HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-6722JASON E. BARTLETT,
Plaintiff
V.
BRENDA L. BARTLETT,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. D S- (orlcl?, l-iv.C?cI2Y?L
: CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
NOTICE
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set
forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint
and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in
writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are
warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered
against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for
any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other
rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW.
THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION A130UT HIRING LAWYER.
IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE
TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER
LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.
Cumberland County Bar Association
Lawyer Referral Service
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
800-990-9108
JASON E. BARTLETT,
Plaintiff
V.
BRENDA L. BARTLETT,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO.
: CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
AVISO
USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las
demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de
los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando
personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por
escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra soya. Se le
advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede
proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier
otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por ]a
Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos
importantes para usted.
USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO
INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA
SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA
DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO.
SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES
POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE
AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A
PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN.
Cumberland County Bar Association
Lawyer Referral Service
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
800-990-9108
JASON E. BARTLETT, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. NO. CG - V1 a ? l l v L??riz
BRENDA L. BARTLETT, CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
Defendant
COMPLAINT FOR CUSTODY;
1. The Plaintiff is Jason E. Bartlett, residing at 5715 Aspen Lane, Enola,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. The Defendant is Brenda L. Bartlett, residing at 6128 Wallingford Way,
Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. The Plaintiff seeks equal custody and visitation of the following child:
NAME PRESENT RESIDENCE AGE
Madison Skyler 6128 Wallingford Way, 1 year
Bartlett Mechanicsburg, PA
The child was not born out of wedlock.
The child is presently in the custody of Brenda L. Bartlestt, who resides at 6128
Wallingford Way, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
During the past five (5) years, the children had resided with the following persons
and at the following addresses:
(LIST ALL PERSONS)
(LIST ALL ADDRESSES)
(DATES)
Jason E. Bartlett and
Brenda L. Bartlett
5715 Aspen Lane,
Enola, PA
May 26,2004 through
August 2005
Brenda L. Bartlett and August 2005 through
Trish Thompson Harrisburg, PA November 2005 (part time)
Brenda L. Bartlett and August 2005 through
significant other Palmyra, PA November 2005 (part time)
Brenda L. Bartlett
6128 Wallingford Way
Mechanicsburg, PA
November 2005 through
present
Jason E. Bartlett 5715 Aspen Lane August 2005 through present
Enola, PA (part time)
The mother of the child is Brenda L. Bartlett, currently residing at 6128
Wallingford Way, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. She is married.
The father of the child is Jason E. Bartlett, currently residing at 5715 Aspen Lane,
Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. He is married.
4. The relationship of Plaintiff to the child is father. The Plaintiff currently resides
with the following persons:
NAME RELATIONSHIP
n/a n/a
5. The relationship of Defendant to the child is that of mother. The Defendant
currently resides with the following persons:
NAME RELATIONSHIP
n/a n/a
6. Plaintiff has not participated as a party or witness, or in another capacity, in other
litigation concerning the custody of this child in this or another Court.
Plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concerning the child pending
in a Court of this Commonwealth.
2
Plaintiff does not know of a person not a party to these proceedings who has
physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the
child.
7. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child will be served by granting the
relief requested because the Plaintiff has been a caretaker of the child since her birth, can provide
a stable, safe, and secure environment and can provide for the child's emotional, psychological
and spiritual needs. Further, the child views the Plaintiff as a source of stability, a source of
love, and a source of emotional support.
8. Since the separation of the parties, Plaintiff has exercised partial custody as
follows:
a. Week 1:
Weekdays:
Tuesday evenings through Wednesday mornings when
Plaintiff delivers the child to her school.
2. Thursday evenings through Friday mornings when Plaintiff
delivers the child to her school.
ii. Weekends:
Beginning Saturday mornings at 11:30 a.m. through Sunday night
at 6:00 p.m. when Defendant retrieves the minor child.
b. Week 2:
i. Weekdays:
3
1. Tuesday evenings through Wednesday mornings when
Plaintiff delivers the child to her school.
2. Friday evenings through Saturday morning at 9:30 a.m.
when Defendant retrieves the minor child.
9. Each parent whose parental rights to the children have not been terminated and
the person who has physical custody of the children have been named as parties to this action.
All other persons, named below, who are known to have or claim a right to custody or visitation
of the child has been given notice of the pendency of this action and the right to intervene:
None.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court to grant shared legal custody and equal
physical custody of the child to the Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
Dated: December 1, 2005
F.AHOME?AHE W IT'IIDOCS\A-C\HARTLETIICOSTODYACOMPLAIN. WPD
4
2320 North Second Street
P. O. Box 60,157
Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457
Telephone: ('717) 238-6570
(Attorneys for Plaintiff)
VERIFICATION
The undersigned, Jason E. Barlett, Plaintiff, verifies that the statements contained
in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge:, information and belief.
I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
C.S.A. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
Jason E. Bartlett
Dated: Oereen.7{r .21 1 1005
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby state that on the 26`h day of December, 2005, I served a true and correct copy
of the foregoing in the captioned matter, by United States mail, addressed to:
Darren J. Holst, Esquire
130 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108
A a L. Hewitt
Legal Secretary
"69.
? ?y?`?'
V('` ?I
^?_ v
"„'? ? V
^_
C7 ? ??
C-". ? -a
G? "?? ""
.. .-:?? ini=
N ?', , -,
? 'c` ??'?
??, ? _>
':. ;.
C?J ,
Lff ;t
4=i
JASON E. BARTLETT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
BRENDA L. BARTLETT
DEFENDANT
05-6722 CIVIL ACTION LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, Tuesday, January 03, 2006 upon consideration of the attached Complaint,
it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Melissa P. Greevy, Esq. the conciliator,
at MDJ Manlove's,1901 State St., Camp Hill, PA 17011 on Thursday, February 09, 2006 at 1:00 PM
for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or
if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary
order. All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may
provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order.
The court hereby directs the parties to 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/ Melissa P. Greevy -8s
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
7Y:3?f `7 ? QF -771'?-, lt, lc)-j-
1V
1, 0 :11 ! c,._ 9!Vr y10 'L
n 3Hi :]J
IAn? ? Cbl,o
JASON E. BARTLETT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF C(
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIADD
Plaintiff
V.
BRENDA L. BARTLETT,
Defendant
GUIDO, J.---
NO. 05-6722 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
INTERIM ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this a_ day of Fe? , 2006, upon consideration
of the attached Custody Conciliation Summary Report, it is hereby ordered and directed as
follows:
1. Legal Custody. The parties, Jason E. Bartlett and Brenda L. Bartlett shall
have shared legal custody of the minor child, Madison Skyler Bartlett, born May 26, 2004.
Each parent shall have an equal right, to be exercised jointly with the other parent, to make
all major non-emergency decisions affecting the child's general well-being including, but not
limited to, all decisions regarding her health, education and religion, Pursuant to the terms
of 23 Pa. C. S. §5309, each parent shall be entitled to all records and information pertaining
to the child including, but not limited to, medical, dental, religious or school records, the
residence address of the child and of the other parent. To the extent one parent has
possession of any such records or information, that parent shall be required to share the
same, or copies thereof, with the other parent within such reasonable time as to make the
records and information of reasonable use to the other parent.
2. Physical Custody. Pending further Order of Court or signed Agreement of the
parties, the parties shall return to the use of the physical custody schedule outlined in the
Marital Settlement Agreement.
3. At Mother's expense, Father will participate in a chemical dependency
evaluation to establish the status of his recovery program and sobriety.
4. A hearing is _1cheduled in Cogrtrloom Numper J or the uumoenana Lounty
?Qurthouse, on the 37 day of f j ^ , 2006, at Sr 3 0 o'clock
I? .M., at which time testimony will be taken. For the purposes of the hearing, the Father,
Jason E. Bartlett, shall be deemed to be the moving party and shall proceed initially with
NO. 05-6722 CIVIL TERM
testimony. Counsel for the parties or the parties pro se shall file with the Court and
opposing counsel/party a memorandum setting forth each party's position on custody, a list
of witnesses who are expected to testify at the hearing, and a summary of the anticipated
testimony of each witness. These memoranda shall be filed at least ten days prior to the
hearing date.
BY THE
Edward E. Guido, J.
Dist: Darren J. Holst, Esquire, 130 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 810, Harrisburg, PA 17108 ryi .«Q?.? -2- 63 DS-
Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire, 2320 North Second Street, P.O. Box 60457, Harrisburg, A 17106
IJOO
10 .0i "V £- OA NCZ
R?
JASON E. BARTLETT
V.
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS%F
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 05-6722 CIVIL TERM
BRENDA L. BARTLETT,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY
CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
1. The pertinent information concerning the child who is the subject of this
litigation is as follows:
NAME DATE OF BIRTH
Madison Skyler Bartlett May 26, 2004
CURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF
Mother
2. Father filed a Complaint for Custody on December 27, 2005. A Custody
Conciliation Conference was scheduled for January 18, 2006. Attending the Conciliation
Conference were: the Father, Jason E. Bartlett, and his counsel, Jordan D. Cunningham,
Esquire; the Mother, Brenda L. Bartlett, and her counsel, Darren J. Holst, Esquire.
3. Father's position on custody is as follows: The parties separated in August of
2005. At the time of their separation, the Marital Settlement Agreement included a custody
plan which included periods of partial custody on Tuesday evening each week, Thursday
evening on alternate weeks and one overnight on either Friday or Saturday each week. As
a result of Father's request, Mother agreed to try expanding Tuesday evening periods of
custody to an overnight period of custody. According to Father, this began September 25,
2005 until December 20, 2005. The schedule in the parties agreement was not modified in
writing. Father reports that at that time Mother wanted to discontinue the Tuesday overnight
periods of custody. After consulting with his attorney, Father decided that he would
continue to keep the child overnight despite Mother's objection. In Father's Complaint for
Custody, he seeks shared legal custody and equal physical custody with Mother. In
response to Mother's allegation regarding Father's chemical dependency problems, Father
acknowledges that, prior to the marriage, he had two DUls which were known to Mother
when the couple married. He further acknowledges that he spent seven (7) days in rehab in
February of 2005 and is presently attending AA meetings four (4) times per week. Father
denies that he is continuing to use alcohol. Father also denies misuse of Robitussin.
Father requests a schedule that would provide no contact between he and Mother at the
NO. 05-6722 CIVIL TERM
time of custodial exchanges. He proposed either a week on/week off schedule with the
child being in the non-custodial parent's custody on Wednesdays or a two week alternating
schedule during week one when he would have custody on Monday, Wednesday and
Friday and in week two custody would be on Tuesday, Thursday and the weekend.
4. Mother's position on custody is as follows: Mother reports that the parties had
agreed to a trial modification of the schedule set forth in the Martial Settlement Agreement.
She reports that Father began to exercise Tuesday evening overnight periods of custody on
alternating weeks in October of 2005. Because of Mother's ongoing concern about Father's
alcoholism and loss of abstinence, she objects to his request to expand his periods of
custody to an equally shared arrangement. She reports that she saw several empty bottles
of Robitussin and saw Father with an unsteady gait in August or September of 2005 and
that these observations have lead to her concern about whether Father may not be
remaining abstinent and may therefore not be in a position to assume the responsibility of
shared physical custody of the parties' not yet two (2) year old daughter. Mother reports
that part of the basis for her objection to the increase in custody, as a result of Father
having Tuesday's overnight, was that staff at the daycare had indicated to her that the child
had become more irritable after they changed the schedule. Mother also reports that she
has offered Father additional custodial time beyond the schedule set forth in the Marital
Settlement Agreement and that he has taken those opportunities when offered.
5. The parties agreed that at Mother's request and Mother's expense Father
would participate in a chemical dependency evaluation and that the parties would be in
need of a hearing for purposes of establishing the physical custody schedule. The parents
discussed 'Father's desire to have the child baptized. The parties agreed to participate in
classes together for that purpose. The Conciliator's recommended Interim Order is
attached.
61Q h?
Date
Melissa Peel Greevy, ¢'squire
Custody Conciliator /
:267586
JASON E. BARTLETT, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
V.
NO. 05-6722 CIVIL TERM
BRENDA L. BARTLETT, CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
Defendant .
JOINT PETITION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATE
AND NOW, comes your Plaintiff, Jason E. Bartlett, by and through his counsel,
Cunningham & Chernicoff, P.C., and your Defendant, Brenda L. Bartlett, by and through her
counsel, Howett, Kissinger, Conley & Holst, P.C., who file this Joint Petition to Continue the
Scheduled Hearing in this matter and in support thereof avers the following:
On or about February 2, 2006, the Honorable Edward Guido set a hearing in the
above captioned matter for February 27, 2006.
2. Subsequent to the custody conciliation, the parties agreed to have a custody
evaluation performed by Debra Salem.
3. Debra Salem began the process of the custody evaluation and has scheduled
conferences with counsel's respective clients.
4. On February 8, 2006, counsel received notice from Debra Salem that she could
not complete the custody evaluation until late April of 2006. A true and correct copy is attached
as Exhibit "P-1."
The parties are of the belief that the best interest of the child will be served by Ms.
Salem's completion of her custody evaluation and the sharing of the custody evaluation with the
Court.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant jointly request this honorable Court to continue
the hearing now scheduled for February 27, 2006 until the week of May 22, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
CIJNNINGHAM-A
Dated: February /,, 2006 By:
, P.C.
Esquire
23
'PAJ,.,D.,Xo. 23144
2320 orth Second Street
P.O. Box 60457
Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457
(717) 238-6570
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jason E. Bartlett
HOWETT, KISSINGER, CONLEY &
HOLST, P.C.
Dated: February ?t, 2006 By: I/f
Darren J. olst, Esquire
130 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0810
(717) 234-2616
Attorneys for Defendant, Brenda L. Bartlett
F:UiOMEAAHEWI'r71DOCSVA-CABARTLETTCUSTODYVCONTINUE.WPD
2
Exhibit "P4"
INTL4-QVCRK5
w
Ilk
rT
Le
a
IQ,
4M
3
,-k?-
DATE: 02-08-06
Clinical Director
Deborah L. Salem, CAC, L PC
Associates
Anthea L. Stebbins, L SW
4335 North Front St Harrisburg PA 17110
Tel 717-236-6630 Fax 717-236-6677
TO: Jordan Cunningham;tS*.
Darren Holst, Esq.
FROM: Deborah L. Salem, LPC
RE: Bartlett v Bartlett
As per a phone request from Attorney Holst, you are in need of a timeline for my
completion of the custody evaluation for your above referenced clients. To date, I had an
initial session with Brenda and will not meet Jason for the first time until 02-15-06. If all
moves forward in my usual scheduling format, I will be done with the face to face
interviews by mid-late April (this includes the home studies) and will be ready to dictate
the report and have it transcribed. You are likely, again if all scheduling goes well, to see
a completed report by late April or early May, 2006.
0
I hope this helps you plan for future scheduling with your clients. Please call with
questions. Also, I would appreciate the two of you forwarding to me for my review any
court orders, conference summaries, and petitions filed in this case. Thank you.
dh
1S
a&
hays 1 0Q 1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby state that on the day of February, 2006, I served a true and correct copy of
the foregoing in the captioned matter, by United States mail, addressed to:
Darren J. Holst, Esquire
130 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Angela L. Hewitt
Legal Secretary
?.i
_.?
... -1
?-5
,',
t }
?:;
J as
JASON E. BARTLETT,
Plaintiff
V.
BRENDA L. BARTLETT,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO.09-
CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW, thijoday of February, 2006, upon review of the annexed Joint Petition
for Continuance of Hearing Date and upon the Motion of Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire,
counsel for Plaintiff and Darren J. Holst, Esquire, counsel for Defendant, it is hereby ORDERED
that the hearing scheduled for February 27, 2006 in the above captioned matter is continued. The
hearing is now scheduled to be held on 2006 atjr.30 o'clock .m., in
Courtroom No.,L of the Cumberland County ' Pennsylvania.
B`
J.
?-' ?.:.
?, fir-,`,
Darren J. Holst, Esquire
Howett, Kissinger, Conley & Holst, P.C.
130 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Telephone: (717) 234-2616
Counsel for Defendant, Brenda L. Bartlett
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JASON E. BARTLETT,
Plaintiff ) NO. 05-6722
V. )
BRENDA L. BARTLETT, ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant ) CUSTODY/VISITATION
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
AND NOW, comes Defendant, Brenda L. Bartlett, by and through her counsel, Howett,
Kissinger, Conley & Holst, P.C., who, with the concurrence of Plaintiff, Jason E. Bartlett, by and
through his counsel, Cunningham & Chemicoff, P.C., files this Motion for Continuance and in
support thereof avers as follows:
On or about February 2, 2006, the Honorable Edward Guido set a hearing
in the above-captioned custody action for February 27, 2006.
