary physical custody ofNicky and Mother having periods of custody as follows: A. During the school year, alternating weekends from after school Friday until Tuesday-morning drop-off at school; Mondays following Father's weekend, from after school until Tuesday- morning drop-off at school; and every Wednesday from after school until 8:30 p.m. B. During the summer, the custody schedule remains the some, with the exception that Mother's Wednesday evening access is expwded until Thursday-morning drop-off at day care. The 06/20/08 court order amended certain aspects of the original 02/26/07 order established following the original evaluation but did not change the custody access schedule. In fact, the current order calls for all terms of the 02/26/07 order to remain in effect, while adding the following three additional terms. A Communica0m between thus: Stipulation that prevents the parents fimnn passing information through Micky and requires them to communicate directly with each other; B TrcuWortartion for Nick - Mother's significant other, Robert Graybill Jr., is restricted from transporting Ncky at any time; C. contact with Nicky: Robert Graybill Jr. is prohibited from having contact with Nicky until such time as an evaluation is completed or recommendations are submitted by this evaluator. 2. History of Current CeuSd The first fill custody evaluation was completed on 1{15107. Dt rested in an agreed- *on court taller dated February 26, 2007- TU p-5? for -, -^I!- ?11101 fiveseaskm with Anthea Stebbins, LSW, of hterWorks. According to Kathy, the co-parewing therapy was only mildly effective because of Nick's rte. According to MU, the co-parenting therapy didn't work because Kathy was hostile toward hum and oely wad to &scuss matters related to Nicky's custody rather than discussing co-parenting Nick UNnUl dy tamed co-parenting therapy and, based on several concerns about Mcky's saihty while with Kathy, filed a petition in June 2007 to modify custody. This resulted a concilisfm nae in August, 2007 before Hubert Gilroy, F-sq. According to both parent's reports, Anorne;?GNlrnywarned Kathy to follow the court order and advised Nick to get on with his life and stop micre-maneog Kathy's relationship with Micky. Mr. Gilroy also asked for a 60-day review and std {hie p attorfteys to return for a second meeting, in October, 2007. The parties again discussed t nam parbuiathy related to amts raised by Nick about Kathy's timelines and about sdety i f+or Dwky. Vow noolutions, were reached and Attorney Page - 3 - of 18 Gilroy advised the parents that if they had fit= issues related to Mcky's care and co-parenting, it was likely that they would have to go to court because of their inability to reach an agreement on their own about issues related to Ncky's best interest. The amended order of June 20, 2008 resulting m this update was a culmination of other concerns reported by Nick regarding Nicky's safety while with Kathy. Because of an incident on June 10, 2008 where Bob Graybill signed over custody of his children to their mother then admitted himself to a psychiatric facility, Nick's concerns for Mcky's safety magnified. This hospitalization was not the first for Robert and Nick had asked Robert to give hum information about his mental health history and other concerns several months before Bob's June 10, 2008 hospitalization Added to other concerns addressed by Nick in prior petitions, this evaluation is the result of the June 20, 2008 amended order. 3. Parental Preferences A. Kathy Fanelli Kathy reported that she is seeking shared legal and physical custody of Micky year round. Her preferred schedule is to have Micky every Monday and Wednesday overnight and every other weekend from Friday evening through Monday AM at school or summer activity, with Nick having Micky every Tuesday and Thursday overnight and the alternate weekend. In addition to a change in the custody schedule, Kathy is also requesting that all co-parenting comrramication occur strictly by e-mail. She is specifically leery of direct communication with Nick because she believes it increases his attempts to control her relationship with Micky. Finally, Kathy is requesting that the prohi6mon against her boyfriend, Robert Graybill, Jr., having contact with Nncky be lifted, so that Robert can return to living with her full time, including those times when Micky is in her custody. B. Nick Fanelli Nick is seeking a decrease m Kathy's custodial time with Mcky, requesting "a more standard non- custodial parent schedule" during the school year. This would consist of Kathy having Micky every other weekend from Friday evening through Sunday evening and one evening during the week, but not overnight. Nick reported that he would agree to keep the summer schedule as it currently exists. With regard to charges in the co-parenting eawa?mnt, Nick stated that he wants Kathy to refrain from wfjm% Mc ky wide ha wive attitudes A" how He Am Kaft to step puniag Nay ut the middle of their ' by ' • hint to lie for bar ad by be&# Mdny a* for m=W, etc Finally, Mick is sew din ofRohert QuyWs psydnatrrc i+istary, especially related to safety factors for Micky. 4. Discussion of Parental Prefenmu A. Kathy Fanelli With regard to Kathy's preference to equalize the physical custody schedule, she indicted that during this past school year, she observed Micky fiwhng distressed and anxious about his school work and what he termed as pressure from Nick regarding his grades. Whereas Kathy believes that Micky should do well in school, she perceives Micky as responding in dy li ways to do pressure being place on ban by Ins father, including one time getting very angry while long a p vpd and saying, "I hate my life." When Page-4-of 18 Kathy attempted to follow, up on Inns frustration, Am alleged that Micky toll her that his dad was being "really hard' on him regarding homework. According to Kathy, Nicky's stress got to the point where it began causing him to suffer migraine headaches With regard to Kathy's desire to restrict co-pum iag unicatim to e-mols, she reported that despite the resolution of custody matters through the original evaluation and a subsequent court order, Nick has continued to attempt to micro-manage things and to be both demanding and critical with her about a multitude of issues. She believes that the bet way to meow the won and guarantee the most civility between them is to maintain good comrnunicr"ion via emanls: She stated that despite an attempt in 2007 to use co-parenting therapy with Av was Stdabos, LSW, Nrck remaiabd judgmental and resistant to negotiating with her to the point that he teed the +coiwenting therapy staking that "it didn't work." Finally, with regard to the current ciircumatance whereby bar mod, Bohr, is not permitted to be in her home when Micky is in her custody, Kathy reported coax that a review of Bob's psychiatric and therapy records would reveal that allegatiom from Muck and Bob's wed wife, Samantha, regarding his psychiatric coon are inacmu tte_ It is Kathy's belief that both Nick and Samantha have exaggerated concerns about Bob for their own personal agendas related to their respective marital break- ups and custody issues. According to Kathy, Mcky has cqxusW sadness and despair about the loss of contact with Bob. She added the white Nick portrays bas wanting to protect Micky and lookout for his best interest, Nick has failed to sec how his need to coWd Kathy's relationship with Bob negatively affects Micky. As a result of Kathy's difficulties with Nude relative to custody and co-parenting and its impact on her primary relationship. Kathy reported that she has been signifi+candy mod. She sought therapy with Joanne Ellenberger, LCSW at Guidance Ate. At her fist therapy session in spring, 2008, it was recommended that Kathy consider being evaluated for medication; based on qmpkxm ofd on. She was ultimately seen by Lawrence A , MD and cuff=* pmobed Wellbutrin, 300 mg daily and Remeron, 15 mg. However, the Rmrun caused so she is only taking the Wellbutrin at this time. Reports from Mss. Ellenberger indicate that Kathy may have been suffering from Major Depression, single episode. However, after Dr. AkaWs evahetion, Kathy was diagnosed with Adjustment Depression cad by the diffliciMes with the cow o0frcky and the difficulties that she and Bob both a rmine wlm m**oW#* oMc* is sOW *w lie hie. Records slow that Kathy is i ' ' Lau*=*wWwidWiO*d0Pwar A with ms. HN ` , r k a 00#0w. 'Iwwda IM 11? 4I14saft q the cxmfficts in her wVwsWmg t+eia wig A& and in SmOs for Weping date boundaries with him. B. Nick Faselb According to Nick, he is requesting a ran is Kath a *=WW with Micky during the school year because of concerns r bf'n&? whh K&hy dw are divided into three gmmdc areas. The first is the concern that Kathy's poor ca-paB and knigtoce oa through Nrcky results in Micky being infi s with her roc witudes, d Nide. The second, aligned with the first, is Kathy not attending to Nrdiy'a naashsn asttht let's aesds taprovide better care for Micky. The third area bivoWes suety faean fxw 1 Tar's a we specific references to the lack of information Dude has . Robert Gram's and p gTccal ewpaatY- Page - 5-of 18 With regard to iris concerns about Kathy's poor co-parenting, Nick wed a concern that Micky has begun distortnig the truth and withholding informOon from Mick in order to protect Kathy. Nick reported that Mcky is specifically withholder mfbrmation about Bob Graybill, who Mick reported has shown mental instability, ak *d abuse and an whwiilingness to follow direc &es relative to his own custody issues with his children. Mck's exaunple of Micky withholding the truth Rom him revolved around the fact that at a custody eanige &o -offl , Nick saw out the window that Bob was driving Micky, and when brck asked him about it, Micky had ftm timn and said that it was his mother who dropped him off. Nick also expressed concern that becom Ncky k privy to too much adult information from Kathy, he is feeling protective of her such that, at one post prim' to Mcky's session with this evaluator, with a sullen and angry Witude, Mcky told his fither he was going to tell the evaluator that he wants everything to be equal" with the custody. According to Nick, however, Nhcky's behaviors do not match that statement, in that he is often restan t to tuskjostransitions to his mother's custody when it is time. Finally, Mc k end, with disaapPviasinient, that he is noticing a change in Micky's disposition toward him. He said that wink Mcky used to wqmnte a grad deal with him, he now must ask Micky three or four times to comply with a mpiest. It is M k's opinion that the change in Mic y s attitude is due to how much Kicky is bed asked to internalize Kathy's negative attitudes toward Nick. Nick further reported that there is evidence of blicky's poor school performance particularly on the days after he is with his mother. Mck provided data to support his lion that Kathy does not take the time -- and does not show the responsibility - to help Mirk with homework and ihumll values in him regarding his education. Nick did adow that Micky's oven& grades, for the school year were fine, but said that does not change the fact that when Mcky is at his mother's house, he is less prepared for school the nest day. If Mcky I is pry aft custodial time with Kathy, it is because Mick spends time with him after he returns home. Hnwever, this reqmw that Mcky stair up later and that Nick handle all of the responsibility for Nick's ern. According to Nick, this dots not support Wk ving Kathy to expand her time with Micky. With regard to concerns about Nicky's safety while at his mother's, Nick cited the facet that Katy still does not have a slid after school plan for Moky's c arse whose he is with her. He added that he often drives over to Kathy's after school to pick Micky up at the bust stop because there continues to be too much dangerous construe in Ka thy's i for lfwky to walk home on his own. He added that Kathy insists that she arraaps care for Micky after set but that the ph= are never consistent. He also cited an example of Micky and a faimd being clod for being outside of their od without suparvisim t a 1 801 Wool m*&O 1, pi I to Nick he was loss ,S% 60ims . to a so am to *" die, appouit lack of supervision for Mcky v** wig Kx&y Of most significance to bfiW9 concern alhout leg's *Aty are the concern shout what he termed "reckless behaviors" by Robert Ciraybidl, KaWs live-m boyffiesit I' d tibied a mat of safety issues, including the fact that when one of lWa visited at KWs house, Bob apparently drove Mcky and his friend somewdter+a, mW the bleed wet home and told his p hts'how recklessly Bob was driving. It was this roport that ultimately led to the court resoution, against Bob ever driving Micky anywhere. Secondarily, Mick cked vampla of" , b inky an an ATV without a helmet and allowing Nicky to tackle risks thiltt Wick dents not W wo in a Ire's best interest. Most specifically, Nick discussed the l opted he knows abbe occurne Bob wits be own children and his estranged wife, inchudiiig the fact t shortly d&- evAnIko- ups, Bob steed over parental rights to his children. In addition, sfiw I I Ia Iedhing his pwonuts, lbw was served with a PFA from Page - b - of 18 his estranged wife. Mick has m-going with RoberVs estranged wife and was able to provide additional downte on on two harassment charges in the last year against Bob, filed by his estranged wife and/or her fiance- He also provided a copy ofthe original custody order between Robert and Samantha Graybill which cited that Robert was not ever to ccrostme alcohol- Significantly, Nick expressed concern about the fact that Bob has been in a psycc hospital more than once in the past year. Although Nick requested documentation fram Bob about the reasons for those hospitalizations, he has not been provided with any . In general, Nkk is corsmerned that both Bob and Kathy are exh emely stressed, that Bob's capon may be a wriotis thm stress and that.they both may be partying." When asked to erne what he mom by tom, Nick rgmrW that he has observed a significant amount of refuse, specifically empty bar tow outside Kathy's house, and as well, Mick is concerned that they might also be smoking mamma smc a he is aware that Kathy smoked marijuana several years ago and prior to her and Nick being in a relp. 5. Child Pew 177 Y_ i- Nicky was interviewed for one hour- He was not observed in the presence of either of his parents. and it should be noted that he was brought to the one-bow in taviaw by his mother. In regard to Nicky's presentation style in this one-hour interview, it was notable to the evaluator that he was reticent and cautious about discussing matters with the evaluator. It should also be noted that there was a significant change in his spontaneity and capacity to be open fiom his mtervLws in the first evaluation completed in January 2007. With regard to the presence of any overt coaching of Micky reined to the evaluation date process, he was asked what he had been told about coning to the session. Nrdky reported that he was simply told by his mother that he would be coming to an evaluation session. In an effort to determine if Micky was passively coached by having too much bowiedSe about the adult conflict, when asked if he had some understanding of how each of his parcmts was Soelsg about the curtest need to see the evaluator, Nicky said he didn't know. When asked if he had any current knowledge about how each of his parent's feel about the other, Nicky mdonod be &da't Wh* his modw lead his h6e r very much because he yelled at her when they all heed. uWWw . When a iow his fadssr felt a his mother, Micky said that all he knew was that his fi r aaa m wan 1W "W to go bw in wmahk a lat." Odwrwise, Micky h+s t't q .tuMi t 1r . nkft ~,= he is very clear that his'f does wt h r AWWU M b as "mod." When asked about his currrstt + ts`a r Nxty tbmtl?e would like the schedule to be"equal" bdvmm his ' aced f ee. Whets asked how he his mother would feel about such a schedule, he said he dinks efts wwW .lIm b bemuse she would get to see him more. Micky said he himself would &W be im sad iflW vve r e dm case. Wbenasked how he tlnrught his father would feel about his ideal scbeduk Micky said do someimes whew they fight, his father says to him, "Go call your mom if you don't think you want to be with me." It was notable that, as rid previously, IWr was Aw mew emosous, about discussing his thoughts and feelings during this them be had ben in bis ia1mviews for the first evaluation. In an effort to understand the lcvd of ratitmm sad ndmen et Mm*ys the mduaW salted him the direct question as to whether or not he is ow that lips Vahemm are his own, rather than based on any Page-7-of 18 influence he may have received from any one of his parents. Niccy reported that his preferences are clearly his own, but then added that he would very much like his parents to stop fighting so there wasn't so match trouble about him. According to Micky, his rip with his fither has changed to some extent, despite the fact that it remains a good relatioasiip. When questioned about any other changes that have occurred that are distressing for Mercy, he wed the chmp in his relationship with his father with regard to his demands and said he is fimbog more upset about those demands. Micky admitted that he dislikes the way his father states his demands sometimes about homework which at times increases his resistance to those demands. Micky also wed sadness about the change in his relationship with his father related to the fact that it appears to MWW that W father is responsible for beginning most of the fights between his parents and he wants the fiWft to slap. IIe a Wtiona ally mentiotied that his father is thinking of moving, which Micky said would be "very, very ug" to hint, since he is familiar with the neighborhood. Most notable and related to Micky's sadnema was his tewAil report that it hurts his few when his father refers to Bob as "a weirdo." Micky was most tow id whm he reported that he can no longer see Bob, and he knows it has someWng to do with "something my der filed with the court." Micky said he feels as if he has lost contact with someone who is a flood hody fCimd. IIe cuohpwed it to the feeling he would have if a good friend moved out of the neigliIj Imm . According to Mcky, at the time of his interview, he hadn't seen Bob for approximately two mot, kdtx i g no ph ow contact. Micky was asked to compare and contrast aspects of his famiy He with each of his parents, beginning with the housing, area as well, emotional aspects of the p -clidd relationship. With regard to housing, Micky reported that he really likes both bus pa raos' hour and has no conpaints about either one. He did add that he wishes that lus f woad slap Weddigthat la's too young to walk from the school bus stop in his mother's neighborhood to her lxam With turd to Vie, Mcky indicated that his father yells a lot more than his mother when ha bdWm Inky is 4=4 something wrong. With regard to helping with homework and attitudor toward Nicky's grades and schooling, he described his parents as both being able to heip him with his fork but said his dad is a little more forceful than his mother about it. When asked about SOWS advitae hbvm tio.g w t ? Micky said he gets advice from both of them but that, "Probably my morn is best at it." With reel to h=dkg Mcky's fears and worries, he reported that his parents do an equally Shod job at that. W ah i rd to which parent is kind about the other parent, Micky reported that his mom a a nk r tbmn%s h : With d to Micky's activities, he reported that both of his parents are warn 4f Us :$ odd* and ate. Micky was naked to 10 SW&WOOK 1[# as r @11.,11 im I He 's saves" are, "First, she doesn't yA snon4 s*tW l mama a "Wr4 Ae par me stuffeven though we are poor." Muky oral thiiuk is t It mdo may need improvement. Regarding his father's stimgthas, Miry "fie rtw sa lea's Ain; and hit's fri y." With regard to areas where his father may and i v , Micky said he winners his father wouldn't yell as much, that he would learn to be friends with Sob QvyWl and that he would be a little less strict about homework. With regard-to areas of r , bb*y repmA "He's fiat to be around; he's nice; and he took me on a truck trip, whiff was ra* him" Vrdh r Wd to areas where Bob may need improvement, Micky soul that every ease m a w ) "has, bee up"." With regard to Nicky's mil biamy sire thin k* evalu don, it is remarkable that he was evaluated neurologically for the price of any satnuloyW his migraine headaches. According to both parents, the teas did.a m ivivid :nay uma o l causing the headaches. Page-8-of 18 With regard to school work, at the tine ofMcky's inteview this simmer, he had just completed fourth grade at St. Joseph's. Iris teacher was Mrs. Conway, whom he deeded as "nice." Micky said his favorite subject is math, and his least favorite scibjec t is social studies. He denied any significant problems with behavioral compliance or discipline, with the acception of being told once or twice not to talk to friends in class. When asked if he had any educational plans for his future, Micky said he would like to be a policeman or a fireman. It should be noted that the parents disagree as to whether or not Kathy is participating in helping bum with his work Fps wen provided by Nick to show that on the days after Micky was with his mother, he had test stoma in the 70 pert range. Unfortunately, no test scores were provided for similar school work on days ader Icy had been with his father. However, Nick did provide otamples of two projects on whit he woad with Midry, one of which he got an 80 percent, and the other of which he received not only 140 percent but eat credit for scoring 55 out of 50. As previously reported, Ncky indicated that he belieums hie fi has incased his demands on Micky about school work, which n up?setthig to hen AMhoa# beam concerns messed about the completion of Ncky's specific homework assqpwimoswhen he a with his mother, NkWs grades for the school year reveal a solid B average in all adocts a pt kWW arts„ in which he had a C average. With regard to an update of Nicky's social history and his pattern of fimdships since the last evaluation, he reported that he continues to do well with fi ssadsbips and has no complaints in this area. With regard to his mental and motional status, b i* reported ghat the niost common feeling he has on a regular basis is happiness but that this shifts into more confivion win the about the custody conflict. When asked direct questions about his specific fangs, Nicky showed some reticence in answering those questions but indicated that he has had more anger with his hOwthan he is used to and has been feeling sad about the level of stress inherent in the custody omiffict suimaaanding him and the loss of contact with Bob Graybill. With regard to projective questions, when mead what he would wish for ifhe were granted three wishes regarding his family life, Kicky said he would first wish that his nom and dad had never divorced, second, that they would stop fiabbow and third, that at dievery %asrt, they could Uve apart in peace. Micky could not think of what he would wish for if Sim ftx hWwK nor could he answer other projective questions about his own strengths, arms about the would change and what changes he aright make in the rules in his liu if he could . changone rule. When all ofNicky's responses are vim as a? pooW its et that tim congict scwmn&g his custedy has noficea* AV610 ;amt his fns t !O? M ?.? wee i eqpdily is the wstody sc?eck?e nerd wises i" I tt mo air. is not, however, to reduce his time w*i #u**w to SRY4WWW et. Delpift the hict that Micky reports that there is more aging betwe a hmi red hit,oar, beto want to have 6pificant time with both parents. Micky also evened siOdIceakm Pikee to hit sqwsim km contact with Bob Graybill. The depth to which Micky was reserved said dow tbe uftrvww with this evaluator was palpable, and the shift m his levid of open agarms-m'- enas':-n mad previoe* - was very noticaeable. 6. Adiaect Lrtsrview Rebut QMO& Jr. As previously reported, concerns about Ndgr's s in Pines* and case of Bob Graybill were raised by Nick multiple times siiiae M* and Uft W06" *W in" moody order in February, Page-9-of 18 2007 cuimmating in the Jane 2008 amended custody order. Quesbions about Bob's seeming erratic behaviour, his psychiatric hoa?tahzetuons, his mental and emotional health, and his drinking behaviors were raised by Nick. Akhaigh at one pout Bob offered to answer questions from Nick, when a formal set was provided to him, he did not do so. By his repent, he was advised by his attorney not to answer the questions because his offer was not in his best interest but rather more reactive to the accusations being wagered against him by Nick Fandh and Samoa Cmaybill. Finally, with no information about his concerns and the knowledge that Bob was air sdWIW to a pry alric faacility on June 10, 2008-- following an incident in which he was demed acvem to his cdWdr+m beco use he had violated the no- drinking rule -- Nick believed that the only wiry to truly pftsed Nndty's safety while with Kathy was to petition the court to prohlit Bob fiiom beirafi at Kathy's htxw when Nr ky was in her care. Therefore, the June 2008 court order incorporates the agrecount by both poreals that Bob will not drive Micky anywhere, and more specifica Uy, Bob will not be in pity's presence until such tonne as this evaluator. makes recomn ons based on this evahmion nom. For the purpose of ash Bob GrIybill's finctiouiR& I* v=, inbervicwed face to face for one hour, completed a psychosocial history quentioruutai+e; a chug and alcohol history questionnaire; signed releases for the evaluator to receive n res"ing his p"Chistric moons and his current outpatient therapy; and provided dom can n*udng two cberge s for harassment and the current PFA pending against him. As a fokkaw up to ` pm", by pert, the evaluator had a brief phone consultation with his currant attorney, Margret Siaaok, Eeq. and a lengthier phone consultation with his current therapist at Diakon Seines, Kam FA*w Wiffinaw MS_ It is notable that Bob's marital lion and custody matters related to his four children is highly contentious and has resulted in nwkipk dal ironer some related to custody and others related to criminal *9 about her issues related to charges. The evaluator has no first band knovAWV c=i Sommontba, Caw Bob but was provided information fivin l Fa whet bas ***oieg coon with Samantha about those issues. Although Nick requested that the evalustor contact Bob's estranged wife for information on her alWpfiow and her pwoqaim oafBab de a considered that to be out of the scope of this evdambion. With regood to-de two horostiwe o Bob as filed by Samantha and or her fiance Matt, Bob reported that the first d ie in Jataeuwaay, 200$ emanated from an incident when he alleged that his am Alm admitted to him-that he was "hW at a baaWLetball Some that they both attended. When Bob attempted to cod tear &orm*th* mow d w Wksedy repeatedly hung up on him and Bob pied in ate. in dr eg ii , t, Bib paid the fine and Akesh" , I ink 2W was the i 40". The s A ?M1 drawled Vdm*& Mr ? from Bob trying to ia*raa ** *m $ ft t ? wMHt ? . ' ko Bob that he was lacked out ofher homse after ant w> Mme. Us"dren him to fight the charges after they ova &W* Bob and "p ing him m Jail." According to Bob, with regard to the w P - peddonfora PFA fiW against Bob by Samantha, she claimed a fear for her safety aibsr Bob aftsao W c r also attend. However, Bob reported that he has not even talked to his asmood v -- who plod t*.p stWoau -- for at least two months prior to the filing. In addition, he dwkd do be wSoWd ins any we t l wmid comtttate a threat or any form of fear inducement uu=W?y p it to pir7vve t *'FA *wAd be in efct. According to Bob he indicated that the PFA ca>r ere * . M WidW at em Of do ms's soccer practices where witnesses saw both Spa and Matt yoffing at'K; ?F i. In a review ofthe 08/15/08 Continued Page - 10 - of 18 Temporary Order related to the PFA it was noted that the case is still pending since there was a continuance filed until September 25, 2008. In a brief discussion with Bob's attorney, Margaret Simok, Esq., who was only able to give iuf xination that is a matter of public record, she reported that in the interim awaiting the continued hewing Bob is perniftOd to attend his children's activities as long as he keeps his distance from his estranged wife. According to Bob he intends to fight the charges in the PFA . and denies that there is any accuracy to allqpdmm Legg matters concerring the Gmybdl children's ontody am also on-going between Bob and Samantha Graybill. Samantha has always had pdamy physical ontody ofthe children since the marital separation in 2006. The December, 2007 custody order in sated that Bob had partial periods of custody with the children every other wedwad and every Weduesday. In man„ the owlet showed that. Bob was precluded from dnnkmg any alcohol while cog for the chi. Akhotigh it was reported by Nick Fanelli that this alcohol rya was due to Beeb's use o€ oR g was not indicated as such in the order. The June 10, 2003 wed tniinnnstauace that led to Bob signing away the custody of his children was previously duvisted. According to Robert in additim to the issues that occurred at the time he signed away his rte, be reported tW there was "cwt drama" for the children at every custody exchange and it began to feed life a fide si ieen to try and preserve any normal contact with the children that didn't eecp m them to the paamW coeffict. Bob was provided a document by Samantha in January 2008 reques ft that he sip away his c dW rights, He kept the request for months and in his fiitihity in June,, 2008, signed it. It was noted that even aft Bob signed away custody of his children, the resting court order dated 06110M allowed for hen to have contact with the children upon 72 advanced written regPW by Bob with Samantha. The order Wher states that such requests will not be "unreasonably w' f Bob. According to Bob, to cue at the time of his interview he had submitted 32 requests to we the children, ail of which were allepAy dated. The evaluator reviewed Bob's written arcs and as well interviewed Bob about his psychiatric history and his use of alcohol and other stances. Bob was fixthright in his interview and in his written questionnaire about his trot for deep cession, and as veil, his ho.eitalizputivns at Pb haven Hospital in the fall of 2007 and inure: rara y atPeawryhrania Pryddshh: ludkft wbwe he was admitted 6/10/08 and discharged 6113/08. (No records have arrived fivs Phi *bve n Hospital as of this writing.) According to Bob, his hoapitalizatiosn in Jane, 2009 at a- - , - inn F aaric Institute (a newly established unit comprised of what were bar P ms's and Hwey Medical Center's Psychiatric Units) was the to* of a+W w sed et a &wW his rights to see his children. He admittol to n, +ttiieiatlllMlMllttal MaMMU1A L.!