2. Subsequent to the custody conciliation, the parties agreed to have a
custody evaluation performed by Deborah Salem.
Ms. Salem is in the process of performing her custody evaluation, and on
February 8, 2006, counsel received notice from Ms. Salem that she would not have a completed
custody evaluation report until late April or early May 2006. A copy of Ms. Salem's letter is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated herein by reference thereto.
4. In light of said information, on February 21, 2006 the attorneys submitted
a Joint Petition for Continuance, seeking to have the custody hearing rescheduled in the latter
part of May to ensure that a completed evaluation report would be available. A copy of said
Joint Petition for Continuance is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and is incorporated herein by
reference thereto.
By order dated February 23, 2006, Judge Guido rescheduled the custody
hearing for May 22, 2006 at 8:30 a.m.
6. Counsel for Defendant is scheduled to be a presenter in an all day
continuing legal education seminar entitled "A Family of Laws for Family Lawyers," which will
be presented at the PBI Headquarters in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.
In light of said conflict, counsel for Defendant contacted Plaintiff's
counsel to inquire whether counsel would agree to a further continuance. A copy of counsel's
concurrence, evidenced by the attached joinder, is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and is
incorporated herein by reference thereto.
8. Counsel for Defendant contacted Judge Guido's chambers on February 28,
2006 to advise of the conflict, and Judge Guido's chambers advises that His Honor has two half
days available in the afternoon of both Wednesday, May 24`h and Thursday, May 25`h, which
would be sufficient to accommodate the one full day expected for hearing.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court continue the
hearing now scheduled for May 22, 2006 until May 24'h and May 25`", 2006.
Date: 3 lb L
Respectfully submitted,
Darren J. Ho t, Esquire
Howett, Kissinger, Conley & Holst, P.C.
130 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Telephone: (717) 234-2616
Counsel for Defendant, Brenda L. Bartlett
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JASON E. BARTLETT,
Plaintiff ) NO. 05-6722
V. )
BRENDA L. BARTLETT, ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant ) CUSTODY/VISITATION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Darren J. Holst, Esquire, counsel for Brenda L. Bartlett, Defendant in the above-
captioned action, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for
Continuance was served upon Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire, counsel for Jason E. Bartlett,
Plaintiff, by depositing same in the United States mail, first class, on March 9, 2006,
addressed as follows:
Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire
CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C.
2320 North Second Street
P.O. Box 60457
Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457
Date: 31004
Darren J. HdIst, Esquire
Howett, Kissinger, Conley & Holst, P.C.
130 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Telephone: 717-234-2616
Counsel for Defendant, Brenda L. Bartlett
// ????
I?x ?y
,TN T?YY0KK5 Clinical ^n, CAC, rector
11?.1 Deborah L. S. n, CAC, L PC
Associates
w Anthea L. Stebbins, L SW
4335 North Front St Harrisburg PA 17110
Tel 717-236-6630 Fax 717-236-6677
-rr
® DATE: 02-08-06
TO: Jordan Cunningham, Es
Darren Hoist, Esq.
FROM: Deborah L. Salem, LPC f
RE: Bartlett v Bartlett
g? As per a phone request from Attorney Holst, you are in need of a timeline for my
3 completion of the custody evaluation for your above referenced clients. To date, I had an
initial session with Brenda and will not meet Jason for the first time until 02-15-06. If all
moves forward in my usual scheduling format, I will be done with the face to face
interviews by mid-late April (this includes the home studies) and will be ready to dictate
the report and have it transcribed. You are likely, again if all scheduling goes well, to see
a completed report by late April or early May, 2006.
0
C I hope this helps you plan for future scheduling with your clients. Please call with
-, questions. Also, I would appreciate the two of you forwarding to me for my review any
court orders, conference summaries, and petitions filed in this case. Thank you.
'III
A&
Flays 1 0+ 1
Ex??b,4 B -1
JASON E. BARTLETT, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
V.
NO. 05-6722 CIVIL TERM
N ?
f 1 L
BRENDA L. BARTLETT, CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY
Defendant
JOINT PETITION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATE?
C-1
0
AND NOW, comes your Plaintiff, Jason E. Bartlett, by and through his counsel;
Cunningham & Chernicoff, P.C., and your Defendant, Brenda L. Bartlett, by and through her
counsel, Howett, Kissinger, Conley & Holst, P.C., who file this Joint Petition to Continue the
Scheduled Hearing in this matter and in support thereof avers the following:
On or about February 2, 2006, the Honorable Edward Guido set a hearing in the
above captioned matter for February 27, 2006.
2. Subsequent to the custody conciliation, the parties agreed to have a custody
evaluation performed by Debra Salem.
Debra Salem began the process of the custody evaluation and has scheduled
conferences with counsel's respective clients.
4. On February 8, 2006, counsel received notice from Debra Salem that she could
not complete the custody evaluation until late April of 2006. A true and correct copy is attached
as Exhibit' P-1."
The parties are of the belief that the best interest of the child will be served by Ms.
Salem's completion of her custody evaluation and the sharing of the custody evaluation with the
Court.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant jointly request this honorable Court to continue
the hearing now scheduled for February 27, 2006 until the week of May 22, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
, P.C.
Dated: February 11, 2006 By:
Kaningham, Esquire
23144
Second Street
P.O "Box 60457
Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457
(717) 238-6570
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jason E. Bartlett
HOWETT, KISSINGER, C'ONLEY &
HOLST, P.C.
Dated: February ?t, 2006 By: -- if "l
Darren J. olst, Esquire
130 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0811)
(717) 234-2616
Attorneys for Defendant, Brenda L. Bartlett
F:\HOW\AHEWTMDOCSW-C\BARTLETT\CUSTODY\CONTAIUE. WPD
?,??,t G
Lx
717 238 4809
FFB-28-2006
Cumnnghani and Chemi
16:30
03 28'.218 p.m. 03-09-2006 2 Q
P. 08/08
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JASON E. BARTLETT, )
Plaintiff )
V. )
BRENDA L. BARTLETT, )
Defendant )
NO. 05-6722
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODYNISITATION
JOINDER
I, Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, Jason E. Bartlett, hereby concur
with the request for continuance made by Darren J. Holst, Esquire, counsel rot Defendant,
Brenda L. Bartlett.
Date: ,t U
JgtdydDXyGnin Esquire
G AM & CHE CHERNICOFF, P.C.
320 North Second Street
P.O. Box 60457
Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457
Telephone :(717)238-6570
Counsel for Plaintiff, Jason E. Bartlett
TOTAL P.08
MAR 7()Ub
THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JASON E. BARTLETT, )
Plaintiff )
V. )
BRENDA L. BARTLETT, )
Defendant )
NO. 05-6722
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CUSTODY/VISITATION
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ? day of 2006, upon consideration of
Defendant's Motion for Continuance, and noting Plaintiff s concurrence with the request, the
custody hearing currently scheduled before the undersigned for Monday, March 22, 2006 is
hereby CONTINUED and RESCHEDULED for the afternoon of both Wednesday, May 24,
2006 and Thursday, May 25, 2006. On both days, the hearing shall commence atL*m. before
the undersigned in courtroom 3 of the Cumberland County Courthouse.
L'
t?
THE COURT:
i
Edward E. Guido, J.
6 1 -Z Pd S I Ow HE
RECEIVED
BauG o zoos
Y:
JASON E. BARTLETT, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V....
NO. 05-6722 CIVIL TERM
BRENDA L. BARTLETT,
Defendant CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2 day of August, 2006, the parties having stipulated to the entry of
an Order of Custody, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that custody and visitation of the
minor child, Madison Skyler Bartlett, shall be as follows:
Plaintiff, Jason E. Bartlett (hereinafter referred to as "Father"), and Defendant,
Brenda L. Bartlett (hereinafter referred to as "Mother"), are the natural parents of the minor child
Madison Skyler Bartlett, born on May 26, 2004, (hereinafter referred to as the "Child") and shall
have shared legal custody of the Child as defined by 23 Pa. C.S.A. §5302.
The parties shall discuss and consult with one another with a view towards adopting a
harmonious policy calculated to promote the Child's best interest. Each parent shall notify the
other of any matter relating to thee Child which could reasonably be expected to be of significant
concern to the other. Day-to-day decisions shall be the responsibility of the parent then having
physical custody. The parent having physical custody of the Child at the time of any emergency
shall have the right to make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby but shall inform the
other parent of that emergency and consult with him or her as soon as possible.
2. Mother shall maintain primary physical custody of the Child. Father shall have
periods of partial custody of the Child as follows:
a. Week 1:
i. Tuesday evenings from 5:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.;
ii. Thursday evenings from 5:30 p.m. until Friday
mornings at 8:00 a.m.;
iii. Saturday morning from 11:30 a.m. until Sunday
evening at 6:00 p.m.
b. Week 2:
i. Tuesday evenings from 5:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.;
ii. Friday evenings from 5:30 p.m. until Saturday
morning at 9:30 a.m.
The parties agree Father, if Father's work schedule permits,
may pickup the Child at daycare, after the Child has arisen
from her mid-day nap, prior to the scheduled times on the
evenings he is scheduled to exercise his period of partial
custody. The parties agree Father is to give Mother a
minimum of one and a half (1 ''/:) hours notice, via email, if
his work schedule permits he pick-up the Child from
daycare an hour or more before his regularly scheduled
pickup time. Father agrees he shall not pick up the Child
prior to 2:00 p.m. absent mutual agreement of the parties.
2
C. Holiday Schedule:
i. Father and Mother shall alternate the custody of the
Child on the following holidays beginning at 9:00
a.m. and ending at 6:00 p.m., which shall take
precedence over the regular schedule:
1. Memorial Day;
2. Fourth of July; and
3. Labor Day.
Mother shall exercise custody of the Child on
Memorial Day, 2006. Custody of the holidays shall
then rotate thereafter on an alternating basis.
Therefore, in even-numbered years Mother will
have Memorial Day and Labor Day, and Father will
have the Fourth of July. In odd-numbered years,
Father will have Memorial Day and Labor Day, and
Mother will have the Fourth of July,
ii. Father shall have the Child on each and every
Father's Day, from 11:00 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. the
following morning.
iii. Mother shall have the Child on each and every
Mother's Day, from 11:00 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. the
following morning.
3
iv. Father and Mother shall alternate custody on
Thanksgiving day and Easter Sunday as follows,
which shall take precedence over the regular
schedule:
1. In even calendar years, Mother shall have
custody of the Child on Easter Sunday from
11:00 a.m. and ending at 9:00 a.m the
following morning.
2. In odd calendar years, Father shall have
custody of the Child on Easter Sunday from
11:00 a.m. and ending at 9:00 a.m. the
following morning.
3. In even calendar years, Father shall have
custody of the Child on Thanksgiving day
from 11:00 a.m and ending at 9:00 a.m the
following morning.
4. In odd calendar years, Mother shall have
custody of the Child on Thanksgiving day
from 11:00 a.m. and ending at 9:00 a.m the
following morning.
4
V. Father and Mother shall share custody over the
Christmas holiday as follows, which shall take
precedence over the regular schedule:
1. In even calendar years, Mother shall have
custody of the Child beginning on December
24 (Christmas Eve) beginning at 11:00 a.m.
and ending on December 25 (Christmas
Day) at 11:00 a.m. In even calendar years,
Father shall have custody of the Child
beginning at 11:00 a.m. on December 25
(Christmas Day) and ending on December
26 at 11:00 a.m.
2. In odd calendar years, Father shall have
custody of the Child beginning on December
24 (Christmas Eve) beginning at 11:00 a.m.
and ending on December 25 (Christmas
Day) at 11:00 a.m. In odd calendar years,
Mother shall have custody of the Child on
December 25 (Christmas Day) beginning at
11:00 a.m. on December 25 (Christmas Day)
and ending on December 26 at 11:00 a.m.
5
d. Vacation Schedule:
i. Father is entitled to five (5) days of periods of
partial custody, from 8:00 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. the
following morning, to allow him the ability to take
the Child on day trips. Father is entitle to combine
two(2) such consecutive days, however, the Child is
not to be in Father's custody for more that two (2)
full overnights. Moreover, Father shall not combine
any of the above referenced days with periods of
partial custody regularly scheduled.
ii. Mother shall have seven (7) consecutive days of
custody for vacation purposes. Mother agrees to
provide Father with a four (4) hour period of partial
custody the day before and the day after her period
of seven (7) consecutive days of custody. Father
and Mother agree to submit proposed vacation dates
on or before June 20, 2006. Father and Mother
agree all dates selected must incorporate a minimum
of two (2) weeks notice to the other party.
iii. For summer vacation periods in 2007 and beyond,
the vacation schedule shall be by agreement of the
parties or farther order of court. The default
6
schedule shall be the schedule laid out above. The
parties shall provide each other two (2) weeks
notice of any vacation periods.
Father and Mother agree to refrain from making any and all derogatory comments
regarding the other party, members of the other's family and/or friends in the presence of the
Child. The parties agree to refrain other people, within their control, from making derogatory
comments regarding the other parry, members of the other's family and/or friends. Father and
Mother shall make every effort to protect the Child from parental hostility. Father and Mother
agree violation of this Paragraph could result in contempt of court.
4. Father and Mother agree not to discuss any and all issues regarding the co-
parenting of the Child with the Child and/or in front of the Child, when possible.
Father and Mother agree to refrain from the use of alcohol to the point of
intoxication and/or other mood-altering substances while exercising periods of custody.
6. Father and Mother agree that if either party is to travel out of town overnight
during his or her period of custody, the other parry has the right of first refusal for care of the
Child, provided however, Father shall not have more than two (2) consecutive overnights with
the Child. Moreover, Father and Mother further agree that if either party is unavailable for a six
(6) hour period during his or her period of custody, with the exception of a normal work day
where the child is in day-care services or in school, the other party has the right of first refusal for
the care of the Child.
Father and Mother agree transportation will be provided by the receiving party,
unless the parties agree otherwise.
8. The parties acknowledge, that for the purposes of this Stipulation, Father's
participation in the individual and co-parenting therapy envisioned in the Custody Evaluation
Report is a change of circumstance for modification of custody if such modification is in the best
interest of the Child.
THE COURT
J.
F:VIOMEWiE W rrrOOCS\A-MARTLETnCUSTODY\PLEADNGSbrdrO706.wpd
s ?
ViN,VAIAS*Ned
AdNni: ' '',.''Aa 4Vf1?
Z 1 :£ Wd 1 Z 5nv 90Q1
XdViQNOHiO8d.3. JO
JORDAN D. CUNNINGHAM CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C.
ROBERT E. CHERNICOFF
MARC W. WITZIG ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BRUCE J. WARSHAWSKY P.O. BOX 60457
JOHN M.
KHYAMS
NIGHT HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17106-0457
KELLY M. KNIGHT
TELEPHONE (717) 238-6570
FAX (717) 2384809
August 10, 2006
The Honorable Edward E. Guido
Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Re: Jason E. Bartlett v. Brenda L. Bartlett
Docket No. 05-6722 Civil Term
Our File No. 401706
Dear Judge Guido:
HERSHEY TELEPHONE
(717) 5342833
IRS NO. 23-2274135
Street Address:
2320 N. 2nd Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Enclosed is a jointly executed Stipulation for Custody together with a proposed Order in
the above captioned matter. If you find the proposed Order acceptable, the parties would
appreciate your execution of the same. I have also enclosed pre-addressed, postage paid
envelopes for both Darren Holst, Esquire and myself for service of the executed Order.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly
CHERNICOFF, P.C.
JDC/alh
enclosure
F: W OMEWiEWnT\DOCSW-CV3ARTLETT\CUSTODYV.ETTERSV081006.wpd
JASON E. BARTLETT,
Plaintiff
V.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 05-6722 CIVIL TERM
BRENDA L. BARTLETT,
Defendant
: CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY
STIPULATION OF PARTIES
AND NOW, Plaintiff, Jason E. Bartlett, and Defendant, Brenda L. Bartlett, do hereby
stipulate and agree that the following shall be the standard of custody and partial custody which
shall prevail and do consent to the entry by the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania to an Order incorporating the terms of this Stipulation:
Plaintiff, Jason E. Bartlett (hereinafter referred to as "Father"), and Defendant,
Brenda L. Bartlett (hereinafter referred to as "Mother'), are the natural parents of the minor child
Madison Skyler Bartlett, bom on May 26, 2004, (hereinafter referred to as the "Child') and shall
have shared legal custody of the Child as defined by 23 Pa. C.S.A. §5302.