- 401olher that he may be suicidal. A ns `0 dsathe first _*dWG x1111 that it was a nd t ha OM 40 t ! ate! Ii wd, he carries the diagnosis of Mayor I aq , Wit, w aE cur l #IMS Abuse aid be ruled out. The significant faetors oaaftibuting to _DWs 'a ske, btt g to the report, were the ongoing distress he is experititcing in his dWo ma aid thiW xw4y situatim as well as the added stress he is experiencing through his r iomhw -wdb r and her ' moody strain. According to the records, once Bob was in thee boa al aahd a IoW WaWWWA ko aMtto &wuss the impulsiveness and stupidity of his suxW commosts, and hewa*Aw des cad ate b+eisS _ and open in terms of his issues and in ac dmu*' do *wapy =A the medsmics he needed to address his depression. Also Ito the rVort, "lad am bow#* conow with bit mWications because of significant side effects, lly,W*than sarrMAoft. As a rco*, "was switched to 20 mg. daily of Pr w which he contiom to tale ad win 4 he as good results. Of most sib to the eVSkU*Wwars the P ! No offin I of an on the, part of the psychiatrist Page - 11 -of 18 about Bob's potential abuse of alcohol and his m-` iin of any need to address that. Because of Bob's presentation, self reporting and the fact that Bob diWbW d no widdmwal symptoms during the 72 hours he was in the hospital, a diagnom related to alcohol problems was ruled out. However, due to Bob's medications and the connection of alcohol to the incident leading to his hospitalization, the psychiatrist's discharge disposition suggests that he stay away fiiom alcohol completely. This directive was relaxed to the concern that Bob's depression rocked his vigiieit action and alcohol disturbed his better defenses. The record also ind"m dat"was oft the use ofAntiibuse, which he turned down, stating that he was not drinking rely and pared on stopping altogether, as he had doe before with no problem. Information from Bob's ongoing therapist, Kam Wilkins, W., at Dis kon Services showed that he has been seen weekly since July 3, 2008 and was self r+efn rred folbwirag his three day inpatient stay. According to Ms. Embers Bob is cooperative and successfully dealing with goals related to coping with the ongoing distress related to his post natal sep an and custody cow. She denied concerns regarding the excessive use of alcohol for Bob and as wA decried concern of the presence of symptoms diagaosdc ofBipolar disorrder. Instiead A*cona wiEhdw nfMarl'or Depression, runt as provided by the psychiatrist from Perdmsylvania Psyebiatrrrc inrst rite. She described Bob as cooperative and making good use of therapy whom the goals we to bed him remain grounded in the face of stress so that he can be more proactive rather than reactive during conflicts related to his children. In both questionnaires it is notable that in sections, where he was asked to disc his use of mood-altering substances, Bob indicated that he did not be& drid&g algal urn he was in his late 20's and has never used any illicit drugs. This is mentioned as a#md i nation- to the ieitad concerns of the treating psychiatrist in June, 2008 and, the mtpress e d PApicion on Mir k's part that both Bob and Kathy currently smoke marijuana. No chug testing was considered necessary as part of this evaluation although Bob reported that he would vaknday do so under the direction of his suorney. With regard to a self-report on Bob's current use of alcohol - specifically boar - Bob reported that he drinks "socially on the weekends and occasionally cat wade gbts." I a Lai ssarolaa approxamaxely one pack of cigarettes a day, but usury only men bo dri or working: Bob also indicated that he uses caffeine in the form of two to three cups of coffee a day. With regard to his presentatim is his ' , Herb was open, coopw*irre, and willing to provide information to the evaluout. jUg4madst rrsirwstsusrs?i sib wb . He did not appear to sMM{ r g i in, annd oad+er to maintain Pome Ii stressors in his l* We% ? WONs br i !fit wow y distress. He said the complicated divorce wit$ birs r d wide Somodis, and ber lid is aio extremely difficult. Third, Bob said his relates wit Vift be* iinursepied by I indOW to be aid Micky has also been stressful. Bob add than bit stv on rekod rjupootok eleeping and feeling over- emotional at times. He is cumm* ia Oar" a&nomd above? and intends to renigin go. There are two specific qaeshoas k:yin ibis ovAns utpdow The is whether or not Micky Fanelli's custodial time shatild be ai*aled eisher espeaft base with his modier to a 50-50 shared Page - 12 -of 18 custody schedule as requested by Kathy Fan& or diminishing time with his mother during the school year as requested by Nick Fanelli. The second is whether or not Bob Graybdl should be permitted to be a part of Micky's life during mother's custody. Ahhough not spa dcaffy asked, the impact of the co-parenting strain between Kathy and Nick Fanelli was reviewed, as to its on the other two primary questions being asked in this evaluation. With regard to the obvious and ongoing wpuenting strain r lsW to Nu ky's custody, it is significant to reconsider some of what was presented is this initial evaluation report. In that report, Nick had significant concerns about Kathy's alleged chaotic and urn-centered home life, believing that she was unable to provide a sense of routine and amt fiat Nidty. A" Nick micro-managing her life and judging it from his point of view, bediwvi % that his lileslylowas superior and should be replicated by her. Notably, the first petition for dusk* moddcation Ned bq Nick "owmSthe F& uary 2007 custody order, revolved around his desire to We Ksithy pa vide mote qty and routine far Micky while complaining of issues related to Mire Ws sa r and the lark of care fioom Kathy some of which revolved around her ongoing with Cacuybig. Kohy dehaded again Nick's complaints by reporting that he was overt on her and esr- concem. A review of records from the last report to the present revealed that both the custody camdfator and the co-parenting therapist reported a need for Kathy to be tit about being spdc with *&w" the tim6lirnes and other directives in the custody order. They reported that Nick should refrain from critiquing all of Kathy's parenting actions from a point of view that assumed his style is the only one that will best benefit Micky. In the first evaluation, it was dew that %Ws vig t review ofKathy's actions was founded in a desire to protect Micky from the chaos that remelted fto the only aqa of their marital breakup. However, despite many of Nick's conce rm being sir to tlaosen efiet+ed dwf rst evaluation; it does appear that Kathy has developed more emotiond ode and As has not agreed that Nick's criticisms of her are accurate. As a result, she is challen" Nick more and lees inclined to accept his attempts to manage Micky's life when she has custody of him. Conversely, with regard to Kathy's need for theespy, some isms relsW to Bob driving Micky when it was stipulated that he wouldn't, and segue of the emotdonnl chow resulting fi or n both Kathy and Bob being embroiled in d o dy M& was stdyAss s ho concern for Nic ky's welfare while with Kathy. In eswmxk *40,lds. qtr, KWs IWWK* 90 does not appear to be 's ex-wife si ?`, slltigso" 'v ody sawn'to ae aeseee:6001affi c iM . UN, imsadisfwtile ground for a *W*AkftJImw1i ' ' about whether his parents will e w s e snd . Na y'a issues including sadness and caudw aE palp geld eysi v espeesre to the d impasse. The best autinple of the par ntal i"em gad its i"ad on Nedcy's fiinaromV is related to Micky's school performance. Whereas tab is same vA*ae provided by Nick that Nrcky's scores on some quizzes shift downward he aper* tip Shia ate', Hernia is no long term evidexnce that Nicky's grades are failing. Kathyy dangles Nidty's se eailrreeatk. Nieky reports that his major issue with school is that his fl iA k*oa hid' an kk& a -sdroodweark whin is negatively affecting his attitudes tovwdscMW emdlwtada i A ip fWw. Ia thet impasse, while Kathy does not address t he and to bo waft bWs howwwa?rk, for his sake, Mick fails to see that his approach to Ni y is coNW49 N Ws i+ea 7e to him, not I athy's in iivi ng Micky with her Page - 13 - of 18 negative attitudes. This strands Nwky in a situation where in his eyes, Nick remains demanding and, at times, rigid with Micky while Kathy is the more laid berck yet less detail oriented about homework In general, there is evidence in Nndty's pr+eamqfion and his reported information that he is experiencing increased resistance to his fisher's style. n is a blind spot for 1 to assume that all of what he is experiencing with Nwky is related to the with Kathy. Instead it is the evaluator's impression that it will be important for M* to becoam more 8mrNb ml strategic about how to approach Ncky as a pre-teen and to understand that NW s taKdonis to him are baceuse ofNicWs devdopmental age and quite independent fiow the cop g condict Otherwise, they are likely to increase their conflict since, like most dW&w oofdworck who tome is wxAw p option, berth parents have to be strategic in a digit way so as not to admwtk* dWs capsAy to use the parental differences as a means of deferring compliance with both pnaaat's st* Kathy me ywwd against using her style as a means of soothing Micky about his rawdm to his fetiasf Ia the a1 11 of Kafir also requiring good academic performance, it only serves to &mWsh Nacky's coping. Very significant to the noconnmetndafitoes ad fx* b&w vussthem by the evaluator of a major shift in Micky's ability to be spores, opeiatamd wM reWd to his thoughts and feelings related to his custody. Despite the fad that Nick beliam dw Kathy imams Mcky with a significant amount of negativity about the co-pouding it is Nicky's p = that his fiAhw is at least equally responsible, if not more responsible, for the a??ity that edsts. 'i`bis is not based on any direct criticism that Ncky has made about his fisher, but ra w, tbnoii& the impression. provided to the evaluator that Micky believes that his f Cher soon fom and a lot on watAinghas mother for the purpose of getting her in trouble including his loss of contact with fob: Ncky's impression can be mod in pattbec be only boahmited view of his fiither's motivations and has no information about Nick's kedinate concerns related to the unknown elements of Bob's psychological condition. Nncky may also be iced by his ms's distress and feel protective of her since she is more likely to look ftagi}te and emotional, while Muck is more likely to look strong and decisive. However, this does not account ft*adift l y's putg6m of bis fiat was beingthe most responsible for keeping the pro6 l one filer VAA*Niic k may jay his actions by a desire to protect Midry he cawivtjus* that soeim at his coatimed vie and over-focus on Mic1W s time at his mother's inspirm in A&ekyAc Nick is being more negative than Kathy. Mick must take some responsibility for how he iq pe i 11 9 s acid be& to try end control some of his attitudes of "ultimate and superior pmsatal ma y' in N'wky'o I& that we Wkxvb* flu ough to Micky. ©r, g now ftiong retrial Alari &Kussing liar motions diieoo y v A*Ws*y. A t in r>t lai tbeu leant o€t r+eport would be Kathy pui g a call phow fix ?Aft to dwas atri& bhu, *%* i s a passive way in which she promotes what appears t+o be Sao wlti with tfo*y, wbi& only serves to place Micky in the middle of pal tansion. sun* by UbW a all from tier. Uthe evaluator could beafreve them a e pwia ii-i'l:? w , kwove the cormmunication between the parents, it would be 1111 1,110 1 1 11-11 VJ%ow a axwynote from then previous co- paremting theft, Aar ftbbiw4 Lail, seal fl thin c of lion about their continued strain, it does not apps tbd tit is btetwelent? Ncc and Kathy to ensure any positive V[Paimm win U)04" ? *=W. As a ram*t it may in their best interest to communicate edominanrtly throat +, b # tqs _uio m the: most civil acidrespectfiil In communication while fiTdf i at** Asum Nit Kmhy and Mick express a Page -14 - of 18 willingness to rye coVarenting fineiktatim it would be best. Very significant to the reva 1 ndatioos set forth below was the observati(m by the evaluator of a major shift in Nicky's ability to be SQontarreous, open and direct with regard to Iris thoughts and feelings related to his custody. Despite the fact that Nick bdiem that Kathy Wfina Ncky with a significant amount of negativity about the coVaren<ing rdatmoodup, it a Nicky's perception that his father is at least equally responsible, if not more r k, for the negtt1vky drat aids• This a not based on any direct criticism that Ncky has made about his fithw, but r 1-2Mer, tlteouO the impeesaiana provided to the evaluator that Micky believes that his father we= focused a lot oe watching his mother for de purpose ofgetting her in trouble including his loss of contact with Bob. Micky's impression can be muted its part because be o* has a limited view of his father's motivations and has no information abort Mrck's inata eancem Wood to the unknown dements of Bob's psychological condition. Micky may also be u ad by lies mother's s and feel protective of her since she is more likely to look fiagile and , wUe N* a more likdy to look strong and decisive. However, this does not account for the alb in lgt+clty's perceptim of bis fides as being the most responsible for keeping the problems 9mg betw+eat the parrots- Whrile Mxk maypstify his actions by a desire to protect Nicky be cammotJus*that == ofho coohnued vigilance and over-focus on Micky's time at his mother's inspires in Micky the fading tthatNick is berg awes give than Kathy. Mick must take some responsibility fix how he appears sod bego to try and control some of his attitudes of "ultimate and superior psreaW authority" in l'W a fik that we stiow g through to Micky. With regard to Kathy's participation in the change m. Mcky's level of emotional expression, she must resist sharing irtfiOrmabon with Mtci , shnwiiag her ton-verbal emotional reactions or by discussing her reaction dnmtly with Nicky. An:+ he vot incluibil ut the text of the report would be Kathy purchasing a cell phone fcw Micky so alto; cm ru* , v&& n*nmernts a passive way in which she promotes what appears to be with Ivry, which only serves to place Micky in the middle of pare" tom m simply by taitaug a ant fi her: If the evaluator could believe that a cot-pumttigg tbm" experience would improve the communication between the parents, it would be rec d. Who s eview a cursory note from their previous co- parenting theist, Ambn , and *on amunt review of irtiorrnstion about their card strain, it does notappetN'drat r*ae"bw j- eanl ate) to emure arty . , n, A"s it i*-1 c to e ?'itlre mat a rtl i rlg , l oth l r',tmd Mice expien a willitignessto, r Ii i1i 1'. cen pa Ling it r, it vmW be best- The issues between the parentsdit rtat Ime Al _I impesse catibe isolated and are viewed by the evaluator as the primary cam adds AWW WW to i I I A P * resolve their differences. However, there are, by the ad's irr m fi:l eotet isa w upon whiten Mck is focusing that are important con6dersfim about rirr wfo rgaft• These issues have a "Catch 22" quality because of the Sict that bode Ka*y end "vC +dm ly fi de and suife ing from some degree of depression YA&h mandhate iat a of decisim marking which when compared to Mck s rigd and And ? Alsefic mod. However, both of their depressions are qty rdsted t the oppiog s in cob of their ' and custody situations. One getsdue' of cbmwg- tsil" ' », whiletheirdepressions are being used as the rea m for not al ingll 1 dwy am deposed about the inability Page - 15 - of 18 to reach resolve about custodial time. This issue was seen by the evaluator as the strongest contributor to why Bob is not in Micky's life at this time and why Kathy has not always been competent at showing that she can protect Micky. In essence, while his lie to questim Kathy and Bob's ability to adequately parent Micky based on their perceived defic ft it is in po tant to view those deficits in the most objective construct possible. Finally, with regard to Bob Graybill and the pole reestablislmenrt of contact with Micky, it appears that concerns regarding Bob's mental it and the possibility that he is aperiencing bipolar disorder or any other severe mental lady are net accurate Dead, Bob is diagnosed with Major Depression, recurrent which is considered to be vwges oas basal an the oqpiag strain of fits own divorce and loss of contact with his children He is being treetod appc+opaia ? with a combinatim of anti-depressant medication and outpatient therapy abet which lea b damaf isic Bob lms new bow prescribed any medications used For the treatmenrt of bipolar tbsorder and has only bees prescribed different SSRI anti- depressantmedications. Ina review ofthe l i nu tbers auro ng Bob and the implications about his lack of behavioral impulse conttol, it that the strain in the co-parenting and divorce situation between Bob and his esbu ged wife we a oamdyst for times, vrhwr Bob has ettercised poor judgment in repeatedly making calls and other ac tiow led to berasswat down being fwd or loss of custodial time for Bob because of vwiwng the c crdy orelusu'. Them awacenion of charges filed by Samantha Graybill being dropped and charges considered frivolous that cronfinmi that the unrelenting strain between Bob and Samantha warrants more investigation before passing tha jtdgment that one or the other ofthem is solely responsible for the problems that exist between them. When Bob's self admitted role in certsk strassfid situoiam; and his current therapy involvement and psychiatric evaluation we comps to agapshous m by I it is evident that Bob's condition is less severe than Nick is being led to believe by terse to him. The fact that Nick is receiving a great deal of his information from Samenths, QwjW has led to enaggeraW concerns for Nick about Bob's stability ink the co noern that Bob is bgKAw. This won when mixed with Kathy (and Bob) not pry x6matim to ?Gdc, lob's vialstia of crawl ordered regulations about driving Nick y, No's vigilant answem for Ivy's sadiq; aril- am ity M& feels toward Bob have created the perfect storm of co-parsntinrg dysfi*mm that ? strands Ntcky in a f ndy We within which he secretly but cx . romp for damp . %Ay p p r did the see of loss he feels about not having a relaim with ". He also- AssetVA* Oftess *a won to his trust in his father because of a view l r bed that Us liar is usavffft I* aoospt Bob and would rather try to cause lsata" £ewclxut because UWAk thet n ba feed iy. WAN*,** Ohl r4W"mibyre&ci% Mdk's time with Kam, Ni*y sho lli s 00 soak at ? 4%*" W o rt 9" increase it. In summary, based on the rdpwu of orals trwitiog fob, a review of is ms related to his strained co-parenting relationships and a fore to Oft Wecview bob, them n no factual evidence to show that Bob's psychok i coadition is such that it tires 1Nhdcl?'s Way, crestes harm for Micky, or requires that Nicky be prows W f w . ' f r the evaluator is that Bob vininizes, the rodt t playfintb peu# t rosaryfour hiebotli in relationship to his custody strain and i n 1161,1 llik Ishi s pry.ohispdpowbiann. Wert t not for his drinking the day he was admitted to the 1 eansyl p f bad, *e% admissiomost likely would not have been necessary. To be car, the ism the the fir, lamb's castt+ia t therapist, and the treating psychiatrist is not related to Ato" depsn o w ouskase, but Stan the way that alcohol disinhibits Page- 16-of 18 Bob's defenses against an already lmpromised emotional state of depression. Many of the most serious issues that emerged for Bob in his conflict with Samantha and ultimately with Nicky seem to revolve around the use of alcohol and this belies his own notion, about which this evaluator disagrees, that he is capable of managing his use of alcohol despite his depression. The set forth below will consider Bob's overall ability to be with Nicky whale placing some emphasis on continued restriction of alcohol use in Nicky's presence. Rtetaae:,dati?s 1. Kathy and Nick Faudh wil mai mum shared legal custody of Nicky Fanelli, age 11; 2. In the next "days, the current physical custody schedule, as wed out in the February 2007 custody order, will remain in effect. At the end o€ft days, if Ifs Fanelli and Bob GraybiH can show through records from their tberapisb that they have stabr'ta' ed in term of their ability to maintain coping skill in the flee of life is en Nieky's physical custody can be changed to provide a year-round schedule sholla r to his rnrMaer sebedde. Is tie absence of a signfficaut shift in coping skims for Kathy and Bob as Mined by the evaiuaesr through therapy reports, it will remain in Nicky's best interest to condone the sA done as it exists nosy. If emotional chaos and decreased coping is reported by their respective, trerapis% then it may be necessary to reduce NkWs custodial tine with Kathy during the school year, 3. After a review of the prychiarle and psydroebe spy mien for Bub Graybill, it is determined that Bob GraykM and Nxi b ? Fan Al can base aweas to eack oar add that Bob can be present during Kathy's crntadW tine with Nkky. fir, duo restriction of Bob driving Nicky should remain, and as wJ, # AwW be prommed- v* be doing the primary role of parenting N'rcky and at of the coop with Nick; 4. In service to any peace ? !lust Ok evskWo liras wft moWd to Bob's lack of full understanding of his n?dli I , i Ihil ? with Whw&4 it is n, a e? isosi MAW be the evaluator's concerns with biz os-going moist. lk addidsrn, it shoW too rlsor be ardered "at uo time wit Bob use alcohol on nice s *0 P&ft %* be in Malky's taste, Isdaft tie eight hours prior to the beginuiug of Kalloy's caft" wit hiielty uW ice is Ir srsa W"A black to his father, S. I* the WWWOM Of MI W 4060 Me t he §M* 4*1W*1 tN* IN #M*fO* am or the oulj? ?`wlt??lili??ill?+li??iM?l?'t? ?ittsrhe adt by ? c? is ibr cwt ? dgtt nt?ul? ? ?Irr hoar pry Fanelli and Bob Grayb$ 966M tho o glinr t m miew moomof d o vow & -provided by each of the parents -M to tasore dot iso* pis we hicreaslag dwA r d fty and respect in terms of communicating a 6. It is recoanmen?d OW pdw to my hw" pooMmftoe'caftij.dmW being instituted by eitker pan?enttilt 6*yU?a ?t{rt?0ow 611a tohop MdW protected fi?om the few awo sd 'rift : q WM , to ogre dy?t sWuttten seeking is attempted below . cma* arwsom as At j? omm of rw*Aq pweaW difierences; 7. At no time widehher pw" a *yap* Mk* may bow rated to his co-parenting Page - 17 - of 18 or custody. In that regard, there is no need for Nicky to carry any requests and/or statements for either parent with regard to matters related to his custody. In addition, Nicky should not be exposed to any issues related to his custody or care that are areas of concern for the parents. Every effort should be made by Kathy to refrain hum showing even non-verbal expressions of her disaatisfactioa with certain aspects of the c"serantiog rdatio?hip. Additionally, Nick should refrain from allowing Nicky in any way to grasp the coweept that he is observing Kathy and Bob whether for the purpose of easurieg NicWs safety or any other reason; 8. The update of these motte rs can tt ke-phm ® 90 days and should be initiated by Kathy Fanelli at the aM op riate tip At tha tip file paythiwtrlc and p"dMological-therapy records for both Bob Grayba and Kathy Fsmdfi was be p wided to this evaluator. In addition, the e-mail exchanges between Kathy Md l FsttW was dit he Pr*V ded far review. Upon that review, if there is a seed fee any hewo4we sus, dwy wN be scheduled. Otherwise, a recounmeadation as to wbefte r or Nt NWs custody schedule with his mother should be expanded will be addressed at that time. Respectfully submitted, 1 Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC Clinical Evaluator Date of Dictation: 09/20/08 Date of Transcription: 9/22/08 Date of Final Edit: 10/01/08 Page - 18 - of 18 Exhibit " F" I NTEWC)RK5 VV .r. Date: 10/28/08 A Clinical Director OCT 2 9 2008 Deborah L Salem, CACD, LPC Associates Anthes L Stebbins, LSW Heather Duncan, BS 4335 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel 717-236-6630 Fan 717-236-6677 fwntdesk@in%envodcsonline.com -? To: Barbra Sumple-Sullivan, Esq. S Lindsay Gingrich Maclay, Esq. From: Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC -?- Clinical Evaluator Re: Fanelli v. Fanelli, No. 2005-5517 Review of Addidoaat Information for Robert Gravbill Procedure: This memo serves as an update to previously provided information in the evaluation update report submitted on 10101/08. Following a review of the initial report, concerns were raised that certain records of Robert's were not reviewed by the evaluator. Ad well, concerns alleged that information given by Robert during a PFA hearing on 10/02/08 did not coincide with information provided by Robert to this evaluator. It should be noted that final additional documentation for Robert Graybill was received on Wednesday, 10/23/08. For the purpose of completing this review the following new data was reviewed: 1. Review of a 03127/06 psychiatric evabudion completed by Ralph + Dahle, D.O.; 2. Records of a vokatary iapstiaat stay for Robert at Philhaven Hospital from 9/21/07 to 9/2SW,- 3. Soasrtd pboac conodtafte wilir Robert's carrew papist at Didion ® Services, Kam E0ber errs, MS; A 4. Phone consultation with Margaret Simok, Esq., Robert's attorney in the PFA herring, relprAng statesaeats made that there were "2b separate ioddeaoes" hPoIlving Robert's hoppralrinte behavior with his estranged wife. Findings: A review of the additional records secured and provided by Robert indicate that the psychiatric evaluation completed by Dr. Dable in March of 2006 was done at the request of Marcy Brenner, MS, of New Passau who was providing marital therapy to Robert and Samantha Graybill. At that time, the specific request was to evaluate Robert to .Mk Page 1 of 6 rY determine if, in a concern expressed by his wife, Robert was Bi-polar. After Dr. Dahle's evaluation, he concluded that Robert was not Bi-polar but may possibility have Attention Deficit Disorder, but more likely, a diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder. At the time of Dr. Dahle's evaluation, Robert was pnmxibed Weffbuu* an anti-depressant that is known to also have a posrtive effect on Attention Deficit symptoms. The Wellbutrin had been prescribed by a family dolor prior to Robert's evaluation by Dr. Dahle, and it was Dr. Dahle's impression that Robert should continiie to take the Wellbutrin. A review of records from Philhaven Hospital, where Robert was voluntarily admitted on Sept. 21, 2007, showed a final diagnosis of Bi-Polar Disorder NOS, ("not otherwise specified.") Robert's diagnosis also included Personality Disorder NOS with co- occurring psychosocial and environmental problems, especially stemming from relationship and family issues, financial concerns and the recent psychiatric hospitalization of Robert's oldest daughter. At the time of Robert's discharge on Sept. 25, 2007, he was prescribed Lamictal, 25 mg., two tablets in the morning for mood stabilization, and Zoloft, 100 mg., one tablet in the morning for depression. A phone consultation with Karen Ember Williams, MS was conducted to verify information provided by Robert to this evaluator about his alleged statement made on the witness stand during his PFA hearing that "he was not currently taking medications." In the original update report Robert reported he was taking Prozac. The report also contained a statement by the evaluator that Robert's compliance with medication was an important element in determining his ability to have ongoing contact with Nicky Fanelli. Robert admitted that he reported on the witness stand that he was not taking medication because of a discussion he had with his current therapist about the possibility of weaning himself from the medication because of the situational nature of his stress. During a review of this information with Karen Ember Williams, MS, she emphasized that she does not consider Robert's medicabon regime to be within the scope of her area of expertise nor are recommendations about his current medications. She stated that the subject of medication is covered by his prescribing physician. At the same time, she indicated that she and Robert did have a discussion initiated by Robert about his situational distress and whether or not these may be a time when he would be able to stop taking medication when the dons disipa to or his capping skills increase. She rimed that ll obw- dual to continue talmog his Win, and to her knowle dI he has been doing so. In a phone consultation with Margaret Simok, regarding the statement that there were "26 different complaints" against Robert, causing concern for Nick Fanelli about Robert's stability as it relates to Nicky's safety, Attorney Simok indicated that indeed, there were 26 calls made by Samantha Graybill to the police regarding issues that she was alleging about Robert's behavior. Ms. Simok further reported that of the 26 calls made by Samantha Graybill, only one of those calls resulted in any charges being filed against Robert by the police. Additionally, Ms. Simok indicated that whereas the testifying police officer indicated that he had concerns about Robert's involvement in all of the complaints, he additionally testified that Samantha Graybill was told on more than one occasion that custody matters should not be turned into police matters. Page 2 of 6 Discussion: In the first evaluation and in this updates it is the evaluator's impression that the recommendations made receding Robert's capacity to be in the presence of Nicky Fanelli was to be assessed by reviewing the previous and current records of treating professionals who have worked with Robert over the years- In discussion following the 10/01/08 report, broad statements about this evaluator's "liability" inherent in making a determination about Robert's ability to spend time with Micky were made. In that regard, it must be emphasized that information and recommendations made by this evaluator about Robert's psychiatric condition are strictly based on information provided by other professionals and are not untended to be construed as the result of any personal clinical evaluations made by this evaluator. Therefore any challenges made to the impressions presented below about Robert's condition should be considered challenges to the information provided in the numerous reports that have been summarized. Should there by any litigation required, it will be important to note that this evaluator will not testify on behalf of other professionals and that those individuals will need to be called for direct testimony. Robert was evaluated psychiatrically three times in the past three years; once in March 2006, once September 2007, and one in June 2008. Of the three, there was one evaluation that carried a diagnosis of Bi-Polar Disorder NOS. It may be this evaluation at Philhaven Hospital that has resulted in the persistent concerns and reports both Nick Fanelli who may have heard from Robert's estranged wife, Sam that he is indeed Bi-Polar and is hiding it. From a layman's pant of view it may be confiusing; however both the concern that Robert is Bi-Polar and Robert's denial that he is, are both accurate. By Roberts's report, he was told at Phil Haven that he was manifesting some traits that are commonly associated with Bi-polar Disorder (specifically racing thoughts and irritability) but he did not have Bi-polar Disorder itself. By definition, B Polar NOS is diagnosed when a person carries certain traits that are related to bi-polar disorder, but does not meet the criteria for fill-blown Bi-Polar Disorder. In a broad spectrum of Bi-Polar Disorders, Bipolar Disorder, NOS is considered the softest and often occurs with other more primary diagnoses. N , when questiomid by the evalsawr as to vAwdw or not he was ever prescribed medication for Bi Polar Disorder, Rat denied such, when in fact; he had been prescribed Lamictal upon his discharge fiom Philhaven Hospital. Lamictal is, in fact, an anti-convulsant medication, which - like anther an i-convulsants - has a mood regulating effect on brain chemistry and is prescribed at times for racing thoughts and other traits related to Bi-Polar Disorder. In fairness, it is also prescribed to individuals suffering from serious demon. However, in a full review of the record from Phil Haven, Lamictal was prescribed to address the traits associated with Bi-polar Disorder, NOS. In addition to Robert's mist about having not been prescribed medications related to Bi Polar Disorder, it is clear that, he testified at his PFA hearing that he was not taking anti-depressant medications. The statement directly contradicted what he told this evaluator less than a month before the hearing. A conversation with Robert's therapist clarifies that there was some discussion about Robert's ability to ultimately wean himself Page 3 of 6 from medication, but Robert was never directly advised by his therapist or anyone else to begin that weaning process. As a result, dons do arise about Robert's ability to accept his need for medication and to surrender to the better judgment of the prescribing physicians rather than rely on his own misgivings and reluctance, which is often apparent in patients who are prescribed psyehotropic medications. In fact, if any pattern emerges about Robert's treatment history it is the area of toning his medications, disliking the side effects, and being too self reliant about starting and stopping his medications. This led to the evaluator's eats on Robert's compliance with his prescribing physician's recommendations for medication as a part of reviewing his treatment progress. Robert's diagnosis of Personality Disorder, NOS should be mentioned and defined. Personality Disorder, NOS is usually assigned when features of a personality disorder are present but not enough time or information is available to offer any full blown diagnosis of one specific disorder. One of the most usual traits related to this diagnosis is inconsistent compliance with treatment regimens, either therapy or medication. No clear indication was offered in the Phil Haven record to support their diagnosis. As for references to Robert's involvement in an excessive number of incidents that can be considered inappropriate or showing a lack of control with regard to the co-parenting relationship between him and Iris estraiVed. wife, there is no conclusive information that shows that, indeed, the numerous complaints filed were the result of Robert's inappropriateness. Without a full evaluation of mattes related to Robert and Samantha's relationship, there is no way to assign fault strictly to one side or the other . The matter of issues between Robert and Samantha is not within the scope of what was agreed upon by this evaluator and would need to be assessed in a separate assessment. What is known factually about the 26 reports initiated by Samantha Graybill, is that it was the police officer's testimony that both Robert and Samantha require assistance on the most appropriate way to manage their co-parenting and custody strain. in summary, in three psychiatric, evaluations done in the past three years, Robert Gmybill has been assigned a range of diagnoses. His most recent diagnosis is Major Depression Rte, with two previous diagnoses - Bi-Polar Disorder NOS and Personality • Deficit Disorder Nin7 and Cvw?xl Aw6ayDiaoWar vp f - es in 2006. With regard to the Bi-Pour label, Bi Polder NOS is, indeed, the softest of all the Bi-Polar diagnoses offered in a broader spec hum. In the sense of purity, it is true that Robert has been previously diagnosed with some but not all of the traits apparent in full-blown Bi Polar Disorder. However, his more recent diagnosis denies the presence of Bi-Polar Disorder in any form, and does indictee any of the traits that would lead to a diagnosis of Bi-Polar NOS. His most recent diagnosis is Major Depression, Recurrent. Robert's current therapist is treating him for this, he is being prescribed medications for this, and both the psychiatrist who offered the diagnosis and Robert's current therapist believe that the distress inherent in his current life circumstances with his family separation and the strained custody and co-parenting situations are major contributors to his symptoms. Page 4 of 6 Impressions: Perhaps what is operating with the co-parenting conflict between Kathy and Nick Fanelli is Nick's inability to become comfortable with psychiatric information that provides too broad a range of diagnostic categories. This is especially true when added to the number of incidents that Nick has been made privy to from the point of view of Robert's estranged wife, Samantha, m addition to his direct observations of Kathy, Robert and Nicky. In that regard, any specific diagnosis cannot lead to the kind of comfort that will stop the need for scrutiny and over-concern on Nick's part. This evaluator presented prior information that some of that scrutiny and over-concern is inherent in Nick's inability to resolve his own side of the co-parenting conflict. Previous information also indicated that Micky is not experiencing the distress that Nrck feels about exposure between Nicky and Robert. In all of the information presented about Robert Graybill, it is apparent that he is less competent at remaining grounded during high-intensity co-parenting conflicts; however, no information is present that he is an on-going ends_memR to children. He has displayed an inconsistent attitude toward his need for therapy and medications that must be addressed and that was emphasized for review in the first report. Current data shows that he is being very consistent with his attendance and participation in therapy for the first time. He has been less anchored in following medical advice regarding his need for medication. The concern aroused by this evaluator from the addendum review is whether or not Robert has surrendered or been helped to surrender to the fact that regardless of his diagnosis, he is indeed in need of medication for his recurring major depression. Any minimization on Robert's part about his condition that would lead to his unilateral stopping therapy and/or medication would be considered a lack of acknowledgement by him that his is fully responsible for maintaining a state of emotional and mental well- being, not only for his benefit but for the benefit of those with whom he is cohabiting or spending significant amounts of time. When reviewing the concerns presented by Nick Fanelli regarding Robert's access to Nicky, what appears accurate is that there is more chaos and emotional drama in the lives of Kathy Fanelli and Robert Graybill than a ly is present in tke life and household of Nick Fan". Imo, what is leas clear to ffiia e"indar is whdbw or not that emotional chaos and drama can be strictly molded to a psychiatric diagnosis for either Robert (or Kathy) as opposed to being tied to the mwifest reactions created by an intertwined and unrelentingly dysfunctional co-parenting dynamic between Nick and Kathy Fanelli, resulting from both of their actions. Recommendation: Upon review of the additional information related to Robert Graybill, and in assessing his treatment compliance, it would be this evaluator's recommendation that Robert be permitted to have contact with Nicky Fanelli as long as it can be guaranteed that be will continue to fasow A tr+eatmeut recommendations made by his treating psychiatrists and/or physicians and therapsts. pore is emphasis added Page 5 of 6 to the previous report that Robert's pattern of son-compliance, especially with medication, is the central change project for which be is ultimately responsible. In the absence of his ability to take solid advice from treating professionals about medications, he will forfeit the right to have contact with Nicky Fanelli. In service to his commitment to treatment, in consultation with his therapist, Robert informed the evaluator on 10/24/08 that be may seek an updated evaluation from Dr. Ralph Dable who may then provide mediation management for Robert. It is hoped that the updated evaluation will incorporate a face-te-face asst of Robert, as well as a review of his prior treatment records. Input from this evaluator as occur by Robert providing him a copy of both October, 2008 reports if requested by the doctor. The parties and their respective counsel an determine a plan that will assist those involved with bow to assess RoberNs treatment compliance without creating an environment where he is overly highfiglatod, where his condition is exaggerated or where all of the factors in the dysfunctional co-paresting environment are ignored. It is suggested that a Parent Coordinator or on-going evaluator be assigned to obtain records for Kathy, Robert, and NicWs family therapy related to compliance and progress in therapy. Respectfully submitted, Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC Clinical Evaluator Date of dictation: 10/23/08 Date of transcription: 10/25/08 Date of final edit: 10/28/08 Page 6 of 6 Exhibit "G" • I N- EJ?%,V ORK 5 VV -rr S dh ?i DATE: 04/15!09 Clinical Director APR 19 2009 Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC Associates Anthea L. Stebbins, LSW Heather Duncan, BS 4331 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel 717-236-6630*Fax 717-236-6677 ftontdesk@interworksonline.com TO: Barbara Sumple Sullivan, Esq. Lindsay Gingrich-Maclay, sq. FROM: Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC RE: Fanelli v Fanelli 90 Day Review Enclosed please find the completed report treatment issues for Kathy Fanelli and Robert Graybill. The report also includes impressions about the emphasis needed for this family to move forward with resolution of their on-going conflicts. After you have reviewed it with your clients, feel free to schedule a conference call if needed. Thank you. cc: Nick Fanelli (cover letter only) Kathy Fanelli (cover letter only) r'r NTERIN?RK5 VV W -rr a? .we ?rR A Plaintiff: Defendant: Minor Child: Docket No.: Clinical Director Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC Ass" am Anthea L. Stebbins, LSW Heather Duncan, 8S 4331 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel 717-236-6630*Fax 717-236-6677 frontdesk@interworksonline.com Repof_t of 90-Day Update Submitted by Deborah L Salem, CACD, LPC 04/15/09 Dominic C. ("Nick") Fanelli, Jr. Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esq. Kathleen M. Fanelli Dominic C. ("Nicky") Fanelli 2005-5517 Cumberland County Lindsay Gingrich Maclay, Esq. Age 11, DOB 8/5/97 Civil Action, Custody IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND PROCEDURE This update was completed as a result of a recommendation by this Evaluator in a report submitted on 10/01/08 with an addendum refining the recommendation on 10/28/08. The purpose was to review the treatment progress for both Kathy Fanelli and Robert Graybill after a 90 day period to ensure that both were continuing in treatment and following the directives of their therapists and psychiatrists. Emphasis was placed on Robert Graybill's treatment compliance as it was discovered that Robert had a history of non-compliance with taking his medications. In addition, after the initial report was submitted on 10/01/08, it was discovered that there were inaccurate reports by Robert regarding his then current medication regime and regarding his report to the Evaluator that he "was never diagnosed as Bipolar." + With regard to procedure, both Kathy Fanelli and Robert Graybill were independently interviewed for one hour each. In addition the following information was reviewed relative to their treatment compliance: • Report from Kathy Fanelli's treating psychiatrist, Lawrence Altaker, MD who continues to see her for medication management and psychotherapy every two weeks; • Two reports from JoAnne Ellenberger, LCSW of Guidance Associates who sees Kathy for psychotherapy; • Report from Karen Ember Williams, ACSW, LSW of Diakon Services who is Robert Graybill's psychotherapist and sees him bi-weekly; r'l Page 1 of 8 • Brief written statement and phone consultation with Ralph Dahle, DO, Robert Graybill's treating psychiatrist; Regarding Robert Graybill's compliance with his medication regime, a phone conference with the attorneys for Kathy and Nick Fanelli, email exchanges between Robert Graybill and the Evaluator, email exchanges between Kathy Fanelli and her attorney; a blood toxicology report done at Penn State Hershey Medical Center ordered and reviewed by Ralph Dahle, DO showing that Robert is compliant with his medication regime; • Review of an email dated 11/03/08 from Nick Fanelli to the Evaluator regarding his dissatisfactions with areas regarding Kathy Fanelli's co-parenting and Robert Graybill's functioning believed to have been ignored by the Evaluator in the two October reports. With regard to other adjunct information not related directly to treatment compliance, the following was provided by Kathy Fanelli related to the issues identified for Kathy to improve upon in the 10/01/08 evaluation update: • A copy of Nicky's report card for the first two marking periods of this year; • Email exchanges between Kathy and Nicky's teacher addressing his educational and classroom needs; • Email exchanges between Nick and Kathy showing improvement in their ability to co- parent Nicky regarding his school issues FINDINGS Without exception, a review of the treatment reports submitted for Kathy Fanelli and for Robert Graybill all reveal significant improvement in their functioning related to therapeutic endeavors as well as treatment compliance with both psychotherapy and medication management. Specifically related to Dr. Dahle's recent report (March, 2009) and a subsequent phone conference with him, he is satisfied with Roberts treatment, sees good improvement in him and attributes this to his psychotherapy with Karen Ember Williams, ACSW, LSW first and his compliance with medication second. Robert remains on the medication regime previously reported. It is notable that the treatment goals listed for both Kathy and Robert after the initial reports were submitted in October, 2008 reflected additional goals related to information specifically contained in the evaluation reports. For Kathy these included learning to refrain form having Nicky witness her emotional distress related to the custody conflict; learning better skills to communicate with Nick, and being consistent with helping Nicky with academic problems while not feeling the need to help Nicky study the way it was directed by Nick but, rather, finding her own style and a style that reduced Nicky's resistance. For Robert his goals included learning to manage his feelings regarding his family situation in spite of the difficult circumstances surrounding those relationships and significant reduction in his use of alcohol to only minimal or no usage. With regard to face to face interviews with Kathy and Robert respectively, both show a better understanding of their powerlessness over the protracted litigation that surrounds Nicky's custody. Page 2 of 8 For Kathy her understanding relates to focusing on that which she can improve on for Nicky's sake while not allowing herself to react to characterizations of her as the allegedly "unstable person" who left the marriage without cause. For Robert his understanding relates to accepting, that despite the issues being raised about him and despite the limitations imposed on him regarding access to his children, he is able to have a solid and loving relationship with his children and Nicky. He is able to take responsibility for his part in trying to remedy problems by reacting first and planning second. Interestingly, Robert is benefitting from the restrictions imposed by the PFA since they forced him to learn the art of proactive planning and also the art of managing strong feelings without the ability to directly react. Both Kathy and Robert are maximizing on and improving on the relationship between them and with their children. Kathy discussed ways she and Nicky are working on his academics and showed emails indicating that she is now setting stronger boundaries with Nicky about his academic and homework needs. Nicky's report card and email exchanges between Kathy and Nicky's teacher indicate there is improvement in his quiz scores and his level of class room focus and, at times, a continued need to help Nicky better focus on his work in the classroom and to remember to take home assignments that need his attention. Kathy also showed email exchanges between her and Nick showing that she and Nick are communicating better and with positive outcomes about a unified plan to help Nicky with his homework. She also gave examples of emails shortly after the firs report that showed the continued conflict between her and Nick about what Nick describes as Kathy's lack of focus on Nicky's academic needs. Finally Kathy reported that she and Nick are both sharing in taking Nicky to therapy with Debra Doubrava, PhD, LPC. No information was obtained form Dr. Doubrava since Nick Fanelli opted to not sign a release for the Evaluator. A letter was sent on 04/07/09 by Attorney Sullivan on Nick Fanelli's behalf to Dr. Doubrava, the Evaluator and Attorney Maclay regarding the therapy with Dr. Doubrava asking for specific input from everyone assisting as a team with the Fanelli family. That letter and the Evaluator's response dated 04/08/09 are attached to this report as Appendices A and B. IMPRESSIONS The question to be answered by this evaluation update is whether or not Kathy Fanelli and Robert Graybiil are continuing in and complying with their psychotherapy, medication management and psychiatric care. This question and 90-day review were included as part of the recommendations in October 2048 when an evaluation update addressed Kathy Fanelli's request to modify Nicky's custody to year round shared custody for the parents. The requested modification, if granted, would require that the school year schedule be changed to that which already occurred in the summer. As seen through the information by the professionals providing direct care, both Kathy and Robert are in compliance and showing significant improvement in goals directly related to the problems raised in previous evaluations. This information coupled with each of their presentations in face to face interviews with the Evaluator supports the fact that both are doing what is recommended in their therapeutic goals as necessary for them to improve their overall emotional functioning as well as their reactions, input, and communication related to Nicky's care. Without input from Nicky's therapist, it is not directly known how Nicky is functioning at this time or experiencing Robert's return to Kathy's home which occurred sometime after the October reports. Since talking with Nicky's therapist was not directly recommended as part of this review Page 3 of 8 it was within Nick Fanelli's decision making to sign a release or not. It appears from the letter contained as Appendix A, there was confusion as to why the release was being requested as opposed to resistance on Nick's part to sign the release. As stated in my response letter contained in Appendix B, I considered a request to assess Nicky's functioning through his therapist as "clinically responsible" since he was the epicenter of all concerns related to Kathy and Robert's psychological functioning and their ability to provide safety and stability for Nicky. While there is objective evidence to support that both Kathy and Robert are complying with their treatment regimens, there is continued concern by the Evaluator that an overemphasis on Kathy and Robert's treatment and their parenting instability diminishes other real issues presented by and witnessed in Nicky in the October updates. It is absolutely accepted that it is important to review the treatment compliance for Kathy and Robert and to assess their levels of self control related to their treatment success. Yet in a reaction email forwarded on 11/02/08 to the Evaluator from Nick, he indicated that the assessment was one sided, ignored much of his input and glossed over legitimate concerns about Robert's stability by under-emphasizing his multiple diagnoses, medications, and legal charges resulting from his actions. It is the evaluator's impression that while Nick's concerns have clearly been legitimized, that Nick remains determined to keep his fears for Nicky, and his subjective and lay impression of Robert's actions and history intertwined with professional facts about Robert's diagnosis and treatment. For example, the fact that Robert had a series of diagnoses, inpatient and outpatient treatment experiences and medications, is certainly important information for Nick and for treating professionals. However, to the professionals, Robert's treatment and diagnostic history is not unusual in the treatment regime of many psychiatric patients treated over a number of years. A diagnostic certainty is often an evolving situation when there are multiple symptoms and multiple stressors involved. This leads to attempts at multiple medications. In addition, having to address a patient's resistance to taking psychotropic medications is not an unusual aspect of psychiatric treatment. Additional important issues were also identified in the last report such as Kathy's need to protect Nicky from covert and overt expressions of exasperation with the parental conflict, Robert's lack of veracity in reporting to the professionals treating him, and the palpably apparent change in Nicky's attitude toward his father which shifted from the first evaluation in early 2007 to the October update with Nicky reporting increased complaints about their interactions and showing more anxiety about being stranded in the parental conflict attributing as much, if not more of the issues to his father than his mother. Kathy (and Robert) appears to have taken these issues to her treatment team and is working on changing her contribution to problems. At least in the information shared by Nick in early November, Nick remained adamant, that the shift in Nicky's attitude was directly and strictly related to the chaotic and uncontrolled way that Kathy was sharing negative information with Nicky about Nick and about court and legal proceedings. While never considered to be a plot or a problem without solution for Nick, the Evaluator continued to believe that, at least after the October reports were issued, there was an over- emphasis on Kathy and Robert's issues and a lack of self-reflection for Nick that denied Nicky the chance to remedy his concerns with his father. While Nick initially suggested that he wanted to pursue therapy with Nicky it was described for the purpose of sharing with Nicky some of the issues related to Nicky's mother and Robert that justified Nick's intensity with Nicky, not self- reflection. Page 4 of 8 Children experience increased anxiety and diminished open communication when separated parents persist in polarizing their conflicts into "I am right and you are wrong." Evidence from treatment professionals reviewed in this report show that Kathy is diminishing her view that she is "the victim" of Nick and focusing on being proactive and self determined in her input with Nicky's education and Nicky's care in general. She has made this a goal in therapy and the results are good. While Kathy can polarize by seeing herself as a "victim" Nick's version of polarizing is reflected in his self-description in his email response in November 2008 as "well-grounded, functional, stable, calm, and relieving stress by working out and taking vitamins." Conversely he described Kathy's home as "chaos" that detracts from her parenting Nicky "inhabited by two dysfunctional" adults who both take medication with Nicky being told things from Kathy directly intended to discredit Nick and to put Nicky in the middle of the adult conflict. Such attitudes by parents form the "conflict world view" for each and block the ability to find solutions so necessary for children to thrive. What Nicky needs is a balanced focus on all the issues surrounding the custody and co-parenting in his family. In summary, there are three different objective areas to assess when trying to determine Nicky Fanelli's best interest related to his custody. It is recommended that Nicky's functioning be placed as central to decisions about custody and co-parenting and that his wellness and functioning be reviewed in the balanced context of all three areas. 