The parties shall discuss and consult with one another with a view towards adopting a
harmonious policy calculated to promote the Child's best interest. Each parent shall notify the
other of any matter relating to thee Child which could reasonably be expected to be of significant
concern to the other. Day-to-day decisions shall be the responsibility of the parent then having
physical custody. The parent having physical custody of the Child at the time of any emergency
shall have the right to make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby but shall inform the
other parent of that emergency and consult with him or her as soon as possible.
2. Mother shall maintain primary physical custody of the Child. Father shall have
periods of partial custody of the Child as follows:
a. Week 1:
i. Tuesday evenings from 5:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.;
ii. Thursday evenings from 5:30 p.m. until Friday
mornings at 8:00 a.m.;
iii. Saturday morning from 11:30 am. until Sunday
evening at 6:00 p.m.
b. Week 2:
i. Tuesday evenings from 5:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.;
ii. Friday evenings from 5:30 p.m. until Saturday
morning at 9:30 a.m.
The parties agree Father, if Father's work schedule permits,
may pickup the Child at daycare, after the Child has arisen
from her mid-day nap, prior to the scheduled times on the
evenings he is scheduled to exercise his period of partial
custody. The parties agree Father is to give Mother a
minimum of one and a half (1 %2) hours notice, via email, if
his work schedule permits he pick-up the Child from
daycare an hour or more before his regularly scheduled
pickup time. Father agrees he shall not pick up the Child
prior to 2:00 p.m. absent mutual agreement of the parties.
2
C. Holiday Schedule.
i. Father and Mother shall alternate the custody of the
Child on the following holidays beginning at 9:00
a.m. and ending at 6:00 p.m., which shall take
precedence over the regular schedule:
1. Memorial Day,
2. Fourth of July; and
3. Labor Day.
Mother shall exercise custody of the Child on
Memorial Day, 2006. Custody of the holidays shall
then rotate thereafter on an alternating basis.
Therefore, in even-numbered years Mother will
have Memorial Day and Labor Day, and Father will
have the Fourth of July. In odd-numbered years,
Father will have Memorial Day and Labor Day, and
Mother will have the Fourth of July.
ii. Father shall have the Child on each and every
Father's Day, from 11:00 am. until 9:00 am. the
following morning.
iii. Mother shall have the Child on each and every
Mother's Day, from 11:00 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. the
following morning.
3
iv. Father and Mother shall alternate custody on
Thanksgiving day and Easter Sunday as follows,
which shall take precedence over the regular
schedule:
1. In even calendar years, Mother shall have
custody of the Child on Easter Sunday from
11:00 a.m. and ending at 9:00 a.m the
following morning.
2. In odd calendar years, Father shall have
custody of the Child on Easter Sunday from
11:00 a.m. and ending at 9:00 a.m. the
following morning.
3. In even calendar years, Father shall have
custody of the Child on Thanksgiving day
from 11:00 a.m and ending at 9:00 a.m the
following morning.
4. In odd calendar years, Mother shall have
custody of the Child on Thanksgiving day
from 11:00 a.m. and ending at 9:00 a.m the
following morning.
4
Christmas holiday as follows, which shall take
precedence over the regular schedule:
1. In even calendar years, Mother shall have
custody of the Child beginning on December
24 (Christmas Eve) beginning at 11:00 a.m.
and ending on December 25 (Christmas
Day) at 11:00 am. In even calendar years,
Father shall have custody of the Child
beginning at 11:00 a.m. on December 25
(Christmas Day) and ending on December
26 at 11:00 am.
2. In odd calendar years, Father shall have
custody of the Child beginning on December
24 (Christmas Eve) beginning at 11:00 a.m.
and ending on December 25 (Christmas
Day) at 11:00 a.m. In odd calendar years,
Mother shall have custody of the Child on
December 25 (Christmas Day) beginning at
11:00 a.m. on December 25 (Christmas Day)
and ending on December 26 at 11:00 a.m.
5
d. Vacation Schedule:
i. Father is entitled to five (5) days of periods of
partial custody, from 8:00 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. the
following morning, to allow him the ability to take
the Child on day trips. Father is entitle to combine
two(2) such consecutive days, however, the Child is
not to be in Father's custody for more that two (2)
full overnights. Moreover, Father shall not combine
any of the above referenced days with periods of
partial custody regularly scheduled.
ii. Mother shall have seven (7) consecutive days of
custody for vacation purposes. Mother agrees to
provide Father with a four (4) hour period of partial
custody the day before and the day after her period
of seven (7) consecutive days of custody. Father
and Mother agree to submit proposed vacation dates
on or before June 20, 2006. Father and Mother
agree all dates selected must incorporate a minimum
of two (2) weeks notice to the other party.
iii. For summer vacation periods in 2007 and beyond,
the vacation schedule shall be by agreement of the
parties or further order of court. The default
schedule shall be the schedule laid out above. The
parties shall provide each other two (2) weeks
notice of any vacation periods.
3. Father and Mother agree to refrain from making any and all derogatory comments
regarding the other party, members of the other's family and/or friends in the presence of the
Child. The parties agree to refrain other people, within their control, from making derogatory
comments regarding the other parry, members of the other's family and/or friends. Father and
Mother shall make every effort to protect the Child from parental hostility. Father and Mother
agree violation of this Paragraph could result in contempt of court.
4. Father and Mother agree not to discuss any and all issues regarding the co-
parenting of the Child with the Child and/or in front of the Child, when possible.
5. Father and Mother agree to refrain from the use of alcohol to the point of
intoxication and/or other mood-altering substances while exercising periods of custody.
6. Father and Mother agree that if either party is to travel out of town overnight
during his or her period of custody, the other parry has the right of fast refusal for care of the
Child, provided however, Father shall not have more than two (2) consecutive overnights with
the Child. Moreover, Father and Mother further agree that if either parry is unavailable for a six
(6) hour period during his or her period of custody, with the exception of a normal work day
where the child is in day-care services or in school, the other party has the right of first refusal for
the care of the Child.
Father and Mother agree transportation will be provided by the receiving party,
unless the parties agree otherwise.
8. The parties acknowledge, that for the purposes of this Stipulation, Father's
participation in the individual and co-parenting therapy envisioned in the Custody Evaluation
Report is a change of circumstance for modification of custody if such modification is in the best
interest of the Child.
IN WITNESS W11EREOF, the parties hereto have placed their hands and seals to this
Stipulation this day of July, 2006.
JASON E. BARTLETT
Lly ?
NDA L RTLETT
F:IHOME\AHEWIiTDOCSIA-MARTLET75CUSTODY\STIPULAWJLY2006W70606.WPD\tile w. 401706
JORDAN D. CUNNINGHAM, ESQUIRE
CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C.
P.O. Box 60457
HARRISBURG, PA 17109-0457
TELEPHONE: (717) 238-6570
FACSIMILE: (717) 238-4809
EMAIL: JCUNNINGHAM&U CCLAWP.COM
JASON E. BARTLETT,
Plaintiff
V.
BRENDA L. BARTLETT,
Defendant
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY
1. Your Petitioner is Jason E. Bartlett, the Plaintiff in the above referenced matter
who resides at 5715 Aspen Lane, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Your Respondent is Brenda L. Brown, formerly known as Brenda L. Bartlett, the
Plaintiff in the above referenced matter who resides at 6128 Wallingford Way, Mechanicsburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. Your Petitioner/Plaintiff, pursuant to a Stipulated Custody Order, has shared legal
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 05-6722 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY
custody of the following child:
NAME
PRESENT RESIDENCE
AGE
Madison Skyler
Bartlett
6128 Wallingford Way,
Mechanicsburg, PA
3 %i year
1
Petitioner/Plaintiff seeks to modify the Stipulated Order of Custody and seeks the
equal shared physical custody with Respondent/Defendant of the following child:
NAME PRESENT RESIDENCE AGE
Madison Skyler 6128 Wallingford Way, 3 '/2 year
Bartlett Mechanicsburg, PA
The child was born out of wedlock.
The child, Madison Skyler Bartlett, is presently in the custody of the
Respondent/Defendant and resides at 6128 Wallingford Way, Mechanicsburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
The mother of the child is the Defendant/Respondent, currently residing at 6128
Wallingford Way, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. She is
married.
The father of the child is the Petitioner/Plaintiff, currently residing at 5715 Aspen
Lane, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. He is single.
4. The relationship of Petitioner/Plaintiff to the child is that of natural father. The
Petitioner/Plaintiff currently resides with no other person(s).
2
5. The relationship of Respondent/Defendant to the child is natural mother. The
Respondent/Defendant currently resides with the following persons:
NAME RELATIONSHIP
Jeffrey Brown Husband
6. On August 21, 2006, the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley entered an Order with regard
to a Custody Stipulation entered into between the parties. A true and correct copy of said Order
and Custody Stipulation is attached hereto, made part hereof, and is attached hereto as Exhibit
11 1 11
Petitioner/Defendant does not know of a person not a party to these proceedings
who has physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights
with respect to the child.
7. During the past fourteen (14) months, Petitioner/Plaintiff has had custody of the
minor child as follows:
Week One: Wednesday p.m. through Friday a.m.;
Week Two: Thursday p.m. through Sunday at 6:00 p.m.
8. During the past fourteen (14) months, Defendant/Respondent has entrusted the
minor child with Petitioner/Plaintiff while Defendant/Respondent vacationed as follows:
a. February 21, 2007 - February 27, 2007, a period of six (6) continuous
nights;
3
b. October 20, 2007 - October 28, 2008, a period of eight (8) continuous
nights;
C. January 30, 2008 through February 3, 2008, a period of four (4) continuous
nights.
9. Petitioner/Plaintiff, since the inception of this custody action, espoused his interest
in equal joint physical custody of the minor child.
10. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child, Madison Skyler Bartlett, will
be served by granting the relief requested because:
(a) The child views the Petitioner/Plaintiff as a source of stability, a source of
love, and a source of emotional support.
(b) During the past two (2) years, the Respondent/Defendant has taken action
which substantially interferes with the Petitioner/Plaintiff developing a
more substantial and meaningful relationship between Petitioner/Plaintiff
and Madison Skyler Bartlett.
(c) The Respondent/Defendant has, on multiple occasions, failed to offer
Petitioner/Plaintiff the right of first refusal of custody even though she
previously has agreed to do so.
11. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been terminated and the
person who has physical custody of the child has been named as parties to this action. All other
persons, named below, who are known to have or claim a right to custody or visitation of the child
has been given notice of the pendency of this action and the right to intervene: None.
4
WHEREFORE, Petitioner/Plaintiff requests the Court to grant shared physical custody of
Madison Skyler Bartlett to Petitioner/Defendant.
Date: -3 lr?o t5 8,/
By:
Respectfully submitted,
CUNNINGHAM & ?,-UERNICOFF, P.C.
Jor 1 KC/nningham, Esquire
P nnsyly a Supreme Court I.D. #23144
320 North Second Street
P. O. Box 60457
Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457
Telephone: (717) 238-6570
Attorneys for Plaintiff
F:\Home\AHEWITT\DOCS\A-C\BARTLETT\CUSTODY\PLEADNGS\PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY 31708.wpd
5
GG II
Exhibit 1
AUG 0 2006
JASON E. BARTLETT,
Plaintiff
V.
BRENDA L. BARTLETT,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 05-6722 CIVIL TERM
: CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY
0" ORDER
AND NOW this /f - daY of AuSust> 2006, the parties having stipulated to the entry of
an Order of Custody, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that custody and visitation of the
minor child, Madison Skyler Bartlett, shall be as follows:
Plaintiff, Jason E. Bartlett (hereinafter referred to as "Father"), and Defendant,
Brenda L. Bartlett (hereinafter referred to as "Mother"}, are the natural parents of the minor child
Madison Skyler Bartlett, born on May 26, 2004, (hereinafter referred to as the "Child') and shall
have shared legal custody of the Child as defined by 23 Pa. C.S.A. §5302.
The parties shall discuss and consult with one another with a view towards adopting a
harmonious policy calculated to promote the Child's best interest. Each parent shall notify the
other of any matter relating to thee Child which could reasonably be expected to be of significant
concern to the other. Day-to-day decisions shall be the responsibility of the parent then having
physical custody. The parent having physical custody of the Child at the time of any emergency
shall have the right to make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby but shall inform the
other parent of that emergency and consult with him or her as soon as possible.
2. Mother shall maintain primary physical custody of the Child. Father shall have
periods of partial custody of the Child as follows:
a. Week 1:
i. Tuesday evenings from 5:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.;
ii. Thursday evenings from 5:30 p.m. until Friday
mornings at 8:00 a.m.;
iii. Saturday morning from 11:30 a.m. until Sunday
evening at 6:00 p.m.
b. Week 2-
i. Tuesday evenings from 5:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.;
ii. Friday evenings from 5:30 p.m. until Saturday
morning at 9:30 a.m.
The parties agree Father, if Father's work schedule permits,
may pickup the Child at daycare, after the Child has arisen
from her mid-day nap, prior to the scheduled times on the
evenings he is scheduled to exercise his period of partial
custody. The parties agree Father is to give Mother a
minimum of one and a half (1 '/z) hours notice, via email, if
his work schedule permits he pick-up the Child from
daycare an hour or more before his regularly scheduled
pickup time. Father agrees he shall not pick up the Child
prior to 2:00 p.m. absent mutual agreement of the parties.
2
C. Holi&_y S edule:
i. Father and Mother shall alternate the custody of the
Child on the following holidays beginning at 9:00
a.m. and ending at 6:00 p.m., which shall take
precedence over the regular schedule:
1. Memorial Day,
2. Fourth of July; and
3. Labor Day.
Mother shall exercise custody of the Child on
Memorial Day, 2006. Custody of the holidays shall
then rotate thereafter on an alternating basis.
Therefore, in even-numbered years Mother will
have Memorial Day and Labor Day, and Father will
have the Fourth of July. In odd-numbered years,
Father will have Memorial Day and Labor Day, and
Mother will have the Fourth of July.
ii. Father shall have the Child on each and every
Father's Day, from 11:00 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. the
following morning.
iii. Mother shall have the Child on each and every
Mother's Day, from 11:00 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. the
following morning.
3
iv. Father and Mother shall alternate custody on
Thanksgiving day and Easter Sunday as follows,
which shall take precedence over the regular
schedule:
1. In even calendar years, Mother shall have
custody of the Child on Easter Sunday from
11:00 a.m. and ending at 9:00 a.m the
following morning.
2. In odd calendar years, Father shall have
custody of the Child on Easter Sunday from
11:00 a.m. and ending at 9:00 a.m. the
following morning.
3. In even calendar years, Father shall have
custody of the Child on Thanksgiving day
from 11:00 a.m and ending at 9:00 a.m the
following morning.
4. In odd calendar years, Mother shall have
custody of the Child on Thanksgiving day
from 11:00 a.m. and ending at 9:00 a.m the
following morning.
4
V. Father and Mother shall share custody over the
Christmas holiday as follows, which shall take
precedence over the regular schedule:
1. In even calendar years, Mother shall have
custody of the Child beginning on December
24 (Christmas Eve) beginning at 11:00 a.m.
and ending on December 25 (Christmas
Day) at 11:00 a.m. In even calendar years,
Father shall have custody of the Child
beginning at 11:00 a.m. on December 25
(Christmas Day) and ending on December
26 at 11:00 a.m.
2. In odd calendar years, Father shall have
custody of the Child beginning on December
24 (Christmas Eve) beginning at 11:00 a.m.
and ending on December 25 (Christmas
Day) at 11:00 a.m. In odd calendar years,
Mother shall have custody of the Child on
December 25 (Christmas Day) beginning at
11:00 a.m. on December 25 (Christmas Day)
and ending on December 26 at 11:00 a.m.
5
d. YN,&ho Schedule:
i. Father is entitled to five (5) days of periods of
partial custody, from 8:00 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. the
following morning, to allow him the ability to take
the Child on day trips. Father is entitle to combine
two(2) such consecutive days, however, the Child is
not to be in Father's custody for more that two (2)
full overnights. Moreover, Father shall not combine
any of the above referenced days with periods of
partial custody regularly scheduled.
ii. Mother shall have seven (7) consecutive days of
custody for vacation purposes. Mother agrees to
provide Father with a four (4) hour period of partial
custody the day before and the day after her period
of seven (7) consecutive days of custody. Father
and Mother agree to submit proposed vacation dates
on or before June 20, 2006. Father and Mother
agree all dates selected must incorporate a minimum
of two (2) weeks notice to the other party.
iii. For summer vacation periods in 2007 and beyond,
the vacation schedule shall be by agreement of the
parties or further order of court. The default
6
schedule shall be the schedule laid out above. The
parties shall provide each other two (2) weeks
notice of any vacation periods.