1. Professional reporting to affirm that appropriate diagnosis, treatment and medication is in place for Robert and Kathy or anyone receiving treatment and caring for Nicky. Assessment of treatment compliance and treatment efficacy by interviewing patients and observing an improvement or lack thereof in the patient is the only objective means available from direct treatment professionals. 2. Self reflection and parental review of their behaviors and the behaviors of significant other's involved with Nicky to affirm or deny that there is good decision making and behavioral appropriateness and stability as it relates to Nicky's functioning when being shared between households. If the parents could be objective and self-reflective this would provide reassurance for both parents that the custody schedule is benefitting Nicky and bolstering his well being. The self reflection and objective observation should include both parenting and co-parenting behaviors with the protection of a child from covert and overt information that is only intended for the adults. 3. Nicky's functioning and well being as seen through his parents, his current therapist and his teacher can also provide the kind of objective information that parent's need to be reassured that their children are thriving. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. It is recommended that this Evaluator remain available, if needed or requested, to review treatment summaries at 6 month intervals for the neat 12 months regarding treatment for Kathy Fanelli, Robert Greybill, Nicky Fanelli, and Nick Fanelli should he enter therapy related to the custody conflict; 2. Recommendations regarding a custody schedule for Nicky provided in the 10/01/08 report stand; Page 5 of 8 3. If Robert Greybill has a legal driver's license and has no legal restrictions on his driving, he can provide transportation for Nicky as an adjunct resource for Kathy Fanelli; 4. Both parents and any adults who are present when Nicky is in their custody will refrain from drinking alcohol to intoxication in his presence. es ectfully Submitted: Deborah L. Salem Clinical Evaluator Page 6of8 APPENDIX A Page 7 of 8 LAW OFFICES BARBARA SUMPLE-SULLIVAN 5" BRMCM STPJ=r NEW CUMBERLAND. PENNSYLVANIA 17070-1931 PRONE (717) 774-1445 PAX (717) 774-7058 April 7, 2009 Debra Doubrava, PhD, LPC, NCP, RPT-S Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC 2837 N. Front Street Inteiworks Harrisburg, PA 17110 4335A North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Lindsay Gingrich Maclay, Esquire _ Daley Zucker Meilton Miner & Gingrich, LLC 1029 Scenery Drive Harrisburg, PA 17109 Via email and regular mail Re: Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr. v. Kathleen M. Fanelli Dear Ladies: I am writing to all of you in an effort to get some direction on the status of the above captioned case and its ongoing processes. The matter seems to be in flux and confusion exists concerning the status of the matter. I would like to address its procedural posture as it is known to me. First, I want to thank you all for working dilig y for this family. This has been a very tr hug ma or since Ka s-seps ' e: 4 is hoped that with us all working together we can obtain some beneficial rest for the parties but especially little Nicky. Please note that in this letter I am going to refer to each of the "Debs" by her last name, not for formality but simply to be sure we have a clear understanding as to whom I am referring. There are currently no pending active legal proceedings in this matter. The matter was referred to Ms. Salem at the request of Kathy to complete a "mini review" update on her prior evaluation. All parties have participated in the update and the update was issued on October 1, 2008. Upon receipt, it appeared to myself and my client that there may been significant misstatements to Ms. Salem in lieu of what was occurring in other venues related to Mr. Graybill. Upon raising these concerns, Ms. Salem then addressed these concerns by a supplemental report dated October 28, 2008. The major issue was - ? C • a April 7, 2009 Page 2 how to secure an appropriate testing protocol for Robert Graybill to meet the issues raised in Ms. Salem's second report. A conference call was then scheduled between both counsel and Ms. Salem after which I had understood that Ms. Salem would be making no direct contacts with Mr. Graybill's treating psychiatrist without further advancement of funds. I was waiting for some report from Mr. Graybill's doctor who was reluctant to speak to either counsel. None has ever been forthcoming although I understand that an appointment was to occur in March. Based on the limited report of Mr. Graybill's doctor and Ms. Salem's recommendations, my client has allowed Nick to return to his mother's custody while Mr. Graybill was in the home. I understand that the prohibition on driving by Mr. Graybill is still in place although it is questioned whether that is being. honored. During a conference call with Ms. Salem, I had suggested that Nick and his dad get into counseling. My purpose was to allow Nick and Nicky to discuss in an appropriate environment Nicky's perceptions that my client was too strict/structured. This would allow Nick to tell his side of the story as to the rationale as to his actions based on the history of the case. To date, Nick has not disclosed any adult issues with Nicky although he believes that Nicky is regularly apart of those types of conversations while with his mother. Such counseling would allow father and son to attempt to reach some accord given Nicky's advancing age, his needing to deal with two very different environments from a structure perspective, the differing expectations of each parent regarding the "attitude" displayed by Nicky, etc. Ms. Salem then suggested that Kathy could also be included in that counseling and suggested Ms. Doubrava..This has then lead to the counseling with Ms. Doubrava which has been ongoing for the last approximately 18 sessions. That parent/child counseling was somewhat side tracked with Nicky's school issues. However, to date, there has not been a single meeting yet between Nick and Nicky on "their" issues. My client continues to see that as crucial since the child appears to continue to be in the middle of adult issues and also communications. I ask that Ms. Doubrava please schedule this type of counseling as soon as possible. I know that Ms. Salem has now asked that each parent execute a consent to provide her with an update on Nicky's counseling. While I have no objection to that, I also believe that the counseling anticipated has not yet occurred and a report would be premature. All of the issues about Mr. Graybill continue to.be outstanding. I am not sure if Ms. Salem intends to readdress all of those issues in her update. I am also not sure where the request for an update is arising from. Attorney Maclay indicates that this is the 90 day update envisioned in the first report. However, since none of the other recommendations have yet.to be verified, implemented, or resolved, I am not sure if this is timely. Until all of those issues are addressed, I am uncertain as to what the update is intended to accomplish. April 7, 2009 Page 3 I am writing this letter to determine what is the proposed process this matter is to follow. While I have no objection to my client signing a consent for release of information from Ms. Doubrava to Ms. Salem, I would like to understand where each of you are in this process and identify the goal toward which we are working. Your consideration is appreciated. BSS/le Barbara Sumple-Sullivan cc: Mr. Doninic C. Fanelli, Jr. (via email) APPENDIX B Page 8 of 8 Clinical Director 1 NT ET--,..W0KK5 Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC Associates VV Anthea L. Stebbins, LSW Heathw Duncan, 8&?b 4331 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel 717-236-6630 Fax 717-236--6677 frontdesk®Ymterworksonline.com DATE: 04108109 TO: Barbara Sample Sullivan, Esq. Lindsay GhWwb Maclay, Esq. Debra Doubrava, PhD, LPC FROM: Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC M 14 RE: Fanelli v Fanelli QI Dear Ladies: I want to start by thanking Barb for spearheading the process that I agree is necessary. With regard to questions related to the 90-day review that I have completed and will be forwarding soon, I have copied the second recommendation from the updated report I completed on October 1, 2008. It reads as follows: ?R 2. {For] the neat 90 days, the current physical custody schedule, as spelled out in the February 2007 custody order, will remain in effect. At the end of 90 days, if Kathy Fanelli and Bob Gmybill can show through l records from their therapists that they have stabilized in terms of their ability to maintain coping skills in the face of life stress Nicky's physical custody can be changed to provide a year-round schedule similar to his summer schedule. In the absence of a significant shift in coping skills for Kathy and Bob as de5aed by the evaluator through therapy reports, it _ will remain in Nicky's best interest to continue the schedule as it exists new. If emotional chow and dma?emed taping is reported by their r+ ?e tberapOix, tie it may be ne ary to reduce NkWs custWW that with. Kathy during the sriaol year, (For Dr. Doubrava's benefit, by way of history, I initially completed a fall custody evaluation for the Fanelli family with a completed report submitted on 01/1 /07. The sessions leading to that report occarred between September 2006 and January 2, 2007. Following that report, the parents reached an agreement to follow the _ ra?onmendations as spelled out giving father primary custody and mother partial custody until she was able to make emotional and practical order of her life post separation. The October 1, 2008 update began in the summer of 2008 after multiple co-parenting and custody conflicts between the parents could not be resolved without the likelihood of court action. In addition, an addendum to October 1, 2008 report was necessary because of dun epaneies m Bob Graybill's reporting related to his medication compliance and his diagnostic history during ' the evaluation update as compared to his testimony at a later PFA hearing after a petition was filed by his estranged wife. Those discrepancies warranted further investigation and were addressed in a report issued on lORB/08.) The 90-day review about which I will issue a brief statement soon entailed me receiving information from the especthve therapists and treating psychiatrists for both Kathy Fauel h and Bob GraybilL After receiving and rcvicn tk rtporb from the prof manals (hwkft motion about a Martk 2W lp is appoinizat r-r for Bob), I also held one hour individual sessions with Kathy and Bob each to review their progress and to assess their mental and emotional status as compared to the reports received Phone consultations were held when needed. I only intend to issue a brief report and can state that, without exception, all four treating professionals for Kathy and Bob report positive success, compliance with all treatment recommendations, and improvement in their conditions and in their problem solving and greater self focus rather than reactivity to conflicted co- parenting relationships. This was substantiated in my follow-up interviews. I regret my choice of words that a" protocol" could be developed by counsel and the parties to give assurances that all of the treatment compliance directed for Bob Graybiil was occurring. The words were too clinical and over-defined what I was intending. In addition, it appeared to medical personnel that attempts were being made by non-therapeutic and non-medical persons to develop protocols that were not in the scope of expertise; were potentially unnecessary or generally not available. In my intent, I thought that since there was evidence of Bob's having historically made decisions on his own regarding when to start and stop medications, and because Nick's petitions were most often related to potential endangerment because of Bob's impact on Nicky that while treatment professionals would determine medical protocols for treatment compliance, the parties and their counsel would define the actions that would be considered unacceptable when Bob and Nicky resumed contact. I then believed that a review of all of the data during the 90 day review would yield the kind of information needed to recommend a custody schedule that related to the 20Q recommendation provided in the first paragraph of this letter. My wanting to talk with Dr. Doubrava was, for me, clinically responsible and ethically correct. However, it was not listed as part of the 90 day review and, as such, I will follow the directive of all the professionals involved. I did not think it was fair to make suggestions about a custody schedule without hearing about Nicky's current well being and functioning from the professional working with him. His well being is central to the process. Related to that, I want to clarify my position better about suggesting that Nicky's therapy involve both parents. I will refer the two attorneys to the paragraphs on pages 13 and 14 of the October, 1, 2008 report. I think they best describe why I wanted both parents involved. I responded in that call to Barb's report that Nick go to therapy with Nicky so that Nick could provide appropriate information to Nicky about his parenting style and the reasons why he is cautious about Nicky's time at his mother's. I assumed this was partially in response to Nicky showing increased dissatisfaction and, at times, resistance to his father's requirements and seeming continued anger at Nicky's mother and Bob. Nick wanted to be careful not to give Nicky too much adult information, but also believed that because he was not giving Nicky any information and Kathy was whether in word or affect, that it increased Nicky's ability to focus his distress on his father. First, I wholeheartedly agree with Nick's goal As a child therapist, I am a firm believer that children can and should be helped to cope with extremely different parenting styles and perspectives whether in separated families or intact families even when it is uncomfortable information for the child. There is no psychological resolve for children who are forced to choose one parent over the other because the parents don't seem to be able to handle them loving everyone. I am most certain that more than anything, Nicky does love and wants to be free to love both his parents and those to whom they are attached. He does not want to feel that he is the object of a hostile competition where it isn't "ok" to talk about his good times. However, as I stated in the report, the protracted nach o co-pae .rdationship, {tkat was, pr i-by a pretraded and hoar marital relathmak" readen both pattaft of presenting a fair or r weed view of the other. Nick and Kathy also have detly different styles about most areas of parenting and their conflict gives way to judging each other instead of complimenting each other. Finally, since the therapy was for Nicky, as a clinician, I think one can only understand a child by meeting both parents and involving both parents in a change project. I would no more have concurred with a suggestion that Kathy take Nicky in the absence of Nick than I would with Nick. Secondly, I emphasized that both parents should be a part of therapy for Nicky because there was a distinct shift in Nicky's attitude toward his father from the first evaluation to the update. While this was clearly painful for Nick (and Nicky), he continued to focus on strategies to help Nicky see that Nick's feelings and actions were justified because of his parenting style and because of his perceptions of life at Kathy's home. This was in the absence of Nick considering his needs to self reflect. This justifying was additionally seen in Nick's emphasis on the psychiatric needs of Kathy and Bob. While a review of Kathy and Bob's treatment functioning is a distinctly legitimate issue of concern, some of Nicky's issues are not at all related to that which Nick presumes. Specifically, it is my clinical impression that there is a blind spot in Nick about the fact that he, too, has issues that need addressed that are directly affecting his relationship with Nidry. It is further my distinct clinical opinion that the issues between Nick and Nicky will not be remedied strictly through explanations about why Nick feels the way he does or parents the way he does. Indirect observation and In authentic reports from Nkky both Kathy and Nick Page 2 of 3 are guilty of statements and affect that transmits information to Nicky about the parental conflict and the "high stakes battle" over him. The resulting stress for a child in Nicky's position is addressed by a combination of that which Nick wants to accomplish with Nicky in conjoint therapy and also through significant daily displays to Nicky that both parents want the tension and conflict to be different as much as he does. It is an effort for a parent that at times seems too much to ask. But rest assured that if both parents fail to gradually change their conflict stance, Nicky will continue to look to someone for whom he can attach blame-otherwise, deep down inside all he knows is that it is his existence that creates the problem. High conflict couples hear suggestions for change as criticism that is exposing because they view such information as determining "winners and losers" or the next testimony for major decisions. If that conflict model could be removed, clinically, the interest in suggesting both parents attend Nicky's therapy at the discretion of the therapist is to design the optimal way for Nick and Nicky to repair their relationship and for Kathy and Nicky to do the same. While I don't know what has occurred or why Nicky's 18 sessions of therapy have been "sidetracked by school issues," I view Nick as able to assert his need for conjoint appointments for Nicky. As a result, I can only guess at why those sessions haven't happened. Perhaps Dr. Doubrava and/or the parents do not believe it is time for such conjoint sessions to occur. Or, if, indeed, Nick and Nicky are being shut out of a process that is needed, then a change in therapy goals is needed. Having been in Dr. Doubrava's position multiple times, trying to maintain therapeutic boundaries for a child with high conflict parents is extremely difficult. The conflict mentality that manifests in tense competition and fear of feedback in the parents and is as great as the needs of the child and tends to create the same tension in therapy, that children feel at home. It isn't a plot on anyone's part; it is the painful habit of coping with futility and blame that doesn't seem to improve. In many circumstances, it is often better to help a child gain a better understanding of their parents without the parent being in the session. The presence of the parent can shut children down to talking about issues. I'm sure Dr. Doubrava, who has a wonderful reputation for doing therapy with children and families as well as for keeping therapeutic boundaries when there has been and might be more litigation will provide an explanation for the decisions being made. Finally, as for my part in the process, I will provide my brief written statement very shortly. In addition, if I can be of any assistance in discussing the goals for conjoint therapy for Nick and Nicky with Dr. Doubrava, I will gladly do so. I will do so with the parents present or without -whichever reassures them about what might be said I now come full circle to again appreciating Barb for starting this process. I look forward to the responses of others to try and be a part of the team that helps this family (certainly keeping in mind that I may have to testify in court and must keep the role of evaluator in the forefront.) Perhaps when everyone has responded, we can do a conference call if it seems warranted. I hope this helps. Call with questions. ?SDeborah L Salem, CACD, LPC Comical Director Interworks PS Please note that we moved our office last week. In case you didn't get the email or the post card, we moved next door to our old office. The new address is 4331 (was 4335) North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110. Our phone number, fax number and email address remain the same. age 3 of 3 RLLu--y Fi J r 7F r ;' irARY oM t' H99 APR 34 AH f 9. 2 T 70. CSCe 3z(, ? ,,,? 1` z a-yy V DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. KATHLEEN M. FANELLI DEFENDANT 2005-5517 CIVIL ACTION LAW . IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, . Monday, May 04, 2009 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint, it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. , the conciliator, at 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle on Friday, June 12, 2009 at 8:30 AM for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. 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: Is/ Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. n? - Custody Conciliator T 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 OF THE PP?171- 20,04 MAY --1-4 PH l: 49 F 17 44 7V `? DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., Plaintiff v KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant 26 JUN 19 2009 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-5517 IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this Ao Vday of June, 2009, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation report, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. A hearing is scheduled in Court Room No. 4 of the Cumberland County Courthouse on the P day of , 2009 at ?a :,dg C?.m. At this hearing, the mother shall be the moving party and shall proceed initially with testimony. Counsel for the parties shall file with the Court and opposing counsel a memorandum setting forth the history of custody in this case, the issues currently before the Court, a summary of each parties position con 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 ten days prior to the mentioned hearing date. 2. Pending further Order of this Court, the existing Custody Order shall remain in place subject to the following further provisions: A. For any counselor or evaluator who has been involved with this child or the parents, the parents shall sign any necessary consents to allow those counselors or evaluators to share information with legal counsel for both parties in preparation for the hearing. Additionally, any releases will authorize the counselors or evaluators to speak with any other counselor or evaluator involved in the case as requested by legal counsel. B. In the event either party wants to have any type of updated custody evaluation or evaluation done by another professional and that party is prepared to incur the costs of the evaluation, the other party shall cooperate in the evaluation and also make the minor child and significant others, as requested by the evaluator, available to complete that evaluation. BY THE COURT, Judge K in A. Hess cc: rbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire /Lindsay Gingrich Maclay, Esquire (2oP , -ex .?.?1a L bf?4?aq ?i? DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant PRIOR JUDGE: Kevin A. Hess CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-5517 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: Dominic C. Fanelli, born August 5, 1997. 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on June 12, 2009, with the following individuals in attendance: The father, Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr., with his counsel, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, and the mother, Kathleen M. Fanelli, with her counsel, Lindsay Gingrich Maclay, Esquire. 3. This has been a long ongoing case with a number of evaluations and a number of orders back and forth. Mother is now seeking a 50150 shared custody arrangement. The current custody order provides for father having primary custody during the school year and the parties sharing custody over the summer months. The parties are unable to agree and a hearing is required. 4. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. DATE: June jj;??,2009 fed ®0yej 6W mmolo-'o-I Jutu )401 lur?bci7?l ?r??r?y O? 0 0 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY Defendant NO. 2005-5517 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH L. SALEM Proceedings held before the HONORABLE KEVIN A. HESS, J. Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania on Friday, September 18, 2009, commencing at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom Number Four APPEARANCES: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire For the Plaintiff/Respondent Lindsay Gingrich Maclay, Esquire For the Defendant/Petitioner ORIGINAL 1 THE COURT: Okay. The record can reflect 2 that I discussed the matter briefly with counsel in 3 chambers. I've also read the memoranda. I'm familiar with 4 the issues. Go ahead. 5 MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: Thank you, Your Honor. 6 Your Honor, I call Deb Salem to the stand. And, Your Honor, 7 Attorney Sumple-Sullivan and I have stipulated to the entry 8 of a number of exhibits, Petitioner's 1 through 5 and 9 Plaintiff's 1. 10 I'll introduce them as Deb is on the stand, and 11 they've already been provided to Your Honor; and if Your 12 Honor doesn't mind, when she's done being sworn in, I'm 13 going to provide her all of them at one time. 14 THE COURT: That's fine. 15 Whereupon, 16 DEBORAH L. SALEM 17 having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 18 DIRECT EXAMINATION 19 BY MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: 20 Q Could you please state your name for the 21 record. 22 A Deborah L. Salem. 23 Q And where are you employed? 24 A I am employed at Interworks at 4331 North 25 Front Street, Harrisburg, 17110. 2 0 0 1 Q And have you provided me a copy of your 2 curriculum v itae? 3 A Yes, I have. 4 Q I'm going to direct your attention to what's 5 been marked Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Do you see that 6 document? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Could you please go over that document and 9 tell us what your credentials are? 10 MS. SUMPLE-SULLIVAN: Your Honor, I'm going 11 to stipulate that Ms. Salem has testified in court as an 12 expert in cu stody evaluations in the past. 13 THE COURT: She's certainly no stranger here. 14 MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: Thank you, Your Honor. 15 I would ask that the Court recognize her as an expert in 16 custody eval uations, child and adolescent development, and 17 family therapy. 18 THE COURT: We do. 19 BY MS. GINGR ICH MACLAY: 20 Q Is this an accurate -- is this the document 21 you provided me, Petitioner's Exhibit 1? 22 A Yes, it is. 23 Q That's an accurate reflection of your 24 credentials? 25 A Yes. 3 0 0 1 Q And how do you know the Fanelli's? 2 A I was initially retained to be a mediator in 3 mid-2006 and with early intake sessions realized that it was 4 not the kind of situation that could be mediated. I 5 suggested that it was more likely a case for evaluation. 6 After some negotiating with the attorneys, I was then 7 selected to be the evaluator. 8 Q And did you perform a custody evaluation in 9 2006 for the Fanelli's? 10 A Yes, it was completed in early 2007. The 11 report was issued, I think it was, January 15th of 2007. 12 MS. SUMPLE-SULLIVAN: Your Honor, if I can, 13 just for the record, we have marked as Respondent's Exhibit 14 1 the custody evaluation dated January 15th, '07. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 BY MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: 17 Q Ms. Salem, I'm going to direct your attention 18 to Respondent's Exhibit 1. 19 A Yes. 20 Q Could you look through that and tell us if 21 that is the report and recommendation that you issued after 22 the custody evaluation? 23 A Yes, it is. 24 Q Do you recall what your recommendation was as 25 a result of that first evaluation? 4 I A Yes, I recommended that in the course of the 2 evaluation the parents had reached their own tentative 3 agreement where they were sharing custody of Nicky. I 4 recommended that primary custody go to father especially 5 during the school year and recommended some additional time 6 for mother during the summer. I believe I recommended 7 actually shared custody for the summer but primary with 8 father during the school year. 9 Q Do you recall under what schedule your 10 recommendation was during the school year? 11 A I believe it was to maintain -- I believe it 12 was that mother had alternating weekends. She had an 13 overnight the Monday after father's weekend and then one 14 other night a week but not overnight. Now, whether that was 15 my recommendation or the ultimate decision, I'd have to 16 check my report to tell you specifically. 17 Q To your knowledge what recommendation or what 18 was ultimately implemented as far as custodial schedule 19 after the issuance of your report? 20 A What was ultimately implemented was the 21 school year schedule that I described and a summer schedule 22 which gave mother one additional overnight the weeknight 23 that she had during the school year which was not overnight 24 was expanded to overnight for the summer schedule. 25 Q So the custody schedule under which the 5 0 0 1 parties are currently operating provides five overnights to 2 mother, nine ov ernights to father during the school year, is 3 that correct, i n a two-week span? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And then it's one evening per week that mom 6 has custody of the child for a period of time from after 7 school until a return to father's house during the school 8 year. Correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Were you retained subsequently then to do an 11 update for the Fanelli's? 12 A Yes, I was. 13 Q By whom? 14 A Kathy Fanelli. 15 Q When were you retained? 16 A I believe it followed a July 2008 court 17 order, so somet ime after that. 18 Q Did both parties cooperate with the update? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Please walk us through the procedure you used 21 to perform your -- what is now your October 8th, 2008, 22 update, and I b elieve that has been marked Petitioner's 23 Exhibit 2. 24 A In an update situation it probably feels like 25 a demand to the participants, but I require that the 6 0 0 I participants do an extreme amount of the leg work. I did 2 bring copies of the form that I use because it had not been 3 incorporated into the report, if the Court would like to see 4 it. 5 I have a document that I've created that requires 6 update of all information from the original evaluation, not 7 repetition of all the information gathered from the first 8 report, but it's updated in terms of updated court orders, 9 updated issues, verification of those issues, any objective 10 documentation supporting those issues, what each parent is 11 seeking, etc. 12 And in addition then I do one face-to-face 13 interview with each of the parents and one face-to-face 14 interview with the child. In this case, because a major 15 concern in the center of this update was whether or not 16 there was psychiatric impairment in mother's boyfriend to 17 the extent that it endangered the child, he was interviewed 18 and a full review of psychiatric records of his ultimated. 19 In this one, though, I have to say there was 20 information that was not acquired before I finished the 21 first part of the update, I did an addendum a month later 22 getting the rest of the information. 23 Q And we will talk about that. When you do 24 these updates, is it standard to just meet with the parties 25 and the participants for one hour? 7 0 0 1 A It's only standard in conjunction with all 2 the written information and documentation that I require. 3 Q In your original report, which was 4 Respondent's Exhibit 1, you recommended that the parties 5 participate in some co-parenting therapy? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And to your knowledge did they do so? 8 A Yes. 9 Q With whom? 10 A Anthea Stebbins, S-t-e-b-b-i-n-s, LSW, who 11 works at Int erworks. 12 Q Do you know how many sessions the parties 13 attended? 14 A Five. 15 Q And when did that end? 16 A I'm sorry. I don't exactly know. I have to 17 check my rep ort. If somebody has any guidance as to what 18 page that's on, I know I did list it. 19 MS. SUMPLE-SULLIVAN: I think it w as June 20 '07. 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. Thank you. Ju ne 2007. I 22 just found i t. 23 BY MS. GINGR ICH MACLAY: 24 Q And why did that end? 25 A The general statement of the co-pa renting 8 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 therapist was that there essentially was not enough good will between the two parties to help promote or facilitate decision-making, independent decision-making with them. Q As part of gathering the information for your update, you talked to each of the parents regarding their position on custody. Correct? A Yes, I did. Q And what were each parent's position -- was each parent's position, excuse me. A Kathy Fanelli's position was that she believed that it would be in Nicky's best interest to be in a year round shared custody schedule. It was Nick Fanelli's, father's position that, in fact, Nicky needed to have reduced access during the school year to a more standard primary custodial schedule where Kathy, mother, would have every other weekend and maybe one evening a week but not overnight. So clearly they were very separated in terms of what they thought was best for Nicky. Q And what concerns were raised by each of the parents with regard to the schedule and their desires to change the schedule? I'm going to direct your attention to Page 4 of your report for Kathy's concerns and Page 4 and 5 of your report for Mr. Fanelli's concerns. A Generally mother's concerns revolved around what she thought was an increasing stress and anxiety in 9 • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Nicky in the way he was absorbing the conflict between his parents. It was her perception that Nicky was feeling extraordinarily pressured about homework by his father, that they -- she and father were still not able to reach many agreements about what was in Nicky's best interest and then, in essence, Nicky was expressing a desire to have things -- have his time with his mother expanded. Q What about -- did Kathy express any concerns about co-parenting communication to you? A She felt that it was -- she, in fact, only wanted it to be an e-mail because she felt that it was unproductive if trying to have face-to-face communication with Nick. Q And at some point in one of your recommendations did you ultimately make a recommendation that the co-parenting communication, in fact, be via e-mail? A Yes, I did. Q Did Kathy express any concerns regarding Mr. Graybill's involvement in Nicky's life? A She disagreed with the concept that he was an endangerment. She disagreed with, you know, descriptors of him as having psychiatric impairment to the point that he should not be exposed to Nicky. She felt that it was clearly an exaggeration of issues. 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q And with regard to Ms. Fanelli's concern in that regard, what were you able to ascertain as a result of your update? A Both parts, the first and the addendum? Q I'll say the cumulative updates. A I obtained records from his current psychiatrist, from his current therapist. I'had phone consultations with both. I had -- I reviewed the records from a psychiatric hospitalization in 2008, and I ultimately reviewed a record of a psychiatric evaluation done in 2006 by his now current psychiatrist. I had a -- I reviewed records from an inpatient hospitalization at Philhaven Hospital in 2007. What I concluded was the -- there's been a broad-sweeping concern about Mr. Graybill being bipolar, and what I concluded was that there was one diagnostic presumption made during the 2007 hospitalization that he was bipolar NOS, not otherwise specified, and that the 2006 psychiatric evaluation was specifically requested to address whether he was bipolar. That was denied and denied again in the inpatient hospitalization, full psychiatric, in 2008. In addition he was placed on medications for depression. He's had varying diagnoses from major depression to generalized anxiety to possible ADD to this bipolar NOS, personality disorder NOS. 11 1 And what I tried to show in my final summary was a 2 few things. One is that the diagnostic picture of many 3 people who are in treatment for a long time evolves, that 4 there was no evidence that he was bipolar. 5 There was evidence that he had been given that 6 label and been told that he had traits of bipolar disorder, 7 which is, in essence, what bipolar NOS means. It means 8 there's not enough here to say somebody is bipolar, but 9 there are some things here that are very common to people 10 with bipolar. 11 The specific documentation was about racing 12 thoughts, was about an inability to relax those racing 13 thoughts in accordance with extreme marital difficulties, 14 separation difficulties, and the inpatient hospitalization 15 of one of Mr. Graybill's children. 16 I think the most consistent diagnosis that has 17 remained with him has been from Dr. Dahle who continues to 18 believe that underlying everything in Bob's actions and 19 reactions is a generalized anxiety. In addition depression 20 is the result of the ongoing conflicts that he manages in 21 his life. 22 His therapist, who I've had ongoing contact with 23 throughout the updates, reports that he's compliant, that 24 they have specifically focused on the inadequate, 25 inappropriate ways he has tried to react in his own custody, 12 0 0 1 co-parenting, and marital conflicts, and address that he be 2 more proactive, more thinking before reacting, because of 3 the resulting characterization of him with his behavior that 4 he overreacts to situations which has created many problems 5 for him clearly. 6 Medication and therapy has caused a reduction in 7 that in addition to the fact that there's a PFA which 8 restricts certain contacts for him, with his children even 9 it's been greatly reduced, and in some ways, according to 10 his therapist, helped create an environment where he learned 11 how to manage very strong feelings because he couldn't 12 react, and that was the key. She saw good success. 13 His psychiatrist has seen good success on the 14 medication he's taking, which is an anti-depressant, Prozac, 15 twenty milligrams. He believes wholeheartedly that he's 16 been consistent in taking the medication; however, I learned 17 that he has had a history of being his own doctor about his 18 medication, and he has something I have to say is extremely 19 common. 20 Most people don't -- aren't their own doctor about 21 their blood pressure, but they tend to be their own doctor 22 about their moods. They believe it's something they can 23 sort of gauge, but nonetheless it's created problems. 24 I also discovered that Bob was not forthright with 25 me and was not forthright in some testimony he gave after my 13 0 0 1 seeing him about his medication, and that's when looking 2 into it I strongly emphasized that he has to follow the 3 directive of treating people. No matter how many times he 4 thinks it's time and he doesn't use medication, he does not 5 give himself good advice, and he should not be the person 6 who decides that. 7 There was a secondary issue. His last 8 hospitalization, again revolving around conflicted issues 9 with his own marital separation and custody conflict, 10 started with him signing away custodial rights to his 11 children in a form given to him by his ex-wife six months 12 prior to the time he signed it. 13 He signed it. He had a few drinks., and according 14 to the reports of the hospital, made comments that upset his 15 mother. He was admitted for three days. In the course of 16 that three days, and I believe very rightfully so, the 17 doctor kept mentioning probably if he hadn't had a few 18 drinks, it may not have resulted in this hospitalization and 19 that he needs to seriously look at the drinking pattern as 20 an impact, and anybody being treated for depression, anybody 21 being treated for anxiety has to look at the impact of 22 alcohol on any medication. 23 I suggested in my report that that had to be 24 seriously looked at, and then I went into asking very 25 specific questions of his therapist. Are you concerned 14 0 0 I about this. Do you believe this is going on because father, 2 Nick Fanelli, believed that there was excessive drinking 3 going on, and it was a concern to him. 4 She did not believe it was primary or central, but 5 she did agree that this inhibition for a person with Bob -- 6 what Bob was struggling with, reactivity instead of being 7 proactive, it's just a bad decision, and so worked with him 8 about the appropriateness of everything, being having a 9 drink is probably a good idea to de-stress yourself in the 10 situation. 11 I looked at records that previously had forbid, I 12 guess is the word I'm going to use, court orders that had 13 forbid Mr. Graybill from drinking at all, and I was told it 14 was tied into medication he was taking, but I never found 15 any evidence in the court order that that was the case. 16 Nonetheless there was directive in his own early court 17 orders related to his children. 18 My summary conclusion was he is not bipolar. He 19 is in treatment. He is complying with treatment. He is 20 being reviewed with regularity by his therapist and his 21 psychiatrist, and there is nothing to show that the 22 conditions he is being treated for are equal to harm to 23 children or harm to Nicky. 24 And so I made a suggestion, which is always only 25 for the Court to consider if it becomes that, that there 15 • • 1 wasn't a connection between his treatment for his 2 psychiatric diagnosis and his right or ability to spend time 3 around Nicky. 4 Q Mr. Fanelli also cited a number of concerns 5 in his report to you, and I'm going to direct your attention 6 to Pages 4 and 5 of your Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Could you 7 please address his concerns and what as a result of those 8 concerns you were able to ascertain? 9 A His first concern had to do with what he 10 believed was poor co-parenting on Kathy's part, a refusal to 11 be aligned with him on issues that were really important to 12 Nicky such as completion of homework and especially on 13 passing information to Nicky. 14 Nick felt very strongly -- father felt very 15 strongly that any issues where Nicky was having a complaint 16 or a problem in relationship to his father was very much 17 related to how much mother was infusing him with her 18 negativity, not necessarily a relational issue that was 19 between Nick and Nicky. That was a big concern for him. 20 Q What were you able to ascertain through the 21 course of your update with regard to that concern? 22 A I think that the best way I can say it is 23 that there's no way to separate out what is perceived 24 tension conflict and negativity on both mother and father's 25 part in terms of its impact on Nicky. 16 0 0 1 Nicky is clearly affected. He is clearly a 2 wonderful and pleasing child who is trying very hard to 3 manage a conjurent relationship with the two people he knows 4 are different, disagree with each other, and don't seem to 5 in any way look like they're going to fix that. 6 While I have agreed with Nick from early on, 7 father, that there are issues where -- for example, Kathy 8 tends to be overtly emotional. You don't have to use words 9 with a child for them to pick up that you feel sad, worried, 10 distressed about something their dad is doing. You can 11 express that without words and especially in a very 12 sensitive child you can do that. 13 I think additionally, however, Nicky's perception 14 of his dad is I don't know why but my dad seems to want to 15 get my mom in trouble. And my perception hap been that dad 16 focuses almost and maybe even 100 percent on everything that 17 is occurring because of what Kathy is doing. 18 I have a stable home. I have done things 19 correctly. I do not do those kinds of things. And the only 20 problem with Nicky is he needs to hear why I have to be the 21 way I am, so he takes a more justifying position, and the 22 truth is it doesn't matter as a co-parent whether you 23 strongly believe you're right. 24 If it's being passed on to your child in a way 25 that makes it look a certain way, you, too, are in your 17 0 0 1 non-verbals at the very least passing information on. You 2 may not be doing it in the same way, but it' s no mystery to 3 Nicky that his dad is also a participant in this. 4 And, in addition, I found that there were, as 5 Nicky is getting older, he' s becoming more willing to resist 6 structure, and I think that was a change in his relationship 7 with his dad. I think that early on he was not as inclined, 8 so to speak, and that's sim ply what happens when children 9 get older. 10 Again Dad seemed to believe that the only reason 11 Nicky was resisting was because mother was, in her infusing 12 him with there's everything wrong with your dad in the way 13 he treats you, giving the child permission to do that; 14 otherwise, he wouldn't have been doing it. It wasn't his 15 own thought or feeling, and I disagree with that. 16 I personally thought it was a combination of 17 everything, so I don't, in the reverse, single out that it's 18 Dad that's making it happen. I see it as -- it's very 19 difficult for anyone to put their finger on one specific 20 thing that's making everything go on. Family systems don't 21 work that way. It's a real combined flaw and dysfunction. 22 Q What about father's concern with academics? 23 A I think from my first report onward I clearly 24 identified that if one is looking at order, structure, 25 boundary, discipline, timeliness, that there's no doubt that 18 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dad has those qualities. You know, they suit his personality. He does it well. And in that regard I believe his issue that he's raised from early on and up to that point in the report required mom to step up to the line more. Albeit she was feeling the pressure because she felt like she was being told she had to do it a very specific way and in a certain specific timeliness. I don't agree with that, but there did need to be a unified effort for Nicky's sake about his schoolwork because Nicky was -- he struggled sometimes with -- I'm going to use the word consistency, but that might be a little bit -- consistently watching to have -- to focus on his homework. You know, if it gets a little hard, pushing himself, those kinds of things, and I absolutely believe it needed a directed effort on both parents' part and some way that they could look somewhat unified on behalf of Nicky. They didn't have to do it the same way, but it needed to occur. Q Did you see a change in that from the first evaluation to the update? A Well, what I saw, Dad was able to provide documents that showed that Nicky's quiz scores or test scores seemed to decrease somewhat the day after he had been 19 • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with his mother. I didn't get to see things that showed there was a real consistency after he had been with his dad, but in general his grades were not all that bad, so the overall impact didn't seem to greatly affect Nicky. I think after the update maybe things got a little more difficult. I don't know about grades. Now, father's position is that he believed the reason his grades didn't decline is because he was picking up after mom's inadequacies. That if he hadn't on some level done that -- and I, you know, in terms of those kinds of things, they often remain in the he said/she said. I don't know how to know. You know, mother will certainly say that's not the case, and I didn't -- I honestly had only a small block of time to get him to a practice that he had to go to and make sure the homework was done and have him returned at a specific time. Dad will say consistently it wasn't done, and I had to keep him up late after that, and perhaps in their testimony they can give some information about that. Q You also spoke with Nicky, correct, as part of the update? A Yes. Q What were Nicky's concerns, if any? A Nicky almost to this day continues to have a small part of him that just wishes none of this had ever 20 • • 1 happened. A wish for reunification sort of persists for him 2 ongoing. It was very big when I first met him in the first 3 evaluation, and that was early on. 4 He is very keenly tuned in to the stress between 5 his parents. He's also keenly tuned in to his love for both 6 of his parents, and the impact on him from the first time I 7 met him to the second to me was pretty profound in terms of 8 his less spontaneity, less sort of carefree way he described 9 things, a more cautious approach to who was going to hear 10 what he had to say, fearfulness of anything he said seemed 11 to collude in one direction or the other with things that 12 were being said by his parents. 13 He clearly showed me that he knew how his mother 14 felt about his father and vice versa. That was less 15 apparent in the first. He used the words I just want things 16 to be equal, you know, I want things to be shared. I would 17 like to spend the same amount of time with everybody. 18 While I do believe for Nicky there is a love and 19 attachment to both of his parents, he also is searching for 20 a way to make this okay. He does not like the blame 21 situation that goes on. He specifically referenced 22 disliking that his father would make references to mom's 23 boyfriend as a goof or weird, and that that really hurt his 24 feelings. 25 He expressed a lot of sadness -- at the time I met 21 0 0 I him it was then two months since he had been allowed to have 2 any contact with Bob Graybill, mom's boyfriend, and that he 3 felt like he had lost a friend, like it was not okay with 4 him. And I asked him if he understood why he wasn't seeing 5 him, and he said all I know is that my dad filed something 6 in c ourt. Y ou know, that he knows it's that same situation 7 between his parents, and it's hard on him. 8 Again, what I think I like about Nicky's sort of 9 approach to life is he really wants to preserve a 10 relationship with both of his parents. He wants to make it 11 work, and he does a lot of coping to have that happen, but 12 he was reaching a point where at times he felt not heard. 13 He felt like his dad put a lot of pressure on him 14 about homework that didn't seem to work for him. He felt 15 like he got yelled at more than he wanted to about his 16 homework with his dad, and it was stressing him out. 17 So that's what I, you know, and again I felt like 18 he clearly was showing that he was not feeling frightened or 19 endangered, saw himself as having a close relationship with 20 Bob but not in any way threatening his relationship with his 21 mom or dad. It was what it was. 22 Q Where did Mr. Fanelli seem to be getting his 23 information from when he was talking about Mr. Graybill's 24 psychiatric history? Where did that information come from? 25 A The psychiatric history, I know that he had a 22 0 0 1 copy of the original custody petition filed by Bob's 2 ex-wife. I know he had communication with Bob's ex-wife, 3 and I believe that's where he got the information about the 4 hospitalization at Philhaven and the bipolar. 5 Q Did mister -- and do you see any problem with 6 that kind of ongoing -- to your knowledge is that ongoing, 7 those discussions between mister -- 8 A You mean at this point or at the time? 9 Q During the course of the evaluation. 10 A The update? 11 Q The update. I'm sorry. 12 A Yes, I felt that there was, you know, I'm not 13 saying that it was persistent nor do I think it was the sole 14 source of information at all. I know that he had newspaper 15 articles. He had some other things, but I think that it was 16 input that the two were talking in order for Nick to get 17 information especially about therapy background. 18 Q Did Mr. Graybill cooperate with the 19 evaluation? 20 A For the most part, yes. 21 Q Did he sign the releases? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And when you say for the most part, what do 24 you mean? Mr. Graybill. 