3. Father and Mother agree to refrain from making any and all derogatory comments
regarding the other party, members of the other's family and/or friends in the presence of the
Child. The parties agree to refrain other people, within their control, from making derogatory
comments regarding the other party, members of the other's family and/or friends. Father and
Mother shall make every effort to protect the Child from parental hostility. Father and Mother
agree violation of this Paragraph could result in contempt of court.
4. Father and Mother agree not to discuss any and all issues regarding the co-
parenting of the Child with the Child and/or in front of the Child, when possible.
5. Father and Mother agree to refrain from the use of alcohol to the point of
intoxication and/or other mood-altering substances while exercising periods of custody.
7
6. Father and Mother agree that if either party is to travel out of town overnight
during his or her period of custody, the other party has the right of first refusal for care of the
Child, provided however, Father shall not have more than two (2) consecutive overnights with
the Child. Moreover, Father and Mother further agree that if either party is unavailable for a six
(6) hour period during his or her period of custody, with the exception of a normal work day
where the child is in day-care services or in school, the other party has the right of first refusal for
the care of the Child.
7. Father and Mother agree transportation will be provided by the receiving party,
unless the parties agree otherwise.
8. The parties acknowledge, that for the purposes of this Stipulation, Father's
participation in the individual and co-parenting therapy envisioned in the Custody Evaluation
Report is a change of circumstance for modification of custody if such modification is in the best
interest of the Child.
THE COURT
J.
F.WOME1ANEwl I7IDOCSU?-C\BARTLETr1CUS7 ODYIPLEADN(isbrdr0706.wpd
X .7 -7
C?z
d+NVAIAS N3{d
1?1Nt?G, r,' 11ZiH-'izSi N W
z 1.c Wd 4 Z sna 9002
MVIMi 108d.3Hi da
30WQ-GMH
VERIFICATION
The undersigned, Jason E. Bartlett, Plaintiff, verifies that the statements contained in the
foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand
that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to
unswom falsification to authorities.
ason E. Bartlett
'
Dated: Are 4 Z 0
, zoo
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby state that on th<' day of March, 2008, I served a true and correct copy of
the foregoing in the captioned matter, by United States mail, addressed to:
Darren J. Holst, Esquire
130 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108
ge a L. Hewitt
Legal Secretary
A?
x+„J
ii•?
1?
JASON E. BARTLETT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
2005-6722 CIVIL ACTION LAW
BRENDA L. BARTLETT
IN CUSTODY
DEFENDANT
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, Friday, March 28, 2008 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint,
it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Dawn S. Sunday, Esq. , the conciliator,
at 39 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA _._17055..,- on ---------Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 10:00 AM
for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or
if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary
order. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order.
The court hereby directs the parties to furnish any and all existing Protection from Abuse orders,
Special Relief orders, and Custodv orders to the conciliator 48 hours prior to scheduled hearing.
FOR THE COURT.
By: /s/ Daum S. Sunda Es q. jjrk
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
- 4 ?-'
A7?
*v
LJ
u UZ
MAY 0 9 2008
JASON E. BARTLETT
Plaintiff
vs.
BRENDA L. BARTLETT
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
2005-6722
CIVIL ACTION LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this / y day of 2008, upon
consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, is ordered and directed as follows:
1. The parties shall resume participation in co-parenting counseling with a professional to be
selected by agreement between the parties. The purpose of the counseling shall be to assist the parties
in establishing sufficient cooperation and communication to enable them to effectively co-parent their
Child. The parties shall cooperate in identifying and selecting a counselor whose services are covered
under the available insurance coverage. Any costs of the counseling which are not covered by the
insurance shall be shared equally between the parties.
2. The parties shall obtain a supplemental custody evaluation to be performed by Deborah
Salem. The purpose of the evaluation shall be to obtain independent professional recommendations
concerning ongoing custody arrangements which will best meet the Child's needs in light of the
Father's request for shared physical custody of the Child. The parties shall request that the evaluator
provide interim recommendations concerning custodial arrangements pending completion of the
supplemental evaluation. All costs of the evaluation shall be shared equally between the parties.
3. Any interim custody schedule recommendations and the ongoing custody recommendations
issued by the custody evaluator shall be implemented promptly through a custody stipulation signed by
the parties and presented to the Court on a timely basis for entry of the Order. The parties agree to
follow any custody recommendations issued by the evaluator.
4. Pending receipt of the custody evaluator's interim custody recommendations, the custody
schedule set forth in the prior Order of this Court dated November 29, 2006 shall continue in effect
with the addition of a period of partial custody for the Father during Week II from Tuesday at 5:00
p.m. through Wednesday when the Father shall transport the Child to daycare.
5. This Order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a custody conciliation
conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of
mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control.
/ Edward E. Guido
cc: '' rdan D. Cunningham Esquire - Counsel for Father
Darren J. Holst, Esquire - Counsel for Mother
ozpl-es
s??Y?os
J.
£ c : ! c WV ' s AN saoz
30H-JO-f0911J
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
2005-6722 CIVIL ACTION LAW
IN CUSTODY
CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as
follows:
NAME DATE OF BIRTH CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF
Madison Skyler Bartlett August 21, 2006 Mother
2. A custody conciliation conference was held on May 6, 2008, with the following individuals
in attendance: the Father, Jason E. Bartlett, with his counsel, Kelly M. Knight, Esquire (for Jordan D.
Cunningham, Esquire), and the Mother, Brenda L. Brown, formerly Bartlett, with her counsel, Darren
J. Holst, Esquire.
3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached.
-7, ?cxptf
Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire
Custody Conciliator
JASON E. BARTLETT
Plaintiff
vs.
BRENDA L. BARTLETT
Defendant
Prior Judge: Edward E. Guido
JORDAN D. CUNNINGHAM, ESQUIRE
CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C.
P.O. Box 60457
HARRISBURG, PA 17109-0457
TELEPHONE: (717) 238-6570
FACSIMILE: (717) 238-4809
EMAIL: JCUNNINGHAMkCCLAWP.COM
JASON E. BARTLETT,
Plaintiff
V.
BRENDA L. BARTLETT,
Defendant
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY
1. Your Petitioner is Jason E. Bartlett, the Plaintiff in the above referenced matter
who resides at 5715 Aspen Lane, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Your Respondent is Brenda L. Brown, formerly known as Brenda L. Bartlett, the
Plaintiff in the above referenced matter who resides at 6128 Wallingford Way, Mechanicsburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. Your Petitioner/Plaintiff, pursuant to a Stipulated Custody Order, has shared legal
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 05-6722 CIVIL TERM
: CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY
custody of the following child:
NAME
PRESENT RESIDENCE
AGE
Madison Skyler
Bartlett
6128 Wallingford Way,
Mechanicsburg, PA
4 %i year
1
Petitioner/Plaintiff seeks to modify the Stipulated Order of Custody and seeks the
equal shared physical custody with Respondent/Defendant of the following child:
NAME PRESENT RESIDENCE AGE
Madison Skyler 6128 Wallingford Way, 4 '/2 year
Bartlett Mechanicsburg, PA
The child was born out of wedlock.
The child, Madison Skyler Bartlett, is presently in the custody of the
Respondent/Defendant and resides at 6128 Wallingford Way, Mechanicsburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
The mother of the child is the Defendant/Respondent, currently residing at 6128
Wallingford Way, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. She is
married.
The father of the child is the Petitioner/Plaintiff, currently residing at 5715 Aspen
Lane, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. He is single.
4. The relationship of Petitioner/Plaintiff to the child is that of natural father. The
Petitioner/Plaintiff currently resides with no other person(s).
2
5. The relationship of Respondent/Defendant to the child is natural mother. The
Respondent/Defendant currently resides with the following persons:
NAME RELATIONSHIP
Jeffrey Brown Husband
6. On August 21, 2006, the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley entered an Order with regard
to a Custody Stipulation entered into between the parties. A true and correct copy of said Order
and Custody Stipulation is attached hereto, made part hereof, and is attached hereto as Exhibit
11 1 11
Petitioner/Defendant does not know of a person not a party to these proceedings
who has physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights
with respect to the child.
7. During the past twenty (20) months, for a period of fourteen (14) consecutive
months, Petitioner/Plaintiff has had custody of the minor child as follows:
Week One: Wednesday p.m. through Friday a.m.;
Week Two: Thursday p.m. through Sunday at 6:00 p.m.
8. During the past twenty (20) months, Defendant/Respondent has entrusted the
minor child with Petitioner/Plaintiff while Defendant/Respondent vacationed as follows:
a. February 21, 2007 - February 27, 2007, a period of six (6) continuous
nights;
3
b. October 20, 2007 - October 28, 2007, a period of eight (8) continuous
nights;
C. January 30, 2008 through February 3, 2008, a period of four (4) continuous
nights.
9. Petitioner/Plaintiff, since the inception of this custody action, espoused his interest
in equal joint physical custody of the minor child.
10. As the result of prior Orders entered by Stipulation of the parties,
Plaintiff/Petitioner and Defendant/Respondent were evaluated by Deb Salem, who made certain
recommendations to the parties concerning the custody arrangements of their minor child. One of
the recommendations was that Plaintiff/Petitioner, Jason Bartlett, seek individual therapeutic
counseling, which counseling envisioned the involvement of the parties' minor child in the
therapy. Moreover, Ms. Salem directed that the parties be involved in co-parenting therapy in
order to address parenting issues regarding their minor daughter.
11. Plaintiff/Petitioner recently sought the therapeutic services of Dr. Stanley
Schneider and began the therapy envisioned by Deb Salem's directives. Dr. Schneider made a
request that he be able to observe Plaintiff/Petitioner with his minor child as part of his
therapeutic treatment of Plaintiff/Petitioner. The request to have the minor child involved in the
therapy was made by Plaintiff/Petitioner's counsel to Defendant/Respondent's counsel.
4
12. Defendant/Respondent's counsel advises that Defendant/Respondent will not allow
the minor child be involved in Plaintiff/Petitioner's therapy or be observed by Dr. Schneider
unless Plaintiff/Petitioner first met certain conditions directed by Defendant/Respondent
regarding co-parenting counseling and child play therapy.
13. Plaintiff/Petitioner and Defendant/Respondent, prior to Dr. Schneider's request to
have the opportunity to observe the minor child interacting with Plaintiff/Petitioner, did jointly
chose a co-parenting counselor by the name of Mary Jo Devlin. The parties meet with Ms. Devlin
and after meeting with Ms. Devlin, Defendant/Respondent directed Ms. Devlin not to release any
information which she developed during the parties counseling sessions to any third parties and
terminated further co-parenting sessions with Ms. Devlin. Prior to Ms. Devlin's involvement with
the parties, Plaintiff/Petitioner and Defendant/Respondent had attended co-parenting counseling
with Anthea Stebbings for a period of 12 months, which co-parenting counseling was terminated
by Ms. Stebbings. Defendant/Respondent has suggested additional individuals with whom to co-
parent.
14. Plaintiff/Petitioner now finds himself in a situation where he cannot comply with
the directive of Ms. Salem nor the directives of his psychologist, Dr. Stanley Schneider, as the
result of the unilateral actions taken by Defendant/Respondent in refusing him the right to
involve the minor child in his therapy.
15. Plaintiff/Petitioner does not see that further co-parenting sessions will aid the
parties in light of the extensive co-parenting sessions in which he participated with Ms. Stebbings
and that further co-parenting counseling will in any appreciable way advance the best interest of
the minor child.
16. The best interest and permanent welfare of the child, Madison Skyler Bartlett, will
be served by granting the relief requested because:
(a) The child views the Petitioner/Plaintiff as a source of stability, a source of
love, and a source of emotional support.
(b) During the past two (2) years, the Respondent/Defendant has unilaterally
taken action which substantially interferes with the Petitioner/Plaintiff
developing a more substantial and meaningful relationship between
Petitioner/Plaintiff and Madison Skyler Bartlett.
(c) The Respondent/Defendant has, on multiple occasions, failed to offer
Petitioner/Plaintiff the right of first refusal of custody even though she
previously has agreed to do so.
17. Each parent whose parental rights to the child have not been terminated and the
person who has physical custody of the child has been named as parties to this action. All other
persons, named below, who are known to have or claim a right to custody or visitation of the child
has been given notice of the pendency of this action and the right to intervene: None.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner/Plaintiff requests the Court to modify the present Order to grant
equal physical custody of Madison Skyler Bartlett to Petitioner/Defendant.
Respectfully submitted,
CUNNINGHAM & CH$RNICOFF, P.C.
Date: i/ c.`7 By:
Jo an D. unningham, Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. #23144
2320 North Second Street
P. O. Box 60457
Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457
Telephone: (717) 238-6570
Attorneys for Plaintiff
F:\Home\AHEWITT\DOCS\A-C\BARTLETT\CUSTODY\PLEADNGS\PETITION TO MODIFY 111008.wpd
7
VERIFICATION
The undersigned, Jason E. Bartlett, Plaintiff, verifies that the statements contained in the
foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand
that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to
unswom falsification to authorities.
Jason E. Bartlett
Dated: ?ra Pt?G. ,SL? c?c.t<,
Exhibit "1 "
7AU G 0 2006
JASON E. BARTLETT,
Plaintiff
V.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BRENDA L. BARTLETT,
Defendant
: NO. 05-6722 CIVIL TERM
: CIVIL ACTION -CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW this 2 daY of Au$ust> 2006, the parties having stipulated to the entry of
an Order of Custody, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that custody and visitation of the
minor child, Madison Skyler Bartlett, shall be as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Jason E. Bartlett (hereinafter referred to as "Father'), and Defendant,
Brenda L. Bartlett (hereinafter referred to as "Mother'), are the natural parents of the minor child
Madison Skyler Bartlett, born on May 26, 2004, (hereinafter referred to as the "Child') and shall
have shared legal custody of the Child as defined by 23 Pa. C.S.A. §5302.
The parties shall discuss and consult with one another with a view towards adopting a
harmonious policy calculated to promote the Child's best interest. Each parent shall notify the
other of any matter relating to thee Child which could reasonably be expected to be of significant
concern to the other. Day-to-day decisions shall be the responsibility of the parent then having
physical custody. The parent having physical custody of the Child at the time of any emergency
shall have the right to make any immediate decisions necessitated thereby but shall inform the
other parent of that emergency and consult with him or her as soon as possible.
2. Mother shall maintain primary physical custody of the Child. Father shall have
periods of partial custody of the Child as follows:
a. Week 1:
i. Tuesday evenings from 5:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.;
ii. Thursday evenings from 5:30 p.m. until Friday
mornings at 8:00 a.m.;
iii. Saturday morning from 11:30 a.m. until Sunday
evening at 6:00 p.m.
b. Week 2:
i. Tuesday evenings from 5:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.;
ii. Friday evenings from 5:30 p.m. until Saturday
morning at 9:30 a.m.
The parties agree Father, if Father's work schedule permits,
may pickup the Child at daycare, after the Child has arisen
from her mid-day nap, prior to the scheduled times on the
evenings he is scheduled to exercise his period of partial
custody. The parties agree Father is to give Mother a
minimum of one and a half (1 '/Z) hours notice, via email, if
his work schedule permits he pick-up the Child from
daycare an hour or more before his regularly scheduled
pickup time. Father agrees he shall not pick up the Child
prior to 2:00 p.m. absent mutual agreement of the parties.
2
C. Holiday,Sgkdule:
i. Father and Mother shall alternate the custody of the
Child on the following holidays beginning at 9:00
a.m. and ending at 6:00 p.m., which shall take
precedence over the regular schedule:
1. Memorial Day;
2. Fourth of July; and
3. Labor Day.
Mother shall exercise custody of the Child on
Memorial Day, 2006. Custody of the holidays shall
then rotate thereafter on an alternating basis.
Therefore, in even-numbered years Mother will
have Memorial Day and Labor Day, and Father will
have the Fourth of July. In odd-numbered years,
Father will have Memorial Day and Labor Day, and
Mother will have the Fourth of July.
ii. Father shall have the Child on each and every
Father's Day, from 11:00 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. the
following morning.
iii. Mother shall have the Child on each and every
Mother's Day, from 11:00 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. the
following morning.
3
iv. Father and Mother shall alternate custody on
Thanksgiving day and Easter Sunday as follows,
which shall take precedence over the regular
schedule:
I . In even calendar years, Mother shall have
custody of the Child on Easter Sunday from
11:00 a.m. and ending at 9:00 a.m the
following morning.
2. In odd calendar years, Father shall have
custody of the Child on Easter Sunday from
11:00 a.m. and ending at 9:00 a.m. the
following morning.
3. In even calendar years, Father shall have
custody of the Child on Thanksgiving day
from 11:00 a.m and ending at 9:00 a.m the
following morning.
4. In odd calendar years, Mother shall have
custody of the Child on Thanksgiving day
from 11:00 a.m. and ending at 9:00 a.m the
following morning.
4
V. Father and Mother shall share custody over the
Christmas holiday as follows, which shall take
precedence over the regular schedule:
1. In even calendar years, Mother shall have
custody of the Child beginning on December
24 (Christmas Eve) beginning at 11:00 a.m.
and ending on December 25 (Christmas
Day) at 11:00 a.m. In even calendar years,
Father shall have custody of the Child
beginning at 11:00 a.m. on December 25
(Christmas Day) and ending on December
26 at 11:00 a.m.
2. In odd calendar years, Father shall have
custody of the Child beginning on December
24 (Christmas Eve) beginning at 11:00 a.m.
and ending on December 25 (Christmas
Day) at 11:00 a.m. In odd calendar years,
Mother shall have custody of the Child on
December 25 (Christmas Day) beginning at
11:00 a.m. on December 25 (Christmas Day)
and ending on December 26 at 11:00 a.m.
5
d. Vacgtign Schedule:
i. Father is entitled to five (5) days of periods of
partial custody, from 8:00 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. the
following morning, to allow him the ability to take
the Child on day trips. Father is entitle to combine
two(2) such consecutive days, however, the Child is
not to be in Father's custody for more that two (2)
full overnights. Moreover, Father shall not combine
any of the above referenced days with periods of
partial custody regularly scheduled.
ii. Mother shall have seven (7) consecutive days of
custody for vacation purposes. Mother agrees to
provide Father with a four (4) hour period of partial
custody the day before and the day after her period
of seven (7) consecutive days of custody. Father
and Mother agree to submit proposed vacation dates
on or before June 20, 2006. Father and Mother
agree all dates selected must incorporate a minimum
of two (2) weeks notice to the other party.
iii. For summer vacation periods in 2007 and beyond,
the vacation schedule shall be by agreement of the
parties or further order of court. The default
6
schedule shall be the schedule laid out above. The
parties shall provide each other two (2) weeks
notice of any vacation periods.
3. Father and Mother agree to refrain from making any and all derogatory comments
regarding the other party, members of the other's family and/or friends in the presence of the
Child. The parties agree to refrain other people, within their control, from making derogatory
comments regarding the other parry, members of the other's family and/or friends. Father and
Mother shall make every effort to protect the Child from parental hostility. Father and Mother
agree violation of this Paragraph could result in contempt of court.
4. Father and Mother agree not to discuss any and all issues regarding the co-
parenting of the Child with the Child and/or in front of the Child, when possible.
Father and Mother agree to refrain from the use of alcohol to the point of
intoxication and/or other mood-altering substances while exercising periods of custody.
7
6. Father and Mother agree that if either party is to travel out of town overnight
during his or her period of custody, the other party has the right of first refusal for care of the
Child, provided however, Father shall not have more than two (2) consecutive overnights with
the Child. Moreover, Father and Mother further agree that if either party is unavailable for a six
(6) hour period during his or her period of custody, with the exception of a normal work day
where the child is in day-care services or in school, the other party has the right of first refusal for
the care of the Child.
7. Father and Mother agree transportation will be provided by the receiving party,
unless the parties agree otherwise.
8. The parties acknowledge, that for the purposes of this Stipulation, Father's
participation in the individual and co-parenting therapy envisioned in the Custody Evaluation
Report is a change of circumstance for modification of custody if such modification is in the best
interest of the Child.
THE COURT
J.
F:\HOME\AMWITi OOCSW-MARTLET[\CUSMDYTLEADNGS\orM706.wpd
8
V?NVAIhSNN3d
Z 1 =£ Nd 6 z snv 909Z
mvim'ruo8d.3u d0
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby state that on the La day of November, 2008, I served a true and correct copy
of the foregoing in the captioned matter, by United States mail, addressed to:
Darren J. Holst, Esquire
130 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108
ge L. Hewitt
Legal Secretary
-iP-
O
O
t
r
Z5
JASON E. BARTLETT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
BRENDA L. BARTLETT
DEFENDANT
2005-6722 CIVIL ACTION LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, Wednesday, November 19, 2008 , upon consideration of the attached Complaint,
it is hereby directed that parties and their respective counsel appear before Dawn S. Sunday, Esq. , the conciliator,
at 39 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 2:30 PM
for a Pre-Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or
if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary
order. 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/ Dawn S. Sunda Es q.
Custody Conciliator lu'
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
3 (,2- 61
-1ia
4 t, ? O: I I WV 6 I AON OOOZ
A i .'.r lid N.1 30
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JASON E. BARTLETT,
Plaintiff
V.
BRENDA L. BARTLETT,
Defendant
NO. 05-6722 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODYNISITATION
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY
AND NOW, comes Defendant, Brenda L. Bartlett, now known as Brenda L. Brown, by
and through her counsel, Howett, Kissinger & Holst, P.C., who hereby files the instant Answer
and New Matter to Plaintiff's Petition for Modification of Custody and in support thereof states
as follows:
1. Admitted. By way of further response, Petitioner is referred to herein as
"Father."
2. Admitted. By way of further response, Respondent is referred to herein as
"Mother." Moreover, Mother is now remarried, and she resides with her husband, Jeffrey
Brown, and their daughter, Alayna Brown, born April 19, 2008.
Admitted in part; denied in part. Mother admits she and Father share legal
custody of their minor child, Madison Skyler Bartlett, born May 26, 2004. Mother further admits
Madison is presently in her primary physical custody at 6128 Wallingford Way, Mechanicsburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Mother resides at said residence with her husband, Jeffrey
Brown, and their child, Alayna, Madison's half sibling. Further, while Mother acknowledges
Father is again seeking equally shared custody of Madison (his fourth such request in three years,
and his second request this year!), Mother denies it is in Madison's best interests to be in an
equally shared arrangement. As repeated throughout herein, Father is unable to communicate
effectively, which is an essential component of a shared custodial arrangement. Further, Mother
denies Madison was born out of wedlock. She was born of the marriage between Mother and
Father.
4. Admitted. To the best of Mother's information and beliefs, Father resides
alone, although Father refuses to communicate with Mother on any matter.
Admitted. By way of further response, Mother and her husband, Jeffrey
Brown, have a child, Alayna Brown, who is presently seven and one half (7%2) months old.
6. Admitted. As a point of clarification, the parties executed their custody
stipulation after Father made his second request for shared physical custody; his first request was
made informally following the parties' separation and before they signed their comprehensive
marital settlement agreement ("MSA") in August, 2005, which contained a provision affording
Mother primary physical custody. After Father filed his formal request for shared custody, which
he did a mere four months after agreeing to partial custody in the MSA, the parties engaged in a
2
comprehensive custody evaluation by Deb Salem who issued her evaluation report on May 18,
2006. In said report, Ms. Salem recommended against a shared custodial arrangement finding
"areas of concern" that cast "doubt on the possibility of a shared custodial schedule ... at [that]
time." Of significant concern to Ms. Salem was both the strained co-parenting relationship
between the parties and Father's "unresolved hostility and negative focus on Mother." Ms.
Salem went on to say the "hostile co-parenting environment presents a significant barrier to a
shared custody schedule." Regrettably, Father's hostility continues unabated, and the strained
co-parenting relationship remains. In fact, the co-parenting relationship has deteriorated since
the initial evaluation as the parties are disengaged from co-parenting counseling and Father states
he is unwillingness to reinitiate such counseling. Mother does admit she is not aware of any
other person, other then herself or Father, who has custody of Madison or claims to have rights
with respect to Madison.
7. Admitted in part; denied in part. Mother admits that, notwithstanding two
separate requests for shared custody by Father between the parties' separation in 2005 and the
entry of the court order on August 21, 2006, the parties have primarily operated under a partial
custody schedule affording Father three overnights every two weeks (which schedule has been in
place a total of 28 months out of the past 42 months). Following an updated evaluation by Ms.
Salem in January of 2007, Ms. Salem recommended (and the parties informally implemented) a
schedule that afforded Father five overnights every two weeks (which schedule was in place a
total of 14 months out of the past 42 months). Historically, Father has refused to exercise partial
custody with Madison that is not an overnight, such as evening visits, despite making repeated
demands for "more time." Ms. Salem did a third updated evaluation in December of 2007, after
Father again requested shared physical custody, but she recommended no changes be made to the
schedule affording Father five overnights every two weeks. Mother denies Father has had five
overnights every two weeks over the last eight months. During that time, Father has had between
three to four overnights every two weeks, and this past year Ms. Salem engaged in her third
follow-up evaluation (her fourth evaluation in total), wherein she recommended Father have
three overnights every two weeks. A copy of Ms. Salem's July 9, 2008 evaluation report is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference thereto. Mother denies the
expanded partial custody schedule inured to Madison's best interest. Madison experienced
significant adjustment problems during the time Father had expanded custody, including, but not
limited to developmental regression and unsolicited expressions of emotional insecurity.
Further, the child relays to Mother that Father makes inappropriate comments to her including,
but not limited to, telling her that Mother will not allow Father to see her any more; that it is not
fair that Mother sees the child more than Father; that Father is sad because the child does not see
him more; and that Father is not allowed to do things with the child because Mother will get mad
at Father. Father is incapable of insulating the child from his emotional hostility towards Mother.
Father's behavior has had the unfortunate result of instilling within the child the erroneous belief
that she is the cause of Father's unhappiness. Additionally, following custody with Father, the
child's demeanor changes for the worse. She becomes extremely defiant, demanding and
engages in temper tantrums. This regression and behavior has been witnessed not only by
Mother but also Madison's teachers.
4
By way of further response, Ms. Salem noted in her July, 2008 report that Father believes
he is "guaranteed" shared custody if he follows all established guidelines (which thus far he has
not). Ms. Salem further noted that, as with all other evaluations, it has been Father's issues that
have been "in the forefront" of her decision to refrain from recommending shared custody. The
evaluator was very concerned about Father's insistence that he is entitled to shared custody and
that anything less than that is an effort to "undermine him." Ms. Salem concluded by saying it
was "imperative that Father's desire for shared custody be removed from the center of all
discussions and replaced with Madison's needs." Father is incapable of doing so given his
statement that continued co-parenting counseling will in no way benefit Madison's best interests.
8. Admitted in part; denied in part. Mother admits she has extended
additional time to Father, including blocks of continuous overnights, in 2007 and early 2008.
Mother denies the child did not experience the emotional disturbances outlined above, as well as
other adjustment issues, which issues have continued unabated even with the current schedule.
Father continues to place the child in the middle of his issues with Mother (sometimes subtly,
other times not so subtly), which continues to negatively impact the child's behavior.
9. Admitted in part; denied in part. Mother admits Father has been
consumed with seeking shared physical custody since their separation as he believes he is entitled
thereto. Mother denies shared physical custody is in Madison's best interests. Those times
Mother has agreed to expand custody has resulted in obvious problems, including, but not limited
to, the incidence outlined above. Father unilaterally terminated the initial round of co-parenting
5
counseling with Anthea Stebbins in 2007, and he refuses to resume needed co-parenting
counseling. The inability to communicate effectively (a central pillar to shared custody) destroys
any prospect of a shared custodial arrangement. Father's unresolved anger towards Mother
further militates against the shared custodial arrangement. To date, the evaluator has focused on
these issues as a basis for recommending against a shared custodial arrangement. Mother denies
the custody evaluator has heretofore opined that shared physical custody was in Madison's best
interests. Father clearly continues to lack insight on this issue.
10. Admitted in part; denied in part. Mother admits the parties have been
evaluated (and reevaluated) by Deb Salem, who thus far has issued an initial evaluation report in
May, 2006 and follow-up reports in December, 2007, January, 2007 and July, 2008. She is
intimately familiar with this case, and it is the reason why Mother again seeks her involvement
herein. Mother further admits Ms. Salem made certain recommendations concerning custody of
Madison as well as recommendations concerning individual therapy for the parties. Specifically,
Ms. Salem recommended Father enroll in therapy individually, the goal of which was to address
issues of possible enmeshment, improving Father's parenting skills in an effort to foster
"behavioral independence and individuation of thought and emotional expression in Madison."
The individual therapy was to involve Madison if the chosen therapist elected to involve her.
The therapist was to also interview Mother if he or she elected to involve Madison. Mother
denies the intent of Ms. Salem's recommendation was to have Father's individual therapist
involve Madison on a regular, long term basis in the therapy. The parties disagreed as to the
intent of Ms. Salem's recommendations in this regard, and as a result of their impasse, Mother's
6
counsel recommended to Father's counsel on October 27`t' that counsel conduct a conference call
with Ms. Salem in an effort to resolve issues. Rather than engage in said conference call, Father
elected to file the instant Petition for Modification. A copy of Mother's counsel's letter of
October 27, 2008 is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and is incorporated herein by reference.
Furthermore, Mother admits Ms. Salem recommended the parties resume co-parenting
counseling. Ms. Salem has consistently recommended co-parenting counseling, as she believes it
is critical in this case. Mother, too, feels co-parenting counseling is essential. The parties
commenced co-parenting counseling with Anthea Stebbins following Ms. Salem's initial
recommendation, but in 2007 Father unilaterally terminated said counseling. Father refused to
resume co-parenting counseling with Anthea Stebbins, and in an effort to try to improve their
relationship, Mother did agree to try co-parenting counseling with Mary Jo Devlin. However,
once said sessions started, Mother immediately realized Ms. Devlin was incapable of providing
effective co-parenting counseling, as she immediately insisted upon seeing Madison as part of the
ongoing therapy (which is highly suspect and unusual for co-parenting counseling), and she
further insisted upon the parties "agreeing" to a custody schedule before she could engage in co-
parenting counseling. As Father's multiple requests for custody will attest, the parties cannot
agree on custody, as heretofore all agreements have been predicated upon the custody evaluator's
recommendations against shared custody. After Ms. Devlin made such comments, Mother
realized she was the wrong person for counseling, a fact confirmed when Ms. Devlin, during the
second and last co-parenting session, advised Mother she had already spoken to Father's selected
individual therapy and had discussed matters surrounding the co-parenting counseling without
7
first advising Mother this would occur. Mother has renewed her request of Father to return to
Anthea Stebbins for co-parenting counseling. Father has refused, and since Mother is unwilling
to return to Ms. Devlin, Mother has suggested the parties engage a third counselor (Mother
suggests Dr. Kasey Shienvold). Father has refused this request as well.
11. Admitted in part; denied in part. Mother understands from Father's
counsel that Father has engaged Dr. Stanley Schneider for therapeutic services, and she was
further advises that said therapy is consistent with Deb Salem's directives. However, she has no
independent knowledge of whether this is true or not. Mother further understands Dr. Schneider
made a request to observe Madison as part of the therapy, as Mother's counsel received
correspondence from Father's counsel dated September 26`' advising of such fact.
In response thereto, Mother's counsel sent correspondence on October 1" seeking further
clarification of Dr. Schneider's role. Additionally, Mother requested, as a condition to
Madison's involvement, that Father finally agree to permit Madison to engage in play therapy,
therapy recommended by Ms. Stebbins, the original co-parenting counselor, at the very beginning
of her involvement. Since that initial recommendation, Mother has attempted to get Father's
agreement to enroll Madison in such play therapy, as Father's consent is required. Mother made
it clear she was willing to have Madison involved in Dr. Schneider's individual therapy with
Father if she could finally enroll Madison in needed therapy. She even suggested that the parties
jointly select a play therapist. In response, Father refused to agree to allow Madison to engage in
the play therapy recommended by the initial co-parenting counselor.
8
Furthermore, Mother denies any implication that it was the intent of Ms. Salem to have
the minor child involved full-time in therapy with Father's selected therapist. Ms. Salem
indicated that Father's therapist may need to see the child in order to pursue the level of therapy
recommended by Ms. Salem, but Mother does not believe it is in the child's best interests to be
engaged in full-time therapy with Dr. Schneider. Moreover, in the last co-parenting session the
parties had with Mary Jo Devlin in August, 2008, Ms. Devlin assumed the role of Father's
advocate and stated her opinions were shared by Dr. Schneider, which comments deeply
disturbed Mother inasmuch as Ms. Devlin never advised her in advance she would be speaking to
Father's therapist, and Mother was equally concerned about what she perceived as preconceived
opinions by Ms. Devlin. Given the parties disagreement as to the true intention behind Ms.
Salem's recommendations, Mother's counsel suggested a conference call with Ms. Salem, but
instead of pursuing such option, Father filed another request for shared custody.