25 A You know, I think the one area that I 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 challenge is that I asked a very direct question had he ever received, taken any medication related to bipolar disorder, and he said that he had not. And he had, so, you know, that came out in the -- when I acquired the records from Philhaven. You know, in his defense, I don't -- you know, if you're told you don't have bipolar, you have traits of bipolar, I suppose we could say, okay, that wasn't actually a lie, but I think the way I asked the question could have -- I could have gotten a more direct answer about that. The doctor thought that's what it was. It was okay for him to say that, but I think it came across as if that wasn't there until I saw it. Q What medication was he prescribed? Are you aware of that? A It was Lamictal. Q And what is Lamictal used for? A Actually it's primarily used as an anticonvulsive medication, but it's fairly common that anticonvulsive medications tend to have a mood stabilizing effect, so there are many different anticonvulsives that at times are used for mood stabilization. They are used in the treatment of bipolar, but Lamictal is especially used in panic disorder, depression that has an anxious quality to it, and especially when other medications, antidepressants, 24 0 0 I aren't completely effective. 2 Q And what was Bob's diagnosis? Not -- 3 A It was bipolar. 4 Q No, no, I mean ultimately. 5 A Generalized anxiety disorder. 6 Q So would Lamictal be a medication that could 7 be taken to assist with that? 8 A Well, it could be. At the time he was 9 prescribed it, it was by the doctor who had come up with the 10 tentative diagnosis, and that was after a three-day 11 hospitalization, of bipolar NOS, and Bob did not remain on 12 that medication for more than about a week after that 13 hospitalization is my understanding. 14 Q To your knowledge is Kathy in therapy as 15 well? 16 A Yes, she is. 17 Q Do you know with whom she's in therapy? 18 A Her therapist is Joanne Ellenberger at 19 Guidance Associates and her psychiatrist is Lawrence 20 Altaker. 21 Q I'm going to direct your attention now to the 22 10/28/08 review of the additional information for Mr. 23 Graybill. I think it's been marked Respondent's Exhibit 3. 24 A Okay. 25 Q What is that document? 25 0 0 1 A This is -- I'm only smiling because I think 2 there's been an addendum to the addendum to the addendum. 3 This was additional information to the updated report. 4 Q And how did this update or review of 5 additional information come about? 6 A Concerns were raised by Mr. Fanelli through 7 his attorney that information was missing, one of which -- 8 and it was true at the time of the writing I had not 9 received the Philhaven report. 10 There had been a PFA hearing for Bob based on a 11 petition filed by his ex-wife where it was alleged that on 12 the stand Bob said things different than what he had told me 13 in my report, and so I agreed to get all of the additional 14 information and look into concerns aroused by two things, 15 not having all the records, which I thought was reasonable, 16 and these allegations of conflicting information. 17 Q And as part of this review, you received the 18 records from the Philhaven hospitalization in 2007. 19 Correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Had you requested and did Mr. Graybill sign 22 the release for those during the first -- the course of the 23 first update? 24 A Yes. 25 Q But it wasn't included in the first update 26 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because why? A I considered the more recent information to be confirming of his not having a diagnosis of bipolar, which was one of the concerns, and confirming both sides of things, some of what Mr. Fanelli's concerns were and where they were emanating from and confirming that indeed Bob was in treatment and following his treatment regimen. Q You said another concern that;was raised was testimony allegedly provided by Mr. Graybill at his PFA hearing. Correct? A Yes. Q Do you have any idea what the question was that was asked that raised these concerns? A I only know what I was told because I have not -- there has been no one that's tried to secure a transcript, so I cannot tell you with specificity, but I was told that he said on the stand he's not taking medication. He told me he was and he said on the stand that he wasn't, and I guess I'm not even sure where the information came from. Q Did you follow up on that concern of whether or not Mr. Graybill was, in fact, continuing:to take medication? A I followed up on my concern about which was the truth. If he had said it on the stand, he had told me 27 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 he was. I was told he said on the stand he wasn't, and, yes, I did follow up with Mr. Graybill and with Mr. Graybill's therapist. Q And what were you able to find out from Mr. Graybill's therapist? A Well, I found out from Mr. Graybill that he did say two different things, and I found out from his therapist that he then offered an explanation of why he had done this, that it was -- he and his therapist were talking about the possibility of weening him from medication which is different than not taking medication. She confirmed that they were having those conversations and she further said, however, that's not my area of expertise, and I don't work with clients. I refer them back to their doctors, and I don't take positions on whether a client who I'm doing therapy with should or should not take their medication. That's a doctor's decision. Q And did you speak with Dr. Dahle, his psychiatrist, about whether or not he was or was not medication compliant? A During this -- I'm sorry, did I get confused as to -- when I talked to who? I think I talked to Dr. Dahle for the next update after this one, if my memory is serving me correctly. I think I received a written statement that he was -- what he was being prescribed, but I 28 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 don't think I talked to him at that time. If you -- if you give me a minute, I can check and just see right here which time it was, but I'm almost positive it was during the 4/15/09. On this one I reviewed the 2006 evaluation of Dr. Dahle. Q In Ms. Ember's opinion was Mr. Graybill at that time compliant with his treatment regimen and his medication? A Yes. Q Did this review of 10/28/08 result in any change in your position or recommendation that Bob and Nicky should be allowed contact? A No, and that was with the contingency of updating treatment compliance in ninety days. Q Right. And as a result of your first evaluation, what ultimately was your -- when I say your first evaluation, I mean the 10/8/08 update, so we're clear on which one we're talking about. What was your recommendation with regard to the custodial schedule at that time? A I recommended that the custodial schedule not change, that in ninety days a review of continued treatment compliance by both Kathy and Bob Graybill be reviewed, and that at that time an expansion of Nicky's schedule to shared custody could occur if treatment compliance was noted or if 29 0 0 1 non-compliance and significant issues affecting Nicky was 2 documented, that perhaps a look at changing the custody in 3 the other direction, reducing time, would be considered. 4 Q And is that to a reasonable degree of 5 professional certainty, your recommendation? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Did you also recommend in your 10/8/08 update 8 anything regarding the contact between Mr. Graybill and 9 Nicky? 10 A Yes, I recommended that it could be resumed. 11 Q So as a result of your 10/28/08 review, the 12 next review, the review of the psychiatric records from 13 Philhaven, etc., etc., after the concerns were raised, there 14 was no change in your recommendation? 15 A I don't believe there was a change in my 16 recommendation, but there was an emphasis on. Mr. Graybill 17 taking responsibility for understanding that he couldn't be 18 the director of his own treatment and that that is, in fact, 19 always going to be central to how people perceive him, how 20 he's perceived as a participant in Nicky's life, and, you 21 know, I emphasize it as a clinician. It always creates 22 problems when you begin to give yourself too much advice, 23 maybe for all of us. 24 Q I'm going to direct your attention to Page 6 25 of your 10/28/08 review, the last paragraph,?the first 30 • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sentence. Could you read that for us, please? A Yes. The parties and their respective counsel can determine a plan that will assist those involved with how to assess Robert's treatment compliance without creating an environment where he is overly highlighted, where his condition is exaggerated, or where all of the factors in the dysfunctional co-parenting environment are ignored. Q What did you mean by that? A I meant that it's time to stop focusing on one specific thing as if it is the good reason to determine a custody schedule in one direction or the other for Nicky, that there is no way that I believed from my review that that was the central theme especially for Nicky, and that the conflict between the parents was clearly a problem for Nicky. Nicky's nature and how Nicky was absorbing the conflict was clearly also an issue for Nicky. Each of the parent's sort of blame perspective needed to be addressed. That while I didn't believe co-parenting counseling was going to work, I thought something had to happen to address how the parents managed their conflict because this sort of repetitious highlighting one thing was not making a change for Nicky. Q Did your paragraph cause some confusion as to 31 • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what was anticipated with regard to monitoring of Mr. Graybill's medication compliance? A Yes, I think so. Q Did you receive a letter from Attorney Sumple-Sullivan at some point where -- first of all do you know what steps were taken to ensure Mr. Graybill's medication compliance? A What steps were taken. I believe the confusion that was created was the belief that I was saying that you, the attorneys, would come up with a protocol to give the doctor about whether he was medication compliant, and for me, my response was more, you know, everybody has to be comfortable knowing that this is also not,eliminating concerns about Mr. Graybill and Nicky's safety and that something has to be put in place for that to be monitored in a way -- particularly it was my belief that regardless of information Nick Fanelli cannot -- did not get comfortable that it wasn't a condition that was going to be horrible for Nicky and that ultimately Nicky's safety still wasn't being protected. So my message was, we have to come up with a way that gives Nick Fanelli his security without hanging out the notion that Mr. Graybill has all these horrible things that make him the problem, so I was trying to find some balance. I think it was interpreted that there ought to be 32 0 0 I a protocol established with the doctor which then created 2 either the doctor's reaction to being asked overly specific 3 information but from laypersons and a whole lot of 4 confusion. 5 Q As part of your original recommendation in 6 the 10/8/08 update, you were specifically saying that so 7 long as you had an opportunity to review treatment records 8 for Kathy and Bob and that everything was going as it should 9 be with their treatment and their doctors, and treating 10 clinicians were reporting success, that -- then that would 11 be -- was that your suggestion that that would kind of be 12 the overarching double check so to speak? 13 A Yes, I suggested that I could remain in the 14 process and continue over the next twelve months to get 15 perhaps every six month updates. If that was something that 16 would, you know, be suggested, I would be glad to remain in 17 that, and that is one of the ways to do it as opposed to 18 hearing from Bob, Kathy, or Nick about their perception of 19 it, all of which are going to have their own subjective 20 perspective on it, information from the treating 21 professionals is the reliant information, and that could be 22 obtained. 23 Q Did you receive a letter from Attorney 24 Sumple-Sullivan after you were asked to start conducting the 25 90-day update? 33 0 0 1 A Are you referring to the one that is Appendix 2 A? Yes, I did. 3 Q Did I already -- did we already go over -- I 4 direct your attention to the 4/15/09 review, which is the 5 90-day review that you reference, an d I think it's 6 Petitioner's Exhibit 4? 7 A I have it, yes. 8 Q Is it marked as 4 on the bottom? 9 A Yes, it is marked as 4. 10 Q I just want to make sure I'm keeping up with 11 my exhibits. Is this the report and recommendation that you 12 made after the 90-day update was com pleted? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And attached to that as Appendix A, I believe 15 you have Attorney Sumple-Sullivan's April 7, 2009, letter. 16 Is that correct? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Do you recall what was going on during that 19 time to initiate this letter? 20 A I think that it was - - give me a moment. Let 21 me do it in an informed way. 22 Q That's okay. 23 A After my issuing the two October reports and 24 the statement about coming up with s ome way to do this, I 25 had received, I think, even a direct request from Mr. 34 0 0 1 Graybill saying, you know, could you please be more specific 2 about what I need to do because there's confusion about how 3 to determine what I need to do to prove my treatment 4 compliance. 5 And I also received this letter, and there's 6 definite -- there was definite -- a definite inability to 7 come up with a way that seemed to provide that comfort I was 8 talking about to everybody, and at that point rightfully -- 9 and Attorney Sullivan stated in her letter that I said I am 10 not going to make phone calls to psychiatrists or anybody 11 else at this point, which was, I believe, in January, 12 without being paid. You know, that I completed what I 13 needed to do. 14 And that at the same time the doctor didn't want 15 to talk to the attorneys, and I understood that only from 16 being in the field. I understand the sort of caution that 17 the psychiatrist would have. 18 And then in addition there was confusion over the 19 intent of a decision to place Nicky in therapy and some 20 confusion about who thought what was the best way to manage 21 that therapy, and that's what the letter addresses also. 22 Q And in response to that letter, did you try 23 to address those concerns via a letter dated April 8th, 24 2009, written from you to myself, Attorney Sumple-Sullivan, 25 and Deb Doubrava, who was -- Dr. Doubrava, who was retained 35 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to do the counseling for Nicky? A Yes. Q And in that letter itself, you state that you regretted your word choice to develop a protocol for testing. What did you mean by that? A Because it sounds scientific. It sounds like there's a one, two, three way that you can tell if somebody is medication compliant. I may have given an impression that isn't accurate that in the way a person is known to be treatment compliant for a medication such as the one Mr. Graybill was on, Prozac, twenty milligrams, is through conversations and follow-up with the psychiatrist, although he did voluntarily do a blood.test simply to show that the Prozac was in his system, but Dr. Dahle thought it was -- his psychiatrist thought it was over the top and it would be able to be perceived in his treatment regimen through his therapist and through his follow-up with Dr. Dahle. Q You also indicate in this 4/8/09 letter that you believe it's important to speak to or thought it was important as part of your 90-day review to speak with Dr. Doubrava. A Yes. Q Nicky's therapist. Do you recall how Nicky coming into therapy occurred? A After the October reports, through his 36 0 0 1 attorney, Mr. Fanelli -- it was suggested that he seek 2 therapy with Nicky to help Nicky understand Nicky's 3 perception that he seemed extraordinarily angry or 4 extraordinarily over-attentive to quote getting his mom in 5 trouble and that the belief was that with the therapist Nick 6 could help Nicky understand what was actually motivating 7 those actions, that they were being misinterpreted by Nicky. 8 My statement was that I was cautious of any 9 therapy for Nicky that didn't include both parents. As a 10 child and family therapist, I would not agree tondo that 11 kind of therapy, and I didn't -- I believe that most 12 therapists would have actually requested anyway -- but I 13 thought it was more responsible that both parents be 14 involved at least in an initial assessment. 15 If the therapist then ultimately decided mom 16 doesn't have to be a part of this at all anymore and I now 17 see this is specifically what needs to happen, it can 18 happen, but my suggestion was, in fact, that the therapy 19 involve both parents and Nicky and let whoever the treatment 20 person is determine how the session should go, individually 21 just with Nicky, sometimes with Nicky and his mother, 22 sometimes with Nicky and his father, but that would be the 23 better way to approach it. 24 Q And as part of the 90-day review, the 4/15/09 25 90-day review, were you able to speak with Dr. Doubrava 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 prior to issuing that report? A No. Q Why? A Mr. Fanelli did not -- would not sign the release for me to talk to her. Q And why do you believe it's important for both parents to be a part of the child's therapy, specifically in this case, Nicky's therapy? A Because issues involve, you know, a system is a system and they both have strong impact on Nicky. I, you know, would no more approve of a therapy for just mom and Nicky than I would for just dad and Nicky. Q Going back to the 90-day review, what was the purpose of the 90-day review? A Was for me to assess treatment compliance for Kathy and Bob as I had said was important in the October reports. Q The procedure that -- what procedure did you use for this review? A I again received reports from Kathy's treating psychiatrist; two reports from Joanne Ellenberger, Kathy's therapist; a report from Karen Williams of Diakon Services, Bob's therapist; a brief written statement and then a phone consultation with Dr. Dahle, who is Bob Graybill's treating psychiatrist. 38 0 0 1 I had done a phone consultation with the two 2 attorneys, you and Attorney Sumple-Sullivan, about Bob's 3 medication regimen compliance. I reviewed the blood 4 toxicology report from Penn State, and a review of an e-mail 5 dated 11/3/08 from father, Nick Fanelli, to me regarding his 6 dissatisfaction with certain areas of Kathy's co-parenting 7 and Mr. Graybill's functioning that he believed I ignored in 8 my original report. 9 I also reviewed Nicky's report card, some e-mail 10 exchanges between Kathy and Nicky's teacher, and e-mail 11 exchanges between Nick and Kathy provided by Kathy to show 12 some improvement in their ability to co-parent with Nicky 13 about school issues. 14 Q As a result of the update or the 90-day 15 review, what was your recommendation? 16 A I thought it was -- well, I wanted to be able 17 to talk to Deb Doubrava; however, I believe my 18 recommendation stood. I felt there was treatment compliance 19 was clear from what I received from the treating 20 professionals. 21 Q And was that to a reasonable degree of 22 professional certainty? 23 A Based on the information from the treatment 24 professionals, yes. 25 Q You said that you received an e-mail from Mr. 39 0 0 1 Fanelli. What concerns did he raise regarding your 2 evaluations and recommendations? 3 A He took excerpts such as, you know, 4 essentially he was saying how could you say that Bob 5 Graybill is fine. Here's a guy that's been termed to have 6 generalized anxiety, attention deficit, major depression, 7 bipolar NOS, personality disorder NOS, and you're trying to 8 say there's nothing wrong with him, that's a big problem. 9 And that the statements that he had had 26 10 registered police reports, that he said that he -- he felt 11 that I had said he was getting all of his information from 12 Bob's ex-wife. He said that wasn't true and that he felt 13 that while my first report that I had done he thought I had 14 done well, I had missed the mark on this one. 15 Q What, if anything, did you do to try to 16 address his concerns? 17 A I added -- I put a statement in the April 18 15th report that, you know, which I stand by, I don't 19 believe that reviewing significant records from treating 20 professionals offering the variety of different diagnoses 21 that have come up for a person really constitute that that 22 whole trail of diagnoses exist for a person. 23 But the statement that I actually made was that I 24 am simply trying to say that while I don't deny the problems 25 that were created and the insecurities that resulted in Mr. 40 0 0 1 Fanelli about Bob Graybill's actions and/or Kathy and Bob's 2 therapeutic backgrounds, I have legitimized that. 3 I do not believe I have minimized it and that I 4 believe what is being minimized is there are other things 5 contributing and that I believe to the extent that Mr. 6 Fanelli continues to focus away from his own contributions, 7 that it will ultimately result in bigger problems between 8 him and Nicky. 9 I am not discounting other issues. I think 10 they're there, but I will not discount and do not believe 11 that the only reason Nicky has the feelings he has is 12 because Kathy Fanelli has infused him with her negative 13 attitude about Nick. I described Nick as not being 14 self-reflective enough about the problems in the 15 co-parenting situation, that that would be his contribution 16 along with Kathy and Bob to the situation. 17 Q Part of your recommendation from the 4/15/09 18 90-day review was to review treatment summaries at six-month 19 intervals for the next year for Kathy, Bob, and Nicky. In 20 preparation for the hearing today, have you spoken with 21 their therapist? 22 A Yes, I have. 23 Q What did you find out? 24 A I found out from Dr. Dahle that Bob remains 25 on his medication, has been compliant with taking his 41 0 0 1 medication, and remains on twenty milligrams of Prozac. I 2 found out -- I could not get specific information from Bob's 3 therapist, but I did find out that he is continuing to go 4 and that they are focusing on the same goals. Bob was on 5 the road and could not -- we could not get a signature 6 release, and she needed that before she could give me any 7 specifics, but she confirmed he remains in therapy. 8 I got a written record from both Kathy's 9 psychiatrist and Kathy's therapist showing that she, as of 10 June, has diminished the number of sessions she had with her 11 therapist, Joanne Ellenberger, because at that time -- it 12 was around that time I believe the parents reached a 13 tentative agreement to try to share custody for the summer 14 and that she was feeling better and more optimistic that 15 they might be able to work together, felt that Nicky was 16 doing well in therapy and showing improvement. Records from 17 her psychiatrist show that she recently saw him and had 18 increased anxiety again because of the impending court 19 hearing but that she continued on Wellbutrin and was 20 following her regimen. 21 Q What about Nicky? Did you talk to Deb 22 Doubrava? 23 A I did. 24 Q And what did Dr. Doubrava report? 25 A In the most recent conversation or the whole? 42 0 0 I Q In the most recent. 2 A In the recent conversation that he is -- 3 Nicky is being seen less often, that he's being brought 4 exclusively by his mother, that therapy is open to Nicky. 5 It is a place where he finds that he is able to discuss 6 those anxieties that he feels a loyalty bind about 7 discussing with either of his parents, and that that's been 8 effective and there's also been effective intervention 9 relating to his schoolwork. 10 Q It was also your recommendation in that 11 90-day review, that if Nick Fanelli would enter therapy that 12 you would review his treatment summaries as well. Is it 13 your recommendation that Mr. Fanelli also be in therapy 14 related to the custody conflict? 15 A It's my recommendation that he be more 16 self-reflective. Therapy is a way of being more 17 self-reflective. There are other ways besides that, but it 18 is one of the ways that you can do it. 19 Q As part of -- why as part of your 20 recommendation did you recommend lifting the restriction on 21 Mr. Graybill's driving Nicky? 22 A Because there was no other restriction on his 23 license or his driving ability, but I did not say he can 24 drive Nicky anytime. I said he could be a reasonable 25 adjunct to Kathy who should be doing the primary amount of 43 1 driving, not let him drive. 2 Q You also stood by your recommendation for 3 shared physical custody year round. Why did you do that? 4 A I think that -- I think these.are two 5 extraordinarily different people, both of whom have a lot to 6 offer Nicky, and Nicky reflects that back. I think that 7 some of the conflict from Nicky revolves around what feels 8 like an imbalance to him. 9 He has a longing to spend significant time with 10 both of his parents, and I believe that it would work for 11 him. I also believe that a resolution of the custody 12 conflict is the most meaningful thing that Nicky needs. No 13 doubt about it. 14 Q Did you change your position regarding the 15 schedule under which the parties should operate in the 16 summer to a five two two five schedule? 17 A I did. 18 Q Why? 19 A Because the schedule as it is has Nicky going 20 every other day to each parent's house. You know, 21 undoubtedly this is -- would fall in the category, at least 22 to me, of a high conflict couple, and I don't believe 23 shifting every other day is necessarily reasonable to a 24 child Nicky's age under any circumstance, but I think blocks 25 of time would help him to settle in more. 44 0 0 1 Nicky was resistant, by the way, according to his 2 therapist, to even shifting to five two two five, or I might 3 have even recommended week on week off for the summer, but 4 he himself wasn't -- in his own anxiety wasn't ready to make 5 such a big change. 6 Q To your knowledge did the parties voluntarily 7 implement the five two two five over the summer? 8 A I believe they did, yes. 9 Q And how did that work for Nicky? 10 A According to his therapist he really liked it 11 and even with his initial resistance, he ended adjusting 12 well to it. 13 Q Speaking of his therapist, I'm going to 14 direct your attention to what's been marked Petitioner's 15 Exhibit 5, I think, the 9/8/09 -- let me see what you called 16 it. Addendum to the report. 17 A I have it. 18 Q Initially you said that you had not been able 19 to speak with Dr. Doubrava. As a result you issued your 20 4/15/09 90-day review without speaking with her? 21 A Right. 22 Q What is the 9/8/09 addendum? 23 A It ultimately turned out that I believe Mr. 24 Fanelli was confused about the purpose of the release, and 25 there was actual confusion about the purpose of the therapy. 45 0 0 1 And I want to go on record as saying I had never made it a 2 requirement that I needed to talk to a therapist that was 3 seeing Nicky, so Mr. Fanelli was within his rights to be 4 cautious about signing the release, let's put it that way. 5 This addendum is because ultimately the release 6 was signed and I was then able to get information from Deb 7 Doubrava, and my position had been it was clinically 8 responsible for me to know from a therapist working with 9 Nicky, again as opposed to two subjective parents, each of 10 whom have their positions, as to how he was doing and what 11 his needs might be relative to a custody schedule. So I 12 wanted input from her. 13 Q What procedure did you use to perform this 14 addendum? 15 A I had initially set up one phone consultation 16 with Dr. Doubrava and we quickly realized it, was going to 17 take a lot longer than that first one, so I did two phone 18 consultations with Dr. Doubrava where she pretty much 19 discussed with me session by session what she had done. 20 Q And how many times had Dr. Doubrava met with 21 Nicky and/or his parents at the time of the 198 addendum? 