12. Admitted in part; denied in part. Mother admits she renewed her request
that Father agree to permit the minor child to engage in play therapy, therapy recommended by
Anthea Stebbins, and Mother conditioned her agreement to have Madison seen by Dr. Schneider
conditioned upon this fact. Mother denies the condition was in any way unreasonable as Mother
has made repeated requests to Father that he agree to have Madison engage in play therapy after
the recommendation was made by Ms. Stebbins. Father has refused, and his refusal to
implement the recommendations of Ms. Stebbins is patently unreasonable.
9
13. Admitted in part; denied in part. Mother admits she agreed to try Mary Jo
Devlin for co-parenting counseling after Father unilaterally terminated the initial co-parenting
with Anthea Stebbins, citing "economic hardship" as a basis for the termination, and after Father
refused to resume co-parenting counseling with Ms. Stebbins. Mother denies Ms. Devlin is an
appropriate co-parenting counselor. After just two sessions with Ms. Devlin, it became readily
apparent to Mother that Ms. Devlin was incapable of providing co-parenting counseling. By way
of limited example, Ms. Devlin insisted that the parties "agree on a custody schedule" before she
could continue in co-parenting counseling, which agreement was impossible at the outset, and
Ms. Devlin further was insisting on meeting with Madison in addition to the parties. Mother
disagreed with this concept as she saw no reason for Madison to be involved in co-parenting
counseling, counseling which is designed to assist the parties in developing a better relationship,
and more solid lines of communication, in the ultimate hope of strengthening the parenting
relationship. Mother admits she did not allow Ms. Devlin to release any of her information due
to Ms. Devlin's demonstrated inability to provide co-parenting therapy and Mother's perception
that Ms. Devlin was incapable of being objective. Nevertheless, Mother maintains co-parenting
counseling is critical. Father refuses to Anthea Stebbins, and Mother refuses to return to Mary Jo
Devlin. Thus, another therapist must be selected, that Mother has, on several occasions,
suggested Dr. Kasey Shienvold. Father has provided no legitimate basis to reject Dr. Shienvold.
Mother denies the co-parenting counseling was terminated by Ms. Stebbins, as it was Father who
terminated the co-parenting counseling and refused to return to Ms. Stebbins.
10
14. Denied. Mother is without independent information to know what Father
believes. Therefore, to the extent a response is required, it is denied. Mother denies Father is
unable to comply with Ms. Salem's directives. Mother has suggested that counsel engage in a
phone conference with Ms. Salem concerning her recommendations in an effort to resolve any
disagreements. Further, Mother denies that it is in Madison's best interests to be engaged in ft ill-
time therapy with Father's selected therapist. Finally, Mother denies she has refused Father the
right to have Madison seen by Dr. Schneider. Mother previously agreed to have Dr. Schneider
see Madison but she requested that Father also agree to allow Madison to engage in
recommended play therapy. Father refused. Father continues to lack insight, and he maintains
his belief that he is entitled to shared custody even though he has thus far proven unable to
comply fully with Ms. Salem's multiple recommendations. It is apparent Ms. Salem must
resume her involvement, and for this reason Mother makes a request for an updated custody
evaluation.
15. Denied. Mother denies a resumption of co-parenting counseling will not
prove beneficial. Continued co-parenting counseling is essential, and Father's averment
establishes his lack of insight. The fact Father would opine that further co-parenting counseling
will in no way advance Madison's best interests is proof positive that a shared custodial
arrangement will not benefit the child. If Father wishes to pursue his recycled request for shared
physical custody, Ms. Salem must renew her involvement and perform an updated evaluation. In
light of Father's multiple requests, Mother asserts that Father should be solely responsible for the
cost of said evaluation.
11
16. Denied. Mother denies Madison's best interests and permanent welfare
will be served by an order of shared physical custody, and she responds to the specific
subparagraphs as follows:
(a) Admitted in part; denied in part. Mother admits Father is a source
of love for Madison. She denies, however, that Father, in light of his actions, presents himself as
a source of stability or a source of emotional support. Thus far Father has been unable to set aside
his own needs from that of Madison. Further, given Father's unresolved anger and hostility
towards Mother, he is incapable of providing the necessary emotional support required under a
shared physical custody arrangement. In his inability to communicate with Mother militates
against such an arrangement.
(b) Denied. Mother denies she has taken any steps to interfere or
impede the development of a substantial and meaningful relationship between Father and
Madison. Mother has done nothing but encourage Madison's relationship with Father. For
example, Mother has encouraged Father to exercise his custody with Madison that is not an
overnight, but historically Father has refused such time. Father feels any custodial time less than
an overnight is unworthy of being exercised.
(c) Denied. Mother denies she has, on multiple occasions, failed to
offer Father any right of first refusal and strict proof thereof is demanded. Mother asserts she has
complied with the order. Initially, the order prevented Father from exercising more than a certain
number of continuous overnights, and to the extent Mother offered time to a third party family
member over Father, it was due to such restrictions.
12
17. Admitted.
NEW MATTER - PETITION FOR CUSTODY EVALUATION
18. The prior paragraphs of Mother's Answer are incorporated herein by
reference thereto as if set forth at length.
19. Since the parties' separation in mid 2005, Father has made four separate
requests for shared physical custody, three of which had been made formally through the Court.
20. In the last seven months, Father has filed two separate petitions requesting
shared physical custody.
21. A comprehensive custody evaluation was performed by Deborah Salem in
May of 2006, in which Ms. Salem recommended against Father's request for shared custody.
22. Since that initial evaluation, Ms. Salem has performed four separate
updates, the most recent of which occurred in July of 2008.
23. In none of the reports has Ms. Salem recommended shared custody.
24. Notwithstanding his renewed request for shared custody, Father remains
unable or unwilling to set aside his own anger and animosity towards Mother for the best interest
of the chid.
25. Mother, as well as third parties, continue to observe behavior and
adjustment problems in the child following time with Father, which Mother believes is as a result
of Father's inability to distinguish his needs from the child's needs, thereby preventing Father
from acting as the child's parent.
13
26. Despite Mother's suggestion that the parties return to Ms. Salem in order
to clarify and facilitate her recommendations from the most recent updated evaluation, Father
chose to file the instant petition for modification.
27. Pursuant to 1915.8 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court may order the parties and the children to submit to an evaluation by an appropriate expert.
28. Said rule further authorizes the Court to allocate the cost thereof.
29. The best interests of the minor child demand that the parties submit to an
updated custody evaluation to be performed by Deb Salem.
30. The minor child continues to exhibit developmentally aggressive
behaviors, which requires analysis by a trained professional.
31. Under Pennsylvania law, this Honorable Court is charged with making a
full and complete record any time custody of a child is raised.
32. In light of Father's multiple requests for shared custody, and in light of the
expert's repeated rejection thereof, equity and justice require that Father be solely responsible for
the costs of any updated evaluation by Ms. Salem.
14
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court deny Plaintiff's
request to modify custody. Defendant further requests this Honorable Court grant her request for
custody evaluation and appoint Deb Salem to perform an updated evaluation at Plaintiff's cost.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: -
Darren J. Hol , Esquire
HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C.
130 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Telephone: (717) 234-2616
Counsel for Defendant, Brenda L. Bartlett, now
known as Brenda L. Brown
15
EXHIBIT "A"
VV
-fr
0
aim
7*
5
A
t
A"
INTENMOKK5
DATE
TO
FROM:
RE
Clinical Director
Deborah L. Salem, CAC, LPC
Associates
Anthea L. Stebbins, LSW Heather Duncan, BS
4335 North Front St Harrisburg PA 17110
Tel 717-236-6630 Fax 717-236-6677
frontdeskcainterworksonline.com
07/09/08
Via email and US Postal Service
Jordan Cunningham, Esq.
Darren Holst, Esq.
Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC
Bartlett v Bartlett
Evaluation Update
t ,4 i s 2108
-------v-- -------
Enclosed is the updated evaluation on your above referenced clients.
Please feel free to schedule a conference call with me after reviewing the
results with your clients. I am available most Mondays between 10 AM
and 2 PM. Thank you.
cc: Jason Bartlett (cover letter only)
Brenda Bartlett-Brown (cover letter only)
r-f
Clinical Director
Deborah L. Salem, CAC, L PC
1 N TEK-WOKK5
W
To:
0 From:
Date:
Re:
Jordan Cunningham, Esq.
Darren Holst, Esq.
Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPC
Clinical Evaluator
July 9, 2008
Associates
Anthea L. Stebbins, LSW Heather Duncan, BS
4335 North Front St Harrisburg PA 17110
Tel 717-236-6630 Fax 717-236-6677
frontdesk@interworksonline.com
Evaluation Update
Jason Bartlett vs. Brenda L. Brown
Minor Child: Madison S. Bartlett, Age 4, DOB 5/26/04
No. - 05-6722 Cumberland County - Civil Action - Custody
Identifying Information and Procedure
This brief evaluation update was requested following a May 6, 2008, conciliation conference with the
parents and their respective counsel. The conference was scheduled after Jason Bartlett filed a petition on
March 28, 2008, for modification of the custody of Madison, age 4. It should be noted that a full evaluation
was completed by this evaluator on 5/21/06, a first update was done on 1/23/07, a second update was done
on 12/3/07, and this is now the third update regarding Madison's custody. For that reason, no background
information will be repeated in this report.
` \"lV
With regard to procedure, both parents were interviewed together, and as well, each one was given the
opportunity to provide extensive written statements to the evaluator regarding their current position and
preference regarding Madison's custody. It should be noted that Brenda Brown ( aka Bartlett), contacted
this evaluator in February 2008, attempting to seek advice about how to proceed with issues related to co-
parenting and Madison's custody. As a result of that request, she was offered the opportunity to either e-
mail the evaluator or have one face-to-face interview with the evaluator to discuss her issues, both at a set
0 fee. A letter forwarded to Attorney Cunningham regarding this meeting is attached to this report. In
A essence, after Mother expressed concern, she was referred back to her attorney for disposition and was also
At referred to Anthea L. Stebbins, LSW, for independent co-parenting counseling, whether or not Father
wished to attend.
In addition to a review of written materials and the face-to-face interview with the parents, at both of their
requests, the evaluator talked to two staff members at Kindercare, where Madison attends day care. This
included Michelle Miller, who is Madison's teacher, and Lisa Wilson, who is the director of the day care.
Ell
I(,
A&
Findin s
A. History of Current Conflict
This is the third update of a full custody evaluation that was completed in May 2006. By way of giving a
synopsis of previous recommendations:
• The full evaluation awarded mother primary physical custody and father 3/14 overnights and other
access but not overnight with Madison. It also gave therapeutic guidelines for both parents to attend
individual therapy.
• After the first update in January 2007, Father's time was expanded with Madison from a schedule
that provided him three overnights in a 14-day period to one that provided him five overnights in a
14-day period. In addition to an expansion in Father's time, the parents were required to attend co-
parenting therapy, which they did with Anthea Stebbins, LSW, of InterWorks throughout 2007.
• In July 2007, Father asked for an arbitration decision regarding changes in the overnight schedule for
Madison, reporting that he perceived difficulties in Madison separating from him and ways in which
Madison was showing that the transitions were difficult for her. At that time, because both parents
provided a significant amount of information and used examples of Madison's behaviors with each of
them to substantiate what they believed would be the best way to rearrange Madison's schedule, it
was determined that an update already scheduled to begin in January 2008 be commenced early.
• The second update began in October 2007 and the report was submitted on Dec. 3, 2007. That
update recommended that the custody schedule established in January 2007, following the first
update, be continued. This was different from Father's request for shared custody and Mother's
request that Father's time to be reduced. In the update of December 2007, it was also recommended
that the parents continue with co-parenting therapy with Ms. Stebbins. In addition, it was
recommended that the parents use an arbitration process for any disagreements that could not be
resolved in co-parenting therapy. Finally, it was recommended that Father use reading materials and
seek any individual therapy he deemed necessary in order to address issues of enmeshment with
Maddie, and as well, to address issues of how to foster independence in her, specifically but not
limited to having her sleep in her own bed. Father's enmeshment issues were defined in the update
report as his significant inability to separate his feelings about the custody process from co-parenting
issues, his inability to interpret Madison's needs, separate from his feelings and needs. It was stated
that in the absence of Father accepting the changes he needs to make, the custody schedule should
remain the same that which was established in January, 2007.
• The updated report submitted Dec. 3, 2007, was followed shortly by a phone call from Jason to
InterWorks, canceling co-parenting sessions due to financial constraints. As of this writing, no other
co-parenting sessions have occurred at InterWorks and this evaluator has no knowledge as to
whether the parents have sought the services of another co-parenting therapist whose fees are more
commensurate with what Jason would like to pay.
Page-2-of 14
• In February 2008, Mother requested an opportunity to present information to this evaluator. She
was informed that she could either e-mail information or have a face-to-face session, both for a fee.
She met with the evaluator that month and expressed concerns that led to her desire to reduce
Father's time with Madison by returning to the custody schedule in the original, July 2006, court
order. She was advised to seek counsel from her attorney as to whether or not the schedule should
be changed and to attend co-parenting therapy independently to get advice from Ms. Stebbins as to
whether or not Father was willing to attend.
• In March 2008, Father filed a petition for modification of custody, and on April 4, 2008, Mother
advised Father that because there had never been a court order memorializing the custody expansion
that was recommended in the January 2007 evaluation update and agreed upon by the parties to be
effective in February 2007, she would be returning to the terms of the only court order in place,
thereby reducing Father's custody time from five overnights in 14 days to three.
• A conciliation conference was held in May 2008 relative to Father's petition, and this third
evaluation update is the result of the parties being unable to reach agreement during that conference.
B. Parental Preferences
Following a review of all materials gathered, it is notable that the parents' preferences for custody remain
relatively the same as they were in the first evaluation, in May 2006. Father is seeking shared custody, either
in a 2-3-3-2 arrangement or a week-on, week-off schedule. Mother wants Father to have access to Madison
every other weekend from 5 p.m. Friday to 5 p.m. Sunday, with a mid-week visit from after school
Wednesday until 7:30 p.m., but not overnight. Listed below are the custody schedules that have existed for
Madison from the time of the parental separation and especially following the first evaluation:
• Custody Schedule in Court Order of July, 2006 following the results of the May, 2006 full
evaluation:
1. Jason and Brenda Bartlett will maintain shared legal custody of Madison Skyler Bartlett.
2. Brenda Bartlett will maintain primary physical custody of Madison. Jason Bartlett will
have partial periods of custody as follows:
(a) Week 1: Tuesday from 5:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.;
Thursday evening from 5:30 p.m. until Friday morning at 8:00 a.m.; Saturday
morning from 11:30 a.m. until Sunday evening at 6:00 p.m.
(b) Week 2: Tuesday from 5:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.; Friday 5:30 p.m. until
Saturday at 9:30 a.m.
Page - 3 - of 14
Custody Schedule Recommended in Evaluation update of 01/23/07 and instituted as
February, O1, 2007:
1. Jason and Brenda Bartlett will maintain shared legal custody of Madison Skyler
Bartlett.
2. Brenda Bartlett Brown will maintain primary physical custody of Madison. Jason
Bartlett will have partial periods of custody as follows:
(a) Week 1: Thursday from 5:30 PM until Sunday at 6 PM;
(b) Week 2: Wednesday from 5:30 PM until Friday morning at 8AM;
The February, 2007 recommended schedule was instituted effective 2/1/07 but was never formalized by a
court order due to disagreements between the parties regarding some of the wording in the proposed order.
However, the recommendations were followed from 2/1/07 until April 2008, when due to various concerns,
Mother decided to return to the original July, 2006 court-ordered schedule.
C. Parental Concerns
1. Specific concerns delineated by Brenda Brown include the following:
• A belief that Jason "parents by indulgence and has an emotional void that he is attempting to fill,"
which makes his desire to seek shared custody with Madison larger than his understanding of her
needs at this time;
• Concerns over the deteriorated co-parenting environment and Jason's termination of sessions with
Anthea Stebbins, LSW shortly after the December 2007 update report was issued. Brenda indicated
that there has been little to no productive discussion about co-parenting Madison since Jason's
termination of that therapy in late December 2007;
• Concerns over an increase in Madison's regression and emotional instability following transitions
from her time with Jason since the December 2007 update;
• A concern following a parent-teacher conference on April 4, 2008, at Madison's day care because it
was indicated that Madison exhibits significant regression at the end of the week during those times
when she is accompanied to day care by her father;
• A perception by Brenda that Jason has an inability to recognize that there are issues they must work
on in order to help Madison;
• Brenda's concern that Madison continued to sleep with Jason for several months after distinct
Page-4-of 14
discussions in co-parenting therapy, beginning in the fall of 2007, and despite recommendations in
the December 2007 update indicating that he should seek whatever information or therapy he needs
to help him find a way to move Madison to her own bed. Mother reported that it was not until the
first week of May 2008 that she was told by Madison that she slept in her own bed at Daddy's and
that "Daddy said I had to because you were mad at him;"
• A concern that anytime Brenda approached Jason to talk about "Madison's independence," she
received what she considered avoidance and superficial responses;
• A continued concern that while Jason is seeking shared custody of Madison, he has never exercised
any of the access time that he was provided with Madison beginning in July 21, 2006 if it was not an
overnight;
• A concern that despite the fact that Jason indicated that he terminated co-parenting therapy because
of the expense, he has continued to use the services of attorneys, who are far more expensive, and he
takes Madison to very expensive activities, such as Disney on Ice;
• A concern that Jason filed a petition in March 2008 indicating that Brenda had violated the right-of-
first-refusal clause when she traveled overseas with her husband, when in fact, the 7/21/06 court
order requires right of first refusal for Jason when the time involved does not exceed more than two
consecutive overnights. Therefore, her having used her mother to care for Madison for a period of
time was not a violation of the court order;
• Brenda's example of at least one incident recently where Jason was noticeably angry in front of
Madison, inspiring her to ask her mother, "Why did Daddy tell you not to call his house anymore?"
• A concern that Jason's animosity toward Brenda and his need to have Madison in his life results in
inappropriate responses to Madison's preference for Brenda, which occurs at times when the two
parents are together. She cited an example of Madison not wanting to leave for her custody time
with Jason, whereby he stated to Madison, "Well, your mom seems to be holding onto you pretty
tight, so I'm just going to leave." Brenda indicated that his statement was intended to make a
comment to her, but in fact, it was also a rejection of Madison for behaviors over which she had no
control.
2. Jason Bartlett listed the following concerns in support of his desire to have shared custody of Madison:
• His report that he has "faithfully exercised" his periods of custody and agreed to care for
Madison when Brenda needed him to without reservation or condition;
• With the aspiration of shared custody, and with Madison in mind, he reported that beginning in
2006; he attended therapy at both practices recommended by this evaluator. Those were New
Insights to deal with stress and avoiding a relapse of alcoholism and Guidance Associates for
help in understanding issues of parenting and co-parenting;
Page-5-of 14
• Jason also reported that throughout 2007, he had a total of 10 extra days (both days and
overnights) of custody of Madison, all without incident. In addition, in 2007, he attended the
recommended co-parenting classes in an effort to communicate with Brenda regarding issues and
concerns;
• As a result of Jason's attempt to again broach the issue of shared custody, the results of an
evaluation update by this evaluator in December 2007 recommended reinstatement of co-
parenting counseling, and as well, the initiation of individual therapy and education for Jason to
learn the skills of separating his feelings about custody from his care of Madison and to address
his needs versus Madison's needs and learn better skills for fostering independence in Madison.
To that end, he reported that even prior to the recommendations being made, he read two
articles about raising toddlers, and then after the recommendations came out, he read an article
about setting limits on strong-willed children and a parenting book. Jason indicated that this
evaluator's recommendation that he undergo individual therapy to learn better skills for parenting
Madison did not incorporate the fact that he had already undergone individual therapy at
Guidance Associates in 2006 and had been involved in co-parenting sessions for over a year;
Jason's concern that while Brenda would clearly entrust Madison to his care when she wanted to
travel but would not honor his request for a seven-day vacation with Madison in 2007. He
indicated that this situation, coupled with the fact that Brenda had yet to sign the stipulation that
was drawn up in January 2007 to memorialize his additional custodial time with Madison in a
court order, gave him the feeling that Brenda was not operating in good faith, which he believes
has played out;
• His adamant belief that Madison's best interests are served by shared physical-custody
arrangements, citing several factors, such as the short distance between the parents' homes and
his belief that Madison's actions and attachments to him speak louder than Brenda's words about
his alleged lack of parenting skills and his motives;
• His listing of the multiple medical situations and other facets of life that he has participated in
with Madison;
• His general concern that Brenda will, in fact, never find him "a fit parent" because of her own
needs to control and maintain her relationship with Madison;
• His concern that recommendations made by this evaluator seem to indicate that if he would
follow certain of them, his goal of shared custody would be attainable; however, it appears to
him that the goal established by the evaluator is always "elusive and quite possibly non-
attainable." His belief that the initial concern of the evaluator, as stated in the May 2006
evaluation report revolved around Jason's potential for relapse into his alcoholism due to his
inability to manage stress. He indicated that the issue of this inability to manage stress has never
evidenced itself since the date of the parents' separation and he attended all counseling
recommended;
Page-6-of 14
• Jason expressed concern that Madison has suffered from her custodial time with Jason being
unilaterally reduced by Brenda in April 2008. Her decision that Madison should spend no more
than two overnights with Jason in a 14-day period is not being received well by Madison or by
him;
• Jason's major concern that in early 2008, Brenda misrepresented the truth in asking him to care
for Madison on specific days while she was traveling, when it turned out that in fact, Brenda had
her mother caring for Madison for a period of time prior to him, which he believes is a violation
of the right of first refusal in their court order;
• Jason reported that Brenda is misrepresenting the concerns of the day-care center and requested
that the evaluator discuss issues with the director of the day care.
D. Day Care Information
The evaluator had a phone consultation with the day-care teacher in Madison's classroom, Michelle Miller.
She reported that there is distinct evidence that Madison is more independent when she is with her mother,
more easily separates from her mother and is more willing to rapidly engage in independent and self-caring
behaviors with little need for assistance when she is with her mother. In addition, it was noted that since
Madison's new sibling was recently born at her mother's home, Madison has become a helper at the day
care, as well as at home, which is developmentally age-appropriate for a child her age when a new sibling
enters the picture. Conversely, it was reported that when Madison is accompanied to day care by her father,
there are times when she appears more needy and emotional, with whining and clinging behaviors. It was
noted that clearly Madison loves both of her parents but there is a tendency for her to become more frantic
and act less secure at times when her father makes visits at nap time or in the middle of the day than when
she is observed with her mother.
A phone consultation with the director of the day care, Lisa Wilson, verified that there was a report and a
suggestion made to Jason about his teasing behaviors with some of the little girls at the day care. It was
emphasized that there was no indication of anything inappropriate on Jason's part, but rather, that it was
simply a type of behavior that is not permitted at the day care. According to Mrs. Wilson, she was simply
indicating that it is a behavior that is appropriate at home but not at a licensed day-care facility.
E. Review of Notes from Co-Parenting Therapy
Jason reported that he terminated the co-parenting sessions with Anthea Stebbins, LSW because they were
too costly and because they were not working. Brenda disagreed with his perception that they were not
working but agreed to transfer their work to any co-parenting therapist that Jason could find who would
accept insurance. A review of information from Ms. Stebbins indicated that there were clearly issues
between Brenda and Jason that needed therapeutic effort and that co-parenting was an effective way to
require both parents to at least address issues that arose in sessions where facilitation of productive
communication could occur. Ms. Stebbins noted that Jason's desire to return to the question of shared
custody was larger than the scope of co-parenting therapy. She cited Brenda's fear as motivating her over-
documentation and over-questioning. She added that some of Brenda's fears were exaggerated, but others
were not while Jason was, at times, unwilling to provide any reassurances to Brenda because he was insulted
by her need for such thereby instigating more questions from Brenda. Ms. Stebbins clearly believed that co-
Page-7-of 14
parenting therapy should continue.
Impressions
The impressions contained in this section will address only information gathered since the December 2007
evaluation update. When reviewing what occurred since the time of the December 2007 update, it appears
that Brenda has developed increasing concerns about Jason's decision to terminate co-parenting therapy due
to financial constraints and his belief that it was not working. She reported resulting increased hostility and
poor communication between them and believed that the co-parenting sessions seemed to aid a bit in their
capability of discussing issues related to Madison's care and their ability to air mounting hostility or other
problems. In addition, Brenda had increasing concerns about the alleged continued ways in which Madison
regressed after spending time with Jason. This was substantiated by day-care professionals who also
indicated that they saw a similar pattern in Madison with more independent behaviors that were age-
appropriate for a 4-year-old when she spent time with her mother and more regressive behaviors when she
spent time with her father.
Conversely, Jason's issues with regard to Madison's custody revolve around the following paragraph in the
May 2006 custody evaluation report:
In summary, it will be important for Jason to take responsibility and seek therapy
geared toward addressing his addiction recovery issues and his management of
hostility and defensiveness. 7his is not an indictment of Jason for having the disease of
alcoholism. It is also not necessarily a permanent impression about the current
inadvisability of him sharing equally in Madison's care. However the current
combination of Madison's bonding patterns, Jason's need for therapeutic attention
related to his relapses and Jason 's need to address his frustration and agitation create
concern in the Evaluator about attempting to expand his time with Madison at this
time. It maybe wholly possible in the future that an updated assessment may show that
Jason has followed through with recommendations to improve his functioning to the
point that he may again address the issue of expanded time with Madison. As
mentioned previously, this will also give Brenda the therapeutic time to address her
over protective and perfectionist parenting style so that she will be more realistic and
comfortable with a gradual increase in Jason's time with Madison.
Jason has repeatedly focused on the two highlighted areas and, as a result, continues to be focused on
attaining the shared custody he believes was guaranteed him if he followed the guidelines established by the
evaluator. He currently reported that his March, 2008 petition is largely based on his frustration with an
ever-elusive set of criteria that emerge anytime he attempts to get increased custodial time with Madison. It
is his impression that this is perpetrated by the evaluator and Brenda.
More accurately, the December 2007 evaluation statement emphasized Jason's management of addiction
recovery issues and management of hostility and defensiveness. The statement also emphasized the
combination of Madison's bonding patterns... and Jason's need for therapeutic interventions. Jason
perceives that Madison's bonding behaviors are going well enough at this time to increase his custody to
50% of the time. He also stated that were it not for the evaluator and Brenda "moving the bar" his custody
Page-8-of 14
would be increased. This distorts what is and was presented in the first evaluation above and the following
excerpts from the other two evaluation updates:
It is time for Brenda and Jason to accept the fact that they married despite serious
incompatibilities. They are both responsible for that. It is time also for them to
accept Madison's will as the guiding force for their need to change. Madison wants
to love all three adults in her life. She doesn't think it is wrong to do so. Brenda and
Jason both have to address their inaccurate perceptions of the other and move
beyond trying to change the reality that they will co parent Madison for the rest of
her life. Madison's time with each parent is not the problem. Her parent's attitude
toward that time and what it means to Madison is the problem. The
recommendations set forth below recognize what appears necessary for Madison and
her parents to thrive. It is important to note that the access schedule for Madison
and Jason is designed to increase their time together while allowing Madison periods
of adjustment to the change in her life flow. Excerpt from 01/23/07 update.
With regard to Jason Bartlett's needs to understand how his drive for shared custody
and his desires for more time with Madison are enmeshed with his perceptions of her
actions and behaviors, it is recommended that he be provided reading material by the
co parenting therapist and, in addition, that he seek individual therapy with a child
therapist if he believes he needs more assistance in developing a more appropriate
way to deal with the problematic aspects mentioned in this report about his time with
Madison. This would help Jason to learn better skills about how to separate his
feelings about the custody, process, his feedings about Madison's needs versus his
needs, and his willingness to understand that there are changes that he will need to
make in order to have a shared custody schedule for Madison be productive for her.
He essentially understands that Madison loves both of her parents and essentially
understands that he has a right to have her half of the time. His right is not in
question. However, Madison's welfare and her ability to thrive in a shared
arrangement have to be in place in order for him to exercise his right. The issues
that need to change are primarily his, not Brenda's and, as a result, the custody
schedule cannot change until he shows a willingness to accept the feedback and then
make the changes that are necessary. In the absence q f accepting these changes, the
schedule as it stands will benefit Madison the most. Excerpt from 12/03/07 update.
The update of 01/23/07 revealed the most positive movement forward for Jason while also gradually but
significantly increasing Madison's time to allow for adjustments to the change in her life flow with the
increase. However, in all other evaluations, Jason's issues have been in the forefront of the decision to
refrain from offering Madison equal time with both parents. It is also true that Brenda's issue of being over-
protective and hovering has been highlighted but it frankly never rises to the level of concern of Jason's
issues in all of the reports except for the first update (01/23/07) where Madison's comfort level was the key
to the schedule recommended and the parent's co-parenting relationship was challenged.
For Jason to raise the issue that it is bias based on elusive criteria that is thwarting his effort to have shared
Page-9-of 14
custody with Madison raises the most significant issue for the evaluator---that being the continued effort on
Jason's part to insist that shared custody is due him and anything short of that is an effort to undermine him.
It is the evaluator's impression that Jason effectively minimizes the serious matter of enmeshment and his
misperceptions of Madison's needs when he distorts the reason for his right to shared custody. He further
minimizes the hostility and defensiveness inherent in his stance about having shared custody of Madison and
the reasons, mostly others stopping his efforts, which he offers for such. Jason states that he did his therapy
sessions in 2006 and doesn't' need the therapy suggested in late 2007. Jason unilaterally stopped the co-
parenting therapy in late 2007 shortly after the update report was issued which stated that it was
recommended as important to Madison's ability to transit between households and to be able to have a
relationship free of tension with both of her parents. It is as if Jason's agenda to secure shared custody of
Madison directly overrides clinical impressions important to Madison's ability to manage and thrive in a
shared setting.
A child's best interest and the accommodating ability of parents to relate about the child's needs are legally
and clinically what determine if shared custody works. Both areas in Madison's Bartlett's custody life are
problematic and Jason is at the center of the problems. Issues of exaggerated or over protective responses
have been noted in Brenda and she continues in the therapy she was receiving in May, 2006 and throughout
the past two years, (at times sporadically at the suggestion of her therapist and at other times more
frequently). Her perceptions of Madison's struggle for independence and need for structured discipline are
more in line with Madison's presented needs than Jason's. Her desire for co-parenting therapy is more
consistent. What is perceived currently as an effort to stop Jason from additional time with Madison
including to secretly lie about her vacation plans is actually Brenda's fear about Madison's regression when
she spends extended time with Jason.
There is no doubt that the way that Brenda went about giving Jason only part of her vacation time in
February 2008 and the way she went about reducing his custodial time with Madison were not the best
ways. In fact, the custody change caused questions for Madison that added upheaval when it was intended
to help her. It may have been best to give a warning and allow for the conciliation conference before any
changes in the custody schedule were instituted. In essence, although Brenda's decisions were within the
law and the parameters of the July 21, 2006 court order, they violated an agreement being lived out by her
and Jason and Madison for over a year. Despite the fact that both parents failed to have the January, 2007
custody changes memorialized in a court order, in the spirit of co-parenting integrity, because Brenda had
permitted a certain schedule to exist for an extended period of time without a court order, the abrupt change
in scheduling when she returned to the court-ordered schedule was not only disruptive to Father but most
likely also to Madison.
It is difficult to allege that one is protecting Madison's best interests while temporarily destabilizing her
routine and expected bonding patterns without it appearing to be contradictory. Brenda's motive was her
observations and the observations of the Day Care staff about Madison's regressions when spending time
with Jason coupled with Jason's increased hostility toward her and his unilateral cancellation of co-parenting
therapy as "too costly and not working." Therefore, her concerns cannot be viewed only in terms of a
presumed histrionic or controlling response, as perceived by Jason, but rather, are specifically related to
detailed issues that appear to be occurring repeatedly and have diminished her confidence in whether
Madison's needs are being met when she is in her father's care. This, in and of itself, however, does not
change the essential issues and concerns raised by the evaluator in the previous paragraph, which hold Jason
Page - 10 -of 14
primarily responsible for why a shared custody schedule is currently out of the question for Madison and
why no determination can be made about what point in the future this would change.
There is significant clinical concern on the part of the evaluator that Jason tends to translate clinical
information and recommendations made to him only in terms of the end result in obtaining shared custody of
Madison not in terms of describing Madison's need system and whether it will be met by shared custody. He
gives no indication that he fully accepts any input suggesting that he needs to make changes as anything
other than an to thwart what he and Madison want. This perception clouds his ability to hear any issues or
suggested remedies for those issues as important and not a road block unfairly established by perceptions
that don't match anything that he observes in Madison. Unfortunately, the issues highlighted in the 12/03/07
update which were discussed between Brenda and Jason since late Fall, 2007 have been observed not only
by Brenda, but by the co-parenting therapist, the Day Care professionals, and by the evaluator. In essence,
Jason's agenda regarding shared custody results in him reading and interpreting Madison's behaviors in
terms of his own needs and he does the same with evaluation recommendations at times misconstruing their
meaning.