22 A Was it eighteen times? 23 Q That's the number you referenced somewhere in 24 your report, yes. Were both parents cooperating in Nicky's 25 treatment with Dr. Doubrava? 46 • • 1 A Yes. 2 Q At some point were both parents involved in 3 Nicky's treatment with Dr. Doubrava? 4 A Yes. 5 Q What was the focus of Nicky's counseling or 6 focuses of Nicky's counseling? 7 A Dr. Doubrava perceived what she called an 8 adjustment disorder with anxiety in Nicky, that with Nicky's 9 personality he was absorbing the disagreements between his 10 parents with resulting anxiety. 11 So one of the focuses was to help Nicky to not 12 only first get clear about what his own separate thoughts 13 and feelings were, trying not to be protective of either his 14 mother or his father, and then to be able to speak directly 15 to them with her facilitation. That was one part of it. 16 Another part of it was the difficulties that 17 seemed to arise for Nicky about schoolwork, his lack of 18 follow through, his opposition at different times, and 19 problems with completing assignments. And then a third part 20 was helping facilitate a discussion about this possible 21 attempt at a shared schedule for the summer and working with 22 the parents. 23 Dr. Doubrava absolutely noted that,Mr. Fanelli 24 talked on more than one occasion to her about that the 25 purpose was to be for her to help Nicky understand why Mr. 47 • • 1 Fanelli appeared to be over focused on mom and/or angry at 2 Bob and/or highly focused on Nicky's responsibilities of 3 homework in ways that Nicky perceived was stressful for him. 4 She indicated that she advised Mr. Fanelli that 5 she would gladly help facilitate Mr. Fanelli having that 6 conversation or a series of conversations with Nicky about 7 that. That she told him she did not see it as her role to 8 be the one that did it. 9 She had set up the situation to happen and that 10 Mr. Fanelli did not bring up the topic in the one session 11 where they were together and Dr. Doubrava thought it would 12 happen because she had established that it would, and in one 13 session offered for it to happen and Mr. Fanelli declined. 14 She did say that Mr. Fanelli then repeatedly, 15 though, indicated that the therapy hadn't done what it was 16 supposed to do and it had gotten sidelined on other issues, 17 which she did not believe was the case. 18 She believed that she had offered the opportunity, 19 was willing to facilitate the exact discussion that Mr. 20 Fanelli wanted, and saw him as resistant to raising the 21 issues or just didn't, you know, whether -- I don't know 22 what his inner motivation was not to. 23 Q How did Dr. Doubrava describe:Nicky? 24 MS. SUMPLE-SULLIVAN: I'm actually going to 25 object. I've allowed the therapy sessions and the report 48 • 1 because it was part of the custody evaluatiop. I think now 2 if they want Dr. Doubrava to testify as a counselor, we're 3 getting so far afield from what is in the report of therapy 4 that went into her evaluation that it's just hearsay at this 5 point. 6 THE COURT: Well, it's hearsay, but if it's 7 important to some other conclusion that she reached, then 8 it's admissible. I don't know, so I need to know where 9 you're going with this. 10 MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: I want to find out -- 11 THE COURT: If Dr. Doubrava's impression of 12 Nicky is important to Ms. Salem's conclusion in the case, 13 then it comes in. 14 MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: It is ultimately. 15 THE COURT: Is there any hope. of her 16 concluding her testimony before lunch? 17 MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: I only have a few more 18 questions for her. 19 THE COURT: Okay. Why don't we move on, and 20 you probably need a break. 21 MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: Yes, Your Honor. Thank 22 you. 23 BY MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: 24 Q I believe you said -- how did Dr. Doubrava 25 describe Nicky? I believe it's on the bottom of the first 49 1 page of your addendum. 2 A She described him as an internalizing child 3 and as a result he had anxiety. In other words, he absorbs 4 what was around him and took it on and was always 5 questioning if he was responsible for it. If he should fix 6 it. Is there something he should do with it, which is what 7 internalizing means. 8 Q With regard to school issues, who did Dr. 9 Doubrava report as providing the information regarding 10 school updates, Nicky's accomplishments and difficulties? 11 A Her experience was that that was consistently 12 provided by Kathy, the mother. 13 Q There is reference in your addendum to Nicky 14 being evaluated by the school for attention difficulties? 15 A Yes. 16 Q If a child were being evaluated for such 17 difficulties, would it be beneficial for the:evaluators to 18 keep with and gain information from the child's treating 19 therapist? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Why? 22 A In the same way it would be important for a 23 heart surgeon to talk to a family doctor or a, you know, any 24 specialist to get information directly related to other 25 contributing factors other than perhaps attention deficit 50 • • 1 disorder. 2 So if he's being treated for anxiety, for example, 3 or anxious internalizing, that can affect concentration as 4 well as attention deficit can affect concentration, so it 5 would be important for a differential look at what might be 6 causing educational concentration deficits in a child. 7 Q You received a copy of the 9/15/09 letter 8 from Dr. Doubrava to Attorney Sumple-Sullivan. Did you not? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Do you know why that letter was sent? 11 A Which letter? 12 Q The letter from Dr. Doubrava to Attorney 13 Sumple-Sullivan dated 9/15/09? 14 A And I received a copy of one from Attorney 15 Sumple-Sullivan to Dr. Doubrava, which I think I've got a 16 copy of the answer. Attorney Sumple-Sullivan wanted to know 17 if, indeed, Nicky was being treated for anxiety, and Dr. 18 Doubrava confirmed that her diagnosis was adjustment 19 disorder with anxiety, very brief letters both. 20 Q Do you know why that letter was sent? 21 A It was my understanding that it was -- Mr. 22 Fanelli was concerned about why he would need to sign a 23 release for information from Dr. Doubrava to the school 24 related to their assessment of attention deficit. That's 25 what I came to understand. I'm not sure if that's accurate. 51 0 0 1 Q Why did Mr. Fanelli stop taking Nicky to Dr. 2 Doubrava? 3 MS. SUMPLE-SULLIVAN: I'm going to object. 4 THE COURT: The only way she would know that 5 is if Mr. Fanelli s aid why, so what's the foundation for 6 that? 7 MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: I'm trying to develop 8 what occurred during the session which Ms. Salem spoke with 9 Dr. Doubrava about to end the therapy sessions between Mr. 10 Fanelli and -- 11 THE COURT: They came to a stop for some 12 reason. 13 MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: I'm sorry? 14 THE COURT: They came to an end for some 15 reason, and you're trying to explore why? 16 MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: Correct. 17 THE COURT: Okay. We just have to be careful 18 about the source of information. That's all. Go ahead. 19 THE WITNESS: I have to have the question 20 again. 21 MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: That's okay. 22 BY MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: 23 Q Why did Mr. Fanelli stop taking Nicky to Dr. 24 Doubrava? 25 A I don't -- the question is -- it's really 52 0 0 1 true that I can't really answer why he did that. That is 2 not what I have information about. 3 Q What happened in the session, the last 4 session that the parties attended altogether? 5 A Okay. That I can describe. It was -- I 6 believe the session was on May 21st, and it was concluded 7 after some discussion with both parents and Nicky that both 8 parents and Nicky and Dr. Doubrava would have a session 9 where Nicky would present his position about what he'd like 10 to see happen with the custody schedule and anything else he 11 wanted to discuss with his parents. 12 Both parents acknowledged that they would like to 13 honor Nicky's perception of things. The session proceeded 14 with Nicky saying he wanted things to be equal. He wanted 15 fifty fifty and that he liked the schedule as it was, the 16 way the summer worked, so he was affirming this position 17 that he wasn't wanting big blocks of time with either 18 parent. He wanted to keep it the way it was. 19 He was then asked if he had anything else that he 20 wanted to say to either of his parents, and according to Dr. 21 Doubrava he said not with his mom, but he wanted to tell his 22 dad -- he told his dad it made him really sad when he called 23 Bob a goof, and he didn't want him to call him names 24 anymore. 25 And according to Dr. Doubrava, dad began to 53 0 0 I explain to Nicky why he did that. And at that point Dr. 2 Doubrava had Nicky leave the session and explained to Mr. 3 Fanelli that in a prior session he had been telling Nicky 4 it's not okay to call other kids names, and that she was 5 challenging him on his justifying to Nicky why it was okay 6 to call Bob a name, and that he had to look at the 7 inaccuracy in that position. 8 And then there was apparently, according to Dr. 9 Doubrava, a discussion initiated by Mr. Fanelli about if 10 they agreed to fifty fifty what was going to happen with 11 child support, and she said that was definitely outside the 12 boundaries of therapy and that was something to be discussed 13 with attorneys. 14 She then said it was at that point that she, in 15 trying to reschedule, Mr. Fanelli said he had to check and 16 that she had not had a reschedule from him since then but 17 had reached out to him and said, you know, the door is still 18 open. Please give me a call. But she had not heard from 19 him as of August 31st. 20 Q Was there a subsequent phone call to him? 21 A I was just going to say there was a phone 22 call. A session in June occurred where Dr. Doubrava talked 23 to Nicky about his preferences about a shared schedule and 24 apparently they seemed to have an agreement that was coming 25 up, and Mr. Fanelli did call Dr. Doubrava a few days after 54 0 0 1 that and said that he did not believe that Nicky's actions 2 were supporting whatever Nicky's words were. They didn't 3 agree, and it wasn't similar to what Nicky had presented in 4 the past and that he had concerns about that. 5 Q To your knowledge is Nicky continuing with 6 therapy? 7 A Yes, but not as regularly as he had been. 8 Q Who is taking him to the therapy sessions? 9 A Kathy Fanelli, the mother. 10 Q In your professional opinion is Nicky doing 11 well in his t herapy with Dr. Doubrava? 12 A It sounds like it's been very successful for 13 him. 14 Q Does this addendum in any way change your 15 recommendation from the 90-day review? 16 A No. 17 Q And do you recommend that Nicky continue in 18 therapy with Dr. Doubrava? 19 A Yes, as needed. You know, I would have to 20 say Dr. Doubrava and the parents would know that at this 21 point. 22 Q And I would assume, based upon your prior 23 statement about the importance of involving both parents in 24 the therapy, it would be your position that both -- should 25 Dr. Doubrava want both parents, that both parents should be 55 1 involved in Nicky's therapy? 2 A Yes, and I should add that I think that Dr. 3 Doubrava also presented that Mr. Fanelli did feel 4 disappointed that his intent for the therapy had not been 5 provided, and I would say that that would need to be 6 resolved so that there could be a unified effort on behalf 7 of Nicky for sure. 8 Q How would you describe Nicky? 9 A How would I describe Nicky? 10 Q Um-hum. 11 A As a great kid, as articulate', as sensitive, 12 emotional. I would use the word internalizing. I think 13 it's a good word. Aware, perceptive, little bit 14 manipulative because his parents don't agreer athletic, fun, 15 exuberant, vivacious. I could think of a lot of words. 16 He's a great kid. He's a really great kid. Sad. 17 Q And has that changed from the first 18 evaluation that you did in '07 to now? 19 A He is showing more signs of being affected by 20 the ongoing conflict between his parents at the last time I 21 saw him. I cannot speak to today. I haven't -- 22 Q When was the last time you saw him? 23 A It would have been back in October of '08 24 apparently or sometime shortly before that. 25 Q What, if anything, do you see as Ms. 56 0 0 1 Fanelli's biggest short sight with regard to Nicky in the 2 course of your evaluation? 3 A In the update you mean? From the update on? 4 Q From the update on, yes. 5 A I think she minimized what her role needed to 6 be in structure, follow through. Really while not needing 7 to mimic Mr. Fanelli's style with schoolwork, finding a 8 style that effectively communicated to Nicky that indeed 9 follow through is what it is and necessary for schoolwork. 10 I think that's where she needed improvement. 11 Q And to your knowledge has she -- has there 12 been any change in that? 13 A Yes, and her therapy records even show that 14 that was set up as one of the goals. And, in addition, to 15 diminish her focus on conflict between trying to soothe the 16 conflict between her and Nick and place her focus on the 17 things she could control, improving schoolwork with Nicky, 18 improving the time she had with Nicky, etc. 19 Q What, if anything, do you see as Mr. 20 Fanelli's biggest short sight with regard to Nicky in your 21 evaluation? 22 A His lack of willingness to focus on the 23 possibility that his actions are not something to strictly 24 be justified but rather to be looked at out of Nicky's eyes. 25 You know, it's not that he can't determine that he's 57 0 0 1 righteously in the position he ought to be. It's 2 transmitting that to your child is still inappropriate. 3 Q Given Mr. Fanelli's concerns specifically 4 related to schoolwork, how in your professional opinion will 5 a five two two five help Nicky? 6 A I'm not sure about that. Connecting it to 7 Mr. Fanelli's concerns about schoolwork? 8 Q Um-hum. 9 A I don't believe -- it doesn't matter what the 10 schedule is, every other weekend for one parent, one night a 11 week, consistency with homework, responsibilities to 12 homework, responsibility to follow through is absolutely, 13 positively a value that we have to teach children. 14 Delayed gratification because of homework and 15 other responsibilities, whether it's a sports team that you 16 belong to, anything is an important aspect. Parents don't 17 have to agree on how they get there, but they have to be 18 going towards the same focus. 19 Q And are you seeing that more with these folks 20 now than you did in '07? 21 A I will say according to Dr. Doubrava she 22 believed that the greatest resolution occurred between the 23 parents about Nicky's health and his migraine headaches, 24 which we haven't mentioned here, but his homework and his 25 schoolwork, that they became more unified, that they were 58 0 0 1 less able to be successful when it came to determining what 2 kind of schedule was best for Nicky, that they did not do as 3 well there. 4 MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: That's all the 5 questions I have, Your Honor. 6 MS. SUMPLE-SULLIVAN: Your Honor, do you want 7 to take a break or shall I start? g THE COURT: Well, what are your plans with 9 regard to this witness? We can't go to 2:00 and have lunch. 10 That doesn't make any sense. The stenographer needs a 11 break, so tell me what your preferred time schedule is. 12 I'll be happy to take a break now but then what? 13 MS. SUMPLE-SULLIVAN: I probably have an 14 hour, at least, of cross. 15 THE COURT: Okay. I'm wondering whether it 16 wouldn't make more sense just to break now and come back 17 after say 1:00? 18 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I have a commitment 19 to be out of town in a location, and I have to be there by 20 five and it's Woodstock, New York. 21 THE COURT: Okay. We'll just take a brief 22 break and then we'll try to move the examination on as best 23 we can. 24 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 25 (Whereupon, a recess was taken at 11:45 a.m.) 59 0 0 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the proceedings are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the above cause and that this is a correct transcript of the same. a r r, nd Laura F. Handley Official Court Reporter The foregoing record of the proceedings on the hearing of the within matter is hereby approved and directed to be filed. Sir 'r I- z 6 * O Date Kev Hess, J. Cl? ?M co FLU l.i.. Li , U: F-. . +?) Lt_ cm C CJ 0 0 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY Defendant NO. 2005-5517 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR. Proceedings held before the HONORABLE KEVIN A. HESS, J. Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania on Friday, September 18, 2009, commencing at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom Number Four APPEARANCES: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire For the Plaintiff/Respondent Lindsay Gingrich Maclay, Esquire For the Defendant/Petitioner onicniu. 0 0 1 Whereupon, 2 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR. 3 having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 4 DIRECT EXAMINATION 5 BY MS. SUMPLE-SULLIVAN: 6 Q Can you state your full name? 7 A Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr. 8 Q And where do you reside, Mr. Fanelli? 9 A 1116 West Powderhorn Road, Mechanicsburg, PA. 10 Q And what is your age, sir? 11 A Fifty-two. 12 Q And how long have you been residing at the 13 1116 Powderhor n Road? 14 A 1996. 15 Q And who resides with you in that home? 16 A My son and my son's dog. 17 Q And what was the actual date of birth for 18 Nicky? 19 A 8/5/97. 20 Q And his mother is Kathleen Fanelli. Is that 21 correct? 22 A Correct. 23 Q And just again, just from a timeline 24 perspective, y ou guys were married in what year or what 25 date? 2 • • 1 A June 14th, 1996. 2 Q And you separated in? 3 A 2005, in the fall, whenever she left or 4 whatever. 5 Q And you were divorced? 6 A Finalized December '06. 7 Q A little bit about yourself. Are you 8 employed? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And who are you employed by? 11 A Employed by Mass Mutual and Wienken and 12 Associates out of Camp Hill. 13 Q And what do you do there? 14 A We do business and financial planning. 15 Q And how long have you been with that 16 employer? 17 A Been with that employer since August '02. 18 Q Do you -- what is your work schedule? 19 A I don't have a work schedule. Flexible, as 20 we already talked about, but usually I like to get in the 21 office in the morning, and I am home at 3:30 for Nick off 22 the bus. 23 Q And you have an education? 24 A Yes, York College, Bachelor's, Associate's. 25 Q And what year did you graduate from there? 3 0 • 1 A Seventy-nine. 2 Q Just a little bit about Nicky's schedule on a 3 regular basis. He goes to St. Joseph's. Is that correct? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q That is a Catholic school? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q And how long has he been in that Catholic 8 school? 9 A Been there since kindergarten. 10 Q And what is his bus schedule? 11 A His bus schedule from our house is 12 approximately 7 :15. He's picked up in the a.m. and he is 13 back, when he's at our house, at approximately 3:30. 14 Q And you are there for him? 15 A Every time. 16 Q And during the time period that -- or at 17 least '06, '07, and '08 were you assisting Mrs. Fanelli in 18 having after school care for Nicky? 19 A I was. 20 Q And could you describe for the Court how that 21 occurred? 22 A The after school care, if we needed to do 23 something, I pi cked him up and he came to our house until 24 Kathy was done with work and she either picked him up or I 25 dropped him back at her house. 4 1 Q Let me just talk a little bit about general 2 issues before we talk about how we got to where we are 3 today. What's your relationship like with Nicky? 4 A It's a father/son relationship. It's very 5 strong. It always has been. We're buddies. We do just 6 about everything together. We're very hands on. I helped 7 coach all his sports, all three or four different sports 8 that he's in, taken him to all activities, returned him from 9 all activities, and I've always been there in the event 10 Kathy was not available. 11 Q Now, there's been problems over, you know, 12 the years that have developed in regards to, you know, 13 sports equipment and running things to school, and again is 14 there a disorganization that you recognize in Kathy's home? 15 A It is very disorganized for any type of 16 pickup with any equipment, uniform, school supplies, school 17 work, clothing, hats, scarf. It's been tough. It's been a 18 bear. A lot of the e-mails that Kathy and I correspond 19 with, it never has seemed to stop. 20 Q Now, you guys separated in -- she moved out 21 in October of '05. Is that correct? 22 A Correct. 23 Q And there was a shared equal schedule 24 implemented. Is that correct? 25 A Correct. 5 0 0 l Q You filed a custody complaint immediately 2 upon Mrs. Fanelli leaving the home? 3 A Correct. 4 Q But you never went to a custody conciliation 5 until June of '07. Is that correct? 6 A That is correct. 7 Q And that was because why? Why didn't you get 8 into a conciliation prior to that? 9 A We tried working it out, and we did, and in 10 the beginning it was peaceful. It was also shocking. It 11 was also close to the holidays, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and 12 New Years, so until that point I think everything worked out 13 okay. 14 January of '06 there was some turmoil in Kathy's 15 house, and one of the issues was Kathy was in despair 16 finding out that she has a relationship with a married man. 17 Because it's my memory that Mrs. Graybill called Kathy and 18 said, You're having an affair with my husband. We have five 19 children. I'd like it to stop. That grounded Kathy big 20 time. And I was told of that from Kalene when I took Kalene 21 and my son out to dinner at Olive Garden. 22 Q So when this emotional upset happened to Mrs. 23 Fanelli, how did that impact her household in the beginning 24 of '06? 25 A Beginning of '06 after that happened I think 6 0 0 1 Kathy was very distraught. She came over to my house Super 2 Bowl Sunday with my Steelers looking for help, looking for 3 information on obtaining a job, and just very distraught. I 4 brought her in. We sat down. 5 She wasn't eating. She had no appetite. I could 6 specifically remember, and Kathy could verify this, I gave 7 her pistachios, just something to nourish her. She was a 8 wreck. That was February. 9 Q And did the situation resolve itself or did 10 it become more convoluted or more intense at that point? 11 A Well, I think it became very intense at that 12 point. I'm not sure exactly March or April, but I did 13 receive text messages from daughter Kalene telling me, I'm 14 coming over to your house tonight. I don't want to go to my 15 house with my mom. 16 I received another text message, Call that youth 17 service about my mom. She does not deserve -- she's not a 18 good mom to me or Nicky. I had a phone call, I believe it 19 was June or May, there was a fight in the house where Kalene 20 and Kathy were going at it so badly that Kathy grabbed the 21 cell phone, threw it to our son, Nick, who at the time was 22 eight, nine, and he ran into her Jeep and locked the door. 23 The other fight was so bad -- I was on the phone 24 with Kathy -- that I heard the pounding of the door. Kalene 25 was trying to get into Nick's locked bedroom because again 7 1 the fighting was so severe that -- the way you got back at 2 Kalene, at least in Kathy's eyes, you grab her cell phone. 3 And, yes, to take a cell phone off a thirteen or 4 fourteen year old is a tragedy. It was so bad I offered 5 Kathy, I said, Kathy, I will come over and get Nick to get 6 him out of here. My son was directly involved in this 7 hostile environment. 8 Q After -- so again then in June is when you 9 filed for the custody conciliation. Is that correct? 10 A In June? 11 Q Of '06, the first one. 12 A I think we started a mediation with Deb 13 Salem. We needed to talk about what's happening in her 14 household. I did not even know anything about evaluation, 15 so we started with Deb Salem trying to get our life in order 16 for our child, Nick. 17 Q And you heard Ms. Salem's testimony today 18 that she said this isn't a mediation case, that this would 19 be a custody evaluation case? 20 A Correct. We were with Ms. Salem two or three 21 times and then she said that this should go to an 22 evaluation. 23 Q Toward the end of that year, this is the time 24 period where Kalene went to live with her father. Is that 25 correct? 8 0 0 1 A David Besselman contacted me and told me 2 about the upheaval in Kathy's house. Dave Besselman owes me 3 nothing. I was never friendly with him because I always 4 took Kathy's side during the marriage. Dave Besselman gave 5 me supporting information there which you have a copy of. 6 Q And that's what's been marked as an exhibit? 7 A Correct. Where she signed off on Kalene, did 8 not want her there, and then there's also a couple other 9 things that were mentioned by David Besseeman, which were a 10 little shocking to me, that happened in the house where my 11 son was living. 12 Q What kind of things were those, sir? 13 MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: Your Honor, I'm going 14 to object again to the relevance of this. I thought we were 15 trying to look at Nicky and what's going on now. 16 THE COURT: I'll permit him some background. 17 Go ahead. 18 THE WITNESS: I think this is very relevant 19 because this is -- 20 THE COURT: I'll decide what's relevant, Mr. 21 Fanelli, and I've ruled in your favor. 22 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 23 THE COURT: Go ahead. 24 THE WITNESS: David Besselman also gave me 25 information about Kalene and an 18 year old that were 9 • • 1 involved, involved sexually. 2 BY MS. SUMPLE-SULLIVAN: 3 Q And, again, just from the perspective of the 4 point that -- you and Mrs. Fanelli had always had 5 disagreements about the structure and the discipline that 6 should be available for Kalene. Is that correct? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And you still have disagreements right now in 9 regards to the structure and the discipline that should be 10 available for Nick. Is that correct? 11 A Absolutely. It's the same age Nick is now 12 where we started -- Kathy and I started having problems with 13 Kalene. 14 Q So you have this conciliation. You get 15 through the mediation, you get through an evaluation, and 16 again when did Deb Salem issue her initial report? 17 A January 15th, '07. 18 Q In December of 2006, did you learn something 19 else that raised issue about the peacefulness of Mrs. 20 Fanelli's home? 21 A Yes, reading the Harrisburg Patriot-News 22 under police roundup, I saw the name of Robert E. Graybill, 23 Jr., and I knew I knew that name. Originally his name was 24 Bob Gray. When he met Kathy, he was going by the name of 25 Bob Gray. Then it was evident his name was Graybill, and 10 0 0 I immediately I was concerned with some type of harassment or 2 criminal act with him. 3 Q And at that time when you saw that in the 4 newspaper, w hat action did you take? 5 A I took direct action because I was getting 6 nothing from Kathy's house. 7 Q Any kind of explanation, is that what you 8 mean? 9 A There's never an explanation. It's none of 10 my business. It was nothing. It was all false reporting. 11 Okay. Well, I took one step further and I initiated contact 12 with Mrs. Gr aybill, introduced myself to her over the phone. 13 I said I'm a concerned parent. What's happening with your 14 husband? 15 Q And was that the time period when the first 16 Protection f rom Abuse action was -- order was entered 17 against Mr. Graybill? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Again, just from a timing perspective, was 20 Kathy then moving into her new home at that point? 21 A Kathy moved into her new home. January '07, 22 Kathy? 23 THE PETITIONER: That's false. 24 THE WITNESS: When was it? 25 THE PETITIONER: October. 11 0 0 I THE WITNESS: October. 2 THE PETITIONER: October will be three years. 3 BY MS. SUMPL E-SULLIVAN: 4 Q Well, again, from your recollection, was your 5 divorce concluded at this point? 6 A My divorce was done in '06. Correct. 7 Q And then in 107 Mrs. Fanelli moved into the 8 townhouse? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Did she move into the townhouse around the 11 time period that Deb Salem's report had come down? 12 A Yes, she did, exactly. 13 Q And what happened when Deb Salem's report 14 came down that indicated that primary custody should shift 15 to you? 16 A What happened in the report? 17 Q What happened with Mrs. Fanelli? 18 A When we got the report? 19 Q Yes. 20 A It's my understanding she went hysterical 21 with the report. My son contacted me and on the phone in 22 your office as we were reading the report he said, Mom said 23 you won and I'm not going to see her but only on the 24 weekend. 25 Q And was he upset? 12 • • 1 A He was upset. I was very upset. I said, 2 Honey, that's not how it is. You're going to see your mom. 3 Trust me. I will never lie to you. We will work it out. 4 Q And, again, based on the report, you and Mrs. 5 Fanelli were able to come to an agreed-upon custodial order. 6 Is that correct? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And that custodial order was filed as the 9 order of court of February 7, 2007? 10 A Correct. 11 Q After that order was entered, and part of 12 that order was that you were going to go to co-parenting 13 counseling, did you attend co-parenting counseling? 14 A Yes, we did. 15 Q And was that successful? 16 A No, it wasn't. 17 Q Would you explain for the Court what happened 18 during the co-parenting counseling? 19 A When we attended co-parenting counseling, 20 there were so many other issues that were happening, the 21 turmoil at the house, not returning things or Nick in proper 22 time, incidents that were happening, that it became -- we 23 could not go through parent -- you know, how to teach 24 parents to parent, these were issues that were obstructing 25 that and there were custody issues. 13 0 0 1 Q Now, again, are these some of the same issues 2 that were documented by Ms. Salem in her original report? 3 A Absolutely. 4 Q And, again, did you try to advise Mrs. 5 Fanelli to address these issues for the sake of Nick? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And what happened in June of 2007? 8 A June of 2007 I think we went to a 9 conciliator. 10 Q What caused you to file for the conciliator 11 in June of 2007? Were there issues concerning driving? 12 A April of '07 is when we had the driving 13 incident with Nick's friend. 14 Q And could you describe for the Court how and 15 what happened at that point? 16 A Contrary to the testimony you heard, they 17 entered my house, Nick and his friend Lentz, and Lentz's 18 face was lit up like he was in disbelief. I said, What's 19 happening with you? What's the matter? And he said, That 20 guy drove fast. Nick didn't say anything. I said, What do 21 you mean that guy drove fast. He was flying on that road 22 and then he was flying in that parking lot. He was really 23 going fast. 24 Q And was he -- was the child in a jolly mood 25 or -- 14 • 1 A He was in a shock mode. He was -- it was 2 like getting off a roller coaster. That's what he looked 3 like. 4 Q And did you then hear about the episode from 5 this child's parents? 6 A I called the child's parents and said, Could 7 you explain what Kevin is talking about, and I talked to 8 Mrs. Lentz. 9 Q And were they concerned about the episode? 10 A They were very concerned. They have a tough 11 kid. Mrs. Lentz said she drives fast. She has never scared 12 Kevin. Kevin was scared. 13 Q After that April driving episode, did you 14 also happen to determine or become aware of a second PFA 15 being entered against Mr. Graybill? 16 A I believe we did. 17 Q And do you know whether or not after hearing, 18 that Protection from Abuse issue was granted by the Court 19 after hearing? 20 A It was granted? 21 Q Was it to your understanding? 22 A I believe it was. 23 Q And, again, we have those orders that we 24 could put in as to the allegations and the entry of the 25 order. Let me just do that. 15 1 MS. SUMPLE-SULLIVAN: I'm going to mark the 2 original PFA which was entered in December as Respondent's 3 Exhibit 3. 4 (Whereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 was 5 marked for identification.) 6 MS. SUMPLE-SULLIVAN: I'm going to attach the 7 complaint and the final order of the PFA that was entered in 8 June of 2007. That will be Respondent's Exhibit 4. 9 (Whereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 4 was 10 marked for identification.) 11 BY MS. SUMPLE-SULLIVAN: 12 Q I'm going to show you these documents which 13 have been marked as Respondent's Exhibits 3 and 4 which 14 include the complaint and the Court's final order in regards 15 to these PFA's. When that final order was entered in June 16 2007, was that again what required you at that point or 17 requested to file a petition for modification in this case? 18 A Absolutely. 19 Q When we did -- we did have a conciliation at 20 that point with Attorney Gilroy. Is that correct? 21 A That's correct. 22 Q And what was your purpose in filing the 23 petition for modification? 24 A My purpose was to find out what's happening 25 with this behavior who my son is interacting with of an 16 0 • 1 individual and was also to find out about this driving 2 incident. It was also to find out why we can't -- Kathy and 3 I still can't seem to abide by this custody order. 4 Q And again when you say abide, these were the 5 -- let me call it the continuing issues about being late, 6 not being prepared, supervision issues that you had been 7 attempting to address prior to that time. Is that correct? 8 A Correct. 9 Q Now, at the custody conciliation did you 10 demand a hearing? 11 A No, I didn't demand a hearing. I demanded we 12 could work this out. I wanted Kathy and I to work this out. 13 Q And could you describe for the Court the 14 demeanor of Mrs. Fanelli at the conciliation? 15 A I believe at that conciliation she got fired 16 up. She was a little hostile. It's my recollection that 17 Attorney Gilroy asked her to control herself. I think by 18 the third warning he was going to stop our hearing because 19 of the control factor. 20 Q Now, to your knowledge at that point Mrs. 21 Fanelli wasn't on any kind of medication. Is that correct? 22 A I don't know what she was on in 2007. 23 Q Now, Attorney Gilroy worked with you to have 24 a subsequent conciliation ninety days later. Is that 25 correct? 17 0 0 1 A Correct. 2 Q And again was that -- did you demand a 3 hearing after that conciliation? 4 A No. 5 Q Did you address many of the same issues with 6 Mrs. Fanelli at that conciliation? 7 A Yes, we did. 8 Q And did you'-- were any of the them rectified 9 in that ninety days? 10 A Appears they were not. 11 Q What happened -- and again what happened 12 after that October conciliation? What did you decide you 13 were going to do? 14 A We were getting nowhere with the. 15 conciliations. Things were not changing. We still were 16 having many issues going against our custody order. I just 17 said the heck with it. I started doing what I had to do, 18 taking care of Nick, taking up for the shortcomings that I 19 thought were from Kathy without hassling her about those. 20 Shortcomings meaning I was running to school for 21 every little thing. I was picking up Nick from the bus stop 22 that's approximately a half a mile from her house in a 23 construction zone, and I was picking up Kalene with Nick. 24 Kalene has called me because she was cold, and she wasn't 25 dressed properly. 18 I So I was doing all that. It continued. Nothing 2 changed. I thought I would pick up the slack to see what 3 happens. This is my son. This is Kalene also. 4 Q And again into '07 at that point or, excuse 5 me, '07, how was the school and school involvement being 6 handled at that point? 7 A I've been involved with the school with every 8 teacher for Nick, e-mails, notes, conferences from the day 9 that Kathy left. Involvement still stayed that way. I 10 don't know of any involvement, to my recollection, of Kathy 11 being actively involved. 12 Q When you would, in fact, deal with the 13 school, did you actually have a fixed homework period that 14 you would work with Nicky? 15 A Yes, we did. We originally started our 16 homework period -- he comes home off the bus at 3:30. We 17 would do something half hour, fifteen minutes, half hour, 18 throw a football, hit the soccer ball in the backyard, 19 whatever, and then we started homework. We wanted to get 20 our homework done before dinner. 21 Q And when you say get our homework done, did 22 you sit with Nicky and work on work on his homework? 23 A Absolutely. 24 Q Did Nicky start to resent the fact that you 25 were working with him in that manner with his homework? 19 0 0 1 A Yes, he did. He just -- I just got the 2 feeling that it was not as structured when he did the 3 homework with his mother than it was here, and he did not, 4 you know, like that kind of structure which we were trying, 5 and he did show frustration with it, and we did talk about 6 it, yes. 7 Q And, again, you heard Mrs. Fanelli say that, 8 you know, she was involved in the homework. Was there 9 opportunities or times that you would actually see that 10 Kalene would have done the homework for Nicky and Mrs. 11 Fanelli would sign it? 12 A Kalene did some homework with Nick. She 13 helped out. Kalene actually signed her mother's name on an 14 occasion, too, that I saw. 15 Q But as far as filling in the answers on the 16 homework, were those done by Nicky or were those being done 17 by Kalene? To your knowledge, not on every one, but on 18 many? 19 A There were a few that I did not think they 20 were Nick's answers, a few. 21 Q Now, again, the protocol or the schooling at 22 St. Joe's has Friday as an extensive test day. Is that 23 correct? 24 A The majority of Nick's tests are on Friday 25 mornings. 20 0 0 1 Q And when Nicky would come home from his 2 mother's, did you work with him on those nights to help him 3 get ready for the next day of school? 4 A I did. As Kathy stated, our television show 5 came on at 9:00. When he was there on time at 8:30, we did 6 then start doing just a little brush up review of what he 7 did with his mom, which was fine, non-threatening. Nick 8 knew the program. He knew that our hour started at 9:00. 9 It was not a problem. 10 Fridays -- every Friday morning Nick and I did 11 prepare every spelling test that he had, and I could tell 12 when Nick studied with his mother that evening because the 13 next morning he was getting 20, 22 out of 25 on his spelling 14 test; but then there also were mornings when he was getting 15 16 out of 25 before we got on the bus, and I knew we weren't 16 spelling. 17 And then what happened, a lot of those test 18 results, which I did submit to Deb Salem, came back not 19 good. Not all of them. I mean no parent is perfect. This 20 is not personal on Kathy, but I'm telling you a lot of his 21 tests are Friday mornings. But I did review with him Friday 22 mornings to help Kathy out but more importantly to help Nick 23 out for the test on Friday. 24 Q And again from helping Kathy with her 25 obligations during this time period, was she -- did she -- 21 0 0 1 was she grateful? Did she expect it? What was her demeanor 2 towards you? 3 A I don't think she's ever grateful. She 4 probably did expect it, but she wouldn't have any concern 5 about it. She just expected me to pick up the slack. 6 Q How did that impact you, you know, on a 7 personal level and on a financial level of being the before 8 and after school type of care person? 9 A My income in 2007 came down significantly. 10 Now, I was aware that this would happen, and I'm aware it's 11 going to happen for a couple more years because I took the 12 responsibility of being the primary custodian for Nick, so I 13 knew it was going to be temporary. I knew my income will be 14 down because I have to be there by 3, 3:30 every day, and my 15 income was down significantly. 16 Q And at the time period from '05 to this -- 17 April of '08 approximately -- had Mrs. Fanelli ever given 18 you any money toward support of Nicky? 19 A No, not a dime. In fact, I reimbursed Kathy, 20 Mrs. Fanelli, for anything she asked for if she bought it 21 for Nick. We've always made the deal, which she could 22 verify also, that if -- she's a great shopper. I'm not. 23 She's great with clothing. I'm not. Buy whatever you have 24 to do for Nick, Kathy, and I will reimburse you. 25 But what started to get a little frustrating is on 22 • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 her custodial weekends, my son would call me, Dad, I need $10.00. We're going here. Dad, can I have $20.00. Dad, I have to get into my Christmas money, my birthday money that his grandmother gave him because mom is taking us here. I need some money. We're going to downtown Harrisburg, the big arena down there. It just kept happening, and I said, Kathy, it's got to stop. You have to be able to do something with your custodial weekends. Q And, again, did you lose your health insurance at the time of -- the beginning of January of '08? A Correct. I went from full-time employment to part-time employment and in my business that's basically because of lack of production. What that did was I lost my group health insurance and I lost my retirement benefits. Q And at that time period you have a significant out-of-pocket co-pay now for your health insurance? A Yes, I do. Q And your son is in a private school. Is that correct? A Yes, he is. Q And who pays that tuition? A I pay it. Q All right. Now, prior to April of '08, when you -- you eventually filed for support. Is,that correct? 23 0 0 I A Yes. 2 Q And prior to 108, at any time had Mrs. 3 Fanelli stated to you that she wanted to review the custody 4 order or the arrangements or the schedule or, you know, take 5 the restriction out about Kalene. Was there ever any talk 6 from her to you about the existing not working? 7 A There was talk, but it was nothing about the 8 existing order not working. The talk was me asking her if 9 she could help out a little in getting Nick maybe on health 10 insurance at her employer, maybe helping out. 11 Q But I'm talking about the custody order. Was 12 that ever debated or questioned or had any question from -- 13 A It was never debated or questioned. 14 Q Now, pursuant to Deb Salem's initial report, 15 she had the right to do that from November of 2007. Is that 16 correct? 17 A Correct. 18 THE COURT: This is, I think, probably a 19 convenient breaking point chronologically, and we need to 20 stop the testimony today. I'll talk to Nick, and we'll 21 resume when we're together then next with Mr. Fanelli's 22 direct, so you can pick up. 23 MS. SUMPLE-SULLIVAN: Thank you. 24 MS. GINGRICH MACLAY: Your Honor, in addition 25 to Ms. Salem's transcript then, may I get a copy of this 24 0 0 1 transcript of Mr. Fanelli? 2 THE COURT: Yes. We will make it available 3 to both counsel. Let me talk to Nick. I don't think there 4 will be a need to reconvene in the courtroom this afternoon. 5 We will just discuss scheduling with counsel after we've 6 talked to Nick. Let's take a brief break. Thank you, Mr. 7 Fanelli. 8 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 9 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the proceedings are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the above cause and that this is a correct transcript of the same. 4? I A r4 r,, nd I Laura F. Handley Official Court Reporter The foregoing record of the proceedings on the hearing of the within matter is hereby approved and directed to be filed. .! ? h z s 7.x.0 r Date Kevi A. Hess, J. ?,?,. f?'!' ..?.. ?. ' „? .,, - L?JUJ ?.. , ... .. I i__ Lr L.i'r ?'r. ._. t? L . ?. .. _.. DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-5517 CIVIL KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, : Defendant ORDER AND NOW, this 3c>` day of September, 2009, continued hearing in the above- captioned matter is set for Thursday, October 22, 2009, at 9:15 a.m., and Thursday, November 19, 2009, at 9:15 a.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA. BY THE COURT, ,?Xa'trbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire For the Plaintiff o,rindsay Gingrich Maclay, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm Kev' A. Hess, J. ? 0q 0?/ OF 7HE PA 7`NA( SEP 30 AM i I = S4 PENNSYIA4A Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant NO. 2005-5517 STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CUSTODY ORDER THIS STIPULATION is made this 21 day of October, 2009, by and between Dominic C. Fanelli, Jr., (hereinafter referred to as "Father") an adult individual residing at 1116 W. Powderhorn Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, and Kathleen M. Fanelli, (hereinafter referred to as "Mother") an adult individual residing at 5235 Winthrop Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Court Orders dated February 7, 2007 and June 20, 2008, have been entered in this matter regarding the parties' custodial arrangement for their son, Dominic C. Fanelli (D.O.B.: August 5, 1997); WHEREAS, Mother had filed a Petition to Modify these Orders on April 30, 2009 and a hearing had been held on September 18, 2009 with further hearings scheduled for October 22, 2009 and November 19, 2009; and WHEREAS, after much consideration and with the child's emotional well being, being of primary concern to Father, Father is willing to return to a shared equal physical custodial agreement with Mother subject to the conditions of this Stipulation. This agreement by Father is specifically predicated upon Father's current observation and belief that matters seem to have presently stabilized in Mother's life and home and his hope that same will continue. NOW THEREFORE, the parties intending to be legally bound do agree as follows: 1. All prior Orders entered in this action are vacated. 2. The Whereas clauses set forth above are incorporated as materials terms of this Stipulation. 3. Legal Custody: The parties shall share legal custody of their child. Major decisions concerning the child, including, but not limited to, the child's health, welfare, education, religious training and upbringing shall be made by them jointly, after discussion and consultation with each other, with a view toward obtaining and following a harmonious policy in the child's best interest. Each party agrees not to impair the other party's rights to shared legal custody of the child. Each party agrees not to attempt to alienate the affections of the child from the other party. Each party shall notify the other of any activity or circumstance concerning their child that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to the other. Day to day decisions shall be the responsibility of the party then having physical custody. With regard to any emergency decisions which must be made, the party having physical custody of the child at the time of the emergency shall be permitted to make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby. However, that party shall inform the other of the emergency and consult with him or her as soon as possible. Each party shall be entitled to complete and full information from any doctor, dentist, teacher, professional or authority and to have copies of any reports given to either party as a parent pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. 5309. 4. Parenting Goals: Each parent pledges that he or she shall work with the child to be respective, truthful, and diligent about his school work and 2 communicate to the other any inappropriate behavior by him so correction can occur in both homes. 5. Physical Custody: A. Year Long Custodial Schedule: 1) The parties shall share equally physical custody of their child on the following schedule. 2) Each party shall have alternating weekends from Friday after school (if school is in session) and if not, from 5:00 p.m. on Friday until Monday morning directly to school or if no school, until Monday at 5:00 p.m. 3) Mother shall have the period of Monday through Wednesday each week. This period shall be defined as from Monday after school (if school is in session) and if not at 5:00 p.m. until Wednesday after school (if school is in session) and if not, until 5:00 p.m. 4) Father shall have the period of Wednesday through Friday each week. This period shall be defined as from Wednesday after school (if school is in session) and if not at 5:00 p.m. until Friday after school (if school is in session) and if not, until 5:00 p.m. B. Holidays: 1) Easter: Easter shall be divided into two segments. Segment A shall be defined as 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. and Segment B shall be defined as 3:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. Father shall have Segment A each year and Mother shall have segment B each year. 2) Memorial Day, July 41h, Labor Day: The parties shall alternate the holidays of Memorial Day, July 4th and Labor Day. In even years, Father shall have Memorial Day and Labor Day and Mother shall have July 41h. In odd years, Mother shall have Memorial Day and Labor Day and Father shall have July 4`h. These holidays shall be defined as 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. 3 3) Thanksgiving: Thanksgiving shall be divided into two segments. Father shall have the first segment of Thanksgiving each year which shall be defined as Wednesday from after release of school until Thanksgiving Day at 4:00 p.m. Mother shall have each Thanksgiving Day from 4:00 p.m. until Friday when the regular weekend exchange shall occur. 4) Christmas: Each year, the Christmas holiday shall be divided as follows: a) Father shall have the child from 9:00 a.m. on Christmas Eve until following the Children's Mass at the child's parish; b) Mother shall have the child from after the Children's Mass at the child's parish until: i. In even years, until 10:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve. ii. In odd years, until 10:00 a.m. on Christmas Day. c) In even years, Father shall have the child from 10:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve through 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Day. In odd years, Father shall have the child from 10:00 a.m. on Christmas Day until 10:00 p.m. d) In even years, Mother shall have the child from 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Day until 10:00 p.m. Holidays shall take precedence over the regular schedule. C Summer Vacation: Mother and Father shall each have two (2) non-consecutive weeks of summer vacation. Each party shall provide the other with written notice of his or her choice of weeks sixty (60) days in advance of the actual time of the vacation. 6. Continued Therapeutic Intervention: As a condition of this Stipulation, Mother and her present live in companion, Robert Graybill, shall continue with their respective psychological treatments and comply with all medical regiments indicated by his or her treating physicians. Father and child will also follow the recommendations of any therapist, including Riegler and Shienvold, which might be secured in the future pursuant to Paragraph 8. 7. Reporting of Inappropriate Behavior or Events which may Negatively Impact the child: In order to build trust between the parties, each party agrees to self report to the other parent any occurrence of interest which may occur in his or her household that may negatively impact Nicky through the behaviors of adults (or children) in either parties' home. 8. Cessation of Counseling for the Child: In order to allow the child an opportunity to experience the new schedule and the households to return to normalcy, the parties shall cease counseling for the child. No party will seek further counseling for the child until after January 1, 2010, except that Mother, at her cost, shall have the right to take the child to the next counseling appointment available at the current therapist's office. Father shall allow Mother additional custodial time for this purpose if that available appointment is during his custodial period. It is requested by both parties that the visit with that therapist be completed in an affirmative posture stressing the beneficial resolution to the child by mutual agreement to terminate the custodial dispute. The only exception for additional therapeutic intervention prior to January 1, 2010 is if the recommendation comes from the child's school or his pediatrician. After January 1, 2010, if either party thinks that the child needs psychological assistance, an independent "second" opinion will be secured throughout the Offices of Riegler and Shienvold to determine the necessity of actual professional intervention. If Riegler and Shienvold requires releases to formulate this second opinion, all parties shall cooperate to sign the requested releases. 9. Demeanor: The parties will agree to be civil to the other and the other's significant other or family members in public, in the presence of Nicky, and at any exchanges of personal property. However, except for causal contact as described heretofore in this paragraph, it is agreed that Mother's significant other, Robert Graybill, shall make no direct communication to Father by phone or otherwise. 10. Communications between the Parties and with the child: All communication between the parties shall be by e-mail. Both parties shall provide to the other within forty-eight (48) hours of execution of this 5 Agreement notice of a work and a home e-mail address and agrees to keep both addresses in good operating order. Each party shall immediately provide the other with any change in address. Phone contact between the parties will only occur in the event of emergency related to the child. Both parties shall encourage the child to call the non-custodial parent during his or her custodial times. 11. Transportation: The party whose period of custody is commencing is responsible for transporting the child. 12. Right of First Refusal: The right of first refusal to care for the child is provided to the non-custodial parent when the custodial parent is unavailable for two or more hours. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto acknowledge that they are entering in to this Agreement with the full knowledge that this Agreement shall be entered as a court order with the same force and effect as if a full hearing on this matter has been held. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF: WITNE Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire l Dominic C. Fanel i dsay i ri Maclay squire Kathleen M. Fanelli 6 OF THE. PROTHONCTAPY 2009 OCT 27 PM 3: 00 Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire OCT 2 7 2009 Supreme Court #32317 549 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 774-1445 DOMINIC C. FANELLI, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. KATHLEEN M. FANELLI, Defendant CIVIL. ACTION - CUSTODY NO. 2005-5517 ORDER ADOPTING STIPULATION OF PARTIES AND NOW, to wit, this 21, day of 6eAw6-- , 2009, upon consideration of the Stipulation for Custody dated October 21, 2009 and on motion of Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, Dominic C. Fanelli, and Lindsay Gingrich Maclay, Esquire, counsel for Defendant, Kathleen M. Fanelli, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the terms, conditions and provisions of the attached Stipulation for Custody are adopted as an Order of Court. BY THE COURT, Kevin . Hess, Judge `f OF Pr^.n7u FHCE -Nr ARy 2009 OCT 29 AM 10: 02 CUB i , ".-J NTY iPENI 14SYLVANIA C4 9 7(? {4 ..t