To offer an example, there is no indication that in reading several articles, Jason has accomplished the
changes that are important in order for Madison to thrive. The fact that Madison did not sleep independently
in her own bed until somewhere between March (father's stated date) and May, 2008 (the first time
Madison told Brenda about sleeping on her own at Jason's) does not portend well because it took almost
four months, at the least, for Jason to follow through with something that was deemed important for
Madison months prior to the December 2007 report. This evaluator had concerns in December 2007 that
Father was enmeshed with Madison, and it was advised that he read specific materials on enmeshment.
Although he did read materials, they were much more general about developmental issues for toddlers and
issues of discipline with strong willed toddlers; the issue of enmeshment is different and defined in the
following way:
... a child is unable to establish a clear identity apart from the parent, such that actions
of the child so significantly impact the apparent well being of the parent that the child is
held captive to a role reversal and care taker role, subsuming their own identity and
needs to those of the parent. Problems of this sort contribute to a myriad of
developmental disturbances in the children of such families. (Anderson & Coynes, 1991;
Bebbington & Delemos, 1996; Cummings, 1994; Fullirnvider & Jacobivitz, 1993;
Koontz, 1983; et. al.
In the absence of reading materials specifically designed to help Jason understand enmeshment, he will not
be able to see how he clearly transmits to Madison his missing her and his reinforcement of her clinging as a
means to justify that he needs more time with her. He can not see that by reinforcing such behavior he is
diminishing Madison's individual identity and unconsciously asking her to need him. He diminished or
denied that he does reinforce Madison's clinging but the evaluator directly observed it in November, 2007.
Jason instead self-evaluates his capacity to give Madison what she needs and ignores professional input that
raises serious concerns about Madison's future well-being.
Another area where Jason's subjective interpretation created a distortion of facts was his statement that
Page- 11 - of 14
Brenda giving him additional time to care for Madison when she needed it, supports the notion that he is a
safe caregiver and that Brenda is being hypocritical when she says otherwise. Additionally, Jason's March
petition was filed on an interpretive assumption that Brenda lied to him in order to allow her mother to care
for Madison for a period of time prior to giving Madison over to Jason's care while she was traveling out of
the country. In reality, Brenda can offer additional time to Jason and still have a lack of confidence in shared
custody and in some of his skills with Madison. A letter from Jason's attorney during the course of this
update indicated that in the midst of Brenda's concerns, she provided Jason right of first refusal to care for
Madison over Father's Day weekend, showing that in fact, she had confidence in Jason's parenting abilities.
Instead, according to Brenda's response, she said the petition filed by Jason in March alleged that she had
inappropriately managed right of first refusal; therefore, she followed the letter of the law as stated in the
July 2006 court order by offering Jason a Saturday with Madison overnight into Father's Day, because she
was going to be unavailable overnight. She denied that in doing so, she in any way indicated that her
concern about Madison's well-being in her father's care was lessening.
In conclusion, it is imperative that Jason's desire for shared custody be removed from the center of all
discussions and replaced with Madison's needs. The recommendations set forth below are to be read for
their meaning and not as a means to an end for securing shared custody. Over time Jason has shown that his
hostility is under the surface but not resolved. He is cooperative only when he can perceive a gain. He
diminishes the perceptions of others when they do not favor his agenda. Over time Brenda has attempted to
quell her concern that Jason wants to isolate Madison from her when he has custodial time and does not
intend to openly share her in a way that will benefit Madison. She has attempted to take feedback about her
over-protective style and work differently with Jason. However, Jason's return to isolating and non-
communicative behaviors since December, 2007 led to her increased concerns for and about Madison's
adjustment.
The recommendations set forth below are intended to be specific enough to give guidelines about what is
expected from each parent, and as well, to give guidelines about what the outcome of following through
with those expectations will be. It is important that both parents drop any presumptions about past
suggestions, recommendations or possibilities that were listed in prior reports and consider this current
update to be the only set of criteria upon which to function.
Recommendations
1. Jason Bartlett and Brenda Brown will share the legal custody of their daughter,
Madison Schyler Bartlett, age 4;
2. Mother, Brenda Brown, will maintain primary physical custody of Madison.
Father, Jason Bartlett, will have partial periods of custody, as follows:
A. Week 1: From 5:30 p.m. Friday until 7 p.m. Sunday;
B. Week 2: From 5:30 p.m. Thursday until 8 a.m. Friday;
C. At any time that Father is able to leave work early and pick Madison up early at
the commencement of any of his custodial time, he may do so but no earlier than
Page-12-of 14
Madison's lunch time hour at Day Care unless previously arranged with Mother
and the Day Care.
3 Jason Bartlett is ordered to enroll in therapy, both individual and with Madison if the
chosen therapist elects to involve her. The goals of this therapy are to address issues of
possible enmeshment, parenting skills necessary for fostering behavioral independence
and individuation of thought and emotional expression in Madison. The therapist will
want to do an interview with Brenda Brown if Madison is to be included in the therapy,
which is standard procedure in any parent child therapy. It should also be ordered that
Jason Bartlett sign a release so that this evaluator can discuss issues that have been
observed in evaluations with the therapist in order to provide an optimal therapeutic
experience for Jason with regard to separating his feelings and interpretations from
Madison's wants and needs. That sharing of information can be done with Jason
present if he so chooses;
4. The selected therapist for Jason and possibly Madison will submit a report either to
the court or this evaluator (whichever is determined) following completion of the
therapy goals or in three months, whichever comes first. Reports will be submitted
every three months after that if applicable. Once the report indicates that Jason has
successfully gained knowledge of the skills and actions consistently necessary to
understand his needs separate from Madison's, a reinstatement of the custody schedule
established in January 2007 can occur, providing Mother with primary physical
custody and giving Father access to Madison on Week 1 from 5:30 p.m. Thursday until
6 p.m. Sunday, and on Week 2 from 5:30 p.m. Wednesday until 8 a.m. Friday;
5. When either parent is going to be unavailable overnight for any reason during their
custodial time, right of first refusal is afforded to the other parent, regardless of the
number of days the parent will be unavailable;
6. Both parents are afforded one seven-day vacation per year with Madison, which
must be scheduled with the other parent no less than 90 days in advance of the
vacation;
7. The parents are to immediately reinstate co-parenting therapy with a therapist that
they determine would be willing to provide co-parenting therapy through use of funds
available from health insurance. Although it is the evaluator's impression that this is
not a usual circumstance for most practitioners trained in co-parenting therapy, if the
parents can find an individual who is trained in co-parenting and who will accept
Page - 13 - of 14
insurance, it is imperative that they begin sessions as soon as possible. If the parents
are unable to locate a trained co-parenting therapist who will accept their insurance, it
is ordered that they return to Anthea Stebbins, LSW, who has a solid background in
this subject and who was able to provide some productive interventions for the parents;
8. In the event that issues related to Madison's care cannot be addressed by the parents
in co-parenting therapy, an arbitrator or a parent coordinator should be ordered to
resolve disputes other than expansion of custodial time of more than one day a month;
9. This set of recommendations can be discussed in a telephone conference between the
parties' respective counsel and this evaluator upon review of its content with the
parties.
submitted,
Deborah L. Salem, CACD, LPfi
Clinical Evaluator
Date of Dictation: 07/01/08
Date of Transcription: 07/06/08
Date of Final Edit: 07/09/08
Page - 14 - of 14
EXHIBIT "B"
LAW OFFICES OF
HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C.
130 WALNUT STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 810
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108
JOHN C. HOWETT, JR.
DONALD T. KISSINGER
DARREN J. HOLST
REBECCA McCLINCY DARR
DEBRA M. SHIMP
Legal Assistant
October 27, 2008
Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire
CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF PC
2320 North 2nd Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Re: Bartlett v. Bartlett
Dear Jordan:
(717) 234-2616
FAX (717) 234-5402
It certainly appears, based upon your correspondence of October 17t'' and my discussions
with my client, that we are presently at an impasse as to Deb Salem's intent behind her most
recent recommendations, and I would suggest that perhaps a scheduled conference call with Ms.
Salem might be helpful. The parties would need to share the cost for the call with Ms. Salem, as
she will certainly bill for her services.
My client's primary concern with Madison being seen by Dr. Schneider centers on what
transpired in one of the co-parenting sessions with Ms. Devlin. Ms. Devlin, who was acting in
the role of a co-parenting counselor, and therefore providing counseling to both parties,
apparently spoke to Dr. Schneider and discussed not only Jason's therapy with him but also the
co-parenting therapy without first advising Brenda this would occur. Comments made by Ms.
Devlin following her discussion with Dr. Schneider suggested to my client that Madison's
involvement with Dr. Schneider was not intended to be a one time event, consistent with Deb
Salem's recommendations, but, rather, ongoing joint therapy between Jason and Madison. That
is not what Ms. Salem intended when she suggested a therapist may need to see Madison, and
Brenda does not agree to same.
Unfortunately, the parties' co-parenting relationship continues to deteriorate rapidly. For
this reason, it is imperative the parties resume co-parenting counseling, and it is essential the
parties engage in such therapy with someone which whom both feel comfortable. I would
suggest that, if the parties cannot reach a decision on their own, you and I may need to intervene.
For Madison's sake, they need to return as quickly as possible.
Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire
October 27, 2008
Page Two
Finally, I had previously requested Jason consent to Madison attending play therapy. In
one of your recent correspondence, you indicated such therapy had commenced (presumably with
Ms. Devlin), but that is not the case. Ms. Devlin was designated a co-parenting counselor, and
Madison has never attended any type of play therapy. However, such therapy has been
recommended, and I do think it is important that the parties mutually agree to have Madison
attend such therapy and that they agree to the therapist. I previously provided you names of
individuals within the insurance network, and I am hopeful we can agree to such a therapist when
we agree to a co-parenting counselor.
Sincerely,
Darren J. Holst
DJH/djk
cc: Brenda L. Brown
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JASON E. BARTLETT, )
Plaintiff )
V. )
BRENDA L. BARTLETT, }
Defendant )
NO. 05-6722 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODYNISITATION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Darren J. Holst, Esquire, counsel for Brenda L. Bartlett, now known as Brenda L.
Brown, Defendant in the above-captioned action, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of
the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Petition for Modification of Custody was
served upon Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire, counsel for Jason E. Bartlett, Plaintiff, by
depositing same in the United States mail, first class, on December 12, 2008, addressed as
follows:
Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire
CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF PC
2320 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110-1008
Date:
Darren J. Hol , Esquire
HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C.
130 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Telephone: 717-234-2616
Counsel for Defendant, Brenda L. Bartlett, now
known as Brenda L. Brown
1 fr ?
_- _f
t
i3
.3
DEC 16 2006
i?7
Darren J. Holst, Esquire
HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C.
130 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 810
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Telephone: (717) 234-2616
Counsel for Brenda L. Bartlett
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JASON E. BARTLETT, )
Plaintiff ) NO. 05-6722 CIVIL TERM
V. }
BRENDA L. BARTLETT, )
Defendant ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN CUSTODY/VISITATION
G4A ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this i day of j)G C.e /N &t , 204? upon consideration of
Defendant's New Matter to Plaintiff s Petition for Modification of Custody, which New Matter is
in the form of a Request for Custody Evaluation Pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1915.8, it is hereby
D60 I a
ORDERED and DECREED that Defendant's request for custody evaluation is
i'?0 5 ?.5 r S 194 Scd L4- o,J O c,I
Nd a 0)C ; a5 - wfi fG-e
Ptm"yWm1i ,
u ion -consis ent w?
Wiens b?l?v?s; ilre?ssials?rirtin?t; a shall
mate,.: p ysica Gusto y of the minor chil asp of her
?luatiuat? a sae e specs is reasons supporting e
1
3. The parties shall participate fully with s/ala
on a timely basis,
including, but n t limited to, retaining the evaluator upon apprscheduling and
attending all appoi tments, paying p
romptly, participating in aforming all testing
recommended by the valuator and executing any reasonable c to themselves or
the minor child.
4. Both arties shall promptly coop ate to maximize the use of available
insurance coverage, if any, an o notify the other p ' y of that result. The cost of the
tunreimbursed portion of the evalu tion shall berlocated to Plaintiff without prejudice to an
ultimate apportionment to be decide y subwquent order of court.
5. If, after issuance o We evaluator's report, a hearing is necessary, the cost
I/ \hti
for the evaluator's time for hearing prgl arati and testimony shall be borne by the calling party
without prejudice to an ultimate apportionment \services wing said hearing.
6. The evaluator may consu iew any person the evaluator
believes can provide relevantnformation relateincluding, but not limited to,
other experts or third party'fact witnesses.
7. The evaluator may utilize ther qualified professional to
perform additionalrvices related to the evaluation without court
8/ Once the evaluator's report is disseminated to th4arties, it shall not be
disseminated to third persons or provided to or discussed w)Qh the minor child.
The parties as w s the a ator shall be served a
FAILURE TO CO WITH THE TERMS O IS I
IN FINES, IMPRIS
OR
J.
Distribution:
is Order.
MAY RESULT
(Darren J. Holst, Esquire, P.O. Box 810, Harrisburg, PA 17108, (717) 234-2616
Gordan D. Cunningham, Esquire, 2320 North Second Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110
,/Deborah L. Salem, MHS, CAC, 4335-A North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110,
(717) 236-6630
48/U1
L
L 1 -01 V 81 330 SOOZ
yy?? ,,yy »i;
DEC 2 2 2000j?
JASON E. BARTLETT
Plaintiff
vs.
BRENDA L. BARTLETT
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
2005-6722
CIVIL ACTION LAW
IN CUSTODY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of _ 2008, upon
consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation Report, it is ordered and directed as follows:
1. The prior Order of this Court dated August 21, 2006 shall continue in effect as modified by
this Order.
2. The parties, with the assistance of counsel, shall select a child psychologist to meet with the
Child to assess the Child's emotional well-being and provide a recommendation as to whether the
Child requires counseling/therapy at this time. After selecting the psychologist, the parties shall
schedule the appointment at the professional's earliest availability. The parties shall jointly
accompany the Child to the first appointment. The parties shall follow the psychologist's
recommendation as to further counseling/therapy for the Child.
3. The parties shall contact Arnold Shienvold, for the purpose of initiating coparenting
counseling prior to January 31, 2009. The parties shall cooperate in selecting the earliest available date
for the parties and Dr. Shienvold.
4. The Father shall continue his counseling with Stanley Schneider as recommended by the
custody evaluator, Deborah Salem. The Mother shall meet with Dr. Schneider at his request and shall
authorize participation of the Child in one observational session with the Father.
5. Immediately following the Child's first session with the child psychologist, the Father's
partial custody schedule shall be expanded to Tuesday through Thursday morning during Week I and
from Friday through Sunday during Week II. Unless recommended otherwise by the Child's
psychologist, the Father's partial custody schedule shall be further expanded beginning February 14,
2009 to run from Thursday through Sunday during the Week II cycle. In the event a dispute arises
with regard to the foregoing expansion of the partial custody schedule, counsel for either party may
contact the conciliator for an expedited telephone conference with counsel or a conciliation conference
with the parties and counsel.
6. Within six months of the date of this Order, counsel for either party may contact the
conciliator to schedule an additional custody conciliation conference, if necessary, to review the
counseling arrangements or custodial schedule.
7. This Order is entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties at a custody conciliation
conference. The parties may modify the provisions of this Order by mutual consent. In the absence of
mutual consent, the terms of this Order shall control.
cc: ? ?TAan D. Cunnin ham Es ui -
g q re Counsel for Father
Darren J. Holst, Esquire - Counsel for Mother
eoa l'F_s
I
/?,/ a3 /off
;:?_ E--...
c??
<" ?'-,
?.
'
?
: _
:;
`? :=-.
; a
r
?
;-;-,
'?- n?
}
?
?
? ?
.?
. _
-
C? (.Y:7 __
?„"'.'J
??
N
JASON E. BARTLETT
Plaintiff
vs.
BRENDA L. BARTLETT
Defendant
Prior Judge: Edgar B. Bayley
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
2005-6722 CIVIL ACTION LAW
IN CUSTODY
CUSTODY CONCILIATION SUMMARY REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 1915.3-8, the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report:
1. The pertinent information concerning the Child who is the subject of this litigation is as
follows:
NAME
DATE OF BIRTH
CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF
Madison Skyler Bartlett August 21, 2006
Mother
2. A custody conciliation conference was held on December 17, 2008, with the following
individuals in attendance: the Father, Jason E. Bartlett, with his counsel, Jordan D. Cunningham,
Esquire, and the Mother, Brenda L. Brown, formerly Bartlett, with her counsel, Rebecca M. Darr
attending for Darren J. Holst, Esquire.
3. The parties agreed to entry of an Order in the form as attached.
Date Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire
Custody Conciliator